Speeches

ATLANTA PRESS CLUB—ANNUAL GALA
KEYNOTE
MAY 3, 2007

Thank you, Tom [Johnson], for that very kind introduction…and thanks to all of you for that warm welcome.

Before we begin, I’d like to ask an indulgence. It just isn’t in me, as we gather together on this fine Georgia evening, not to pause for a moment to give a thought to the many thousands of our men and women in uniform on lonely, dangerous duty tonight in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if I could ask you to join me in just a brief moment of silence to recognize their contribution and their sacrifice on our behalf. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends, colleagues…I’m honored to be here tonight with you, to help celebrate work that is so important. As I’ve said at different times over the years, we journalists don’t have to take ourselves seriously, but we do need to take our work seriously.

In that spirit, and because I know those of you in this room do take your work very seriously, I hope you will excuse me for talking about some serious things on a night of celebration.

I feel I need to do this because American journalism is in trouble.
I think most of us know this. But why should anyone outside of this room really care—anymore than if I were to say that American sitcoms are in trouble, or American popular music are in trouble? Or any of the many other amusements, distractions, or even art carried by that vast entity called “the media” is in trouble?

I know—these seem like rhetorical straw men, to which I might expect any crowd, journalists or non-, to respond dutifully with talk of news being a public service, perhaps even an essential one.

But tonight, let’s ask the question as if we really mean it—because you can answer a question two kinds of ways: with your lips and with your hips. And too often, the value of journalism is given plenty of lip service, without anyone making a move to support it: not owners of news outlets; not the reading, viewing, and listening public; and at times not, though it pains me to say it, we journalists ourselves.

Before I go any further, I need to say that I do not exclude myself from this criticism—I very much include myself in this and any critiques that follow.
It strikes me that we have a collective choice to make in this country, about whether we really mean what we say when we say news is important. And, in framing this choice, instead of saying “American journalism is in trouble,” maybe I should say, instead, “American democracy is in trouble.”

Because you just can’t separate the two. Our nation’s Founders put freedom of the press alongside freedom of speech and religion in the very first amendment of the Constitution not because they had a particular fondness for newspapers—you can read all sorts of statements by men such as Jefferson about the scurrilous nature of early American journalism, and for the most part, the statements are true. No, our Founders put freedom of the press at the beginning of the Bill of Rights because they recognized that the free and open exchange of ideas was absolutely essential to a democratic society…and if We the People were really going to be entrusted with running the country, then We the People had better have access to the facts, to good information.

In this age when we hear so much talk about the (quote) “media,” I still prefer to say, instead, “the Press” where news is concerned, whether it’s news in print, on television, radio or the Internet. Because the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee “freedom of the media.”

The Press, in my mind, refers to news that has this Constitutional mission at its core, no matter what the means by which this news is delivered.
The Media, on the other hand, is that vast landscape of what is now called, quote, “content.” Some of it is informative; some of it even looks like news. But the underlying impetus of the Media is to entertain and, by entertaining, generate profit.

So with this in mind, we can go on pretending that the news we see today reflects its intended central role in the health of our nation, or we can take a real look in the mirror, during which we might see the following:

-A growing homogenization of traditional news sources, the byproduct of ever-more-lax government regulations on media ownership and the rush of conglomerates’—not always news or even media conglomerates—to take advantage of these regulations.

-An unseemly deference in the press to power, which is perhaps to be expected when so many news outlets are owned by large corporations with manifold interests in Washington—interests that are often at odds with candid reporting: Regulatory interests, interests in securing government contracts, interests that too often add up to a news philosophy of “don’t rock the boat.”

-A forum that pretends to give citizens the world but instead presents a far too narrow slice of safe and sanctioned ideas, thought, and lines of inquiry…a place that has become an echo chamber for stories generated initially in a precious few places along the Washington-New York axis.

-An institution that, for all of its resources, for all the hard-won knowledge and day-to-day familiarity that the best journalists bring to the job, is nonetheless scared to death to offer an independent judgment. Heaven forbid we follow up what the president, a senator, a congressman, governor or mayor says…with some independent, fact-based, truth squad-ing, some good-old fashioned vetting of an elected representative’s remarks. Not when we have available to us the safe route, which is to get someone from an opposing party or ideological camp to present their own, competing spin.

-A maddening reluctance to ask the all-important follow-up question of people in high places. Too often we’ll ask what seems at first like a probing, substantive question…but after an answer that amounts to pure spin, we won’t offer a follow-up that has a chance to call the subject on their spin. We are all-too-happy to play “Gotcha” journalism when it comes to stories of prurient interest—sex scandals, celebrity trials, and the like—but when it comes to matters of true national and worldwide importance, we suddenly become polite to the point of ineffectiveness—to the point of providing a megaphone for officially sanctioned propaganda.

