WSU Presents; 941; Television Disease, April 18, 2001, The Edward R. Murrow Symposium

Welcome to the year 2001 Murrow Symposium. I'm Alex Tan, director of the Edward R. Morris School of Communication at Washington State University. The students, faculty, staff, advisory board, alumni, and friends of the Murrow School are pleased to bring to you this year's program and award ceremony. Tonight we honor a truly remarkable individual and journalist who will be introduced later in the program. At this point, I would like to read to you a message from Casey Murrow, Edward R. Murrow's son. On behalf of the Murrow family, please convey congratulations to Bernard Shaw on receiving the Edward R. Murrow Award. He is surely a worthy recipient. I am only sorry that I could not be there to witness the award and Mr. Shaw's speech. The Murrow Symposium is a national forum for the discussion of important communication, social, political, and public policy issues. It is also a

venue by which Washington State University and the Murrow School recognize the contributions of individuals and organizations for the preservation of Edward R. Murrow's ideals and professional standards. The symposium is made possible by the support of the Saul and Dai-ye Haas Foundation and Washington State University. The school takes pride in bearing Edward R. Murrow's name. We also take his legacy seriously. Our objective is to educate communication professionals who will exemplify the highest ethical and professional standards set by Edward R. Murrow more than five decades ago. To begin... Edward R. Murrow came from a tiny hamlet in northwest Washington. He shaped his ideals and values as a student at Washington State College and in Europe, and through his style of journalism, changed the way we look at the world.

Ed Murrow was an inspiration, not just to his generation, but to future generations of journalists to come. And for those of us who were lucky enough to work with him, he was our mentor. Ed Murrow made it plain to all of us who have been lucky enough to follow him at CBS News that he was a reporter with a conscience, that accuracy, fairness, and the courage to face down pressure from government, from big business, pressure from power, is the sure sign of a good journalist. He had his run-ins with all of the above, and he never lost his way. His fresh eyes, his eloquence, and his willingness to go in harm's way made him a reporter's reporter, and I can think of no higher tribute. Murrow joined CBS in 1935 and was soon stationed in London. He brought World War II into American living rooms. Just overhead now, the burst of the anti-aircraft fire. Still the nearby guns

are not working. ...almost directly overhead... Now you'll hear two bursts a little nearer in a moment. There they are. That was hard, exploding sound. From Hear It Now on radio, to See It Now on television, Murrow expanded journalistic horizons with his courage to stand up against Senator Joseph McCarthy and his investigation into the plight of migrant workers in Harvest of Shame. Edward R. Murrow's professionalism, his integrity, his courage are well-known, but I want you to think about another of his qualities. He was a progressive. He experimented with television, I think the popular phrase is, he pushed the envelope. He did things that hadn't been done before, and he did them successfully. Murrow left CBS in 1961 and worked for the Kennedy administration as head of the United States Information Agency. He was knighted by the Queen of

England and in 1964 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. A pioneer in education through mass communications, he has brought to all of his endeavors the conviction that truth and personal integrity are the ultimate persuaders of men and nations. His legacy does not need my endorsement, but I cannot imagine broadcast journalism without the early formative years of Edward R. Murrow. His ethics, his values, his dedication to the essence of the craft of this business, of reporting what he was seeing in a way in which he did it factually, but at the same time in a way the whole country could understand what it was that he was talking about and come to care about those events, however separated they may have been from them.

