What is your automatic thought when you hear these words strung together?
“Speak truth to power.”
My first one is: “pinhead.” That’s sort of reflexive, however, as most epithets are--similar to a cough. Example: :::cough::: pinhead ::::cough:::
My second one is: “how unoriginal.” The speaker could at least come up with a creative turn of phrase, instead of something that hackneyed.
And, from now on, my third thought will forever be: “Dan Rather.”
Addressing the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan, occasionally forcing back tears, he said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."You remember Dan, don’t you?
He said this pressure -- along with the "dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage, the advent of 24-hour cable competition and the chase for ratings and demographics -- has taken its toll on the news business. "All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said. [SNIP][HBO Documentary and Family president Sheila] Nevins took up the cause for Rather, who was emotional several times during the event.
"When a man is close to tears discussing his work and his lip quivers, he deserves bosses who punch back. I feel I would punch back for Dan," Nevins said.
Rather praised the coverage of Hurricane Katrina by the new generation of TV journalists and acknowledged that he would have liked to have reported from the Gulf Coast. "Covering hurricanes is something I know something about," he said.
"It's been one of television news' finest moments," Rather said of the Katrina coverage. He likened it to the coverage of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"They were willing to speak truth to power," Rather said of the coverage.
In order to “speak truth” to anyone, don’t the words written/spoken have to actually be the truth?
(Thanks to LGF)
I'm sorry, did I read that right? He's an honest journalist and will speak his mind and speak the truth? [cough]**a$$hat**[cough]. What, was he forced to use the forged "documents" by politicians through his bosses at the network. Is that supposed to clear his name because he is not responsible for what he reported?
Posted by: Anna | September 21, 2005 at 05:14 AM
I think Bernard Goldberg is the one that has been "speaking truth to power". This idea in Ran Dather's drain bamaged head that he, and CBS news, are the weak and/or represent the weak, is to the point of pathetically sad and scary.
Posted by: Steve | September 21, 2005 at 05:25 AM
I believe you forgot to preceed the term "pinhead" with "self-aggrandizing socialist." Sure Dan did a lot of that speaking when he rolled over on his back for a belly-rub interview with Saddam Hussein. Seems to me that Judge Robers has been speaking it with Chuck Schurmer lately.
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view | September 21, 2005 at 09:03 AM
Actually, when I hear either "speaking truth" or "it takes a village" rhetorical wood-filler, I automatically think the person's stuck on stupid. :-)
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view | September 21, 2005 at 09:33 AM
I agree with one thing, I hate the phrase "speak truth to power".
But, what exactly do you have a problem with in what Dan Rather said? The job of the press is to challenge the government, and they've done a pathetic job with Bush, or at least have been manipulated by the Bush machine. Hopefully the press will wake up.
And please, Dan Rather has had a fine career--he made on serious error with the forged documents, but that does not undo his career (when are is Sean Hannity going to get fired for showing the forged pictures of Kerry and Jane Fonda????).
But in the land many conservatives want to live in, any challenge to Bush is akin to treason, or at least journalistic bias (I'm looking at you Teal Marie).
Posted by: Justin | September 21, 2005 at 10:09 AM
And I'm rolling up the newspaper again, Varmintchild. No pooping in the house! Whack!
Posted by: teal marie | September 21, 2005 at 10:42 AM
Dan who?
Posted by: Tony | September 21, 2005 at 11:23 AM
It's a toss-up as to which is funnier, Dan's bathos or Harry Reid's angst over 'amigos'.
Posted by: jeff | September 21, 2005 at 06:57 PM
"Speaking truth to power?" How about foisting "fake and inaccurate" statements on viewers?
The pressure these guys "feel" is from those of us who have quit watching/reading/listing to slanted news, not from the government and corporate bosses.
Posted by: Evon | September 21, 2005 at 08:24 PM
"The job of the press is to challenge the government,..."
I'm not picking on you, honestly. ;-)
In fact, I'd agree with you if you'd said, ONE OF the jobs of the press is to challenge the government. A free press, of course, is vital to our freedom, and no... criticizing G.W. Bush is not treason.
There are things more important than being brave enough to criticize the incumbent government (and it really doesn't require that much bravery in the US anyhow, as we have a long tradition of freedom of speech and the press.)
Lets consider those reporters in NOLA being briefed on evacuation and emergency plans. What should their priorities be? To clearly inform the population in the face of another storm, or to put their investigative efforts into analyzing events and exposing the truth?
Should they fail in the one, people may die who would not otherwise have died. If they fail in the other they've... what? Become a collaborator rather than an antagonist? If people become convinced, by so many "questions" being raised, that those in power are idiots or don't have a clear plan, they may refuse to obey instuctions and die. So what, in that case, is the more important job of the press?
The "treason" bit comes from statements by some members of the press that they are journalists first and citizens second. This amounts to "I have to tell the truth, even if people from my country get hurt because of it" on a good day, and *apparently* "I have to find some way to criticize Bush, even if people from my country get hurt because of it" on a bad day.
And really... has anyone forgotten the amphibious landing in Somalia? Egad. You know... I don't think that the real turning point in the reputation of the press is or was CBS and the memos... I think it was Somalia.
Posted by: Synova | September 21, 2005 at 08:58 PM
Courage, Baldilocks, courage :)
I noticed he said "THEY were willing to speak truth to power"
Past tense. Obviously a fellow who insists even today that forgeries are documents isn't speaking the truth to anything
Posted by: Don Surber | September 22, 2005 at 08:06 AM
Let it go guys--ourPresident peddles information based on forged documents from Niger, and you guys are getting upset about a poorly sourced story and bad after-the-fact management at CBS. Please.
Posted by: Justin | September 22, 2005 at 08:30 AM
Just speaking for me, the thing about the guard memo story that had the most impact was that it proved that Rather and Mapes had no concept of *relevance*... that they thought this was a HUGE story when, even if they were right about the facts, it was a nearly irrelevant story. Can I trust anything that the MSM comes up with? Because there's more to the news than facts. They take everything they know about the world and the news editors decide what is relevant and what is not and they prioritize and they decide what counts as "news" and what doesn't count as "news."
So they have to decide... do they report on historically *significant* elections in Afghanistan (and who knows what is going on elsewhere!) or do they chose to speak truth to power and report something that makes Bush look bad... quick decide, because they've got limited programming time.
For *me* at least... it's not about the memos. It's that, apparently, the news (unfairly all lumped together, I'll admit it) is unable to determine relevance.
While Somalia proves they don't care the least about the safety of real human beings, the memo fiasco proves that they can't even tell what is news and what isn't.
Posted by: Synova | September 22, 2005 at 11:15 AM
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman | September 22, 2005 at 11:25 AM
Synova--I agree with you in general--the memo story was not a big story, as are MOST big media stories, which over the past six months have cenetered around missing white women and Michael Jackson, so let's do away with the meme that the MSM is somehow anti-Bush when it covers trivial matters.
Posted by: Justin | September 22, 2005 at 12:02 PM
Speaking Truth to Power Award goes to: Claudia Rosett of the Wall Street Journal.
Google: "Claudia Rosett Archive"
2nd: David Horowitz.
3rd: Michelle Malkin/Juliette O.
4th: Bernard Goldberg.
That is a quick off the top of my head because I am in a hurry to get to work. Later.
Posted by: Steve | September 22, 2005 at 03:42 PM