November 19, 1969

Television Guilty As Charged By Agnew

In the arsenal of dissent, ridicule is a boomerang.  Those who would use it must be expert or they will destroy themselves.

So it is in the controversy over Spiro Agnew's latest thunderbolt regarding bias of the television networks.

The free-wheeling press likes to make jokes about the vice-presidents "foot-in-mouth disease," his coloring books, his library of blank volumes.

Like him or not, Agnew is straight-forward and courageous.  He may rush in where angels fear to tread, but this doesn't make him a fool necessarily.

As a matter of fact, a substantial majority of Americans applaud Agnew.  Surveys last week reveal that the newly discovered silent majority believe Agnew tells it like it REALLY is.

Already an Agnew fan club is forming.  Assuming Nixon runs for a second term, the vice-president would have a dear run at the presidency seven years hence.  Thus you can expect to see on bumper stickers very soon the slogan, "The Spiro of '76."

Recent studies support Agnew's contention that the press in general, and television networks in particular, are guilty of slanting the news.

ITEM - A study commission reports that the television networks deliberately provoked some of the violence at Chicago during the Democratic convention in order to portray excitement.  Furthermore, the report says, the footage of TV film was edited to emphasize police reaction, but not the provocation.

ITEM - Michigan Senator Robert Griffin states that when he led the fight against the appointment of Democrat Abe Fortas to chief of the Supreme Court he begged without success for a little television time to explain his position.  Today, says Senator Griffin, the networks are begging me to take free time to enlarge upon his opposition to Republican Judge Clement Haynsworth.

ITEM - A Louis Harris poll published last September showed that three out of four viewers believed that "the camera can lie." About one-third said they could recall specific cases of unfairness, and gave the Democratic convention and race riots as examples.  Nearly half those surveyed leveled a "too full of violence" charge against television news.

ITEM - A second study commission, this one on campaign practices, declares that the emphasis of violence in the American press, particularly in television, "leads to an atmosphere encouraging political assassination."  The report fears that we may be moving into an area where murder of public officials will be frequent.

ITEM - The recent speech by President Nixon on the status of the Vietnam war speaks for itself.  Honestly, did YOU think it was as devoid of substance and progress as the TV commentators contended five minutes later?

I watched Nixon's speech on television and sampled the instant analyses of all three networks during the following half hour.

To start with, I don't know why comment was necessary - favorable or unfavorable.

The president spoke in the American language.  His words were of few syllables.  His points easily understandable.  His sincerity is undoubted.

Under these conditions, can't the president's message stand on its own feet?

Let's acknowledge that the compulsion to spout off instanter is strong in TV types.  My question now is, why is it necessary to downgrade the speech, and with obvious anger?

If the President's Vietnam policy has some weaknesses deserving to be pointed out, surely it has some strengths that should be mentioned.

Galling to most TV viewers, according to the polls, was the use of Averill Harriman, President Johnson's peace negotiator at Paris, by ABC to tear apart Nixon's speech.

Harriman failed to establish peace after a year of negotiation.  Obviously he had a prejudice in the discussion.  It was like asking a bankrupt to criticize the Chamber of Commerce.

What we NEED from commentators is background to help us make our own judgments.  What we GET is opinions from show-business personalities who are more interested in entertaining than in reporting.

The entertainment complex is the root of all television news evils, in my opinion.

Television grew from, and is nurtured by, the entertainment industry.  It is the nature of the beast.

With the exception of Walter Cronkite, who once was a newspaper managing editor, network commentators tend to be recruits from the ranks of actors and announcers.  On the whole local commentators are more objective.

The "star system" has been brought in from the movie studios.  This builds a following, but it makes demi-gods out of flashy mortals.

The defense of the press against Agnew's attack is one of righteous indignation - he advocates "censorship."

How silly!  Agnew only asked the networks to be more objective - not an unreasonable suggestion.

Apparently, fear is to be the next weapon used against Nixon and Agnew, now that ridicule didn't do the job.  The spectre of official censorship is abhorrent to Americans, but it had better be a real possibility or the silent majority will further deprecate the news media.

Behind the smoke screen of horror editorializing is a genuine shortcoming of the press.

Better that those of us in the profession straighten up and fly right than to drown the news institutions in reverse ridicule.

Author: Lindsey Williams