Program #25: Editorializing

[00:05 - 00:10]
The following program was produced and recorded by the University of Michigan broadcasting service under a
[00:10 - 00:15]
grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center and distributed by the National Association of
[00:15 - 00:20]
educational broadcasters news in 20th century America.
[00:20 - 00:25]
A series of radio documents on the gathering writing and dissemination of news compiled
[00:25 - 00:29]
from interviews with the men and women who make news their business.
[00:29 - 00:33]
And it has the question of editorializing as stations
[00:33 - 00:37]
they simply are not interested.
[00:37 - 00:42]
Most of these stations were founded by businessman for the purposes of making all the profit possible which is
[00:42 - 00:47]
quite natural. They don't want to offend anybody because everybody's a potential
[00:47 - 00:52]
customer. They're perfectly free to go to have it go ahead and editorialize. Why
[00:52 - 00:57]
don't they. I don't do it because I don't want to do it. Afraid of trouble.
[00:57 - 01:01]
The voice is that of Eric Sevareid veteran newscaster for the Columbia
[01:01 - 01:06]
Broadcasting System One of the people you will hear today discussing
[01:06 - 01:12]
editorializing this week's edition of news in 20th century America.
[01:12 - 01:15]
Now here is your host Ed Burroughs.
[01:15 - 01:20]
On our last program we talked with a number of leading news man about the problem of objective
[01:20 - 01:24]
reporting. Kenneth MacDonald executive editor of The Des Moines Register Tribune
[01:24 - 01:29]
spoke for many of his colleagues when he said that reporting the news also means
[01:29 - 01:34]
interpreting the news and that at the heart of the problem of objectivity was the
[01:34 - 01:39]
desire the skill and the integrity on the part of journalists to interpret without
[01:39 - 01:43]
editorializing. Today we pose the question what is
[01:43 - 01:48]
editorializing. Does it have a legitimate role to play in the mass media. How does
[01:48 - 01:53]
it operate. We spoke first with a man who has long been an acute observer in the
[01:53 - 01:58]
field of mass communications Charles author of the book radio television and
[01:58 - 02:02]
society and chairman of the Department of Communications and education at New York
[02:02 - 02:07]
University. We are supposed to seep in to distinguish between editorializing
[02:07 - 02:10]
and slanting the news.
[02:10 - 02:13]
Well slanting the news is the manipulation of fact
[02:13 - 02:20]
editorializing. It is going to be on the news and expressing opinions about
[02:20 - 02:25]
what the facts mean. Now a news reporter concerned that it was by selection
[02:25 - 02:29]
by emphasis by order. Giving priority of order to things that he wants to
[02:29 - 02:34]
bring to attention to people by length giving much time to subjects
[02:34 - 02:40]
that he wants to stress little time to subjects he wants to skirt or say nothing about.
[02:40 - 02:44]
These are manipulative devices by which I knew was kind of stuck and not use. But
[02:44 - 02:49]
commentator as a person who as it were rides about the storm of events and imposes
[02:49 - 02:54]
his opinion names on the list about them and
[02:54 - 02:59]
I am for the commentator but I'm for a rounded stable of commentators
[02:59 - 03:00]
and I don't think we've got that.
[03:00 - 03:07]
If editorializing means going beyond the new and expressing opinions about what
[03:07 - 03:12]
the facts mean Dr. Slepian has just suggested. How could a journalist draw
[03:12 - 03:17]
the line between a personal opinion that is an editorial opinion and news
[03:17 - 03:22]
analysis. CBS newscaster Howard K. Smith had this to say.
[03:22 - 03:27]
I think the main thing to be said the main prefatory remark to be made is that there is no clear
[03:27 - 03:32]
cut line between these two. I think this might come as a surprise to some of my own
[03:32 - 03:37]
editors. I think they have a faith in the distinction
[03:37 - 03:41]
between editorializing and analyzing. I don't think there is a clear cut line. I think you can
[03:41 - 03:46]
state definitions for both of them but the definitions don't hold up in all
[03:46 - 03:51]
cases. In many cases they don't hold up. Editorializing is the statement of an
[03:51 - 03:56]
opinion. Analysis is an attempt to find out why and
[03:56 - 04:01]
what is behind this. Without giving opinions. But those two
[04:01 - 04:03]
definitions are not mutually exclusive.
[04:03 - 04:10]
For example you might say in regard to the State
[04:10 - 04:15]
Department's Middle East policy our policy has.
