The Kalb Report — The Fight for Freedom of the Press

This was a very interesting discussion.

Here's the description of the program:

The White House has launched an all-out war against the press terming several news organizations, including CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and The New York Times, the “enemy of the American people,” and their work, “fake news.” The president’s chief strategist has called the press “the opposition party” and has said the media should “keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.”

On Saturday, April 8, CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Washington Post political reporter David Fahrenthold join Marvin Kalb to discuss coverage of the new administration, the responsibility of the press in a democracy, and life in the crosshairs of Donald Trump’s tweets.

The Kalb Report series is produced jointly by The National Press Club Journalism Institute, the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs, Harvard University's Shorenstein Center, University of Maryland University College and the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The series is underwritten by a grant from Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation.

The opening question from Kalb was if this is a new relationship with an administration or is it similar to what other administrations have done. There had always been an adversarial relationship between the press and the presidency. But is this something new.

Both of them said that this was something different. Tapper said that Trump was trying to delegitimize any reports or reporters that were unfavorable to him. That there is no respect for institutions sighting the comments Trump made about the courts. The idea is that Trump wants people to only believe what he is saying and what he is saying is the truth.

Fahrenthold talked about more than any other president Trump relies on the news media to get his news. The strike against Syria was based more on what Trump saw on TV then what he was told in briefings.

Also both talked how Trump's opinions and positions shift all the time. Tapper's comment was over breakfast they can change.

Also this president more than any other reacts to how he's portrayed in the media. They didn't say this but they were talking about what a thin skin Trump has. That he can't take any sort of criticism about anything. And when he is criticised he lashes out at people.

Other things they mentioned was how on one in the administration aren't out pushing a particular view of the story. No sort of push back or comment at all on some stories. Or mixed messages. The Mike Flynn story was a prime example. How Trump spokespeople went out and said Flynn had the full support of the president and then five hours later he was gone.

Fahrenthold also talked about how well things work out for Trump will depend on how well he works with Congress. The problem is is that Trump is not a strategic thinker. He reacts to those who have slighted him today and not who he'll need in the long run to accomplish his agenda.

They closed with talking about as Tapper said there's a whole lot of crazy out there now. The Pizzagate "story" was sighted. That there needs to be a better push back by the media as a whole when such stories are out and out right fake.

I asked a question on how to combat the attention to these extreme sights that are suddenly getting a great deal of coverage. Tapper says the media has to identify what the real facts of the story are and also give details of the people and organizations that are behind them.

Both thought that people were much more engaged and were following the news more closely because Trump was president. The said the interesting thing to see is if people continue to be as engaged once Trump is out of office.

The Amazing David McCullough at the Kalb Report

One of my favorite authors, David McCullough, was the final guest of the Kalb Report this season. It was in the morning and not in the usual room at the National Press Club. It was much smaller and a much more intimate setting. 

Here are a few of things he talked about during the interview:

History is not facts. History is a story. If you say the king died. Then the queen died. Those are facts. If you say the king died. Then the queen died from a broken heart that’s a story.

Always have to remember when writing that the people you write about don’t know how the story ends. He pointed how how different World War II would have been by pointing out the following. If the assassination attempt on Roosevelt in February of 1993 had been successful. Churchill was hit by a taxi in 1932 supposed he'd died from that. The outcome of the war could have been much different.

He's interested in people that have been knocked down by life but then get back up and carry on. Or not being afraid to be themselves no matter what might happen. Truman appointing Marshall as secretary of defense. A member of Truman's staff said people will say Marshall should be president. Truman agreed. But Truman wanted the best man for the job; it didn't matter what people said about him. What was important was getting the job done.

Interested in writing about people that have faced conflict in life. What makes things interesting is the dark or mistakes people have made. McCullough paints and said that if he painted Marvin he would balance out Marvin’s face with a shadow behind it. Because you can’t have the light without the dark. He added with painting you don’t think about other things only about painting. It’s a way to block out the rest of the world.