I think it honors his memory far more to say, not let's do it exactly as Edward R. Murrow did it, but let's do it the way Edward R. Murrow might do it today. His devotion to the truth and his fearlessness in going after it and then broadcasting it has set a standard that is going to live as long as journalism itself, I'm sure. Good night and good luck. Good evening. The Edward R. Murrow Award recognizes the person or organization who exemplifies, through service or performance, the professional ideals of Edward R. Murrow. As you've just learned, Ed Murrow graduated from Washington State College in 1930, and it was with a bachelor's degree in speech, and he was recognized for his outstanding scholarship and his student leadership here, being president of the student body at Washington State. In

1962, he earned WSU's highest honor, the Regents Distinguished Alumnus Award, and in 1946 he was awarded a WSU honorary degree, doctor of law degree. He's regarded, as you've learned, as broadcasting's, one of broadcasting's most illustrious journalists. And he was credited with making broadcast journalism respectable, courageous, and sincere. In short, Edward R. Murrow established the standards to which broadcast professionals nationwide now aspire. From the radio broadcasts from London during World War II to his path-breaking news program See It Now, to his public service role as director of the USIA under John F. Kennedy, Murrow was a man of integrity and of vision. In today's complex media environment, where news comes through many sources, the Internet, the cell phone, satellite broadcasts, local, national, and international radio,

television, as well as traditional newspapers and magazines, competition for our attention alone has made the challenge difficult for those who bring us the news to stay focused on the kind of ideals that Edward R. Murrow espoused. Ed Murrow reminded those in the communications professions, and we citizens who depend on what they do for us, that the communication profession is charged with the responsibility to ensure our common humanity. Many students in this room were born well after Ed Murrow left us in 1965. It is fitting, I think, to give a glimpse of the kind of broadcaster he was. Ed Murrow never minced his words. His most pointed remarks in fact were about television, the subject of our speaker, Bernard Shaw, tonight. When See It Now, the program that some have ranked as the most respected television serial

documentary ever produced, was cancelled by CBS, Murrow was not silent. In a speech that was reported across the nation, this is what he said about the future of television broadcasting: Unless we get off of our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it may see a totally different picture too late. I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch Wailing Wall where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture in our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate, yes, it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it

to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Our previous winners of the Murrow Award espouse Ed Murrow's ideals of vigilance and responsibility in all of journalism's many forms. These winners include Sam Donaldson in 1997, 29-year veteran of ABC News. Walter Cronkite in 1998, longtime CBS broadcaster who earned the moniker "the most trusted man in America". Washington's own Frank Blethyn, board chair of the Seattle Times, the Walla Walla Union Bulletin, and the Yakima Herald Republic. In 1999, Keith Jackson, nationally renowned ABC sportscaster and WSU alumnus, and Al Neuharth, who built the Gannett publications and founded USA Today. And in the year 2000, Ted Turner, chief operating officer of Turner Broadcasting and creator of CNN, the Cable News Network. It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the College of Liberal Arts and the Edward R. Murrow School

of Communication to welcome you here tonight, along with Alex Tan and our President Lane Rawlings, who has a message for you now, following in the video. I want to express my regrets tonight at being unable to be with you personally on a great night for a great award. The Murrow School of Communication is one of the stars in our crown here at Washington State University. And they very carefully select the recipients for these awards. We give awards for a lot of reasons. We give awards in recognition of accomplishment. But we also give them to set a, set a goal for our students, to try to get them to reach to the heights that some of these great stars have reached. And it's with great pleasure that we are able to give an award to Bernard Shaw. I think he joins wonderful company. Your name will be associated always with that of Edward R.

Murrow, which we think is one of the best names in the business. And I'm old enough to remember his broadcasts, and read in one of the biographical sketches of Mr. Shaw that he too watched Edward R. Murrow as a, as a young boy. Also Walter Cronkite and Keith Jackson and Sam Donaldson and others who will carry this award. It's a very special award. It's a very special school. Under the leadership of Alex Tan and others who preceded Alex, we have ach.., achieved many great goals. It's, it's a great honor for us to have you here. I again say I'm sorry that I couldn't be with you. When I think of Bernard Shaw, I guess the first thing that I always think of is that wonderful voice, that wonderful, deep, resonant voice. And the perfect grammar. I don't believe I ever heard a grammatical error, and I am a news junkie. I watch this all the time.

