The Weekly Agnew Special his Des Moines attack on TV news- seemed at first to be a one-shot special, may have gone weekly. Exactly seven casters and commentators, he went on stallment, from George Wallace's own days after the Vice President telecast Co. Unlike the premiire, the second in-

York the air again, this time to flay the New

and Washington (where it was carried Montgomery, Ala., did not get network coverage. But it was telecast, live or by the Post's WTOP-TV). It continued

tape, in some cities, including New York

to give the Vice President so much at- Speechwriter Pat Buchanan and cir- gomery message was written by Nixon dered whatever became of the President. tion's press that some may have won- stage. Like the first speech, the Mont- culated around the before tention on network news and in the na-

Moines, his ammunition was faulty. delivery. There were other similarities. power over public opinion in fewer and he said, "should be made aware of the loomed in Agnew's sights; as in Des

great public-information vehicles and As in Des Moines, some worthy targets

cussion. But the only news conglomerate Co., which is hardly a giant in a field in- he mentioned was the Washington Post trend toward the monopolization of the Howard (16 newspapers, four TV sta- radio stations, 20 magazines), Scripps- fewer hands." It was a promising in- habited by the Newhouse chain (22 troduction to a subject that needs dis- the concentration of more and more newspapers, seven TV stations, seven Knight group (eleven 'newspapers, six

tions, radio stations, one TV station).

Co.'s holdings relatively small (one news- paper, one news magazine, three TV sta- highly competitive situations. The news-

paper,

dailies under separate ownership. (New

to point out, publishes in one of the tions, two radio stations), they are in

three U.S. cities left with three major There, the Vice President had a point. the magazine, for vigorous competition. York and Chicago are the others.) And grinding out the same editorial line,"

Washington Post Co.'s outlets are "all

Lester Bernstein commented on Agnew's top editors who stray too far from her and "hearken to the same master."

speech over CBS radio in New York, Mrs. Graham is not inclined to install by Mrs. Graham. But a partial con- he chose precisely the same words used fortunate for her that when own liberal views.

62

The

Again was not far off-

Some Words.

Not only are the Washington Post

Agnew complained further that the

Times

as

three

Spiro Agnew Show,

Owner Kay Graham was quick

and the Washington Post

radio stations) and the

Newsweek,

The American people,

It

was perhaps un-

THE PRESS

hardly lacks

Newsweek's

which

on

WAII ■ 0111—CKIC AGO SU NSI Sti s&N F,4h. twor..-1110,10.1. L ., Lb •Lt }LN6t !—

''SPIRO, I REALLY DIDN'T MEAN

FOR YOU TO GO TI

-

115 FAR."

olithism was produced by an issue close

tradiction of Agnew's charge of mon-

to Richard Nixon's heart. Last week

Judge Haynsworth's elevation to the Su- preme Court; WTOP opposed it.

minishing newspaper competition in many American cities. With so many the survivors have "grown fat and irrespon- newspapers dying, he said, many of the while subject when he turned to the di-

sible." True enough, although the New Times disagree with Agnew's claim that the petition; but most professionals would ample. It may be true that the other New York papers. would be still better if it had more com- York he cited examples to indicate bad

signed a letter endorsing the President's

judgment by the policy in Viet Nam. The fact is that that it "did not carry a word" about new declared: "The day when [newsmen] made all others.

300 Congressmen and 59 Senators who asked in his New York enjoyed a form of diplomatic immunity the story missed the first edition but

ever dawn? Among some famous old Thomas Jefferson writing in 1803 that

they said is over." But as lames Reston have learnt that nothing in a newspaper "even the least informed of the people from comment and criticism of what the next morning, when did that day son strafing in 1837 some editors "who snipes at the press noted by Reston:

neighbors and hire writers to lie for is to be believed"; and Andrew Jack- back against attacks from the press—al- appear to fatten on slandering their often Republican publishers rather than

Examiner siderable sympathy. The San Francisco liberal editors. them." Most U.S. Presidents have fought

besides the yippies, bomb-throwers and somebody else started getting headlines though in recent times the villains were

the disruptive critics of every traditional moaned the fact that Agnew had drawn American value." Vermont Royster, of which leads to the melancholy con- no praise for being in the company of Norman Isaacs, executive editor of the itor of the critics like Jefferson, and added: "All but quivers when it's dished back." clusion that the press can dish it out

Times Louisville

of our Government." The Chicago drive for a real one-party press, not fumed: "What we're facing now is a lieves to be right allow itself to be crit- open intimidation by the top officials through free expression but through government that is doing what it be-

1920 quote by Lenin: "Why should a

Agnew again zeroed in on a worth-

The Vice President blundered when

Jefferson, Jackson.

Agnew's views continued to draw con-

There was a good deal of quivering.

Post

Times

has got worse since the death of

said Agnew's attitude recalled a

ran an editorial supporting

editorialized: "It's high time

Courier-Journal

is not a convincing ex-

Wall Street Journal,

TIME, NOVEMBER 28,

Times. He

At one point Ag-

Times

and

declared

column

Times

Times,

news

Sun-

1969

ed-

be- icized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal than guns." To suggest even re- motely that the Nixon Administration takes a Leninist attitude toward the press is patently absurd. The Washington Post ran a calm ed- itorial the day after the Montgomery speech, characterizing it as "temperate and thoughtful ... and in no way men- acing on its face." There is indeed plen- ty to criticize about contemporary U.S. journalism—all the more so because the press and TV make little effort at self- criticism or self-examination. In fact, some of the vulnerable areas were not touched upon by the Vice President. Bold, not Blond. In television it can be argued that far from being to opin- ionated, news is not opinionated and hard-hitting enough. Among the more thought-provoking responses to Agnew was a speech by Fred Friendly to the Cal- ifornia Institute of Technology. Urging "bolder, not blander illumination" of is- sues on television, Friendly recalled re- gretfully that when he was president of CBS News in 1964. he decided against analysis of President Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin speech. Edward R. Murrow, for one, immediately phoned Friendly to de- plore the omission. "I shall always be- lieve," Friendly said last week, "that if journalism had done its job properly that night and in the days following, America might have been spared some of the agony that followed the Tonkin Gulf resolution." In print journalism, on the other hand, a legitimate subject of concern is the growing phenomenon of reporters who are becoming participants in rather than observers of events (TIME, Oct. 24). On Moratorium Day in October, thousands of newsmen signed petitions for peace, joined in rallies and donned buttons or armbands. During this month's Mor- atorium activities, reporter participation was less pronounced but still present. (Not all the involved newsmen, it should be noted, were against the war. The Chat- tanooga Times. in fact, carried both pro- and antiwar ads bought by groups of their own reporters.) Managements face the difficult ques- tion of where a reporter's civic right to be involved in politics ends and his jour- nalistic duty to be fair and detached be- gins. Many young journalists have been raised in an atmosphere of advocacy, and are not willing to accept the tra- ditional rules about journalistic detach- ment. When Agnew prescribes a "high wall" between comment and news, he makes a hoary, oversimplified demand for what is impos.sible--"objectivity." But questions of journalistic fairness and variety or uniformity of opinion are valid issues for debate. The U.S. press, far from feeling intimidated, ought to welcome Agnew's challenge—and re- ply as vigorously as it sees fit The re- sult could make The Show and its successors (The Dean Burch Hour? The Review?) into a regular and fascinating TV series.

TIME, NOVEMBER 28, 1969