[04:15 - 04:20]
No real application to the realities of the Middle East. Now that statement
[04:20 - 04:24]
sounds like an opinion. As a matter of fact I think that I could back that question
[04:24 - 04:29]
statement up with documents and facts and pretty well prove it was an analytical statement.
[04:29 - 04:34]
It's extremely hard to draw the line. I think the drug line can only be drawn in fairly
[04:34 - 04:39]
crude cases. My own opinion is just inflammatory and emotional.
[04:39 - 04:43]
Contrast it with a sober statement of some facts that explain the
[04:43 - 04:48]
meaning of and even then would it be accurate to say that any statement of
[04:48 - 04:52]
personal opinion in the newspapers or on the air should be classified as
[04:52 - 04:54]
editorializing.
[04:54 - 04:59]
We spoke with JOHN HAIG head of station WTOP in Washington D.C. the
[04:59 - 05:04]
broadcast division of the Washington Post and Times-Herald If
[05:04 - 05:09]
you're just sit down one day and try to spell out all the subjects which are editorialized
[05:09 - 05:13]
about in newspapers you soon realize how few really
[05:13 - 05:18]
controversial. There are editorials on springtime and the blossoms are
[05:18 - 05:23]
in the air and the trees are green and this just can't be controversial yet it's called an
[05:23 - 05:28]
editorial. A distinguished statesman dies and many newspapers
[05:28 - 05:32]
have what are called editorials about this a statesman. And you
[05:32 - 05:37]
will read about his accomplishments and all the things that resulted
[05:37 - 05:42]
from his efforts. And this really is an obituary and yet that's called an
[05:42 - 05:48]
editorial. Now obviously neither of those can be called controversial.
[05:48 - 05:53]
And yet when we talk about editorials I think we subconsciously try to include in that term
[05:53 - 05:58]
all the subjects which are written about so I think the first thing a station must do is is true in its own mind to
[05:58 - 06:03]
find precisely what is an editorial. And it seems to me that an editorial
[06:03 - 06:08]
is a statement. Of opinion or a call to action.
[06:08 - 06:13]
Which is based. On a recommended course of action chosen
[06:13 - 06:18]
by the management of a station. So that I think when you talk about how editorial should be
[06:18 - 06:22]
handled on the air you're really talking about that last small part of what are normally
[06:22 - 06:25]
called editorials or newspapers.
[06:25 - 06:30]
But isn't it possible to disguise an editorial opinion so that the reader or listener
[06:30 - 06:35]
gets the impression that he is being given a piece of information accurate and objective.
[06:35 - 06:41]
We wondered how journalists would react to this problem of editorializing in the news columns.
[06:41 - 06:46]
Publisher Mark Etheridge of the Louisville Courier-Journal replied I think the
[06:46 - 06:48]
newspaper the press generally.
[06:48 - 06:55]
Falls into the heavy snow using its news columns
[06:55 - 07:00]
to express its editorial prejudices or predilections
[07:00 - 07:07]
it is doing what the totalitarian priced zone nor are
[07:07 - 07:12]
they doing it voluntarily here.
[07:12 - 07:18]
They have to do it in Yugoslavia Poland Russia and so forth.
[07:18 - 07:21]
I think they're falling into a
[07:21 - 07:27]
ideological battle rather than exercising the
[07:27 - 07:30]
full freedom of the press as guaranteed in the Constitution.
[07:30 - 07:34]
Yeah that it would appear that an editorial should be
[07:34 - 07:37]
identified or labeled in some way.
[07:37 - 07:42]
NBC newsman David Brinkley spoke on that subject. Well if it is
[07:42 - 07:45]
strictly an editorial.
[07:45 - 07:49]
On a controversial or political
[07:49 - 07:55]
partisan issue in which the person
[07:55 - 07:59]
on air takes sides then I would think it should be an editorial.
[07:59 - 08:04]
That should be labeled an editorial. But if it is an expression of
[08:04 - 08:07]
an individual's views on.
[08:07 - 08:16]
An abstruse or complex subject or problem.
[08:16 - 08:21]
I don't see any reason why he shouldn't say this is what this is the problem and it
[08:21 - 08:27]
seems to me or I think this is something that might be done about it.
[08:27 - 08:31]
I suppose in a technical sense that is an editorial editorial
[08:31 - 08:36]
writing has existed for many years in newspapers but editorializing on
[08:36 - 08:41]
radio and television is a relatively new phenomenon. How do the broadcasters
[08:41 - 08:46]
themselves feel about the use of opinion on the airwaves and
[08:46 - 08:50]
vice president in charge of news for CBS addressed himself to this question from
[08:50 - 08:55]
resupplying editorializing we believe that broadcasters.
