The Newsroom

When you look at both parties candidates and what they have to offer, experience leans in favor of team of Senator McCain and Governor Palin. Some may ask the “What if” question. In doing so, you would see that Governor Palin is experienced in running the largest state in the union. Her list of accomplishments in running this State is noteworthy. Yes, she is little known in the lower forty-eight but that is OK, her record speaks loudly of accomplishments from the position of Commander in Chief of her state military who she sent to war and followed them there to dealing with questionable politicians and their pork projects that she stopped. She has effectively dealt with her states lifeblood (oil) and assured her states residents have not been over taxed. Yes, she is a mother, a wife, and a very effective state official who’s leadership commands a reported 80% approval factor from the state she represents.

Her running mate, Senator McClain’s record speaks loudly and for itself. No other candidate can come close to matching his experience in every category of what it is perceived to take to become President.

On the other side of the isle, the Presidential candidate comes with nothing to offer but an interesting speech. No experience at leadership, has never chaired one meeting as a senator, has very questionable religious ties that pledge allegiance to his mother land Africa (ref: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm), has a demonstrated distaste for the American military, has elected to not support the Pledge, nor the nations flag and what it means and has publicly said he would favor the Muslims doctrine if pressed by actions. His very questionable ties to known radical and terrorists can not be good for America, today, tomorrow or ever. This kind of “change” that is boosted about is change we don’t need.

His highly experienced running mate comes with an interesting track record of foreign dealings by being wrong in his decisions 90% of the time during his public service.

Each voter must ask is America better today that it was 8 years ago. The Clinton years were an embarrassment from start to finish including impeachment and topped off by the furnishings that were taken from the Whitehouse on their departure. The economy was sitting on the edge of the dumpster. The only one who really benefited was a young lady named Monica. Now consider the events have come after these trying years and impacted America; 9/11, the war, the hurricane, the housing crash, and the price of fuels to mention a few. Our country has withstood but not without pain yet we have prevailed. New leadership is now about to take America down different paths into our future. As this trip begins it journey into our nation’s history, experience, leadership, accomplishment, ethics, patriotism, uncompromising fortitude all come to mind. It is these attributes that are a must for each party’s candidates that will assure America stays on course to greatness, giving to those who have need, leading in the fight for freedom for all. Only one team has met these challenges, without question is the team of McClain and Palin. Their proven and demonstrated record speaks loudly for itself and for the good of America. No one else comes close.

Mister Agnew returned the favor in a speech:

... The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power.

At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see and hear on their television sets.

Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad.

They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.

For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the ABM or civil rights -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.

It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge -- through news, documentaries, and specials. They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues overnight. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that’s the gift of their medium. They focus the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses -- on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national prominence.

Nor is their power confined to the substantive. A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.

Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.

Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism.

We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley states objectivity is impossible to normal human behavior. Rather, he says, we should strive for fairness.

Another anchorman on a network news show contends, and I quote: “You can’t expunge all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you. I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are. I’ll plead guilty to that.”

Less than a week before the 1968 election, this same commentator charged that President Nixon’s campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign balloons. He claimed that, were it not for the fear of hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote him exactly, “his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat axe.”

Had this slander been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan attack. But this attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement. The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government?

The views of the majority of this fraternity do not -- and I repeat, not -- represent the views of America. That is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the President’s address and how the networks reviewed it. Not only did the country receive the President’s speech more warmly than the networks, but so also did the Congress of the United States.

Yesterday, the President was notified that 300 individual Congressmen and 50 Senators of both parties had endorsed his efforts for peace. As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve.

Now I want to make myself perfectly clear. I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases.

The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late Justice Learned Hand that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. Advocates for the networks have claimed a First Amendment right to the same unlimited freedoms held by the great newspapers of America.

But the situations are not identical. Where The New York Times reaches 800,000 people, N.B.C. reaches 20 times that number on its evening news. [The average weekday circulation of the Times in October was 1,012,367; the average Sunday circulation was 1,523,558.] Nor can the tremendous impact of seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with reading the printed page ...

***********************

Wouldn't be interesting to run those numbers now. Networks would love to have that viewership again. The 24-hour news cycle was yet to come. Conservative talk radio was decades away. The question before the house: Was the news business better then, or now? Explain. Let's not always see the same hands.

Regarding the second half of your post, you could make it easier on your readers if you identified some of George Watson’s writings as opinion columns.