MCOM 72: MEDIA & SOCIETY
JAM #7 Assignment - Good Night & Good Luck

 Have the fears of a famous World War II broadcast journalist come true about TV news in America today?


   JAM Report #7 due: Nov. 5/6

 HOME PAGE
 

    Edward R. Murrow  

"He set standards of excellence 
  that remain unsurpassed."
- CBS News

Edward R. Murrow is the most distinguished and renowned figure in the history of American broadcast journalism. He was a seminal force in the creation and development of electronic newsgathering as both a craft and a profession. Murrow's career began at CBS in 1935 and spanned the infancy of news and public affairs programming on radio through the ascendancy of television in the 1950s, as it eventually became the nation's most popular news medium. In 1961, Murrow left CBS to become director of the United States Information Agency for the new Kennedy administration. By that time, his peers were already referring to a "Murrow legend and tradition" of courage, integrity, social responsibility, and journalistic excellence, emblematic of the highest ideals of both broadcast news and the television industry in general.

David Halberstam once observed in The Powers That Be that Murrow was "one of those rare legendary figures who was as good as his myth." Murrow was apparently driven by the democratic precepts of modern liberalism and the more embracing Weltanschauung of the American Protestant tradition. In Alexander Kendrick's Prime-Time: The Life of Edward R. Murrow, for example, Murrow's brother, Dewey, described the intense religious and moral tutelage of his mother and father: "they branded us with their own consciences." Murrow's imagination and the long-term effects of his early home life impelled him to integrate his parents' ethical guidelines into his own personality to such an extensive degree that Edward R. Murrow became the virtual fulfillment of his industry's public service aspirations.

Ed Murrow's rich, full, and expressive voice first came to the attention of America's listening public in his many rooftop radio broadcasts during the Battle of Britain in 1939. In words evocative of America's original founding fathers, Murrow frequently used the airwaves to revivify and popularize many democratic ideals such as free speech, citizen participation, the pursuit of truth, and the sanctification of individual liberties and rights, that resulted from a broader liberal discourse in England, France, and the United States. Resurrecting these values and virtues for a mass audience of true believers during the London Blitz was high drama--the opposing threat of totalitarianism, made real by Nazi bombs, was ever present in the background. Ed Murrow's persona was thus established, embodying the political traditions of the Western democracies, and offering the public a heroic model on which to focus their energies.

Edward R. Murrow, of course, was only one of many heroes to emerge from World War II, but he became the eminent symbol for broadcasting. The creation of the Murrow legacy and tradition speaks both to the sterling talent of the man himself and the enormous growth and power of radio during the war years. Murrow hired a generation of electronic journalists at CBS, such as Eric Sevaried, Charles Collingwood, and Howard K. Smith, among many others, for whom he set the example as their charismatic leader. As late as 1977, in fact, more than a decade after Murrow's death, Dan Rather wrote in his autobiography, The Camera Never Blinks, that "it was astonishing how often his [Murrow] name and work came up. To somebody outside CBS it is probably hard to believe...Time and again I heard someone say, 'Ed wouldn't have done it that way.'"

Murrow's initial foray into television was as the on-camera host of the seminal news and public affairs program, See It Now (1951-58). This series was an adaptation of radio's popular Hear It Now which was also co-produced by Murrow and Fred W. Friendly. See It Now premiered in a half-hour format on 18 November 1951, opening with Murrow's characteristic restraint and directness: "This is an old team trying to learn a new trade." By 20 April 1952, See It Now had been moved to prime-time where it stayed until July 1955, typically averaging around 3 million viewers. After that point, See It Now was expanded to an hour but telecast more irregularly on a special-events basis.

Through the course of its run, See It Now was awarded four Emmys for Best News or Public Service Program. Many of its broadcasts were duly considered breakthroughs for the medium. For example, "This is Korea...Christmas 1952" was produced on-location "to try to portray the face of the war and the faces of the men who are fighting it." Murrow's most-celebrated piece was his 9 March 1954 telecast, in which he engaged Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in a program "told mainly in [McCarthy's] own words and pictures." In the aftermath of this episode, the descriptions of Edward R. Murrow and his tradition quickly began to transcend the more secular cast that appeared in response to his championing of democratic action and principles in Britain during World War II. In his review of the now legendary McCarthy program, for instance, New York Times' TV critic Jack Gould reflected an ongoing canonization process when he wrote that "last week may be remembered as the week that broadcasting recaptured its soul."

Edward R. Murrow also produced lighter, less controversial fare for television. His most popular success was his hosting of Person to Person (1953-61) where he chatted informally with a wide array of celebrities every Friday during prime-time. Murrow remained with this program through the 1958-59 season, "visiting" in their homes such people as Harry Truman, Marilyn Monroe, and John Steinbeck. Murrow, in fact, won an Emmy for the Most Outstanding Personality in all of television after Person to Person's inaugural season. He received four other individual Emmys for Best News Commentator or Analyst as well, with the last coming in 1958, the year he excoriated the broadcasting industry in a speech before the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) for being "fat, comfortable, and complacent" and television for "being used to detract, delude, amuse and insulate us."

The tragedy of Murrow's rapid enervation at CBS after this latest tumult was implicit in his apparent need to ascribe higher motives to his own profession. Murrow had long reveled in his role as broadcasting's Jeremiah. His urgent and inspirational style of presentation fit the life-and-death psychological milieu of a world war, as it was later appropriate for the McCarthy crisis. By 1958, though, the viewing public and the television industry were less inclined to accept yet another of his ethical lambastes, especially since his RTNDA speech was directed at them and their shortcomings.

As the business of TV grew astronomically during the 1950s, Murrow's priorities fell progressively out-of-step.
 

There is still a small plaque in the lobby of CBS headquarters in New York City which contains the image of Murrow and the inscription: "He set standards of excellence that remain unsurpassed." During his 25-year career he made more than 5000 broadcasts; and more than anyone else, he invented the traditions of television news. Murrow and his team essentially created the prototype of the TV documentary with See It Now, and later extended the technological reach of electronic newsgathering in Small World (1958-59), which employed simultaneous hookups around the globe to facilitate unrehearsed discussion among several international opinion leaders. Most of Murrow's See It Now associates were reassembled to produce CBS Reports in 1961, although Murrow was only an infrequent participant in this new series. Over the years, he had simply provoked too many trying situations for CBS and the network's hierarchy made a conscious decision to reduce his profile. The apparent irony between Edward R. Murrow's life and the way that he is subsequently remembered today is that the industry that finally had no place for him, now holds Murrow up as their model citizen -- the "patron saint of American broadcasting."
 -Gary Edgerton

        More on Edward R. Murrow:

     Radio Hall of Fame
 

    RTNDA: Murrow Excellence Award

 

      WSU ALUM / Murrow School
   

       www.otr.com/murrow.html

            Murrow Military Interview

         Murrow in Black & White

       


   Edward Roscoe Murrow
QUOTES...

