The First Amendment; Robert Baram

The eastern Public Radio Network in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s the host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard Reuben. My subject is to discuss some of the problems of the ethics of the press as seen through practical applications and I'm delighted to have as my guest Professor Robert Barron of Boston University who is well-known to WGBH listeners as a practitioner. Professor journalist of the H.R. Haldeman book the ends of power as you know was published by the book publishing side of the New York Times Times Books which is a wholly owned subsidiary and also peddled if that's the correct word to other newspapers and

magazines with a certain date publication suggested it's a controversial book one that has certain notorious qualities about it. And this work by H.R. Haldeman was broken in the Washington Post ahead of the official publication date and times then rushed its publication of it ahead and so on. But my question is something has to do with a more basic problem than that. I have a concern that the New York Times as a newspaper. Is in too closely a zone with the New York Times Company as a book publishing concern. No one is concerned with long range news but when they start to use the newspaper to funnel as new material which is inherently biographical no matter how salacious no no matter how many new tidbits appear. I'm worried that there is a conflict of interest and it seems to me that we

might consider whether a newspaper should have a wall of separation between its various interests so that its news operations are not connected with other activities. In this case it's a close activity. But as we know newspapers are into radio television sports company Lloyd's arrest What's your view on this. Well I I concur and much so I. I surely could point to the Times editorials over many many decades which I call for political figures to be like Calpurnia above reproach and one certainly would expect that a newspaper should also be so. It doesn't mean that they may not err occasionally and have to print a retraction. Nevertheless clearly some of the larger publications and i country such as New York Times and The Washington Post which fail to fit into the fortune top 500. Clearly if you view

them with care seem to be reacting not only to the news but to their own business interests as you say. And if we if we expect the press to bring us the news surely they they may be we may expect that they would have to divest themselves of certain interests unless they can as you say build that wall and rise above it. Those special interests we understand that this is not easy to do but we're not asking them to do something that's easy and they have such a special job in moving the flow of the news and interpret ing it and giving us opinion. And when the times commits itself to such actions why it took hold so the entire press up to the non credibility view of what is right now if I were a reporter an editor on The New York Times newspapers and I'm raising the theoretical point and I somehow got a hold of a galley of the book being

published by The Times books as a newspaper man I think it's almost my my duty to scoop every other newspaper in town. On the other hand if I'm an editor and or a publisher and I know that times books is about to feed me on a certain day six months hence. A book manuscript on which they intend to make a lot of money we intend to make a lot of money by by peddling it around to different organs of the press. Then I might actually look forward to a certain day when I know nudes of a certain definite type is going to happen. I think this is sudden unscrupulousness about the whole affair. Yes I've always felt that in competitive circumstances that the press is no less ever Rishis than our politicians and demagogues. And this is tragic. It would be as if doctors and perhaps a coarsest function this works in reality Kasia only as it doctors in the field of

medicine deliberately attempted to wound the other. The other one Dr. Deming and the other doctors patients said that the recovery rate might not look as good. It's observed that two of the so-called Greatest newspapers the top 10 less newspapers in the country should involve themselves in what as you alluded to at the early part of the broadcast was what I think the times are an All Time magazine called a second rate burglary about a third rate burglary right. I mean imagine these these giants as we say of the press stooping not to conquer but to to actually lose their face in in the in terms of those of us who expect them to function above and not below the standard you know raises questions about checkbook journalism as well because on the one hand an organ of the New York Times companies if you want to put it that way is contracting.

If I'm correct with H.R. Halderman paying him a huge fee to get possession of this material and on the other hand the newspapers had is committed to the protection of that investment. It almost makes you think of that British Limerick you cannot bribe or twist the journalist but seeing what you can do without the two. Why bother. Dreadful to have to say that. But here as I said two of the giants of journalism playing in fald sandbox about the New York Times how the mighty are flailing is a perhaps one way to put it. Another story that I want to bring to your attention for your comment are these photographs which appeared and I'm now referring to early February 1978 a tragic kidnapping took place. Luckily it ended well. Every kidnapping is tragic of a young 11 year old daughter of a New York clothes

designer named Calvin Klein who paid $100000 in a ransom. He had to make a telephone call. Later the kidnappers where the alleged kidnappers were were caught and a photograph of him appeared. Photographs not just one in the New York Daily News or The Daily News of New York City showing him in the phone booth with what is said to be the money under his arm which he was willing to pay to for the being reunited with his child. At what point do journalists cease to stoop. Well fortunately not all publications not all that it is would urge their reporters and our photographers to do what the news did here the news is typical of the publications in our country over a long period of time that have given the word tabloid a rather Jon dissed

