Program #25: Editorializing

The following program was produced and recorded by the University of Michigan broadcasting service under a

grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center and distributed by the National Association of

educational broadcasters news in 20th century America.

A series of radio documents on the gathering writing and dissemination of news compiled

from interviews with the men and women who make news their business.

And it has the question of editorializing as stations

they simply are not interested.

Most of these stations were founded by businessman for the purposes of making all the profit possible which is

quite natural. They don't want to offend anybody because everybody's a potential

customer. They're perfectly free to go to have it go ahead and editorialize. Why

don't they. I don't do it because I don't want to do it. Afraid of trouble.

The voice is that of Eric Sevareid veteran newscaster for the Columbia

Broadcasting System One of the people you will hear today discussing

editorializing this week's edition of news in 20th century America.

Now here is your host Ed Burroughs.

On our last program we talked with a number of leading news man about the problem of objective

reporting. Kenneth MacDonald executive editor of The Des Moines Register Tribune

spoke for many of his colleagues when he said that reporting the news also means

interpreting the news and that at the heart of the problem of objectivity was the

desire the skill and the integrity on the part of journalists to interpret without

editorializing. Today we pose the question what is

editorializing. Does it have a legitimate role to play in the mass media. How does

it operate. We spoke first with a man who has long been an acute observer in the

field of mass communications Charles author of the book radio television and

society and chairman of the Department of Communications and education at New York

University. We are supposed to seep in to distinguish between editorializing

and slanting the news.

Well slanting the news is the manipulation of fact

editorializing. It is going to be on the news and expressing opinions about

what the facts mean. Now a news reporter concerned that it was by selection

by emphasis by order. Giving priority of order to things that he wants to

bring to attention to people by length giving much time to subjects

that he wants to stress little time to subjects he wants to skirt or say nothing about.

These are manipulative devices by which I knew was kind of stuck and not use. But

commentator as a person who as it were rides about the storm of events and imposes

his opinion names on the list about them and

I am for the commentator but I'm for a rounded stable of commentators

and I don't think we've got that.

If editorializing means going beyond the new and expressing opinions about what

the facts mean Dr. Slepian has just suggested. How could a journalist draw

the line between a personal opinion that is an editorial opinion and news

analysis. CBS newscaster Howard K. Smith had this to say.

I think the main thing to be said the main prefatory remark to be made is that there is no clear

cut line between these two. I think this might come as a surprise to some of my own

editors. I think they have a faith in the distinction

between editorializing and analyzing. I don't think there is a clear cut line. I think you can

state definitions for both of them but the definitions don't hold up in all

cases. In many cases they don't hold up. Editorializing is the statement of an

opinion. Analysis is an attempt to find out why and

what is behind this. Without giving opinions. But those two

definitions are not mutually exclusive.

For example you might say in regard to the State

Department's Middle East policy our policy has.

No real application to the realities of the Middle East. Now that statement

sounds like an opinion. As a matter of fact I think that I could back that question

statement up with documents and facts and pretty well prove it was an analytical statement.

It's extremely hard to draw the line. I think the drug line can only be drawn in fairly

crude cases. My own opinion is just inflammatory and emotional.

Contrast it with a sober statement of some facts that explain the

meaning of and even then would it be accurate to say that any statement of

personal opinion in the newspapers or on the air should be classified as

editorializing.

We spoke with JOHN HAIG head of station WTOP in Washington D.C. the

broadcast division of the Washington Post and Times-Herald If

you're just sit down one day and try to spell out all the subjects which are editorialized

about in newspapers you soon realize how few really

controversial. There are editorials on springtime and the blossoms are

in the air and the trees are green and this just can't be controversial yet it's called an

editorial. A distinguished statesman dies and many newspapers

have what are called editorials about this a statesman. And you

will read about his accomplishments and all the things that resulted

from his efforts. And this really is an obituary and yet that's called an

editorial. Now obviously neither of those can be called controversial.

And yet when we talk about editorials I think we subconsciously try to include in that term

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

find precisely what is an editorial. And it seems to me that an editorial

is a statement. Of opinion or a call to action.

Which is based. On a recommended course of action chosen

by the management of a station. So that I think when you talk about how editorial should be

handled on the air you're really talking about that last small part of what are normally

called editorials or newspapers.