"Most truths are so naked that
people feel sorry for them and
 cover them up, at least a little bit."
 

"Everyone is a prisoner of his own experience. No one can eliminate prejudices--just recognize them."
 

    "The newest computer can merely
    compound, at speed, the oldest
    problem in the relations between
    human beings, and in the end the
    communicator will be confronted
    with the old problem, of what to
    say and how to say it."
 

    "Our major obligation is not to
     mistake slogans for solutions."


    "If we were to do the Second
    Coming of Christ in color for a full
    hour, there would be a considerable
    number of stations which would
    decline to carry it on the grounds
    that a Western or a quiz show would
    be more profitable."

 

"We cannot defend
freedom abroad by deserting
it at home."

 

    "We must not confuse dissent with
    disloyalty. When the loyal opposition
    dies, I think the soul of America
    dies with it."
 

      "A nation of sheep will beget
      a government of wolves."

 

     "No one can terrorize a whole
     nation, unless we are all his  
     accomplices."

 

        
     Murrow: The Family Man

Married to Janet Brewster Murrow in 1934. Janet Brewster Murrow was active in student affairs and served as senior class president. She was a Mount Holyoke trustee from 1949 to 1959 and after her husband’s death in 1965 moved to South Hadley.

The Mount Holyoke archives also contain correspondence relating to an article that appeared in Look magazine titled “The Man, the Myth, the McCarthy Fighter.” Most of the letters are congratulatory, but Albright was chilled to find pieces of hate mail as well. One, addressed to “Red Ed,” reads: “I hate all dirty thieving hypocritical traitorous kikes.”

“The hate mail will stick in my mind forever,” Albright said. “What amazes me is why the Murrows saved any of this mail. But they were a historically minded family and realized there were two sides to everything.”

 

 
GOOD NIGHT,
      AND GOOD LUCK.       
                                                    SEE Movie Web Site

 Movie Synopsis

"Good Night, And Good Luck." takes place during the early days of broadcast journalism in 1950's America. It chronicles the real-life conflict between television newsman Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations (Government Operations Committee). With a desire to report the facts and enlighten the public, Murrow, and his dedicated staff - headed by his producer Fred Friendly and Joe Wershba in the CBS newsroom - defy corporate and sponsorship pressures to examine the lies and scaremongering tactics perpetrated by McCarthy during his communist 'witch-hunts'. A very public feud develops when the Senator responds by accusing the anchor of being a communist. In this climate of fear and reprisal, the CBS crew carries on and their tenacity will prove historic and monumental.

Directed by:
George Clooney (His father is a former TV news anchor in Cincinnati.)

Cast: David Strathairn, Clooney, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, Tate Donovan, Ray Wise and Frank Langella

This film was nominated for Outstanding Movie - Drama by the

Film opened: October 7, 2005

 
  
    This film is now available at most movie rental stores, including
    Blockbuster. They have had it on sale for as cheap as $5.00 per DVD.

    When watching this film...GO DEEPER IN THOUGHT.

    Resist the easy temptation to dislike the film because it is in black and white.

    Figure out why George Clooney thought this film effect would help draw
    his audience back in time when the medium television was just as
    new,...in its infancy... showing lots of potential for creative use and money-
    making.

    These same issues now concern us about the future of the internet.

   


Edward R. Murrow ...
"Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information."

MCOM 72 STUDENTS
What follows is background info for you.
 

 Nieman Reports:
 The Future Is Here, But Do
 News Media Companies See It?

 

         Traditional news media are not yet willing
         to adopt the principals of the environment in which
         they find themselves. (2005)

 

image

 

By Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis
This article first appeared in the Nieman Reports Volume 59 Number 4, Winter 2005,
a publication by The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

The news industry is a resilient bunch. Newspapers, in particular, represent some of the United States’ oldest and most respected companies. So far they have weathered storms of significant social, economic and technological change by figuring out how to transform themselves and what they produce. The creation of the telegraph, for example, had doomsayers frothing, but instead newspapers turned a disruptive technology into a tool for better reporting.

During periods of massive change, the death of the newspapers has always been greatly exaggerated. So, given the industry’s survival skills, why worry now?  One reason might be that the burst of the dot-com bubble during the late 90s made many think they had overestimated the impact of the Internet. But in retrospect, the news media might have completely underestimated the influence of this new medium.

A Recipe for Radical Change


The Internet is a unique phenomenon that has delivered not just technological innovations but become a conduit for change, accelerating the rate, diversity and circulation of ideas. It affects nearly everything from culture to competition. It has also altered the economics of media in two important ways. First, it enables nearly limitless distribution of content for little or no cost. Second, it has potentially put everyone on the planet into the media business, including the sources, businesses, governments and communities newspapers cover.

Add other ingredients — easy-to-use, open-source publishing tools, a generation who finds it more natural to instant message someone than to call, a greater demand for niche information, and a rapidly growing shift of advertising dollars to online media — and you have a recipe for radical change in the news media landscape.

Likewise, the list of online competitors is seemingly ever-expanding. Search giants, such as Yahoo!, MSN and Google, continue their expansion and encroachment into the news business, siphoning ad dollars and eyeballs from traditional media Web sites. Craigslist, Monster, eBay and countless others have taken a more direct bite out of newspaper’s bread-and-butter, classifieds.

But the greater threat to the longevity of established news media might not be a future that’s already arrived; it might be their inability to do anything about it. Bureaucratic inertia, hierarchical organizational structure and a legacy mentality have paralyzed many news organizations from developing a meaningful strategy in this dynamic information age. And their real Achilles heel might be what made media companies a favorite of Wall Street until recent years - an ability to consistently garner operating profits double that of your average Fortune 500 company. As the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s State of the News Media 2005 observed, “If older media sectors focus on profit-taking and stock price, they may do so at the expense of building the new technologies that are vital to the future. There are signs that that may be occurring.”

Some have suggested that such behavior is a sign of an industry in a death spiral. Cost cutting with no investment for the future limits chances of an encore. Only a few exceedingly rare exceptions of online news operations are profitable, such as The Wall Street Journal, but most are still unwilling to engage in a different relationship with their audience.