But more than that, I think your willingness to take on a tough story, your courage, your exemplary behavior as a leader in the field, makes you a perfect recipient of this award. Congratulations. Bernie Shaw at CNN, he was like Adam and Eve, present at the creation. You can depend on us being here all the time. And please, pass the word. All the time? Yes, all the time. Take a minute and remember the last 20 years. You hear his voice. Details are very sketchy at this moment. We are told that shots were fired at his party as he left the hotel. Bernie and Saddam Hussein. You say that if God wills war, there will be war. What is going to happen? Then he reported on what happened. The skies over Baghdad have been illuminated. This is thunder, this is lightning, this is death. This is hell. We were just told by the government of China that the government will pull the plug.

That is why we're rushing to get our report on the air to you. The Chinese government did shut down the satellites. CNN gave tape to departing travelers, fed video freeze frames on fax machines. Bernie kept telling the world what was happening. He covered everything. An earthquake in Los Angeles. But there is no visible panic in the streets, in fact there're not people in the streets, it's just, I'm surprised that the switchboard and the phones are working in the hotel, because it really was a big one. Wars. Earthquakes. The death of a princess. He was in a hotel across from the palace where Diana had lived. And I would go across the road into Kensington Garden. And at 2, 3, 4 in the morning, no exaggeration, people were bringing flowers, bouquets, roses. And the flowers just continued to stack up. The Oklahoma City bombing.

One thought about the people in this state, these Oklahomans. They are tough people, they have pride, they're deeply religious. They have what I like to call loving grit. I do not think one terrorist bomb, with all the carnage, will shatter either the faith or the future of the people of Oklahoma. He has covered just about everything and interviewed just about everybody. All these folks, among others. He has covered everything, but politics was always special. Without a second thought, my favorite program, and this is heresy to say, but my favorite program in all of television, not just on my favorite network, CNN, my favorite program is Inside Politics. Five days a week, for an entire hour, nothing but politics. Of course, the greatest time for us is during a presidential campaign year. An early memory, the GOP convention in 1980. I knew I had finished a cut in... a chance to come in, to come down... and we were the only

ones in the hall, to the point that the hall was darkened except for the lights on the stage and of course our lights way up there in the rafters. I looked in and who was walking out on the stage but Ronald Wilson Reagan, "the great communicator" they called him. And what he was doing was coming into the hall to rehearse his acceptance speech. So I quickly told Atlanta what was going on. And we put it on the air live. Bernie has always liked to do things that startle the interviewee. His most famous may have been to Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988. Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer? Dukakis, who needed to show some emotion, didn't. No, I don't, Bernard. And of course he's anchored the amazing puzzle of this campaign and its aftermath.

Well, if you're just joining us, just waking up, I hate to sound repetitious but assuming that you might be getting up and wondering, Are these people still here? Yes, we are. What is it about Bernie? Judy Woodruff, his co-anchor, knows him better than most. And what makes me so comfortable with him is that he's completely knowledgeable about the story. He's completely professional in his approach to talking to the audience. He's articulate, he's, he's enthusiastic, he's smart. I mean you pull it all together and he's the consummate television newsman. Good evening. It is my distinct pleasure and honor to introduce our Murrow awardee and speaker tonight. As you've seen from the CNN video tribute and from the congratulatory, congratulatory message of President Lane Rawlings, we are honoring a truly remarkable person. Bernard Shaw is

arguably the most watched anchor person in television history. At the height of the Persian Gulf War, Mr. Shaw's audience for his legendary on-the-spot reporting from Baghdad reportedly exceeded one billion worldwide. A member of the CNN anchor team since the network's inception in 1980, Mr. Shaw defined the cable network from the very beginning. Tom Hannon, who worked with Mr. Shaw as CNN senior Washington producer since 1981, had this to say about him: When we started, Bernie was CNN, he is the public face of the network. He brought a unique journalistic understanding of events and the highest standard of ethics and professionalism. And Bernie's a true gentleman. It's hard to imagine this place without Bernie. Bernard Shaw has covered many of the world's most important events in the last 20 years. He was one of only two anchored, network anchors in China when the Tiananmen demonstrations began in 1989. He was one of the first reporters to file a

