Wednesday, May 10, 2006

"Wires and lights in a box"

Edward R. Murrow became famous throughout America during World War II. His rooftop radio broadcasts painted a vivid picture of the Blitz in a pre-television era. Most certainly, his words made a longer lasting impression than even video from Viet Nam.

It is inaccurate to say that Murrow was unbiased. Clearly, Murrow was a champion of America's lost ideals: individual liberties and rights, truth, free speech, citizen participation. No one doubts that Murrow felt those ideas threatened by Adolph Hitler's Third Reich.

Later, Murrow would feel similarly threatened when our own right wing attacked freedom of speech and free inquiry. It was the McCarthy era, an era not unlike our own —seemingly dominated by those who fear dissent, free speech, open debate, the institutions of a Democratic society. Murrow reacted to McCarthy's threats of surreptitious investigations and attacks on free speech as if they were themselves Nazi bombs that he had earlier described so vividly from the flaming rooftops of London.

Ed Murrow is still with us; he still embodies the very finest that might be found in Western democracies. Unlike our present "leaders" who have exploited and debased the term, Murrow made of Democracy an ideal! Murrow did immeasurably more for the cause of "freedom" than all the GOP/right wing hate and fear mongering had ever done or would ever do. One Murrow is worth one thousand Bushes; one Murrow might not undo the harm done by Bush in Iraq —but his memory might awaken a lost American dream of freedom.

It is with that hope that I post Murrow's very words, excerpts from his prophetic speech to a meeting of the Radio and Television News Director's Association Convention in Chicago. It's as true today as it was on October 15, 1958.

Edward R. Murrow's address to the RTNDA Convention in Chicago, October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. ... I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate....

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence. ...

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

... when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? ...

I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs.

Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. ...

There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program.

This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. ...

What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated. ...

So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide." ...

To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. ...

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful. Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.
Good night, and good luck!











Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

11 comments:

Unknown said...

You're right about Strathairn. He literally channeled Murrow. He should have won best actor. As for Murrow, I have vivid memories of him. He was an important part of my education. I also agree heartily that Colbert deserves that "Red Badge of Courage" award. What a great and courageous performance.

Will Divide said...

not long ago i had reason to do some family research in newspapers from 1954 and '55 and was struck by the stories i saw dealing with sen. mccarthy on the same pages as those about american action - even then! - in vietnam. clearly, all that fear pouring from that bag-of-poison senator ended up draining in southeast asia.

that said, morrow, god bless him, never quite understood that it is the nature of tv to induce entertained apathy. to expect it to behave as a vigilant guardian of civic ideals is like expecting bush to empty bedpans at a va hospital. nice to think about, but it'll never happen.

Burnie said...

Thanks for posting this. They can spin and spin and spin but we are armed with the most powerfull ammo-the fucking truth.
Fues
I put a link to this on my blog that nobody reads-ha ha.
http://wordarrows.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

You're right, will. It's a rather McLuhanesqe view of media and applies more to TV than radio. The very presense of media changes the message. Does that mean we are doomed to fascism? I don't know yet...but it would appear so.

It is no coincidence that as Bush has risen, TV has NEVER been worse. Let's be frank: TV STINKS! It's a moribund sewer of conformity, sameness, inanity, stupidity, crass commercialism, and, worst of all, a fascist celebration of mindless materialism papered over the un-spoken subtext of anti-intellectualism, the celebration of the stupid, a morbid fascination with cruelty.

"The Simpsons" is the ONLY literate program on television. Ironically, it's on FOX —a network which "The Simpsons" itself lampoons mercilessly.

Of course, Murrow was idealistic. But he was a keenly intelligent and articulate idealist. All the more reason we be vigilant —rather than nostalgic. Admittedly, when one awakens daily as a cockroach in Bush's absurd Kafkaesque nightmare, it is difficult not to be nostalgic for simple values like reason, incisive writing, wit, and sanity.

Or —as Rhett Butler said in "Gone with the Wind":

I'm through with everything here. I want peace. I want to see if somewhere there isn't something left in life of charm and grace. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Unknown said...

fues, thanks for the link and the kind words. Indeed, we are armed with truth. Bertolt Brecht said it this way:

A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!

Fully, then, one half of the Bush administration are crooks. The other half are idiots!

I'm putting a permanent link to your blog on my blogroll.

Anonymous said...

Interesting post...
I have the DVD tribute to Murrow, and I've been finding that lately I've watched it more and more. Sometimes I just want to hear the strength of his reporting, and I think that at other times I want to make myself believe that history is cyclical...
We made it through the McCarthy times, and we may make it through these as well, but without a voice such as Murrow's, the odds are no longer in our favor.

Unknown said...

max, thanks for dropping in. I have not seen the DVD tribute but it sounds like a must see. I was but a very small kid when McCarthy began his hearings. But I remember hearing them on radio and understood vaguely what it was all about. Later, I saw Murrow doing the "Person to Person" shows that he hated doing. Of course, I missed his radio broadcasts from London. But I've heard the recordings of them. He painted the picture.

Jennie said...

Reading Ed Murrow's words reminds me of my college days as a broadcasting/public relations major. As Edward Murrow was the father of broadcast news, Edward Bernays was the father of public relations and "properganda."

Public relations changed the way people think about products and people. Public relations in its infancy, around the same time as broadcasting's beginnings, broke barriers and made it socially acceptable for women to smoke in public. Public relations was also used to give the Rockefeller company credibility after the state militia fiasco at Bloody Ludlow.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society," Bernays argued. "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

This is precisely what is happening in our country now. Journalists either seem to be at a loss to question or investigate this, or they are in cahoots with this secret PR government.

Unknown said...

Interesting comments, jen. Having labored in the "vineyard" many years, I grew cynical about news coverage in general.

As I was chasing down stories, a spin off of PR sprang up: the "media consultant". An entire "industry" was suddenly teaching CEO's et al about how to be interviewed, how to control a crisis situation et al. Three Mile Island was the perfect example of what NOT to do.

I knew some of these consultants (some very successful and nationally known) and never have I met a more cynical bunch. From this sprang the idea that truth was simply a matter of spin; the method was more important than the message. Out this "industry" came the idea of "framing" a debate. I have GOP campaign manuels which advocate communist and Nazi propaganda techniques.

In all of this was lost my own view which I borrowed from Jacob Bronouski: "behave in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so".

But, of course, Bushies don't believe in the concept of truth or falsity. Truth, for them, is whatever they can con you into believing. It just doesn't get anymore cynical than that. That's why Murrow is such a hero to me. He literally smoked a liar out of the shadows and into the daylight of cold, hard, illuminating reason.

Another light in the darkness is Bertolt Brecht who must have had GOPPERS in mind when he wrote:

A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!

daveawayfromhome said...

It's interesting that half a century later people still "get" the idea of McCarthy, even though most of them had no personal experience with that time. Ironically, I would credit this to television. I think I'm struck most of all by the apparent truth of the old saw, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
It's also curious how rare comparisons between Lord Bush and Joe MacCarthy are. Is that ignorance, or the forest/trees syndrome? Or has Republican taunting about Hitler comparisons being so "extreme" as to render them ridiculous (a position less and less true) also tainted McCarthy parallels?

Unknown said...

I think you may be right. People do "get" the significance of McCarthy's witchhunts. Of course the GOP will taunt anyone who makes an analogy they don't like.

They just need to get over it.

Both Bush and McCarthy were and are using techniques right out of Goebbel's playbook. GOP will taunt because they know its true. I have GOP campaign manuals that compare very closely to the collected essays of Joseph Goebbels.

If it quacks like a duck....well, you know the rest.