In October, Bill Kovach, former New York Times editor, Nieman Foundation Curator, and journalist for 43 years, told the Society of Professional Journalists Convention and National Journalism Conference that “… too many journalists, especially journalists of my generation, remain in a state of confusion about the challenges of the new media environment and remain dangerously passive about the opportunities presented to traditional journalism by the new communications technology.”

Perhaps it’s this simple: Traditional news media are not yet willing to adopt the principals of the environment in which they find themselves. Consultant and media critic Jeff Jarvis frames it this way: “The No. 1 lesson of the Internet whether you’re Howard Dean or a media company or a marketer, is that you have to give up control to gain control.”

The Blogosphere and Shifting Authority


The Emerging Media EcosystemThe venerable profession of journalism finds itself at a rare moment in history where, for the first time, its hegemony as gatekeeper of the news is threatened by not just new technology and competitors but by the audience it serves. Citizens everywhere are getting together via the Internet in unprecedented ways to set the agenda for news, to inform each other about hyper-local and global issues, and to create new services in a connected, always-on society. The audience is now an active, important participant in the creation and dissemination of news and information, with or without the help of mainstream news media.

In the last two years, citizen media has grown from a promise to a legitimate presence in today’s media sphere. Armed with easy-to-use Web publishing tools, always-on connections and increasingly powerful digital and mobile devices, citizen journalists are contributing many varieties of information and news: first-person, grassroots reporting, not-only in text but with photos, audio and video; commentary and analysis; fact-checking and watch dogging; and filtering and editing the ever-growing mass of information online.

Citizen media is a trend that mainstream news media clearly recognize. With great trepidation and reluctance, mainstream media are beginning to learn how to evolve their business from an authoritarian “top-down” approach to integrate and report on user-generated news, as well as establish ways to collaborate in meaningful ways with its audience. However, they still have trouble letting go of control.

During the Hurricane Katrina, many mainstream news sites like CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times made an effort to solicit stories, photos and video from citizens. But despite the tremendous amount of content generated by citizens, only a small fraction found its way onto large online news sites, where it was clearly segregated from the main coverage.

Major news events such as Hurricane Katrina continue to bring more citizens into the journalistic fray. And with them, a tangible indication that authority is shifting from once trusted institutions to communities or individuals who have discovered how to earn credibility and influence online. Some of the top Weblogs and citizen media Web sites have traffic and online reach that outpace mainstream news media destinations. They include:

  • The Daily Kos, a Weblog which offers political analysis on U.S. current events from a liberal perspective, averages more than 700,000 visits per day.
  • Technorati, the real-time search engine that tracks the blogosphere, measures linking behavior as a proxy for attention and influence. According to their August 2005 State of the Blogosphere report, Glenn Reynolds’ political and current events Weblog, Instapundit, has more authority in the blogosphere (based on inbound links) than the Los Angeles Times and National Public Radio.
  • The Wikipedia phenomenon has taken off. Wikipedia is the international, free content, collaboratively written and edited encyclopedia launched in 2001. According to Alexa, Internet users are twice as likely to visit Wikipedia as The New York Times. Since 2003, it has grown from 200,000 articles to amass more than 740,000 articles in English as well as more than one million articles in 100 other languages. Overall, there approximately 55,000 Wikipedians are writing more than 4,500 articles per month. Wikipedia now has 4.5 times the number of articles and nearly 2.5 times as many words as Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • Weblogs are now an established, though rapidly expanding, force in news and marketing. They will continue to disrupt, challenge with a staggering pace of growth and influence. According to Technorati, the number of Weblogs is doubling every five months. The blogosphere is now over 30 times as big as it was three years ago, with approximately 70,000 new Weblogs created daily. As of October 2005, Technorati was tracking 20.1 million Weblogs. However, some reports estimate the number of total number of Weblogs created worldwide as being between 50 and 100 million. According to Forrester Research, ten percent of online consumers are reading blogs once a week or more.

What has emerged in this new media ecosystem is a stark contrast between the entrenched forces of big media doing what it knows and the rest of the Internet informing itself — reporting, discussing and vetting the news.

 

Giving Voice to Overlooked Communities


In the ever-evolving citizen media world, new community Web sites designed to fill the gaps or augment the coverage of local and national media have begun to carve out a delicate but important niche in both rural and urban communities. These so-called “hyper-local” sites represent a fertile ground where citizens contribute to the unique and specific information needs of the community. These sites look to engage citizens not only as readers but as co-producers and see themselves as facilitators to the community.

Talking with publishers and readers of sites such as Baristanet, iBrattleboro, MyMissourian and The Northwest Voice, it is becoming clear that these efforts are giving a new identity to the communities they serve.

Here’s what the most successful citizen media efforts have learned:

  • Most citizens don’t want to be journalists but do want to contribute in small and meaningful ways. Citizens are interested in participating and contributing to subjects that traditional news outlets ignore or do not often cover. Clyde Bentley, an associate professor at the Missouri School of Journalism, notes, “The main difference between traditional journalism and citizen journalism is that traditional journalists are sent out to cover things they don’t really care about; in other words, the next city council meeting isn’t going to make or break their lives. But a citizen journalist is not out to cover something, but to share it. For them, they want to tell everybody about their passion.
  • It’s easy to underestimate what it takes to be successful in an online community. It requires more than Web sites and tools. Communities will not survive on the “Build it and they will come” ethos. They require constant attention, involved leadership and most important, nurturing.
  • Advertising revenues suggest that such ventures could become a small but viable business.
  • All are seeking to add greater interactivity. More powerful tools and platforms (i.e. Google Maps) will provide engines for citizen media innovation, such as “public service hacks” like those found on HousingMaps.com, ChicagoCrime.org, and the Katrina Information Map.

New Media Forms Emerge


The Rise of Citizen MediaThe democratization of media has leveled the competitive landscape and forced dramatic change in the news business. Collaboration is the driving force behind the explosion of citizen media, with new forms being regularly blazed by passionate, motivated individuals.

[Graphic at right: The Rise of Citizen Media - GIF (32kb), PDF (225kb)]

The Wikipedia project has spawned more open-source, collaboratively written projects. Wikibooks is an attempt to create a comprehensive curriculum of free textbooks and manuals. It has more than 11,000 titles so far. Wikinews aims to “create a diverse environment where citizen journalists can independently report the news on a wide variety of current events.” In its first eight months, it has accumulated more than 2,000 articles. RSS, the XML-based technology used to syndicate headlines and other information, was the province of Weblogs in 2003. Now, it’s a fixture of mainstream media Web sites. As well, RSS gave birth to a new form of participatory media – podcasting.