-And speaking of the prurient, who among us will be the first to pledge a moratorium on filling the ever-shrinking “news hole” with garbage such as ‘round-the-clock coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith drama? Do any of us in this room think this kind of so-called news is important? Do any of us think that Americans in some way lack other venues for learning about celebrities? I don’t mean to sound callous—Ms. Smith was a woman who by all accounts (and there were many) had a sad life and sadder death. But the day I’ll no longer find that coverage odious and beneath us is the day we make room for wall-to-wall coverage of the lives of each soldier killed in the line of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. But given the amount of grief that Ted Koppel received for merely listing the names of the war dead, we may not be seeing that anytime soon.

-And finally, with the current political season very much in mind, we might see—as we look in the mirror—a press that remains transfixed with behind-the-scenes campaign stuff and the political horse race, while consistently giving the issues—and the real behind-the-scenes stories—short shrift.

How many stories did we see, at the close of this year’s first fundraising quarter, on the money race in the 2008 presidential campaign? Yet, out of all those stories, how many of these pieces delved into just where the money was coming from, and why? And will we ever see follow up pieces, after a politician is elected, that look at legislation and appointments and connect the dots to campaign contributions?

I need to say again, about this relatively brief catalog of journalistic sins, that when I look in the mirror, I see these things too. This is not mere rhetoric on my part—I know specific instances where I’ve failed on the points I’ve ticked off. So what do we—what do I—do about it?

We might start with an honest gut check…by asking ourselves if we truly believe our own words about what the press means to this democratic experiment we call America. If we still really believe:

-That the American press has a vital role to play as the Fourth Estate, and that we need to guard our independence as fiercely as any governmental entity should defend theirs.

-That, for a journalist, the truest expression of patriotism lies in asking tough questions of our elected representatives. For it is not the individuals we temporarily raise to elected office to whom we citizens owe our allegiance, but rather our country. And it is our inquiry that helps our fellow citizens take proper action on our country’s behalf.

-Do we believe in our duty to act as surrogates for our readers, viewers, and listeners in corridors of power? To ask the questions they might ask if they had the opportunity.

-Do we believe that there are times when the best question we can ask of a government official or corporate executive is: With all due respect, sir or madam, will you please answer the question that that other reporter asked? Do we believe that we need to keep on asking a question until it gets answered or it becomes clear that an answer won’t be coming?
-Do we still believe that ours is a government of, for, and by the people; that all the documents and correspondence of our government rightly belong to We the People…and with the exception of documents of legitimate and current national security importance, these documents should be available to the press and the people?

-Do we still believe that our country is best served when the press remembers that it is supposed to be a watchdog—not a lap dog, not an attack dog, but a watch dog, a dog that barks when there’s something suspicious going on? Do we believe—do we understand—that there’s a price to be paid, sometimes a grievous price, when this watchdog falls asleep on the job?

-Do we believe in the importance of international news—not only news of war and catastrophe, but day-to-day international news that can signal the approach of war and catastrophe, or at the very least provide meaningful context for these things if and when they occur? Do we believe in it enough to push for the re-opening of long-shuttered news bureaus around the world?

-Do we still believe it is our job to shine a light on injustice and root out corruption, wherever it occurs?

-And finally, do we still believe that one of the best definitions of news is: “News is something important that the people need to know, that someone doesn’t want them to know…and all the rest is just advertising”?

I have spent my entire career in commercial news, and I am not naïve. I know that even if there were unanimity among journalists on the above points, it would be difficult to uphold these beliefs without concomitant support from news owners, news publishers, and—perhaps most of all—the news-consuming public.

But just because we see obstacles to our own best intentions doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to fulfill our beliefs with action. IF we truly believe even some of the things I’ve said tonight, then we understand just how crucial it is to do our jobs completely and well. We understand the consequences of failing in this.

Hopefully we also recognize that the further we stray from our Constitutionally-sanctioned role as the Press, into the Media role of mere “content providers,” the easier we make it for those who wish to trivialize us, criticize us, sanitize us, and homogenize us.

If someone can read, look at, or listen to the news and not perceive the difference between the American press and American entertainment, then we are abdicating, piece by vital piece, our privileged role in this democracy.
Now, about the public—is there any hope for us there, when poll after poll shows that journalists are held in dismally low public regard? Well, my first thought in regard to this is to paraphrase President Truman—“If you’re a journalist and you want a friend, get a dog!” My second, more considered, thought is: News values don’t stand a chance if the public doesn’t see us not only talking the talk but also walking the walk. If we want the public to appreciate and support deep, probing journalism, then we need to give good journalism lip service and hip service.