[08:55 - 09:00]
I say very generally should editorialize they should make you so they became your
[09:00 - 09:04]
qualities the characteristics of the broadcast media for carrying points of
[09:04 - 09:09]
view but we think that there are certain restrictions which should be self-imposed in the
[09:09 - 09:14]
first place we do not believe that editorializing should be done without the most thorough
[09:14 - 09:19]
research done by the most competent and trained researchers I'm using research now
[09:19 - 09:24]
in terms of good solid reporting but I mean reporting which extends beyond interviewing on a
[09:24 - 09:29]
face to face basis that's library reporting it's carry on legal reporting
[09:29 - 09:33]
it's all around research job. We think that
[09:33 - 09:39]
editorializing should not be done unless the person is competent to analyze the
[09:39 - 09:44]
results of reporting so that the decisions which are taken that positions which are
[09:44 - 09:48]
to be taken by management. I take it in such fashion that there is some assurance that there are reasonable
[09:48 - 09:53]
decisions based on honest analysis of the facts. We
[09:53 - 09:58]
believe that the expression of opinion should be the expression of the opinion of
[09:58 - 10:03]
the management and not of any single broadcaster within the organisation
[10:03 - 10:08]
since its a management point of view since its the station or the network which might stand behind a point of view.
[10:08 - 10:13]
We also believe due to the peculiarities of the licensing system under which broadcasters operate
[10:13 - 10:18]
that adequate provision must be made for time to answer on the part of
[10:18 - 10:23]
opposition point of view. One opposition point of view there are several shades of opposition
[10:23 - 10:27]
points of view several shades. We think that of all of these
[10:27 - 10:34]
cautions are mad that the broadcaster should go ahead and editorialize he should take a
[10:34 - 10:39]
stand on issues of importance in his community has to make some statement
[10:39 - 10:43]
that the expression of opinion should be the expression of the management's point of view
[10:43 - 10:46]
was not shared by all of his colleagues.
[10:46 - 10:51]
Veteran newscaster HP called aboard spoke for the opposing camp.
[10:51 - 10:56]
I think it would be a mistake if management relied entirely on the present tension of its
[10:56 - 11:00]
own point of view. I think they should select competent editors to do
[11:00 - 11:05]
it. Now and I would quite agree that the editors need not all see
[11:05 - 11:10]
eye to eye. I think that on different evenings they could use different editorial
[11:10 - 11:14]
personalities to excellent effect and perhaps give a little different
[11:14 - 11:19]
emphasis to certain aspects of the news and in any case a station
[11:19 - 11:24]
must reconcile itself to work ational way providing
[11:24 - 11:28]
time for some individual who feels that he
[11:28 - 11:33]
has been wronged in the material in an editorial that he has a
[11:33 - 11:38]
chance to state his point of view in opposition. That must be part of the editorial
[11:38 - 11:43]
policy and that only adds interest. It suggests that the
[11:43 - 11:47]
station is fair minded and perhaps in accomplishing its purpose
[11:47 - 11:52]
it works more effectively than it would if it didn't have that kind of an
[11:52 - 11:53]
occasional answer.
[11:53 - 12:00]
Another condition specified by Mr. Mickelson of CBS was that adequate provision
[12:00 - 12:05]
must be made for time to answer on the part of the opposition point of view.
[12:05 - 12:09]
This so-called Equal time concept is one which is concerned broadcasters for some
[12:09 - 12:14]
time for a statement of the background on this controversial topic. We turn
[12:14 - 12:16]
again to Charles Mann.
[12:16 - 12:21]
Well I testified at the hearings on the Mayflower decision. Years back before
[12:21 - 12:26]
the FCC. As one who was against conceding to broadcasters the
[12:26 - 12:30]
right to editorialize. Basically on the score that
[12:30 - 12:35]
I didn't believe that a person who was privileged to receive a license
[12:35 - 12:40]
should have opportunity through that privilege. Of having an
[12:40 - 12:45]
advent dangerous position to reach the public with his particular point of view. His ownership of a station
[12:45 - 12:50]
seemed to be quite immaterial and the exercise of power on such a scale
[12:50 - 12:54]
I didn't think seemed to me consonant with the proper duties of a licensee.
[12:54 - 12:58]
I'm.
[12:58 - 13:03]
Not quite sure that I would hold so arbitrarily with that view
[13:03 - 13:08]
today that I would hold with the FCC and its revised Mayflower
[13:08 - 13:13]
hearings decision that if there is editorial opinion expressed by a
[13:13 - 13:17]
station group must be found for a contrary view to be