appearance. As they States that this is a case of get the story and damn the torpedoes but damn the human beings and any kind of feeling about privacy. Surely we have to pursue and we have to be in hot pursuit of news and of information but we don't have to at the same time hurt human beings in the process unless they are hurt by the exposure of that information in the due process of gathering the news. But this is was clearly above and beyond not the call of duty but the call of well of what we used to refer to a line of yellow journalism tabloids such as the news that are hungry for circulation that exist primarily in circulation even though they do get advertising the ratio of advertising income to circulation is no comparison to that of many of the what we call successful standards. They have to keep pumping up that circulation in order to do it. They commit acts which such as next case surely cannot be considered

to be qualitative journalism. No matter how you measure another third down I'm having this little series for you is what was your impression of the failure of most of the Boston television stations during the great storm of 78 to deal with the needs of the Hispanic community in the greater metropolitan Boston area as a perhaps not atypical of other metropolitan communities that are faced with disasters. There was virtually no language broadcasting on television. It could be understood by people whose only language is Spanish. And how did that occur. Well I don't believe it was deliberate that it was an anti Spanish speaking action. I believe this is a clear case of where you had a number of stations. That did not appreciate and still do not fully appreciate their audience in the sense of existence. It's not unique for some editors not to realize the changes taking place

in their own circulation area or broadcast area and when they do why some individuals remain what I think is Ralph Ellison who wrote the book about was it the disappointment. Yes and these can these groups remain invisible as you well know from your own study of politics and sociology and the dynamics there in that one people feel as though they're invested well and ignored and as though they don't exist. This does not necessarily make them feel too good about the community in which they live. And surely this was a case of as I say a not deliberate. But of poor journalism the failure to know that community you know even if you have something is simplistic if you will as a map saying what groups live in these areas it's regrettable perhaps that we do have these cliffs kind of get it was ation as they say but it exists and we know it and our job and in journalism my job and and political science isn't there run away from reality but the study and try to understand it. And if you look there

all you would you would have do is look at that map and say my gosh we have ignored the portion of our population and we'd have known it. And that portion would have at least felt that the storm did not bypass them and also hit their neighborhood. Is it possible Bob that some editors and publishers by instinct have relegated again not deliberation he or nothing malevolent that that was deliberate but by instinct or by tradition or by their own habits have relegated many communities to feature article. Status and they feel that they're covering those communities because they could remember for Sundays back that they had a biography of a leading Hispanic woman or a black man or something of that nature. Well they feel that they have had to feature stories on Chinese cooking and one on Chinese housing. Is there a mentality there. Well again as I said I don't believe it's deliberate but surely there is

something we might call a journalistic tokenism wherein you occasionally throw a three page four page for take if you will bone to a community and you say see we cover them too and and you're quite right it very often is in the feature area or as a community group will tell you only when something bad happens as they say and then they forget us until something else that's bad that happens. I might say on that score in terms of one of the major problems I believe in the press in this particular area is that still we don't have enough reporters really covering our our local areas. We just done we are inundated by columnists. We have more columnists in the press than Suffolk Downs horses. You know a lot of that is called investigative reporting but it's not always a right he has oh yes well it's worse than that. It's usually what what the young people of a generation just passed called an ego trip. And I don't mean we don't have some good columnists. We do but a

great many of them really are. They they talk about a world which exists only in terms of their own experience period. They show a lack of appreciation or they talk about all individuals as if they relate only to the group they move about with. They show no inclination to do research digging reporting what they want to do is merely tell you what they think what their opinions and I'm not saying that. It will do it too. We all do. It's much harder to do research as you well know. But without that research all we would have is opinion and no way really of determining whether what we're saying has real value beyond that of sounding good and that the weakness of Boston journalism and or the global sum of the globe that it is admitted this indeed the way the major weakness is in its lack of coverage all of what we would call the inner city not just the heart of Boston but in the contiguous areas as well