story from Guyana on the mass suicides at Jonestown. His reporting and anchoring have taken him to 46 countries spanning five continents. Bernard Shaw has won almost every major award in journalism and broadcasting. And tonight we honor him with one more, which we hope will have special meaning for him since it comes from the alma mater of the person after whom he modeled his career. Mr. Shaw is indeed right out of the Murrow mold for the straightforward, quality journalism this award has come to represent. Mr. Shaw, would you please come forward? On behalf of Washington State University and the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication, it is my

pleasure to present you with the Murrow Award for Excellence in Broadcasting. ... To be in the house of Murrow. It's really something. Ron Hopkins, thank you very much. And in absentia, President Rawlings, thank you, Casey Murrow, ladies and gentleman. I can tell you very candidly that I left one Washington to come to the real

Washington. And you know how I knew I was in the real Washington? This morning at 7:45, I was reading the Evergreen. And on page 15, guess what I saw. A want ad. You may have seen it, some of you. It said "wanted: adult softball scorekeepers." I knew I was in the real Washington. Who is it, Matthew Weaver, writes a commentary piece for the, for the Evergreen? Alex Tan and members of the faculty and Ron, I don't know whether you are aware of it, but he said apparently you folks didn't

know that he was available to receive this honor. And the implication from Matt's piece was that, "if only you had asked". This is remarkable. Well, if this is a special evening for you, it is grandly special for me. Forty-eight years ago, I was a 13-year-old growing up in Chicago. It was 1953. The year before our family bought its first television set. Black and white. A 12- inch Sylvania floor model. Baseball games came into our apartment through this box of wires and light, and so did wrestling. So did Howdy Doody, Omnibus, Studio 1, and Edward R. Murrow.

Never was news a casual interest for me. Always, it seems, news was my passion. Partly because Chicago, I think, was the best news town in the world. And partly because my father would read the city's four daily news papers plus two weeklies, quiz me from time to time, and dodge, dodge my mother's complaints about newspaper clutter and the smell of newsprint. And when television came to the family Shaw, I tried to watch everything Murrow did. See It Now, Person to Person. Those specials, the documentaries, the McCarthy reporting, and sometimes I would stay in and not play baseball, and yes I stood up a few dates to watch

Murrow. Yes, some of my friends thought me a strange kid. This man was my inspiration. So was Walter Cronkite. Later, many people I came to know, to have as friends, and to work with were Murrow's colleagues. Of course Cronkite among them. The last CBS News correspondent Murrow hired, Marvin Kalb, interviewed me on C-SPAN with college students asking questions several weeks ago. Sitting in the front row was Richard C. Hottelet. Ed Bliss, a man who's been on this campus, a news writer, producer, and editor with few equals, was at my farewell party at the Corcoran Art Gallery a few weeks ago in Washington. Another of the Murrow boys had doubts about my decision to step back from CNN and the news business.

Last month a letter came postmarked Marco Island, Florida. The letter began "Dear Bernie. It is just the weekend and we already notice the feeling of loss as we fool with the dial." Well, that touched me. I blinked back tears as I read more of Howard K. Smith's words. "At first I was mystified by your decision," he wrote. And then he went on to say he understood. And Howard K. Smith ended by saying we hope to see you somewhere after not too long an interlude. Now, as some of you may know, Howard K. Smith has shown proficiency in job counseling. As we saw in the video, President Kennedy wanted Murrow to become director of the United States Information Agency. Writing in the Murrow biography, "An American Original", author Joseph Persako tells of Murrow doubting

