Talking about Fox, perhaps, or maybe MSNBC or CNN (or late night talk show hosts)? Think again. It’s Pat Buchanan, quoting U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, in November 1975. In this week's issue, we have two stories that tell us much about the evolution of the media’s role in news coverage, and reminds us that nothing really is new.
The first is Pat Buchanan’s News Watch column, the source of the initial quote. Buchanan is talking about the change in media coverage since Watergate, a change that has brought on an "excessively mistrustful and even hostile" atmosphere. This isn't a referendum on Watergate, which remains shrouded in mystery more than fifty years later (Corrupt politicans? A psyop operation by the Deep State?), but it is a searching look at something more, at the natural evolution of such an atmosphere, asking "what will be the ultimate impact upon the democratic system, which itself guarantees freedom of the press?"
The problem, according to Buchanan, is that the media now has a vested interest in scandal: for ratings, for dollars, for prestige. (Little-remembered fact: NBC’s Huntley-Brinkley Report was once presented without commercial interruption, in order to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and signify that the news division was not driven by profit margin.) What happens when that self-interest conflicts with a larger interest—the national interest, for example? Granting that the exact nature of the national interest is often a subject up for debate, Buchanan nevertheless points to the "declining confidence in leaders and institutions" and speculates on the ultimate consequence this will have for the nation.
Buchanan again quotes Fulbright (a Democrat, by the way, and never a natural ally of Pat's), who had recently authored the article "Fulbright on the Press" in the Columbia Journalism Review: "That Puritian self-righteousness which is never far below the surface of American life has broken through the frail barriers of civility and restraint, and the press has been in the vanguard of the new aggressiveness."
What has changed is not the nature nor the inclination of those in the media to go after their subjects with every weapon at their disposal. What is new now is the very definition of media, which in this sense has come to include every blog, every web page, every podcast, every social media account on X, Facebook, and Instagram; in short, everyone with an opinion, which is just about everyone. As new types of media and new modes of communication have come about, this instinct of which Fulbright speaks has become more invasive, more insidious. Indeed, isn’t this what some here have spoken about, the increasing incivility of the internet? Well, looking at this issue is like seeing the seeds of that harvest being planted.
A lot of people fall back on the "freedom of speech" argument, defending their right to say what they want, whenever they want. And this is not an argument that should be taken lightly, because it's a slippery slope at best. But Fulbright contends that the social contract requires "a measure of voluntary restraint, an implicit agreement among the major groups and interests in our society that none will apply their powers to the fullest." A measure of responsibility, in other words, which is a commodity that is in short supply nowadays.
l l l
Now, I mention this not merely because of Pat Buchanan’s words, but because of the echo which the subject matter receives in another article from this issue, Edwin Newman’s "People are Generally Skeptical of Us…and Indeed They Should Be." Newman shares the concern with the increasing intrusiveness of the media. Asked what was wrong with endless investigation and revelation of public figures by the media, Newman replied, "It degrades public life. If purity tests are to become an accepted part of American life before anybody can go into politics, politics is going to be intolerable. It’s very nearly intolerable now.”
Remember, he said this fifty years ago.
Newman adds, "Anybody in our business should avoid taking on false importance. We should certainly not pretend to be infallible." Now that’s a novel idea today.
Newman also sounds a cautionary note on something which Buchanan alludes to, the amount of faith (or lack thereof) that people put in their leaders. Buchanan quotes Fulbright: "Bitter disillusionment with our leaders is the other side of the coin of worshiping them." Picking up on that thread (although the two articles are not connected), Newman says that such idolatry "leads to all kinds of lunatic expectations about what can be accomplished by politicians and so leads to irrational and disproportionate disappointment…it misleads Presidents about Presidents, so that they are tempted to do foolish things. And I think the press contributes to this for reasons of its own."
This is a warning we should carefully consider. There’s a pronounced tendency nowadays to put an inordinate amount of faith in human institutions, or perhaps I should say the humans who occupy such institutions—government, medical, legal, religious, scientific, educational—which always seems to wind up badly. We create institutions, we tear them down, we rebuild them again. It keeps everyone busy, I suppose.
In many ways, the sins of the Sixties culture were starting to be felt in the Seventies, and would continue to be felt in subsequent decades. So one can see, as far back as 1975, a growing concern with cynicism in society, a disregard for institutions, and a press displaying an “anything for a story” attitude. Again, there’s nothing new here, as it was not new then. But as communication expanded beyond the newspaper to radio, beyond radio to television, and beyond broadcast television to cable and satellite; as letters gave way to email and the internet, and as information once taking hours or days to transmit is now given instant analysis and parsing through social media, so also the consequences of such concerns are magnified, enlarged, and become even more troublesome.
There really isn’t anything new out there, only new ways of expressing it. And, it seems, new ways of ignoring old truths and concerns.
l l l
Kirshner: Melissa Manchester, New Riders of the Purple Sage, and Hoyt Axton are the performers. Don Kirshner is the host of the series.
Special: Olivia Newton-John, the Bee Gees, soul-pop singer Natalie Cole (the late Nat King Cole's daughter) and country singer Mickey Gilley are the guests. Also: a salute to Rod Stewart. Neil Diamond's "I Am...I Said" is the spotlighted hit.