because we just don't have enough reporters to do that and we were competing with television the super marketing of the news is common now in which you have as you say a great many features soft news pleasant news delightfulness. Because you're competing with a medium that is an entertainment vehicle is very successful and you have special sections on sports as if sports is not covered enough. I mean it's covered and uncovered and uncovered but not again journalistically. It's sort of like playing again in a game in which you do sweet and lovely articles about individuals you make heroes of them and you will you give far less space to the coverage of the state house on almost any given day than you will to what the Bruins did a whether the Red Sox will have or you know the right left left handed to be in the bullpen. I'm not saying I don't like sports. I do and I think there should be coverage because there is great interest but clearly the press itself generates a

tremendous amount of an arrest and it and it then complains about the apathy of the people in voting day. They don't complain about the apathy of people going out to see the Red Sox. What you're suggesting is all too true and that is that there is. I like to repeat your phrase super marketing of the news in imitation of electronic journalism today or electronic entertainment. And also the concept that that you don't have to report something. You could make it into a feature now there. There have been statements for example Walter Cronkite and I'm not holding Walter Cronkite up as as the great man of television but he is a respectable man. He realizes the the importance of the anchor person. I think I think John Chancellor does as well. And they're not alone in this as as people who are not essentially reporters anymore but presenters interlocutors. Mr. Bones What do you think about this and so on and so forth. He said that we are speaking of the networks that they would like to have an hour for

the network news rather than a half an hour is only a question of money that holds it back. He said We don't want to do more items we want to do items in more depth. He said if we had five items we would do in more depth. Now today we have a half hour of the network news half hour of the of the local news. And one of the local Boston television stations they feature is a newsman and individual who does nothing but comedic routines. Yes now he is not all to Cronkite he's Dr Cronkite from the old. I was a Smith and Dale retaining and even the cave in his comedy isn't there and important minutes of the few of the few minutes that we have for news are snatched away by a comedy routine. But this is this is the game of television news as you know it is the great the great portion of it is designed to be entertainment. However good or bad it may be it is designed to titillate to excite to and to

eliminate to rally and by to inform occasionally it is a de hydrated kind of operation in which you get instant capsule of the you know headline headlining which you're fed to people like placebo's who think then that they are informed this is a this is a tragedy. Who then speak in headline jargon of themselves as if they really appreciate the complexity of the world in which we live. I'm not saying. As some editors will say well if you give the people our They won't stay with you you know they'll leave you what they're saying of course then is that they won't they won't get the ratings say. Well it would be as have a doctor said I will ignore the people because they don't appreciate me and will close down the hospitals because a lot of the people they don't they don't get a yearly check up on time etc so

to hell with them. Well we were supposed to have standards which do not bend at the whim of those who do not have standards or who cannot perhaps see the eye of the hurricane. And what is around it. We're supposed to say it for them and tell them if they don't do anything with it that's their right. At least we can say we've done what we were supposed to Bob. Is there a way back by the way I want to say the usual thing that is a shibboleth we have the best press in the world American people get more news than any other people and so on. But there are some worrying things happening. Is there a way back. We were discussing just before we went on the air and I'd like you to go into the Jody Powell statement at Boston University about what went on in Poland and the significance of that. Well Powell was here as you know about three three or four weeks ago and he spoke to some students a goodly number about 500 in the standing room only crowd at Boston University. And one of the number of and speaking engagements he had there and it one point

he was asked about the Polish fiasco in the translation. And he said I'm not quoting a verbatim but very closely that this was a that this was overdone by the press which surprised many individuals. And he said that the American press was at a party thrown by they fall down by they poll their Polish counterparts and and the publicity people. Who he said fed the American press well cool vodka. And he said the American press was drunk. Now you may not have meant you know drunk to the point of the absurd. But what he was saying was that he said this was the I think the biggest hype job that he had seen in a long time. So I wanted you know when the last time was it that happened. Now this was picked up by the Globe Powell then denied saying it. What he didn't realize was that one of the classes at the school had an assignment to cover it and to tape it. So they had him on tape. And there is no question that he said it. Now I feel that in this

instance if he was wrong the pressure let us know so because they they cover for us we can't pop around with the president all the time. They're supposed to be covering for us. And I'm not saying they should go to cocktail parties and I appreciate him martini and a gin and tonic occasionally do. But by golly they're supposed to be working and giving us as close a picture of what happens as possible. And if they are as he said and given hype jabs that way I'd like to know it and then I perhaps they could have the top of a news story that day you know sort of read Katha lay off every other line plays are of avoid the semi-colons. I bet for goodness sake the press shouldn't just avoid this and I feel by avoiding it seriously the press is in a sense saying to us that maybe their reporters were a little taken here. And not only do they get lubricated by their hosts in Poland but I was reading not long ago that the young man who was