he should do it because he had been very critical of JFK. Howard finally said, "Ed, eating your words is the main diet in this town. Take the job." You know, as for me, we'll come to know if Howard's thought of seeing me somewhere, happens. Television disease. Television disease. One symptom is meeting the numbers. Bottom line profit. Television can make SO much money doing its worst, it cannot afford to do its best. Fred Friendly said that, and he said it decades ago. He was right then, and he's right now. So was Murrow in that 1958 Chicago speech in which he confessed to being frightened -- listen to

that word, frightened -- by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Ladies and gentlemen, none of us, none of us would willingly allow a burglar into our homes to harm us and steal from us. Yet each day and each night, most of us who watch it submit, submit to television. We permit it to invade our homes, insult our intelligence, and to undermine our preciously important responsibility of loving, training, raising, and educating our children. We are willing victims of television disease. Worst of all, we have the cure. Worse than that, we don't use it.

Now this is not a rumbling criticism on the fringes, away from New York and Hollywood, distant from people who know the industry. There is a lot of garbage on TV. The words of the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the biggest cop on the federal block, whose charge is to regulate television and radio stations in our great country, Michael Powell says garbage. Can the situation be described more clearly and succinctly? Hardly. Now if the FCC chairman thinks and says that, the state of television cannot sink lower. Powell was talking to TV Guide, and during that interview a few weeks ago, Chairman Powell underscored the cure, the cure to television disease.

Consumers, watchers of television, always have had it. It is your voice of condemnation. Your voice expressed to every radio and television station statewide, nationwide, and every television and radio network. Most important, every advertiser must become your target of discontent. Believe me, the very idea of that scares the hell out of companies, corporations that advertise. They are scared of unhappy customers, because they stop buying products. When that happens, sales go down. When that happens, so do profits, and that affects the bottom line at corporate and on Wall Street.

And then stockholders take out their long knives, an economic chain reaction that Americans seem historically reluctant to set off. Have you ever asked yourself or wondered why American consumers in the United States don't say "Enough of this. Time to act!"? Ever thought about that? I don't think it's because they don't care. I think Americans, the frontline of this intensely industrialized and highly technological society, are too busy with their lives and raising their families, and they have therefore taken a detour. After all, parents now have the internet to deal with, so many don't watch television. And they use their

remote control, or when they do they watch it VERY selectively. Now some criticize the FCC chairman's viewpoint on solutions. But I would fail my role as your speaker and honoree tonight if I did not quote him on solutions. Quote, I've never understood why things as simple as turning it off, controlling your children's television access, and all the things I try hard to do in my house are not part of the answer to this question. Part of the answer. I think the brunt of the answer is for you, for me, to be unforgiving. Because American television viewers have been commercially brutalized for too long by this television disease.

If you simply stop watching and stop buying the products companies advertise on offensive programs, and then let those companies and TV stations know why you're doing it, your impact would have quantum force. Quantum force. That is how you dispose of garbage. Disposing of distortion is a different matter. Distortion inflicted upon you by a different element of television. News. Yes, news, my specialty. To put it quite broadly, news departments and local TV stations have programmed their audiences to assume that crime is pervasively normal, intense, and forever. Ever get that impression?

Newscasts routinely lead with crime stories so feverishly reported, teased, and underscored that citizen paranoia about crime and perceived criminals and stereotypes are indelible in the public psyche. The Federal Bureau of Investigation faithfully reports crime statistics. And the FBI has consistently noted recent downward trends in crime nationwide. Who can say that trend is reflected in television news reporting? A media think tank, the Berkeley Media Studies Group, has a new report out that says newspapers and television stations are bombarding the public with images of black and Latino young men breaking the law with violent acts, even though, even though the crime rate for both groups is falling. The author of the study, Lori Dorfman, says people rely

on the news media for accurate information. When it comes to crime, youth, and people of color, they're getting confusing rather than clarity. Part of the story, not the whole story. Just two statistics from this report: Between 1990 and 1998, network news coverage of homicides increased 473 percent, while homicides decreased nearly 33 percent during that time. And this one: from 1993 to 1999, homicides committed by young people declined by 68 percent. Yet, yet, 62 percent of the public reported they believed youth crime was rising. I found a study of Indianapolis newspapers to be very interesting.