Podcasting, the creation and distribution of audio recording online, went from the fringe to the mainstream in about 18 months. In it’s infancy, podcasts were produced by the same folks writing most Weblogs, the everyday citizen. Then Apple integrated podcasting into it’s popular iTunes software, with CEO Steve Jobs calling it “a TiVo for radio: you can download radio shows and listen to them on your computer or put them on your iPod anytime you want.” Now, everyone from major radio and TV news outlets (CNN, NPR, ABC), to newspapers (Denver Post, Philadelphia Daily News, Forbes) to book publishers such as Simon & Shuster are experimenting with podcasting.

Podcasts show that amateurs can gain mindshare in a new medium as or more effectively than pros. In less than a year, the popular comedy podcast, “The Dawn and Drew Show,” hosted by a husband and wife who describe themselves as “two ex-gutter punks, who fell in love, bought a farm in Wisconsin and share their dirty secrets,” have attracted an audience of more than 200,000 listeners. Their podcast is now simulcast on Sirius satellite radio.

Photo-sharing Web sites such as Flickr, acquired by Yahoo! in March 2005, are becoming hubs for citizen photo-journalists. In a June 2005 report by InternetNews.com, a Flickr spokesman said the service has 775,000 registered users and hosts 19.5 million photos, with growth of about 30 percent monthly in users, and 50 percent monthly in photos. Since the Hurricane Katrina, more than 11,500 images related to it were uploaded and shared. Even mainstream news sites such as the BBC have begun to use images from Flickr users to accompany their news stories.

The Future


The Value of Social MediaCitizen journalism continues to be an evolving and frustrating concept for mainstream media. It offers the tantalizing idea of an active and engaged democracy better informing itself. It also can represent an evolving and reckless endeavor that might result in just the opposite. Yet, citizen media is a world that is starting to mature and develop in interesting ways, with or without the involvement of the mainstream media. Proponents of citizen media point to the successful open source software movement, which is mature by comparison, saying it shows the promise of the kinds of innovation that communities can produce. [Graphic at right: The Value of Social Media - GIF (29kb), PDF (248kb)]

 

Like the early days of the Internet, there is a palpable optimism driving experimentation, and the idea that any effort could become the next big thing. Here are some emerging changes we see in the media landscape:

  • Successful news sites will discover the right mix of community, content, commerce and tools. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage the power of the many, and mainstream media will more tightly integrate citizen content with the core news offerings. Some media will begin to pay for the best citizen contributions.
  • The mobile Internet will proliferate (Nokia estimates two billion cell phone subscribers worldwide by 2006) and bring about more dramatic change in how news is covered.
  • Citizens will demand greater transparency in reporting. As a result, more professional journalists will begin to blog, providing them a means to find a more authentic voice with audience — a conversation.
  • Authority will continue to shift from once trusted institutions to communities or individuals who have earned credibility though hard-won public discourse and will directly impact news media.
  • Journalism education, like other institutions, has been slow to change. In the last year, this has begun to change and will continue to do so dramatically in the next five years. As well, expect media organizations to take a leadership role in educating it’s audience in becoming better news creators, such as the BCC has done with their free broadcast and new media online training and the forthcoming BBC College of Journalism.

Citizen media represents not the end of journalism or news media companies but a shift in where value is being created. In the traditional broadcast model, value was created solely by the newspaper or TV station. In the future, more of the value will come from creating an infrastructure for citizen participation and nurturing trusted communities.

Google understands how powerful and profitable building infrastructure but not the end product can be. Google Maps, for example, offers an easy way to add sophisticated maps customized with whatever data and designed for whatever purpose on any website. Google AdSense is another variation. Provide an easy means for people to make money from the traffic on their site without requiring too much control on how or where the ads must be placed. eBay earned $1.1 billion in Q3 2005, yet it builds no products or houses any inventory. Instead it has created value by enabling a trusted community to transact in a safe marketplace. Both eBay and Google show that there is great value to be created if you are willing to embrace a different role in the value creation process.

Media companies and those starting citizen journalism endeavors need to understand that media is becoming more of a social entity. As in any social environment, there are participants who serve different roles in the creation, consumption, sharing and transformation. This is giving rise to information ecosystems, such as the blogosphere, which we are just starting to recognize and understand.

“Any media organization only exists on the quality and depth of it’s relationship with the public,” says Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC Global News Division. “You’ve got to have a healthy and strong relationship for people to come to you. Technology is changing that relationship fundamentally.” Sambrook says the BBC’s role is shifting from broadcaster and mediator to facilitator, enabler and teacher. “We don’t own the news anymore. Our job is to make connections with and between different audiences,” he said.

With media companies still generating respectable returns on investment, the smart money will be on those organizations like the BBC that can integrate successful citizen journalism experiments supported by better staff training, equipment and practices that encourage reporters and editors to collaborate with their audience.

Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis are the co-authors of We Media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and information, a 2003 research report on the emergence of participatory journalism. An update to the report, commissioned by The Media Center and The American Press Institute, will be released online in January, 2006. The report can be downloaded in PDF (3.1mb).

Update

24 Dec: Jay Small sees a soft landing for big media in The future is here, the value is missing:
 

Newspaper execs can “get it” or not. Many more do than, I suspect, some “citizen journalism” pundits want to believe. And more than a few of the pundits really have no idea how “CitJ” self-sustains.
No matter. The boldest experiments in tools, methods, content, participation and transparency may not restore enough of the value that has been destroyed in the advertising economy surrounding information service providers...

The most likely scenario, in my mind, is that old-line news media will manage themselves slowly down to an economic floor where the sustainable value of Internet information services they can operate meets and beats the cost of operating them.

          Posted on Dec 22, 2005 | 10:31 am EST
 

But what of the value the Internet destroyed? Thoughts on that here:

http://smallinitiatives.com/2005/12/22/the-future-is-here-the-value-is-missing/

Posted by: Jay Small on Dec 22, 05 | 6:52 pm EST
 

Such a soft landing is a choice and a goal, however, not an inevitability. Some newspaper-owning companies (indeed, perhaps most) are going to keep propping up profit margins via expense cuts year after year until it all collapses at once.

 

Posted by: Lex on Dec 29, 05 | 6:18 pm EST
 

As a former financial journalist, and now occasional contributor to blogs and Wikipedia, I note that the very structure of your piece speaks volumes about the digital divide between “traditonal journalists” and bloggers. I found that the first half of this piece--while perfectly respectable traditional journalism--basically could be disposed of totally, as I already knew much of it, yet found the second half to be much more valuable and of interest to bloggers. As a journalist, you can’t assume that people have any prior knowledge of the subject.
Also, curiously, the top half seemed almost boilerplate, while the second half, while not entirely knew, at least put things into a useful perspective. The top half seemed impersonal; the second half seemed more current. Like the lady in the magician’s act that gets sawed in half, your piece demonstrates some of the difficulties anyone faces--Trad j or blogger--in making the content fresh. Personally, I wish you had written more in your own true voice. I think the second half sounded more like the real you. It had more energy.

