Mirage

CBS sets its course as a news medium not only by the old journalistic myth of "objective" reporting but by another mirage of its own: CBS news analysts are supposed to interpret the meaning of the news without giving their own opinions. By ignoring this lofty impossibility CBS newsmen have won more radio and TV awards than the staff of any other network. Last week, by zealously chasing the mirage, CBS trod heavily on the toes of its foremost commentators, Eric Sevareid, 44, and Edward R. Murrow, 48.

The mirage blinded a CBS Washington deskman named James E. Roper one evening a fortnight ago, as he scanned the script turned in by Sevareid for his nightly five-minute analysis on the radio network. Through a series of pointed questions, the script challenged the wisdom of the State Department's refusal to let U.S. newsmen visit China. "I couldn't pass it; I couldn't defend this one," says Roper. He telephoned CBS News Director John Day at his Manhattan home and read him the text. Day agreed that it should not go on the air because Sevareid's opinion was showing.

Wholly Consistent. As the offending script showed, when it turned up later in the Washington Star and the Congressional Record, Sevareid's observations were fairly mild--and wholly consistent with the network's own views. Like most other major U.S. news-gathering organizations, CBS itself has publicly protested the State Department's policy of keeping correspondents out of China. It was the only network to broadcast direct reports from the Baltimore Afro-American's William Worthy, one of the three newsmen who entered China in defiance of the ban. To top things off, on the very evening Sevareid was edited off the air, a different CBS deskman in Manhattan passed Ed Murrow's blunter criticism of the State Department's policy: "What it comes down to is that we must refuse to allow ourselves to know about China, because if we did, we would obtain the release of ten American prisoners."

Actually, Sevareid's rejected script was much gentler than many others that CBS has aired out of his own mouth. In June 1953 he said: "The country is not in danger of government by fascists or Communists; it's in danger of government by stuffed shirts." During the Truman Administration, CBS even permitted Sevareid the editorial "We." He said: "We think the President has been basically right on foreign policy, including his handling of the Korean war, but we think he's run out of gas on domestic affairs."

Said a perturbed Sevareid: "What is analysis and what is opinion or editorializing? Possibly the differences can never be resolved." His network ruled not only that Roper and Day had been right about the differences, but that Murrow and the Manhattan deskman had been wrong. The Association of Radio-TV News Analysts protested: "Every competent news analyst is bound to express editorial opinion. He does so in selecting topics, in emphasizing their relative importance, and in the tone of voice he uses ... It is hard to understand why CBS still pretends to follow an impossible policy which its news analysts are violating every day."

Languishing Right. The policy in question has caused CBS trouble before. It drove away Analyst H. V. Kaltenborn in 1939 ("If I'm any good as an analyst, I have a right to an opinion"), and Cecil Brown in 1943. CBS President Frank Stanton agrees that objectivity may not be humanly possible, but he argues that only by trying to achieve it can the network satisfy its conception of "fairness and balance."

To CBS's credit, it has been trying to remain faithful to Federal Communications Commission regulations, and it led the industry's fight for the right of broadcasters to editorialize. As a result, in 1949 FCC granted the right in limited form: stations may editorialize if they also give a "balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" in opposition. Since then, Stanton has used the editorial right in CBS's name only once, and the network has let Murrow do a few special editorials of his own--notably, his dramatic 1954 profile of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Otherwise, CBS has let the formal editorial right languish. It is unwieldy and expensive; each affiliated station must approve in advance, and opposing views would occupy costly time.

Other networks wear the FCC strait jacket with no trouble. NBC insists upon its right to editorialize as a network, but has never used it. Unlike CBS, it treats comment as a legitimate function of its individual analysts, so long as they label it as such and document it with facts. Because of the "habit of mind" sought in NBC analysts, outright advocacy is infrequent, says Vice President Davidson Taylor, "but there is no rule against it." Chet Huntley, who worked at CBS for eleven years, feels greater freedom at NBC. Says Kaltenborn: "I had complete freedom at NBC." The network fired outspoken John W. Vandercook, but he says: "I was always allowed to say exactly what I damn pleased until I got the ax."

"Spectrum System." The liveliest and freest solution belongs to ABC, which meets FCC's standard of "balanced presentation" simply by hiring analysts of varied political convictions and giving each his head. Vice President John Daly, himself an ABC commentator, calls it the "spectrum system," a full range of "outspoken, highly personalized discussion and criticism." ABC's spectrum, from left to right: Martin Agronsky, about to switch to NBC; Vandercook and Edward P. Morgan, who are sponsored by the A.F.L.-C.I.O.; Quincy Howe, Daly, John Edwards, John Secondari, Erwin D. Canham, Paul Harvey and George E. Sokolsky. Mutual uses a similar method, with commentators from Cecil Brown to Fulton Lewis Jr. The results are often harpoon-sharp. Howe pundited last week: "It is unlikely that the President will quibble over the slight changes in his Middle Eastern resolution, since he does not yet seem aware of the difference in meaning between the words 'as' and 'like.' " Roared Brown: "Dulles has followed a course of disaster in the Middle East." Snapped Lewis: "This Administration is just spending, that's all."

What system offers the greatest freedom of expression while best safeguarding the public interest? The issues are so complex that even professional civil-libertarians disagree. The American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that stations should not be allowed to editorialize, thinks that if they do, the ABC method is best because it fosters diversity of opinion. Others complain that ABC abdicates its own responsibility in giving newsmen so much leeway, that its listeners tend to heed only the commentators who echo their own prejudices. The other extreme, even when buttressed by the sense of responsibility of the network, produces more lip service than performance, and mixes hypocrisy with the punditry. "At CBS," says one newsman at another network, "you just say 'Uh-huh' to the no-opinion policy and then go ahead and pretend to make omelets without breaking eggs."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.