According to that report, on Indianapolis newspapers, if a suspect in a violent crime was black, the average news article length was longer. Another finding was that newspapers rarely reported crime when the suspect was white. Ladies and gentlemen, regrettably last November, I was part of one of the most egregious acts of news media distortion, which you saw. You heard it. You felt it. You were confused, saddened, and angered by the television network election night coverage. I remember reporting Gore had won

Florida. No, it was Bush. Bush has won Florida. No, it's, it's too close to call. Believe me, I am not comforted, not comforted for one nanosecond, by the fact that all networks committed the same journalistic crime against accuracy. We all did it because all of us use the same source for exit polling data to make our projections. CNN launched a major investigation and now has in place new procedures and backup independent polling plan to ensure that never again, never again will such mistakes happen. The other networks also have moved to prevent this happening again. But, to an immeasurable extent,

that night we lost, we lost some of what is most precious to any journalist or news agency. We lost credibility with our viewers. We lost credibility with our listeners. Credibility is all we have. Credibility is all we have. Lose it, and you might as well take down your shingle. That was the most regrettable night of my career. Congress had every right, every right to haul television network executives before a committee and demand explanations to the American people. We are accountable because ours is a crucial role in this democracy. We are accountable because

ours is a crucial role in this precious democracy. The First Amendment is not a security blanket from mistakes and inaccuracy. You know, I wonder what Murrow would have done and said that November 7th night. There we were, intoxicated with the fever of competition, rushing, rushing to be first. To all of you who see me and can hear my voice, to all of you majoring in journalism and communications, never ever forget this: Being second and right is better than being first and wrong. ...

... Edward R. Murrow inspired me. From that inspiration when I was 13 years old to this moment of honor in his name tonight, his spirit has been most real. Murrow's spirit will be unforgiving and disrespected if we fail to be the people's honest broker. Thank you. Thank you. ... Thank you. I hope that wasn't too long. Thank

you, thank you. ... Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw, for being an inspiration to all of us. Mr. Shaw has consented to answer your questions, so if you have a question, please step up, step up to the microphone and identify yourself. If you're a student, please tell us what your major is. I consented to this. Let's see how soon I regret it. Can I ask, the house lights need to be dimmed just a little bit so I can see who's speaking. First question here. First of all, my name is Natalia Mariel. I'm majoring in broadcast news right now. Batalia? Natalia. Pardon me. I'd like to say first of all thank you very much for coming here to speak with us tonight. It's fabulous that you came out all the way

to Washington, the other Washington. Now to my question. Thank you. I should tell you that it's in the name and cause of journalism, and this man in these pictures on the wall, and this man whose image is on this award, have meant so much to me for so long and we are natural comrades. And frankly I would not be here were it not for the executive news director of Northwest Cable News, Bill DaSorba, a friend whom I used to work with at CNN who came out west. One day the phone rang in my office, and my assistant P.J. Robinson, who's a friend of Bill's, took the call, and he asked to talk with me. He wanted to know would I be interested in coming out. And you know the rest of the story. Natalia, pardon my interruption, please, I don't. No, by all means go ahead. OK, well, back to my question here. You mentioned earlier in your speech here that

minorities were being perceived as, you know, criminals and all that in the media, and as a minority, it affects me, my family, and of course my other fellow Latinos. I want to ask you what words of advice can you offer, like such as tactics or what kind of view we should have going into, so let's say, journalism to the other journalists here, what can you offer to kind of maybe get away from that or something to that effect? Well, in terms of studying journalism, become a journalist, I would strongly urge you to seek out the very highest exemplars of journalism, be it print or broadcast, to emulate them and to strive to be one of the best ever journalists in whatever medium you choose. As to the umbrella question, ours is a very great nation with great peoples from all over this planet. Diversity is our country's

