“Edward R. Murrow and the Positive Power of Journalism”
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
“Edward R. Murrow and the Positive Power of Journalism” Abby Fennewald Leonard Steinhorn, SOC University Honors Spring 2013 Abstract: Can a journalist change society? In the case of Edward R. Murrow, the answer is yes, and this paper explores Murrow’s broadcasting career as a case study of the positive social impact that journalism can have. The paper will frame its examination with a discussion of how media influence the public at large and how the media's impact changed with the advent of broadcast journalism. Murrow drew national attention to previously underreported issues and parts of our society, and he pioneered broadcast journalism techniques and visual storytelling while doing so. Murrow drew large audiences because of his personal skill as a broadcaster as well as his willingness to challenge the status quo and speak truth to power. Today, the legacy of his work lives on as he, like other journalists whose stories influenced society, has been immortalized by Hollywood. Today, in a time when the role and style of journalism is constantly changing, and when resources for investigative journalism shrink, it is important to study and highlight practitioners who show that good reporting and afflicting the comfortable represent the best in American journalism. “He was the conscience of all of us.” — Daniel Schorr Edward R. Murrow has a unique place in the pantheon of television broadcasters. Not only was he one of the earliest — making a transition from radio to television early in the new medium’s history — he was one of the best. His level of dedication to his craft was unparalleled, and continues to be the gold standard. As Daniel Schorr put it, “He made you feel important. He made you feel that journalism was important.”1 Today, there is no equivalent for Murrow. “I don’t see anybody” doing what Murrow did, Marvin Kalb, the last man Murrow hired at CBS, said.2 Kalb said of Murrow’s work, “Some of it was investigative, some was trailblazing, some was courageous.” Although Kalb says no one is like Murrow in today’s media landscape, he says that today’s television news does try to do some investigative work. One of the inhibiting factors, he says, is the money it takes to separate a team from the regular staff to go and do the investigation, as well as the lack of easy access to the funding.3 Still, he says, “I don’t think there can be another Murrow,” because everyone operates in the wake of what he did. One of the things that stood out to Kalb most about Murrow was his curiosity. The two met because Kalb was a PhD student writing about the Soviet Union, and Murrow called him to find out more. They were supposed to meet for only 30 minutes, but the meeting lasted for three hours. To Kalb, that suggested that here was a man who was extremely curious, and he says that curiosity and interest carried over into just about everything Murrow did.4 Perhaps most importantly, that curiosity coincided with what Murrow thought the American people needed to know.5 Additionally, Kalb says that, “If Murrow did anything it was to think long and hard before he went on the air,” while today’s live broadcasting with a 24-hour news cycle doesn’t allow time for a lot of thinking.6 Additionally, Kalb thinks investigative reporting could help save newspapers from their economic problems. A reader can “get the main stories from any gadget,” he said. What newspapers should do is focus on investigative work.7 Because of Murrow’s unique place in broadcast history, this paper uses him as a case study for the potential positive social impact of journalism in the hands of a good journalist, as well as for a discussion about what influences help set the news agenda. Even Murrow operated under influences from a variety of sources, including advertisers, whose role has only increased since his time. He, however, didn’t allow those pressures to prevent him from showing the truth that was going uncovered in the rest of the media. Murrow used his air time to show the stories he 1 The Murrow Boys. The Newseum, 2008. 2 Kalb, Marvin. Personal Interview. 9 April 2013. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. thought were important, like those of Milo Radulovich, unfairly discharged from the Air Force reserves in the 1950s because of supposed Communist sympathies, and Annie Lee Moss, a communications clerk at the Pentagon who McCarthy questioned intensively. There were countless other stories like theirs, of groups and individuals who were being mistreated or ignored by society, and Murrow covered them, even when it meant standing up to the heads of his network. Murrow was a natural in front of the camera, but more importantly he had a deep commitment to the news in a way that was unprecedented. Today’s journalists, who work in a post-Murrow era, should strive to match his commitment to the truth and to showing all sides of society, something that while difficult should be achievable. Even in the opening broadcast of See It Now, featuring a simultaneous viewing of both coasts of the United States, Murrow was able to stand apart from others. As Jack Gould wrote in his New York Times review of the program, “In less knowing hands than Mr. Murrow’s, the simultaneous pick-ups on the two coasts might have been only an amazing stunt, but he also pointed the meaningful moral: television is a medium to be approached in humility.”8 Perhaps this lesson, which Murrow demonstrated throughout his tenure on the air, is what sets him apart and is what journalists today should attempt to emulate. 8 Gould, Lewis L., ed. The New York Times Reviews by Jack Gould. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002, 77. “Edward R. Murrow was the king, for heaven’s sake. I wasn’t even a pretender.” – Walter Cronkite9 Edward R. Murrow understood perhaps better than anyone else at the time the possible implications of his work and its potential power. “The instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to these ends. Otherwise it is merely lights and wires in a box,” he said.10 The difference comes down to who is using those lights and wires. The journalists behind the camera and in front of it get to decide what the story will be and how to tell it. And Murrow, clearly, was a natural. With no formal training in broadcasting, he managed to become a trusted voice on the radio during World War II,11 and was able to translate that into a successful television broadcasting career at a time when few even believed television would have the same power as newspapers or radio. When See It Now began on CBS in 1951, Murrow and his producer, Fred Friendly, referred to themselves as “an old team trying to learn a new trade.”12 By the time the program officially ended its run in 1958, however, they had shown just how powerful television could be when used to illuminate issues previously outside the public’s eye. For some, See It Now, “represented TV’s arrival as a news medium and indicated potential for better things to come. Critics raved … Finally, educated people would admit without shame that they owned a TV set.”13 Murrow was one of the first veteran correspondents to take his talents to television. He kept his radio news show, which is where the money and audience were at that time,14 but in the end Murrow’s success showed just how powerful television could be. “The initial stars of radio and TV had been vaudeville entertainers. Murrow, no less a star, gave broadcasting some class and a mission of public service beyond entertainment,” wrote legendary NPR broadcaster Bob Edwards.15 Murrow’s work was especially important because of the precedent it set for subsequent television reporting. Never before had television effectively taken on public issues in this way. As Richard Kaplan, a television producer for CBS as well as many other networks, wrote, “Despite its growing public power, the medium had not yet established its authority to report on public affairs. Television news was a mere 15 minutes a day of headlines, while more serious reporting was reserved for radio and the daily papers. Television thus lacked the authority and prestige to 9 Cronkite, Walter and Don Carleton. Conversations with Cronkite. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, 2010, 135. 10 Burns, Eric. Invasion of the Mind Snatchers: Television’s Conquest of America in the Fifties. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010, 16. 11 Christians, Clifford G., Mark Fackler and John P. Ferre. Ethics for Public Communication: Defining Moments in Media History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, 4. 12 Murrow, Edward R. and Fred Friendly. See It Now. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, xi. 13 Edwards, Bob. Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2004, 107. 14 Ibid, 100. 15 Ibid, 4. stand up to the might of an angry governmental agency.”16 See It Now, however, had the power television had lacked. Murrow was a trusted news voice, and CBS allowed him to broadcast in a way few others could. One of the things that sets Murrow apart from the others is his own recognition of the power of the medium and the respect and integrity he used in preparing his broadcasts.