from my blog, Basie!
This evening I had the opportunity to sit down with Sander Vanocur after he delivered a lecture entitled Media Malarky at the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California.
Vanocur, whose career spans more than 40 years in print, radio, and television journalism, was one of three panelists on the first Kennedy-Nixon televised debate in 1960. He began his journalism career as a reporter in London for The Manchester Guardian, and at the same time worked as a commentator for the North American Service of the BBC and as a stringer for CBS News. Before moving to NBC News in 1957, he was a general assignment reporter for The New York Times in New York City. He was the television editor and critic for The Washington Post from 1975-1977, and gained national prominence during his 14 years with NBC News, where he served three years as White House Correspondent.
To begin, I wanted to give Mr. Vanocur the opportunity to talk about objectivity in the media, a topic that is as important today as it ever has been in the past.
Jonathan Singer: Mr. Vanocur, thank you so much for sitting down with me.
Sander Vanocur: You're welcome.
JS: There is an affliction today among many media outlets of simply reporting on what one side has to say and then repeating the other side. What role could--or should--the media play in parsing the truth from lies?
SV: It isn't our job to say who's right and who's wrong. In the immortal words of Lyndon Johnson, you need people who know the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad.
When I was covering the War in Vietnam, I was skeptical in our involvement; I had been a reporter in Europe and seen what the French went through. But I was able to end my reports by asking questions rather than overtly showing my actual beliefs.
Today, with the 24-hour news cycle--I like to call it the electronic tape worm... it always needs to be fed--it becomes more difficult, as we saw with the coverage of the War in Iraq. As a result, the press is doing some self-examination right now on how they got conned [over the war].
Because of the 24-hour news cycle and television, we're in a perilous situation right now when you can't figure things out behind closed doors.
JS: What role does the proliferation of partisan media outlets play in this? Are we better off with so many voices?
SV: Are we better off? I'm not sure, I'm asking the question. When there were three broadcast networks, there was a general consensus about the news. It seems to me that in a democracy like ours it's important to have a consensus, and there can't be a consensus as it currently is.
JS: What about the role of the internet in reporting news? More and more people are getting their news over the internet.
SV: It's changing [reporting], none more so than the bloggers. The real question is if the bloggers have editors; the answer is no. Editing is the most important part of reporting. This became apparent in the Dan Rather story.
Who are the bloggers? They got seats at the convention. Who is Matt Drudge?
JS: Can the bloggers add anything to the national discourse then? I think the Rather story and the outing of Congressmen prove your point of the need for editing, but can't blogs nonetheless enhance our reporting?
SV: Sure. It's a free society. Izzy Stone used to produce a liberal newsletter in the 1940s, so it's not entirely new.
JS: Young people are now getting their information from shows like The Daily Show. How do you feel about that?
SV: I'm amazed at Jon Stewart. I think it's terrific they're getting their news there.
I think it is peripheral in a sense. What I have a problem with, though, is the fragmentation of information in this society and the propensity of our reporters to deride our political process.
JS: Much of the polarization comes from the fall of the Rockefeller Republicans, a topic I've written about often. Lincoln Chafee has indicated he can't vote for President Bush; Edward Brooke wrote an editorial in the New York Times on the radical direction of the party; a group led by Linwood Holton called Come Back to the Mainstream has attacked the party. What are your feelings on this?
SV: I have talked to Republican politicians in this state who say that many of their Republican constituents cannot vote for President Bush, but that John Kerry hasn't done anything to make them vote for him.
This all began, of course in 1964 with the nomination of Barry Goldwater who wooed religious voters who were uncomfortable with the Democratic Party. Today, you still see many of these voters who feel their values are close to the President's.
JS: During your talk you related the story of the roll former Presidents Ford and Bush [41] played in securing the pardon of Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, and the "political collegiality" that existed.
I was watching a C-SPAN program this summer on House Speakers in which Rostenkowski spoke of having dinner the previous night with former Republican Leader Bob Michel and former Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, and that it saddened him that this would not happen ten years from now with today's Congressional leadership. Is there a cycle of partisanship that gets worse at times or is it something else?
SV: I don't think it's a cycle. I think that it's television, that deals with black and white opposites, that inhibits the collegiality.
JS: One final question. What do you think of subpoenaing and possibly jailing reporters Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time in the case involving the outing of the CIA agent?
SV: I think that's a real threat, and I think the White House--through John Ashcroft--is behind it.
JS: Mr. Vanocur, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your accommodating me.
SV: My pleasure.
check out my political blog, Basie!