Now, I figure you all know who Natalie Cole is, but I left that reference in because, in 1975, she wasn't the established name she is today. Back then, she was just Nat King Cole's daughter. I've never been a particular fan of hers; I don't want to accuse her of being a nepo baby, but I do wonder, if her name was Natalie Smith, how big a career she might have had. Nonetheless, she's part of the winning side this week, as the salute to Rod Stewart breaks a tie between a lackluster matchup. So let's give the nod to Special, but don't exert any more energy than that.
l l l
And now for something more lighthearted, an article about our longtime favorite, game show standard Kitty Carlisle, written by Peter Funt, son of the legendary TV host Allen Funt. (If you're old enough to remember Candid Camera, you'll know who we mean.) "The only way to see Kitty Carlisle in the same dress twice," the article proclaims, "is to watch reruns of To Tell the Truth." Funt's story is a charming portrait of an entertainer who takes her job seriously, as well as her responsibility to her fans, and radiates class all the way. "She is one actress who still refuses to appear in public without beautiful clothes, ornate jewelry and a carefully styled coiffure." Particularly humorous is her description of her "pit crew," the wardrobe people responsible for helping her change in the ten minutes between shows (the five-a-week show was taped in a single afternoon). "Every once in a while, I feel like I'm a car in the pits at Indianapolis. Somebody changes the oil, kicks the tires—you know, pats the hair and shoves me back out on the stage."She was a fun, classy lady, and an intelligent game player.
l l l
Ronald Reagan, former governor of California, who's challenging President Ford for the Republican presidential nomination, is the guest on Issues and Answers (Sunday, 1:30 p.m., ABC). The politicos still aren't quite sure what to make of Reagan's candidacy, and whether he poses a serious threat to Ford; they'll find out the answer soon enough. That night, the Sunday Mystery Movie presents Tony Curtis as McCoy. (9:00 p.m., NBC). Does anyone out there still recall that series, McCoy? It was part of NBC's Sunday Mystery Movie series, alternating with McCloud, McMillan & Wife, and Columbo, and people had a lot of fun with three Macs in the series. I thought it was kind of fun, myself, as Curtis plays a con man/Robin Hood-type, not dissimilar to the early '60s series The Rogues, but it only lasted for a few episodes before falling away. NBC never was able to fill that fourth spot; I suppose Quincy would be considered the most successful, since it was spun off into its own weekly series. Richard Boone's Hec Ramsey actually ran for two seasons in the Sunday spot, which wasn't too bad.
On Tuesday, we're treated to the first of two primetime appearances by Richard Basehart, tonight on Joe Forrester (10:00 p.m., NBC), the short-lived cop drama starring Lloyd Bridges as the world's oldest beat cop. (Or maybe I should say "one of the oldest," given that I haven't seen them all.) I'm not sure who "Al Morgan," Basehart's character in the drama, is, but take your pick: he's either a slippery drug pusher, a persistent drunk, or a particularly menacing shakedown artist. And you know what? He could probably play any of them credibly.
Wednesday, Hallmark Hall of Fame returns with "Valley Forge," Maxwell Anderson's dramatization of the cruel winter of 1777-78 spent by George Washington and his troops at their Pennsylvania encampment. (8:00 p.m,. NBC) Cold, without sufficient food or water, and facing the formidable British forces of General William Howe, Washington must struggle to hold his "shambles of an army" against almost insurmountable odds. This time, Richard Basehart stars as Washington, and it's a testament to the power and brilliance of his performance that the 5'9" Basehart is able to present such a convincing portrait of the 6'3" Washington, but as you watch it, you will believe that he is the Commander in Chief. (Insert obligatory slam at today's Hallmark movies here.)
And in the oldie-but-goody category, there's a repeat showing of Sean Connery's debut as James Bond in Dr. No (Friday, 9:00 p.m., ABC). Besides the fact that it co-stars Ursula Andress and features an entirely credible titular villain, played by Joseph Wiseman, it has a savage edge to it that most of the later movies lack. It's not exactly seasonal fare, but then is Bond ever really out of season? Judith Crist calls it "strictly a popcorn-and-Coke Saturday-afternoon-serial entertainment," which isn't really as bad as it sounds, and Connery, "the unsurpassable Bondsman, is elegant and high-living and dashing." However, if you've already seen it, you might be more inclined to the three-hour presentation of Tora, Tora, Tora (8:00 p.m., CBS), the story of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Crist says it recounts, "in boring fashion how lazy, dumb Americans practically brought Pearl Harbor down on their own heads despite the best efforts of those brilliant gentlemen from Japan." Ouch, that stings!
l l l
I couldn't ignore this oddity from the week's movie listings, one of those things that maybe (probably) interests only me. On Thursday, WFSB in Hartford presents The Quiller Memorandum (9:00 p.m.), the 1966 spy thriller based on the novel by Adam Hall (pen name of Elleston Trevor), starring George Segal, Alec Guinness, Max von Sydow, and Senta Berger. It's a pretty good movie, as these movies go, and Segal turns in a fairly convincing performance as a cynical American intelligence agent investigating a group of neo-Nazis.
*Jayston would later co-star with Guinness in the brilliant miniseries Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, a spy series set in a similar era, based on the novel by John le Carré. I guess it's a small spy world after all.
l l l
I'm a little surprised that there aren't even more on this week; nowadays, the Hallmark movies start, I don't know, a little after the Fourth of July, and Rudolph usually airs in November. And after all, Friday's already December 5, so time's slipping away! You can bet they've been running the commercials, though—those likely started before Halloween... TV
If you enjoy the content here and want to support my broader creative work, please consider making a donation at my Ko-fi page. Any amount you contribute helps me continue writing, researching, and sharing these articles and projects. Thank you!
