 |  |
 | |
 | |
|
Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The first of the network news anchor jobs changed hands when Tom Brokaw turned over his chair to Brian Williams this week. Dan Rather is next to go, and a potentially devastating report investigating CBS News' “60 Minutes” piece on the president's national guard service is due out next week. These events, plus criticism that the media was lax in criticizing the drum roll to war in Iraq has us asking, are we doing our job? Joining me, Bob Zelnick, former ABC News reporter, and chairman of the Boston University Journalism School. Stephen Battaglio, senior correspondent for “TV Guide” Joe Queenan, who's author of the book “Queenan Country,” and used to take speaking lessons with me. And Amy Goodman, host of Pacifica Radio's “Democracy Now,” and the author of “Exception to the Rulers.” Amy, are we doing our jobs? How is that for a big one? AMY GOODMAN, HOST, “DEMOCRACY NOW”: Well, I think the media has reached an all-time low in this country. As you said, it beat the drums for war, icing out dissent, and I think it's really unfortunate. It's a disservice to the people in this country when they make their decisions about the important issues of the day, to very much, for the most part, especially with the nightly newscasts, only hear one side. The generals, the corporate executives, the government officials. We need to hear a much broader spectrum of opinion. MATTHEWS: Establishment reporting in other words. GOODMAN: Yes. We need to open it up. And abide by the good principles of reporting, that are about hearing a diversity of voices, especially on an issue like this where the country is so divided. MATTHEWS: Bob Zelnick, sir, Mr. Chairman. BOB ZELNICK, FORMER ABC NEWS REPORTER: Yes, sir. I don't agree with that. I think that by and large, the media did a good job of reporting on Iraq. I think by and large, they tried to dig up what they can in the way of counterarguments. I know I heard many, many of the contrary views, expressed not only on the networks but on the cables, and in the newspapers. So I don't—I don't join in in piling on the media for what was a very, very difficult intelligence situation. MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the media ever questioned the argument made by the administration, that the primary reason for war, the one given at the time, was that we were going to war because we suspected that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Do you believe that that rationale was questioned effectively by the media? ZELNICK: I don't think there was a basis on which to question it. The reason is that Saddam believed in those weapons. He had used them before. He had defied any number of Security Council resolutions. He had virtually expelled the arms controllers in 1998. So the evidence was overwhelming that he had them. And in fact, we have seen since going into Iraq that he planned to use the lifting of the embargo to restore the programs to what they were in their heyday. MATTHEWS: OK, let's go to Joe Queenan. Is the media doing its job? JOE QUEENAN, AUTHOR, “QUEENAN COUNTRY”: 75 percent of the time, yes, which is a very high bating average. I think that it was always understood that there would be problems, that there would be some reporting that didn't get done, that there would be some bias. But the whole idea of always attacking the media has always struck me as being juvenile. The media did not cause the S&L; scandal in the '80s, the media did not cause the Social Security problem we have now. And I think that if the government and if private industry and the banking organizations were doing as good a job as the media, the country would be in greater shape. MATTHEWS: Stephen Battaglio, same question, is the media doing its job? STEPHEN BATTAGLIO, “TV GUIDE” SR. CORRESPONDENT: I would agree with Joe's percentage, but I do believe that September 11th did change the public's relationship with the media, especially television. It was an attack unlike anything we had ever experienced, and we saw it live on television. And I think that they were looking for something beyond the facts and both sides of the story, they were looking to be comforted. They were looking to find—to learn that everything would be OK, and what are we going to do next to attack this? And I think—and I think that probably muted a lot of questioning of the administration going into the Iraq war. So—and many top journalists, such as Dan Rather, has second-guessed the reporting that was done leading up to the war. MATTHEWS: But back in the old days, in 1968, Walter Cronkite would go on television and question the winnability of the Vietnam War. Did you hear, does anyone here think there was that level of scrutiny at work in the last several years with regard to Iraq and the decision to go there? Bob Zelnick again. Do you think there was questioning of the rationale? Not whether there was WMD, but did anyone ever question loudly on the network news, wait a minute, is this really the reason we are going to war? Is this really the reason? ZELNICK: I saw an awful lot of coverage of dissension, not only at the United Nations, not only abroad, but in the build-up to the war in this country itself. Now, again, I don't think that Walter Cronkite did anything that was supernatural other than going over to Vietnam right after the Tet Offensive and doing the Tet Offensive and concluding that the war had become politically unwinnable. I'm not sure he was right then, but you know, it turned out that seven years later we decided not to fight and let the place go to hell. BATTAGLIO: Also, the media wasn't controlled at all during the Vietnam War. The war was never declared. So a lot of the type of restrictions that the military and the government imposes now on the media in covering war weren't in effect back in Vietnam. So I think it was a very different situation. GOODMAN: You know, there is a great deal of focus on Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather now. On the evening that the bombs started to fall on Baghdad, Dan Rather said, “good morning, Baghdad.” Tom Brokaw said, “we don't want to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we are going to own that country.” These are not questioning words. These are not words of a journalist who is impartial. Dan Rather, a few days after September 11th, on David Letterman, said George Bush is my president. He can call the shots, or he basically said - I wrote it in my book to quote him exactly—he said, “one of the things”— he said, “George Bush is the president. Wherever he wants me to line up, tell me where and he will make the call.” That's not what journalists should be doing. We should be independent, not just being the megaphone for officialdom. It is a very serious problem the direction American journalism has gone. MATTHEWS: OK, bold point. We're coming back with Bob Zelnick, Stephen Battaglio, Joe Queenan and Amy Goodman. And next week, it's HARDBALL State of the Union—actually, “Head of the State” week. I'll sit down with King Abdullah of Jordan. He will be in Washington to meet with George Bush about the prospect for peace in the Middle East. And then, on Friday, former President Jimmy Carter will join us here on this table. You're watching HARDBALL on MSNBC. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWS BREAK) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We're talking about the future of news with former ABC News reporter Bob Zelnick, who is now chairman of the journalism department up at Boston University, “TV Guide” Steve Battaglio, Joe Queenan, who is the author of “Queenan Country,” and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. The Pew Research Center has surveys going back 10 years which ask viewers where they go for national and international news. Networks, the broadcast nets, were ahead by a hair back in '93, 11 years ago. But by last year, cable had a huge lead. Steve, tell me, what has that done to journalism, that now you can get it 24 hours a day? You don't have to wait for Uncle Walter or his successors at 6:30 at night? BATTAGLIO: I think that, clearly, the dominance of network news is coming to an end or has certainly waned quite a bit. You know, it's not unlike what you had, really, in pretelevision age, before—you talk about so many different types of media now that espouse a point of view. Well, you know, back in the '20s, '30s, and '40s, you went to a city, you had eight different newspapers. If you wanted a conservative, you bought the Hearst newspaper. If you wanted another point of view, you had other choices. And I think we are returning back to that now with the fragmentation of the media, the networks not as dominant, so many other sources, many of them providing different points of view. MATTHEWS: Let me ask Bob Zelnick, who is a veteran of this business. Bob, it seems to me that to find those people in America who wait for the 6:30 news, almost like waiting for a person waiting in the Third World waiting for the Big Ben sound for BBC to come on, you got to go to people - I remember being up at William L. Shirer's house up in western Massachusetts. He was an old CBS hand, as you know. Do young people, are they in that habit, too? Is anybody under, say, 60, in the habit of waiting for the evening news to come on as a big deal? ZELNICK: No. I think you hit the precise figure, also. The average age of the network news viewers these days is 60 years. The average age of all Americans is 35. Yes, there has been tremendous competition from cable. Yes, there is a change in lifestyles. People aren't getting home that early. You have a lot of two-spouse households where they are both working, and neither one of them have time for the news. But I'll tell you, there is a dirty little secret to this, also. I think a lot of people are just not staying informed on current events. It's not simply that they have turned away from the news networks, and I think that we see it all the time when we give news quizzes, unless we assign the papers... MATTHEWS: Sure. ZELNICK: ... and assign the networks, they are not as well informed as they should be. MATTHEWS: You mean it's like “Jay Walking” on the Jay Leno show, where he goes around and interviews people and they don't know anything about politics. And he says, what do you for a living? And they say, I'm a history teacher. Let me go to Joe Queenan. Do you haven't 6:30 habit? Do you watch the nets? QUEENAN: No. My wife watches Jim Lehrer's show. And I watch that because I'm friendly with David Brooks, or at least I used to be. But, no, I never watch those shows unless there is a really, really big event. And when there's as really big event, I think everybody watches those shows, because there is something reassuring about people like Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings. Certainly, there's nothing reassuring about Dan Rather. But, on cable, you don't get that same quality, excluding your boyish charm. But, on a lot of the cable shows, I don't know if a really major, cataclysmic event had happened, that I would go to either Larry King or Bill O'Reilly. (CROSSTALK) BATTAGLIO: Chris, I would also point out that I think—not to go back to—harp on 9/11 too much, but I think that probably prolonged the length of time the three network anchors have been on. If 9/11 hadn't happened, I think all three of those chairs might have changed over by now. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I want to ask you a question, Amy. ZELNICK: It didn't help their ratings, though. MATTHEWS: Yes, but I watch the commercials, which is where the money comes from. It seems like pain relief is the No. 1 theme of the nightly news. GOODMAN: That's right. MATTHEWS: They're beyond Cialis and Viagra. They don't even bother. They past the crowd. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They're into the really older people. And I'm just asking you, Amy, is it possible that this is passing, that what we have seen here, all these years since Cronkite was big and before that with whoever, Chancellor and all the rest of them, that that is a passing scene, that we are getting into 24 hours news now, simple as that? GOODMAN: Oh, yes. I mean, yes, the average commercial is something like for—to prevent heart disease and to lower cholesterol. And I really do think like attracts like. You have got older white men, and that is the audience that they are attracting. And young people are also—and I think this is extremely healthy, given how I think the—especially the nightly newscasts have very much only reflected the establishment point of view. Young people are very much going to the Internet, and that's good, because we have to get views from all over the world. It's also a way to get access to international newspapers. MATTHEWS: Do you find it interesting that no women are in line to replace Rather? GOODMAN: Oh, yes, I think it's a very big problem. Even Tom Brokaw himself said eight or nine years ago he thought that, when these guys left, it would be the end of white male anchor time. It should be. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: By the way, I hope to be an old white man, too, some day, so I don't want to get too ethnic here with you. Anyway, thank you, Amy Goodman. You're going to be joining us. The rest of the guests are staying with us.
Copyright 2004 MSNBC.
Fair Use Notice |