strength. One of the reasons we have racism, racial problems, sexism, the mistreatment of women, the fact that women earn 75 cents on every dollar earned by an American male, that's appalling, as are some of the other practices. But one of the reasons for our problems is the mere way our country was founded in our nation's history. One of the reasons for the treatment of Latinos of course goes back to, not just slavery, but our relations with Mexico, indeed our relations with Spain. We are a great people. We are a great nation. We have problems. But I believe personally that no other nation on this planet is trying to do what the United States of America is trying to do. And part of that correction of these problems, the

evolution from a time when women, women, believe this or not, could not vote, people because of their skin color could not vote. We've gotten beyond that, we've made lots of progress, but one of the ways we evolve to an even higher plane is through education and experience. Newspapers today show the residents of the state of Mississippi trying to decide what to do with the Confederate flag and the symbolism that represents to different people. That's an indication of progress. There was a time when such a vote would not have been taken. This past presidential election, the fact that an Orthodox Jew was on the national ticket for the first time, that says a lot about us as a people. I look forward to the day when we have our first woman president, the first African-American president, the first Jewish president, the first Latino president, vice president. I look forward to those days. Those days will come. They are inevitable but we are

on a long journey. We're not there yet. I don't know when we'll get there, but we'll get there as the United States of America. A very diverse people whose true essence and strength comes from that diversity. The only frustrating thing is that we are mortal. We only have one life. We'd like to see all things happen in our lifetimes. We'd like to see our children grow. We'd like to see our grandchildren. We want to see all of the perfect things we envision in life in our lifetime. It doesn't happen that way. Pardon me for taking so long to respond to your question, but that's the way I feel. Well, thank you very much. You're welcome. Hi. Hi. OK, I'm really nervous. My name's Melissa Jensen. I'm a journalist student here. I'm a junior, so

it's really cool to meet you in person. I've seen you on TV, so it's you know cool to see you in person for the first time. You know. You know, being the journalist that I am, I kind of have a cynical question to ask you, so I'm sure you're used to this by now. Oh, cynic on, cynic on. I know that your theme for tonight's speech was the television disease, the basic misrepresentation of the media in local broadcasts, and basically all broadcasts, of what reality is. You personally said that you were a part of that misrepresentation with the whole Bush and Gore campaign or the inaccuracy of the news itself. I haven't been to any speech of yours before, so I don't know if you spoke out against this before, but I was just wondering if now was the first time you've spoken out against this.

Why have you waited until now to do so? Do you feel like it put you in a better position, being retired and away from it, you know, like you don't have to worry about your job security, or? I was just wondering why now it was a good time for you to speak out against this issue that obviously you feel so strongly about. Dear Melissa. My dear Melissa. I waited until now because I believe that my personal opinions, my personal views, had absolutely no place whatsoever in the day-to- day news gathering, news writing, and news reporting on CNN. I have very strong feelings about people, issues, about debates, about legislation. But

those feelings have absolutely no place whatsoever in my daily reporting. I have always felt, when I worked at ABC, Group W, CBS, or CNN, that whenever viewers turned on the network for information and news, that's what they should get. Not what Bernard Shaw thinks or feels. Such feelings, such thoughts, are totally irrelevant to informing our viewers. That's why I waited. And what better opportunity to really unload than now on this great campus? ... And Melissa, since you're going to be the accurate reporter you obviously will be...

Yes, yes, Bernie, yes. I spoke of distortion, not misrepresentation. I'll be sure to write that down. OK. Distortion not misrepresentation. Check. Yes, sir? Mr Shaw, my name is David Zimmerman, I'm a broadcast news major. I'm a senior at WSU. We've seen a move in American politics from candidates to market themselves like products or brands. I have two examples of this. An advertising agency ran an ad in Advertising Age magazine after the 1998 re-election of George W. Bush as governor of Texas. The ad said "If you have high ambitions, hire us. He did." And there's a picture of Bush. Then below that, it reads "If we can create advertising that persuades Hispanic Democrats to vote Republican, we can get them to buy our products." Another example of this was a multimillion dollar ad campaign designed to repackage Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. The head of the ad agency Forbes hired said "We're trying to resuscitate brands all the time that lose their luster with with consumers. We're doing the same with Steve."