But isn't it possible to disguise an editorial opinion so that the reader or listener

gets the impression that he is being given a piece of information accurate and objective.

We wondered how journalists would react to this problem of editorializing in the news columns.

Publisher Mark Etheridge of the Louisville Courier-Journal replied I think the

newspaper the press generally.

Falls into the heavy snow using its news columns

to express its editorial prejudices or predilections

it is doing what the totalitarian priced zone nor are

they doing it voluntarily here.

They have to do it in Yugoslavia Poland Russia and so forth.

I think they're falling into a

ideological battle rather than exercising the

full freedom of the press as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Yeah that it would appear that an editorial should be

identified or labeled in some way.

NBC newsman David Brinkley spoke on that subject. Well if it is

strictly an editorial.

On a controversial or political

partisan issue in which the person

on air takes sides then I would think it should be an editorial.

That should be labeled an editorial. But if it is an expression of

an individual's views on.

An abstruse or complex subject or problem.

I don't see any reason why he shouldn't say this is what this is the problem and it

seems to me or I think this is something that might be done about it.

I suppose in a technical sense that is an editorial editorial

writing has existed for many years in newspapers but editorializing on

radio and television is a relatively new phenomenon. How do the broadcasters

themselves feel about the use of opinion on the airwaves and

vice president in charge of news for CBS addressed himself to this question from

resupplying editorializing we believe that broadcasters.

I say very generally should editorialize they should make you so they became your

qualities the characteristics of the broadcast media for carrying points of

view but we think that there are certain restrictions which should be self-imposed in the

first place we do not believe that editorializing should be done without the most thorough

research done by the most competent and trained researchers I'm using research now

in terms of good solid reporting but I mean reporting which extends beyond interviewing on a

face to face basis that's library reporting it's carry on legal reporting

it's all around research job. We think that

editorializing should not be done unless the person is competent to analyze the

results of reporting so that the decisions which are taken that positions which are

to be taken by management. I take it in such fashion that there is some assurance that there are reasonable

decisions based on honest analysis of the facts. We

believe that the expression of opinion should be the expression of the opinion of

the management and not of any single broadcaster within the organisation

since its a management point of view since its the station or the network which might stand behind a point of view.

We also believe due to the peculiarities of the licensing system under which broadcasters operate

that adequate provision must be made for time to answer on the part of

opposition point of view. One opposition point of view there are several shades of opposition

points of view several shades. We think that of all of these

cautions are mad that the broadcaster should go ahead and editorialize he should take a

stand on issues of importance in his community has to make some statement

that the expression of opinion should be the expression of the management's point of view

was not shared by all of his colleagues.

Veteran newscaster HP called aboard spoke for the opposing camp.

I think it would be a mistake if management relied entirely on the present tension of its

own point of view. I think they should select competent editors to do

it. Now and I would quite agree that the editors need not all see

eye to eye. I think that on different evenings they could use different editorial

personalities to excellent effect and perhaps give a little different

emphasis to certain aspects of the news and in any case a station

must reconcile itself to work ational way providing

time for some individual who feels that he

has been wronged in the material in an editorial that he has a

chance to state his point of view in opposition. That must be part of the editorial

policy and that only adds interest. It suggests that the

station is fair minded and perhaps in accomplishing its purpose

it works more effectively than it would if it didn't have that kind of an

occasional answer.

Another condition specified by Mr. Mickelson of CBS was that adequate provision

must be made for time to answer on the part of the opposition point of view.

This so-called Equal time concept is one which is concerned broadcasters for some

time for a statement of the background on this controversial topic. We turn

again to Charles Mann.

Well I testified at the hearings on the Mayflower decision. Years back before

the FCC. As one who was against conceding to broadcasters the

right to editorialize. Basically on the score that

I didn't believe that a person who was privileged to receive a license

should have opportunity through that privilege. Of having an

advent dangerous position to reach the public with his particular point of view. His ownership of a station

seemed to be quite immaterial and the exercise of power on such a scale

I didn't think seemed to me consonant with the proper duties of a licensee.

I'm.

Not quite sure that I would hold so arbitrarily with that view

today that I would hold with the FCC and its revised Mayflower

hearings decision that if there is editorial opinion expressed by a

station group must be found for a contrary view to be