We can help our cause by re-establishing a visceral understanding in our fellow citizens that our government is of, by, and for them, and that democracy does not only mean showing up at the polls every four years (if that). These things cannot be achieved overnight, nor solely by the press. But we do have a role to play in this, and we do owe it to ourselves to begin this process today—not tomorrow or the next day.

Perhaps certain elements of my critique will seem passé to some. A press that fails to question authority? That’s so pre-Iraq War! So pre-Katrina, pre-midterm election!

Yes, now we see probing stories about the Iraq War and about the administration. But could we possibly repeat our mistakes, given the right political moment? If your answer is no, then you might ask yourself where, for example, are the stories asking whether the Democratic Congress has lived up to its promise to effect a wholesale change in rules governing lobbyists.

We can’t expect the public to see the importance of what we do if we are content to just run with the pack, blow only with the prevailing winds.
If we wish to instill in our fellow citizens a sense that what we do and how we do it matters to them as much if not more than it matters to us, we need to fulfill our Constitutional mission not only when doing so incurs no risk on our part, but perhaps especially when telling the truth, airing the facts, and digging below the surface takes daring and nerve. We must not forget that we help to create the expectations, and the standards, of our news audience.

It is my belief and my hope that, if we can manage to do this, if we can build this foundation of consistent integrity, the viewers and readers and listeners will come. And if they come, we have a better chance of getting the resources we need from our owners and our publishers.

But if I’m to be honest here, I am asking more than that from news owners. I am also asking them to step, to the degree that they are able, outside the realm of quarterly profit statements.

Bluntly put, I am asking owners and publishers—along with the rest of us—to put their money where their beliefs are. Because we know these people, and know that they are on the whole intelligent, well-meaning, and well-informed. They want the best for our country and, if you asked them, many would tell you—some of them with a great and admirable passion—just how important quality news of integrity is for America. But what holds true for journalists also holds true for those who are entrusted with ownership of the press—that these sentiments become eroded from within if they are ideals only of convenience. And when these ideals are eroded, we all pay the price—our families, our children and grandchildren.
I’m not advocating charity, but rather a longer view that recognizes that the kind of news that is ultimately compelling, ultimately worthy of the name has a chance to succeed on its own terms. But it cannot sacrifice itself again and again on the altar of entertainment and survive.

I do not think the news should be dull, far from it—I just think it should be news. Because if you make news compete on entertainment’s turf, you’re not giving it a chance to do what it does best, and you’re handicapping it with offering what is available in glut quantities just about everywhere else.
Further, the news cannot rise above the trivial, cannot dig beneath superficial headlines, unless it is given the resources to do so. And the most important resource of all may be an owner with guts, who will stand behind his or her journalists.

I am aware that some—perhaps many or most of you—might leave here tonight thinking that Rather is a crank at best and a fine one to be talking about news values at worst. If that is so, so be it. But know that my intention is not to rain on anybody’s celebration, not to leave a sour taste at a feast. No, my intention is to summon myself and everyone else here to truly reflect on our craft, our calling. To listen to what we say about our mission and then think about whether we really mean it. To ask ourselves if our deeds match our noble words.

Because American journalism is in trouble. And American democracy is in trouble. Some of the damage is self-inflicted, some of it a matter of circumstance, and some of it the result of those whose interests are best served by a weak and docile press. But whoever is to blame for the current state of things, one thing should be crystal clear—if things are to be turned around, it is up to us to start the process. One story, one question, one act of newsroom courage at a time.

I began tonight with a thought for our men and women in uniform. We never tire of praising them for their sense of duty, for their sacrifices and bravery on behalf of our country—nor should we. I’ve met a lot of these men and women, in a lot of hell-holes throughout the world, from Vietnam to Somalia to Afghanistan and Iraq. And when you ask them why they do what they do, more often than not you’ll get the answer that it’s for us, for America, for the freedoms and flag for which we stand.

So I ask you, as I ask myself, whether we don’t we owe it to them, to ourselves, and to our fellow citizens to display our own meager measure of courage, to make our own sacrifices on behalf of our country, though they will inevitably be far smaller in size and scope, by exercising the freedoms for which they continue to fight?

What we are called to do, even if we to do our best, is so little compared to what we ask of them daily. But if we still believe in this democratic experiment, truly believe in it, we must recognize that our actions—and our inactions—can have just as much significance for America.

Thank you, good night, and Godspeed.