Posted by: Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP on Jan 08, 06 | 12:11 pm EST

 

 



 Edward R. Murrow

CBS News Transcript
See it Now (CBS-TV, March 9, 1954)
"A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy"

Television series aired
 1951 - 1958

 


Murrow: Good evening. Tonight See it Now devotes its entire half hour to a report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy told mainly in his own words and pictures. But first, ALCOA would like you to meet a man who has been with them for fifty years. (Commercial break.)

Murrow: Because a report on Senator McCarthy is by definition controversial we want to say exactly what we mean to say and I request your permission to read from the script whatever remarks Murrow and Friendly may make. If the Senator believes we have done violence to his words or pictures and desires to speak, to answer himself, an opportunity will be afforded him on this program. Our working thesis tonight is this question:

If this fight against Communism is made a fight against America's two great political parties, the American people know that one of those parties will be destroyed and the Republic cannot endure very long as a one party system.

We applaud that statement and we think Senator McCarthy ought to. He said it, seventeen months ago in Milwaukee.

McCarthy: The American people realize this cannot be made a fight between America's two great political parties. If this fight against Communism is made a fight between America's two great political parties the American people know that one of those parties will be destroyed and the Republic cannot endure very long as a one party system.

Murrow: Thus on February 4th, 1954, Senator McCarthy spoke of one party's treason. This was at Charleston, West Virginia where there were no cameras running. It was recorded on tape.

McCarthy: The issue between the Republicans and Democrats is clearly drawn. It has been deliberately drawn by those who have been in charge of twenty years of treason. The hard fact is -- the hard fact is that those who wear the label, those who wear the label Democrat wear it with the stain of a historic betrayal.

Murrow: Seventeen months ago Candidate Eisenhower met Senator McCarthy in Green Bay, Wisconsin and he laid down the ground rules on how he would meet Communism if elected.

Eisenhower: This is a pledge I make. If I am charged by you people to be the responsible head of the Executive Department it will be my initial responsibility to see that subversion, disloyalty, is kept out of the Executive Department. We will always appreciate and welcome Congressional investigation but the responsibility will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Executive and I hold that there are ample powers in the government to get rid of these people if the Executive Department is really concerned in doing it. We can do it with absolute assurance. (Applause.)

This is America's principle: Trial by jury, of the innocent until proved guilty, and I expect to stand to do it.

Murrow: That same night in Milwaukee, Senator McCarthy stated what he would do if the General was elected.

McCarthy: I spent about a half hour with the General last night. While I can't -- while I can't report that we agreed entirely on everything -- I can report that when I left that meeting with the General, I had the same feeling as when I went in, and that is that he is a great American, and will make a great President, an outstanding President. But I want to tell you tonight, tell the American people as long as I represent you and the rest of the American people in the Senate, I shall continue to call them as I see them regardless of who happens to be President.

Murrow: November 24th, 1953.

McCarthy: A few days ago I read that President Eisenhower expressed the hope that by election time in 1954 the subject of Communism would be a dead and forgotten issue. The raw, harsh unpleasant fact is that Communism is an issue and will be an issue in 1954.

Murrow: On one thing the Senator has been consistent... Often operating as a one-man committee, he has traveled far, interviewed many, terrorized some, accused civilian and military leaders of the past administration of a great conspiracy to turn the country over to Communism, investigated and substantially demoralized the present State Department, made varying charges of espionage at Fort Manmouth. (The Army says it has been unable to find anything relating to espionage there.) He has interrogated a varied assortment of what he calls "Fifth Amendment Communists." Republican Senator Flanders of Vermont said of McCarthy today:

He dons war paint; he goes into his war dance; he emits his war whoops; he goes forth to battle and proudly returns with the scalp of a pink Army dentist.

Other critics have accused the Senator of using the bull whip and smear. There was a time two years ago when the Senator and his friends said he had been smeared and bull whipped.

Mr. Keefe: You would sometimes think to hear the quartet that call themselves "Operation Truth" damning Joe McCarthy and resorting to the vilest smears I have ever heard. Well, this is the answer, and if I could express it in what is in my heart right now, I would do it in terms of the poet who once said:

Ah 'tis but a dainty flower I bring you,
Yes, 'tis but a violet, glistening with dew,
But still in its heart there lies beauties concealed
So in our heart our love for you lies unrevealed.

McCarthy: You know, I used to pride myself on the idea that I was a bit tough, especially over the past eighteen or nineteen when we have been kicked around and bull whipped and damned. I didn't think that I could be touched very deeply. But tonight, frankly, my cup and my heart is so full I can't talk to you.

Murrow: But in Philadelphia, on Washington's Birthday, 1954, his heart was so full he could talk. He reviewed some of the General Zwicker testimony and proved he hadn't abused him.

McCarthy: Nothing is more serious than a traitor to this country in the Communist conspiracy. Question: Do you think stealing $50 is more serious than being a traitor to the country and a part of the Communist conspiracy?

Answer: That, sir, was not my decision.

McCarthy: Shall we go on to that for a while? I hate to impose on your time. I just got two pages. This is the abuse which is... the real meat of abuse, this is the official reporter's record of the hearing. After he said he wouldn't remove that General from the Army who cleared Communists, I said: "Then General, you should be removed from any Command. Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to General, and who says, 'I will protect another general who protects Communists,' is not fit to wear that uniform, General." (Applause.)

I think it is a tremendous disgrace to the Army to have to bring these facts before the public but I intend to give it to the public, General. I have a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said so that you can know that and be back here to hear it, General.

And wait till you hear the bleeding hearts scream and cry about our methods of trying to drag the truth from those who know, or should know, who covered up a Fifth Amendment Communist Major. But they say, 'Oh, it's all right to uncover them but don't get rough doing it, McCarthy.'

Murrow: But two days later, Secretary Stevens and the Senator had lunch, agreed on a memorandum of understanding, and disagreed on what the small type said.

Stevens: I shall never accede to the abuse of Army personnel under any circumstance including committee hearings. I shall not accede to them being brow-beaten or humiliated. In the light of these assurances, although I did not propose cancellation of the hearings, I acceded to it. If it had not been for these assurances, I would never have entered into any agreement whatsoever.