What is your take on the present-day situation with politicians and the way they often package themselves for television and for a national audience? It's regrettable, but it's legitimate and it's legal, David. What's the name of the firm that tried to spruce up Steve Forbes' image? Didn't say, just an ad agency. Well, I don't think they'll be promoting the fact that they represented Steve Forbes very long. I mean, think of it. Here's a man, in Campaign 2000, spent more than 60 million dollars. And he has since indicated, once the campaign ended, that never again would he one, run for president. And if he should change his mind, and we all have a right to change our minds, I'm certain he won't hire that firm to represent him. But you can't get around it. It's a responsibility, one of the responsibilities of journalism, David, to, to point that out for what it's worth. That's one of the reasons why my network, other networks, and certainly some of the best newspapers in this

country and certainly in this region follow the money. In politics, you have to follow the money, and one of the ways we really exerted ourselves was following the ads, taking the ads apart, and the newspapers have been very effective at doing that, you know, printing pictures from the ad, still shots from the ads, then printing the text. And where there were contradictions or exaggerations, then analyzing that, and telling readers or viewers or listeners where the contradictions were. That's the best public service we could perform, but believe me there's no way you're going to evade or get around or get away from such advertising. They are regarded as products. They are brands and that's one of the reasons why we have the campaign finance problem in our country, with of course television advertising being the point reason, the motivator, behind why campaigns are so utterly and embarrassingly

expensive. I think you know something about expensive campaigns here in Washington state. But that would be my response to that, regrettably. Sorry to tell you. But you already know this. You won't see the end of this anytime soon. Now if you think Campaign 2000 was something, some candidates already are running now. Wait until 2004. It will be worse. So it's going to get worse then? Oh yes. OK. It's going to get worse. Thank you. Thanks. I'm Ky Martin and in about three weeks, I will have a degree in broadcast news. Congratulations. Thank you, it's been a long four years. My question is, the title of your speech is television disease, and probably right now a lot of my roommates are sitting at home, watching some sort of reality show. And I was just wondering, do you think that reality TV is the most

deadly symptom? Or is it like a common cold that you can treat with cheap antibiotics from the drugstore? Do you think it's going to blow over, is this just a trend, or is this a serious problem? Well, I'm not going to dive into a pool of metaphor to respond to your question. OK. I think reality shows will be on television as long as they are successful, and as soon as they fail to pull in the ratings, they will be gone and they'll be replaced by something else. As for students here in this campus right now, not joining you and others of us in this auditorium, but instead are in their rooms watching reality programs, I think the students watching reality programs right now really know what reality is, we all need diversion, we need a break. The academic atmosphere here is very heady, very intense. I don't doubt for a second that anybody watching a reality show on this campus at this moment, as we are here

in this auditorium, knows that that is not reality. It's a passing fad. It's a passing fad. And one of the reasons why reality shows are a success is that the history of television is carpeted with, what can you say, cotton candy. You know. It says a lot. One of the things I love to do when I go into a community. Guess what I do, the first thing I do, and that's what I was doing this morning early this morning, is I go and scavenge and get all the local newspapers. That's why I was so smart alecky about the Evergreen. But when you look on the front page of the newspaper, I said this coming over with your Dean and Alex Tan and Linda and P.J. Robinson, the front page of the newspaper. Color picture. Well, there were a couple of color pictures, there were three pictures on the front page,

the biggest picture on the front page showed what? Crime? Sex? Violence? No. It showed kids not older than 12 years playing chess. That tells me a lot about the community. It tells me about a lot about the editorial judgment of that newspaper. You know what I'm talking about. ...