Media Curmudgeon

« Editorials and Commentaries | Main | More on Editorializing and Opinion in the News »

August 28, 2007

Neil Derrough Responds

Your most recent entry hits close to the nerve. As one that editorialized representing management's view for radio or television stations in San Francisco, New York, Chicago and San Diego it’s a subject I care a lot about. I take delight in describing our editorial point of view at KCBS News Radio in the latter sixties by the fact that we endorsed Ronald Reagan for Governor of California and the current mayor of Oakland Ron Dellums in his first race to be an Oakland Congressman. How far apart were they? I like to think I that I remain as opened minded.

By the way, it wasn’t dropping the Fairness Doctrine that lead to most stations not doing management editorials. I did them in San Diego until I left KNSD in 2000. Apathetic management and expense considerations are at the heart most it. I’m sure there are still some stations fighting the odds and continuing.

I have observed with great interest this labeling transition you refer to. A case can be made that it has been going on a lot longer that you think. I submit that during the glory days of CBS News that Walter Cronkite was right in the middle of unlabeled opinion during his nightly broadcasts. Many credit his coverage of the Viet Nam war as a major reason the public lost confidence in that conflict. Most would agree that it was all for the right reason but, still unlabeled commentary. That was a green light for media organizations to let opinion slip into their news coverage. After all, when the most trusted man in America could do it with such a significant impact, why not? Is it any wonder that with this backdrop that CBS News felt at ease letting personal opinion drift into their coverage?

The New York Times is one of the worst offenders. Their editorial opinion appears in their news coverage daily. I won’t bother and list the other publications that follow that same practice. I continue to be astounded about the outcry about Fox and talk radio. It seems that allowing other viewpoints to get into the discussion is hard to accept by those leading this assault. I was pleased to see that you made reference to the practice of both the right and the left. It’s so often ignored

You however, follow the same path that so many liberal/progressives do. You use words that must be aimed to be “demeaning and humiliate” to describe conservatives that you claim you want to have a “discussion.” It’s hard to interpret words like simplistic, doctrinaire, rigid, uncomplicated and less educated as an inducement to have a reasoned discussion. Trying to discredit the opposing viewpoint in this manner does not work today. Does the term elitist ring a bell? There are a lot of reasons that so many liberal broadcast efforts have failed. This attitude is a major contributing factor. To hope for any good to come from these heated discussions you refer to, there should at least be respect for allowing differing points of view and for those expressing it.

Our current Congress is locked into this same counter-productive position. There is little respect or interest in really dealing with the complex and difficult issues that face us today. For the biggest part, the driving force is political advantage. Gaining power or keeping it is primarily ruling us at this point.

The many differing voices will be noisy and somewhat unruly during this time of transition. It’s a part of our system of governing. I have confidence that while it won’t be easy, quick or always comfortable, we will be able to sort all this out and continue with our ongoing transition.

Posted by Charles Warner at August 28, 2007 06:55 PM

Comments

Post a comment