Murrow: Then President Eisenhower issued a statement that advisers thought censored the Senator, but the Senator saw it as another victory, called the entire Zwicker case "a tempest in a teapot."

McCarthy: If a stupid, arrogant or witless man in a position of power appears before our Committee and is found aiding the Communist Party, he will be exposed. The fact that he might be a General places him in no special class as far as I am concerned. Apparently -- apparently, the President and I now agree on the necessity of getting rid of Communists. We apparently disagree on how we should handle those who protect Communists. When the shouting and the tumult dies, the American people and the President will realize that this unprecedented mud slinging against the Committee by the extreme left wing elements of press and radio was caused solely because another Fifth Amendment Communist was finally dug out of the dark recesses and exposed to the public view.

Murrow (points to a chart): Senator McCarthy claims that only the left wing press criticized him on the Zwicker case. Of the fifty large circulation newspapers in the country, these are the left wing papers that criticized. These are the ones which supported him. The ratio is about three to one against the Senator. Now let us look at some of these left wing papers that criticized the Senator.

The Chicago Tribune: McCarthy will better serve his cause if he learns to distinguish the role of investigator from role of avenging angel...

The New York Times: The unwarranted interference of a demagogue -- a domestic Munich...

The Times Herald, Washington: Senator McCarthy's behavior towards Zwicker is not justified...

The Herald Tribune of New York: McCarthyism involves assaults on basic Republican concepts...

Milwaukee Journal: The line must be drawn and defended or McCarthy will become the government...

The Evening Star of Washington: It was a bad day for everyone who resents and detests the bully boy tactics which Senator McCarthy often employees...

The New York World Telegram: Bamboozling, bludgeoning, distorting...

St. Louis Post Dispatch: Unscrupulous, McCarthy bullying. What a tragic irony it is that the President's political advisors keep him from doing what every decent instinct must be commanding him to do...

Well, that's the ratio of a three-to-one, so-called "left-wing" press.

Another interesting thing was said about the Zwicker case, and it was said by Senator McCarthy.

McCarthy: Well, may I say that I was extremely shocked when I heard that Secretary Stevens told two Army officers that they had to take part in the cover-up of those who promoted and coddled Communists. As I read his statement, I thought of that quotation "On what meat doth this, our Caesar, feed?"

Murrow: And upon what meat doth Senator McCarthy feed? Two of the staples of his diet are the investigation (protected by immunity) and the half-truth. We herewith submit samples of both.

First, the half-truth. This was an attack on Adlai Stevenson at the end of the 1952 campaign. President Eisenhower, it must be said, had no prior knowledge of it.

McCarthy: I perform this unpleasant task because the American people are entitled to have the coldly documented history of this man who says, "I want to be your President."

Strangely, Alger -- I mean, Adlai [laughter] -- But let's move on to another part of the jigsaw puzzle. Now, while you think -- while you may think there can be no connection between the debonair Democratic candidate and a dilapidated Massachusetts barn, I want to show you a picture of this barn and explain the connection.

Here is the outside of the barn. Give me the pictures of the inside, if you will. Here is the outside of the barn up at Lee, Massachusetts. It looks as though it couldn't house a farmer's cow or goat from the outside. Here's the inside: a beautifully panelled conference room with maps of the Soviet Union. Well, in what way does Stevenson tie up with that?

My -- my investigators went out and took pictures of the barn after we had been tipped off of what was in it -- tipped off that there was in this barn all the missing documents from the Communist front -- IPR -- the IPR which has been named by the McCarran Committee -- named before the McCarran Committee as a coverup for Communist espionage.

Now, let's take a look at a photostat of a document taken from the Massachusetts barn -- one of those documents which was never supposed to see the light of day. Rather interesting it is. This is a document which shows that Alger Hiss and Frank Coe recommended Adlai Stevenson to the Mount Tremblant Conference which was called for the purpose of establishing foreign policy (postwar foreign policy) in Asia. And, as you know, Alger Hiss is a convicted traitor. Frank Coe has been named under oath before congressional committees seven times as a member of the Communist Party. Why? Why do Hiss and Coe find that Adlai Stevenson is the man they want representing them at this conference? I don't know. Perhaps Adlai knows.

Murrow: But Senator McCarthy didn't permit his audience to hear the entire paragraph. This is the official record of the McCarran hearings. Anyone can buy it for two dollars. Here's a quote: "Another possibility for the Mount Tremblant conferences on Asia is someone from Knox' office or Stimson's office." (Frank Knox was our wartime Secretary of the Navy; Henry Stimson our Secretary of the Army, both distinguished Republicans.) And it goes on: "Coe, and Hiss mentioned Adlai Stevenson (one of Knox' special assistants) and Harvey Bundy (former Assistant Secretary of State under Hoover, and now assistant to Stimson) because of their jobs."

We read from this documented record, not in defense of Mr. Stevenson, but in defense of truth. Specifically, Mr. Stevenson's identification with that red barn was no more, no less than that of Knox, Stimson or Bundy. It should be stated that Mr. Stevenson was once a member of the Institute of Pacific Relations. But so were such other loyal Americans as Senator Ferguson, John Foster Dulles, Paul Hoffman, Harry Luce and Herbert Hoover. Their association carries with it no guilt, and that barn has nothing to do with any of them.

Now -- a sample investigation. The witness was Reed Harris, for many years a civil servant in the State Department, directing the information service. Harris was accused of helping the Communistic cause by curtailing some broadcasts to Israel. Senator McCarthy summoned him and questioned him about a book he had written in 1932.

McCarthy: Now we'll come to order. Mr. Reed Harris? Your name is Reed Harris?

Harris: That's correct.

McCarthy: You wrote a book in '32, is that correct?

Harris: Yes, I wrote a book. As I testified in executive session...

McCarthy: At the time you wrote the book -- pardon me; go ahead. I'm sorry. Proceed.

Harris: At the time I wrote the book the atmosphere in the universities of the United States was greatly affected by the great depression then in existence. The attitudes of students, the attitudes of the general public were considerably different than they are at this moment and for one thing there was generally no awareness, to the degree that there is today, of the way the Communist Party works.

McCarthy: You attended Columbia University in the early thirties. Is that right?

Harris: I did, Mr. Chairman.

McCarthy: Will you speak a little louder, sir?

Harris: I did, Mr. Chairman.

McCarthy: And were you expelled from Columbia?

Harris: I was suspended from classes on April 1st, 1932. I was later reinstated and I resigned from the University.

McCarthy: And you resigned from the University? Did the Civil -- Civil Liberties Union provide you with an attorney at that time?

Harris: I had many offers of attorneys, and one of those was from the American Civil Liberties Union, yes.