castigated for doing the so called awful translation of the president's remarks standing on the tarmac of the NATO that he had been standing there for quite some time in rather dreadful cold and the shape of papers that contain the president's remark was literally thrust upon him at the very last moment and with his teeth virtually chattering he had to make out almost instantaneous translation. And there are nuances there. The press people knew that some of them knew that but they ran away with the story it seemed that that they connected it with the early use of the word lost by President Carter here the word lust appears again. It seemed like an inside joke even though international relations were at stake. The problem could have been cleared up very quickly but it wasn't it wasn't I mean us in the best sense about something that has been used in the worst sense. You know it was you. I think that the press saw it as a Polish joke which is tragic

tragic not because this art is true there within this window dressing to every presidential trip there is sun. But there are also maybe some very important overtures and on the chairs if I may abuse the language. And I think the pressure to be aware of that and as you say. Not merely react because of the lust factor which goes back to the Playboy article and play play games with it because they tracked it almost completely from any kind of import that one could could place on that on that visit and I are what I'm saying as I said to you is that it. I think Powell was wrong for denying it. I think he was a fool for denying it. Because if that's what he said and I think the press by playing this down very heavily especially what Paul said indicates to me that perhaps the vodka was well cooled and the story we got was even colder. Is there a way back in again let me say again because I don't want anybody to misinterpret we have some

very distinguished newsmen in all of the news organs whether it's electronic will print a very distinguished fair share. But is there a way back from the imitations which has been debilitating for the entire profession. Does the profession have standards now that make sense when a newspaper publisher or editor is trying to imitate Channel 4 5 7 on the television set. I'm afraid not. I'm afraid not. And I'm not just trying to be a cynical for the sake of cynicism not at all. The First Amendment precludes it. The First Amendment which I incidentally don't want revised but that First Amendment says in effect not only not only does it protect us but it also opens up the gate as some say to the charlatans to the to those who would use the First Amendment for everything they can milk from it for example. Very quickly you made a read about the individual that they cut a press conference when he was in Rhode Island this during this last week and a young man there

who had no credentials whatsoever as a junior in college. He got in by just by using his own devices in telephone calls. And when he got there he even got to as one of the questions of the president which disturbs some of the reporters very much and when he was talked about when he was talked to as to how he got in and all he said I definitely use some what's the word for Nagle ing the kind of thing reporters would use now. It's it's a shame. It's like the news point. There are individuals who not only will find the First Amendment beacon. That will help to bring light to people but individuals who will use it as a hot flame. And yes to burn the skin from people who are already burned terribly So you're implying then that the lead's and obvious cynicism of government about government by the public on

behalf of the public is also there about the press. I do think so yes very much so. Yes there are some many individuals around the press who really have no business being there who don't take it seriously I don't we seriously in a in an undertaker's tone version not at all. But you don't realise how serious it is and who use it for their own purposes not to move information not doing to lighten in and form by no means but merely to use it as their own box. And I'm talking about. Left right or extreme center is John Chancellor says that not just talking about one group we talk about the Spanish speaking population in Boston. Local news coverage. We hope at one time that the alternative press will take up part of this. But they also there are a feature there of what we call a hot feature outfit too. It's cheaper to be a teacher I would say loads it seek out news easier it's easier. Of course you need more editors and less money for telephone calls and for gasoline and we'll look at the Haldeman thing that we that you know we touched upon the globe use

it front page above the fold the Herald used the series of three on it and then the Globe and The Herald and some of the other newspapers wrote the kind we did use it front page and in heavy dosage. What did they do then they had editorials telling us how ridiculous it was to have another book that really didn't add anything to the news. But they used it. What do you think that you and I should collaborate on a book about Watergate with the true inside details the salacious conversations in the White House. Based upon the premise that we weren't there at all and that nothing in our book will be in any way connected to the truth. We have been rather blunt about the present hope our colleagues will take it in the best spirit and if they don't I hope that they will improve anyhow. Once again Bob Arum it's always a pleasure having you for today. Verna driven. The eastern Public Radio Network in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. As president of the First Amendment and the Free People Weekly

examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s the program is produced in the studios of WGBH Boston. This is the eastern Public Radio Network.