McCarthy: The question is did the Civil Liberties Union supply you with an attorney?

Harris: They did supply an attorney.

McCarthy: The answer is yes?

Harris: The answer is yes.

McCarthy: You know the Civil Liberties Union has been listed as "a front for, and doing the work of," the Communist Party?

Harris: Mr. Chairman this was 1932.

McCarthy: Yeah, I know it was 1932. Do you know that they since have been listed as "a front for, and doing the work of" the Communist Party?

Harris: I do not know that they have been listed so, sir.

McCarthy: You don't know they have been listed?

Harris: I have heard that mentioned or read that mentioned.

McCarthy: Now, you wrote a book in 1932. I'm going to ask you again: at the time you wrote this book, did you feel that professors should be given the right to teach sophomores that marriage -- and I quote -- "should be cast out of our civilization as antiquated and stupid religious phenomena?" Was that your feeling at that time?

Harris: My feeling is that professors should have the right to express their considered opinions on any subject, whatever they were, sir.

McCarthy: All right, I'm going to ask you this question again.

Harris: That includes that quotation. They should have the right to teach anything that came into their minds as being the proper thing to teach.

McCarthy: I'm going to make you answer this.

Harris: All right, I'll answer yes, but you put an implication on it and you feature this particular point of the book, which, of course, is quite out of context, does not give a proper impression of the book as a whole. The American public doesn't get an honest impression of even that book, bad as it is, from what you are quoting from it.

McCarthy: Well, then, let's continue to read your own writing, and...

Harris: Twenty-one years ago, again.

McCarthy: Yes, but we shall try and bring you down to date, if we can.

Harris: Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, Senator Taft took the position that I took twenty-one years ago, that Communists and Socialists should be allowed to teach in the schools. It so happens that, nowadays I don't agree with Senator Taft, as far as Communist teaching in the schools is concerned, because I think Communists are, in effect, a plainclothes auxiliary of the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army. And I don't want to see them in any of our schools, teaching.

McCarthy: I don't recall Senator Taft ever having any of the background that you've got, sir.

Harris: I resent the tone of this inquiry very much, Mr. Chairman. I resent it, not only because it is my neck, my public neck, that you are, I think, very skillfully trying to wring, but I say it because there are thousands of able and loyal employees in the federal government of the United States who have been properly cleared according to the laws and the security practices of their agencies, as I was -- unless the new regime says no; I was before.

McClellan: Do you think this book did considerable harm, its publication might have had adverse influence on the public by an expression of views contained in it?

Harris: The sale of that book was so abysmally small. It was so unsuccessful that a question of its influence... Really, you can go back to the publisher. You'll see it was one of the most unsuccessful books he ever put out. He's still sorry about it, just as I am.

McClellen: Well, I think that's a compliment to American intelligence... (Laughter). I will say that for him.

Murrow: Senator McCarthy succeeded in proving that Reed Harris had once written a bad book, which the American people had proved twenty-two years ago by not buying it, which is what they eventually do will all bad ideas. As for Reed Harris, his resignation was accepted a month later with a letter of commendation. McCarthy claimed it as a victory.

The Reed Harris hearing demonstrates one of the Senator's techniques. Twice he said the American Civil Liberties Union was listed as a subversive front. The Attorney General's list does not and has never listed the ACLU as subversive, nor does the FBI or any other federal government agency. And the American Civil Liberties Union holds in its files letters of commendation from President Truman, President Eisenhower, and General MacArthur.

Now let us try to bring the McCarthy story a little more up to date. Two years ago Senator Benton of Connecticut accused McCarthy of apparent perjury, unethical practice, and perpetrating a hoax on the Senate. McCarthy sued for two million dollars. Last week he dropped the case, saying no one could be found who believed Benton's story. Several volunteers have come forward saying they believe it in its entirety.

Today Senator McCarthy says he's going to get a lawyer and force the networks to give him time to reply to Adlai Stevenson's speech.

Earlier, the Senator asked, "Upon what meat does this, our Caesar, feed?" Had he looked three lines earlier in Shakespeare's Caesar, he would have found this line, which is not altogether inappropriate: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

Good night, and good luck.

 

 


Veteran journalist Joseph Wershba
joined CBS News in 1944 serving as writer,
editor and correspondent.

He was a producer of the renowned
"60 Minutes" from 1968-1988.
                                     By Joseph Wershba

Edward R. Murrow was my last hero. When this nation was drowning in cowardice and demagoguery, it was Murrow who hurled the spear at the terror. The spear was his See It Now television broadcast on Senator Joe McCarthy.

Murrow did not kill off McCarthy or McCarthyism, but he helped halt America's incredible slide toward a native brand of fascism. Unbelievable. You had to live through the times to know how fearful -- indeed, terrorized -- people were about speaking their minds. The cold war with Russia, the threat of a hot war with China, security programs and loyalty oaths -- all had cowed the citizens of the most powerful nation on earth into keeping their minds closed and their mouths shut. The Senate of the United States. in order not to appear Red, chose to be yellow. It was the Age of McCarthyism. Edward R. Murrow helped bring it to an end.

He was the most famous newsman in broadcasting, but he spelled out the limitations of his trade. "Just because the microphone in front of you amplifies your voice around the world," he'd say, "is no reason to think we have any more wisdom than we had when our voices could reach only from one end of the bar to the other."

His writing was simple, direct. He used strong, active verbs. On paper, it looked plain. The voice made the words catch fire. He regarded the news as a sacred trust. Accuracy was everything. And, always, fairness.

* * *

I remember once, flying with him from Alaska to cover the war in Korea, our military aircraft seemed to be circling endlessly in the dark night of the Pacific. The steward came down the aisle, explained that we had already made two passes trying to find the refueling island, and if we didn't make it on the third -- well...."Joe," Murrow said very softly, "that's the best way to go -- in the presence of good companions."

When I went to work on a column of numbers, Murrow asked what I was doing. I said I was adding up my assets -- how much I'd be able to leave to my wife and baby daughter. It came to something like $4,000. Murrow's eyes widened. "Washboard," he said, using the nickname given to me in the Army, "you're the only son of a bitch I know who is worth more alive than dead!"

Sharing the same tiny quarters in Korea, we'd be up before dawn. The first sound I would hear would be a long, long pull on a cigarette. I could almost hear the smoke going down to his toes. Except when the working situation absolutely forbade smoking, I can't ever recall seeing Murrow without a cigarette.

I once got an expense account thrown back at me because I had included an extra couple of Scotches at the bar. I appealed to Murrow. "Aren't we allowed a drink at dinner?" I asked. Murrow gave me one of his Churchillian replies: "Any working reporter who does not invade the corporate exchequer for at least one fifth of Scotch each day is not worthy of his hire." I couldn't drink that much -- and neither could he.

The only time I ever saw him under the influence was the night I drove him home to Washington after dinner at my Virginia apartment. The air was pleasant, breezy. He was humming some old logging-camp tune and was waving to the trees like a small boy. I never saw him so content, even happy. But I know that if he'd had to go into the studio that night, he'd have had his coffee and would have been ready at the mike.

This man I worshipped could have his mean moods too. One night at the bar he chewed out a colleague, the man who had been closest to him in wartime London. I cringed. Nearby, another of "Murrow's Boys" was beaming. I stuttered something about it being beneath Murrow to bawl out a colleague where the troops might overhear him. The second Murrow boy roared with laughter. "The poor s.o.b. deserves a reaming!" he said. A little later, the three of them were laughing and toasting each other again.

* * *

What was it like to work for Ed Murrow? Well, on See It Now you didn't work for Murrow, you worked for the man Murrow called his partner, Fred Friendly. He and Murrow set the agenda. Reporters or field directors like myself would go out with cameramen. We'd case the story, film it in the field, bring Murrow in for key portions. Sometimes Murrow would limit himself to the narration. His voice alone was enough to give power to the piece.

He always gave us full credit on the air. He never exhibited any professional rivalry or competitiveness. After Eric Sevareid appeared as a correspondent on our first See It Now broadcast with a "remote" report from Washington, I told Murrow of a colleague's reaction: She liked the broadcast, yes, especially Sevareid, because "he was loaded with sex appeal." "Well," said Murrow, smiling, "I guess we'll have to keep him the hell off the air." Sevareid, of course, was a Murrow Boy, and with Murrow's backing he became one of the most influential figures in broadcasting.

Friendly knew how honored we were to labor in Murrow's shadow and worked us to the bone. The phone would ring at 3 a.m., wherever the hell we were, scattered around the world. Friendly on the phone: "Joe, Ed wants...." I'd snap to attention and salute. I knew it really was Fred wants, but I also knew that when it came down to the final edit, it would be something Ed would want also.

* * *

When my cameraman Charlie Mack and I sent in our film on "The Case of Lieut. Milo Radulovich," Friendly got on the phone. "You're fired," he bellowed, "I'm fired, Ed's fired, but we're going to turn out the greatest broadcast ever done on television!"

The Radulovich case involved a young Air Force Reserve weatherman who had been dropped from the service in the age of security madness. The Air Force secretly accused his father and sister of holding radical views. There were no complaints against Milo Radulovich. He was given to understand that if he publicly repudiated his father and sister he might get his commission back. Radulovich said that wasn't what Americanism meant to him. He refused to "cut his blood ties."

On the program, Murrow was never more magnetic in his stark portrait of America going dark: "Whatever happens in this whole area of the relationship between the individual and the State, we will do ourselves; it cannot be blamed upon [Soviet Premier Georgi] Malenkov, Mao Tse-tung or even our allies." There followed a public outcry. A few weeks later the Air Force announced on See It Now that Milo Radulovich had his commission back.

* * *

The McCarthy crowd was aroused. McCarthy's chief investigator, Don Surine, came up to me when we were covering the testimony of F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover. "Hey Joe", he said, "What's this Radwich junk you putting out?" I didn't need a road map to tell me there was trouble ahead. I started to say I had to rush off to the airport, but Surine cut me short. "What would you say if I told you Murrow was on the Soviet payroll in 1934?" he asked. "Come on up to the office and I'll show you."

He told me to wait outside McCarthy's staff office and soon reappeared with a photostat of a Hearst newspaper front page, dated February 18, 1935, containing an attack on the Institute of International Education for sponsoring a summer exchange program between American professors and their Soviet counterparts. The institute had the support of the leading educators in America; it conducted exchange seminars around the world. Murrow had been a 26-year-old up-and-comer in the I.I.E. and was merely mentioned in the Hearst "expose" of the institute's seminar at Moscow University.

But Moscow!! That was enough for McCarthy. His crowd had dug up "files" on everybody. The implication was clear. Murrow was now a full-fledged McCarthy target for having dared to broadcast the Radulovich story. But how was Murrow on the Soviet payroll? Surine's explanation was simplicity itself: The I.I.E. had to go through VOKS, the Soviet student exchange organization, they paid some of the expenses -- and that put the I.I.E. -- and Murrow -- on the Soviet payroll.

I asked if I could show the photostats to Mr. Murrow. Permission granted. "Mind you, Joe," Surine said, "I'm not saying Murrow's a Commie himself....but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- it's a duck."

Then came another weapon in the arsenal -- the threats against a family member. "It's a terrible shame," Surine said offhandedly. "Murrow's brother being a general in the Air Force." I could feel the hair rise on the back of my neck.

The next night, I brought the "expose" to Murrow. He was suffering a bad cold. He looked wan. He scanned the front page, reddened a bit, then a weak grin came over his face. "So that's what they've got," he said. It was the only time I ever heard Murrow privately or publicly concede that the fear with which McCarthyism was poisoning the soul of the nation had penetrated his soul as well.

But the next day, Murrow came up to me at the water fountain. He was over his cold. The pallor was gone. He drew his lips back and his large teeth looked ready to chomp a live bear. All he said was, "The question now is, when do I go against these guys?" Ed Murrow in a suppressed rage was a terrible thing to behold.

Over the next four months, while Murrow held the reins, Fred Friendly organized the material -- mostly devastating clips of McCarthy himself -- for the broadcast. What I remember most of that period were Murrow's comments on the kind of America he believed in. He said, "All I can hope to teach my son is to tell the truth and fear no man" And: "The only thing that counts is the right to know, to speak, to think -- that, and the sanctity of the courts. Otherwise it's not America." And: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

* * *

When we looked at the near-final cut of the McCarthy broadcast and the staff showed fear of putting it on the air, Murrow spoke a line that landed like a lash across our backs: "The terror is right here in this room." And later: "No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices." When someone asked what he would say on the McCarthy broadcast, he replied, "If none of us ever read a book that was 'dangerous,' nor had a friend who was 'different,' or never joined an organization that advocated 'change,' we would all be just the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants."

On the night of the broadcast, March 9, 1954, the night the spear was hurled against the terror that held America in thrall, Edward R. Murrow spoke words that should be handed down as legacy to every generation of Americans:

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."

Edward R. Murrow, the man I often addressed as "Father," was my last hero.

Back to Top of this Page              Prof. Bob Rucker Home Page