Churchill asked Eisenhower if he had any sort of hobby. Eisenhower said no. Churchill responded that the burden of command will overwhelm you. So you need to take up a hobby. Eisenhower took up painting. McCullough pointed out that Eisenhower never was as good as Churchill at painting, But Eisenhower painted for the rest of his life.

He was asked his thoughts on Trump comparing himself to Truman. McCullough said he could send several hours talking about that. My impression was he would be refuting that comparison.

People he writes about have had some hard knocks in their lives. But they have compassion and empathy with people. Also he thinks that there should be more about women. He talked about how important Abigail Adams was. Also the sister of the Wright brothers. In McCullough estimation flight would not have happened without her.

I asked him why so little is taught about the Wright brothers. McCullough said because all they are teaching is the facts not the story. The Wright brothers and what they did changed the entire world. That's how important their contribution is to the world we live in today.

Thinks it would be interesting to write a book on John Quincy Adams time in the House and his fight against slavery.

The final story McCullough told us was this. He was on the way to a meeting one morning. He got stuck in traffic by Sheridan Circle. Traffic came to a complete stop. McCullough looked at the statue of Phil Sheridan with, he added, the obligatory pigeon on top of his head. He wondered how many people knew who that even was. Or what he had accomplished. It made McCullough very sad. Then all of a sudden Rhapsody in Blue came on the radio. And he was transported and lifted to another place. It was if he was no longer stuck in traffic. He marveled at how important architecture, painting and music are in our lives. That somehow they don't end up in the history books. He wasn't saying Sheridan should be taken out of the history books. He was saying Gershwin needed to added to them.

It was just an amazing event.

Pictures of the book signing after the talk.

The Kalb Report — Woodward and Bernstein

I’m a little behind on this. This happened last Monday, October 20. I have to say it’s one of the more interesting Kalb Reports that I’ve been to. It reinforced how luck or happenstance or fate can greatly influence events.

The reason that Woodward was on the story in the first place was because it was a Saturday and no one else was around to cover the story. Woodward went to the initial hearing for the burglars and realized it was a big story because the lead burglar said he worked for the CIA. And as Woodward added you don’t see many burglars being arranged in suits.

They both talked about how important Ben Bradlee was to the pursuit of the story. He allowed them to continue covering the story when the national desk editor wanted to take over the story. This was just a day before Bradley died.

In an appreciation piece in the Post on Bradley they related this story about how he and Katharine Graham (the publisher of the Post) backed them up. They also told this story at the Kalb Report:

Bradlee was not above using theater to protect his reporters. When the Nixon reelection committee issued subpoenas for our Watergate notes and those of others at The Post as part of a civil suit, Bradlee and publisher Katharine Graham agreed to declare that she — not her reporters — was the legal owner of all the materials, and that any court action would have to be directed at her personally.

“If the judge wants to send anyone to jail, he’s going to have to send Mrs. Graham,” Bradlee told us with palpable glee. “And, my God, the lady says she’ll go! Then the judge can have that on his conscience. Can’t you see the pictures of her limousine pulling up to the Women’s Detention Center and out gets our gal, going to jail to uphold the First Amendment? That’s a picture that would run in every newspaper in the world.”

In their appreciation piece the two added this about Bradley and their relationship with them:

We were just 30 years old when we wrote “All the President’s Men,” and to say that we were impressionable at that time — to Bradlee and his methodology — would understate the case. But as the years of our association turned to decades, and the friendship and the bond forged by a shared, unique experience became unbreakable, we remained just as wide-eyed and impressionable to his wisdom, to the inimitable truth of his example, and still incredulous at the sheer joy and determination he seemed to bring to his life each day, which, when we first encountered him, had invited disbelief. Over the next 40 years we learned again and again that what we had observed was all true.

At the Kalb Report, they talked about how most of the press corp didn’t believe the stories that the Post were printing about Watergate. The Republican establishment went after them. Putting as much pressure as possible on them, Bradlee and Graham to stop writing all these stories about a third rate burglary.

In the end they stuck to their guns and exposed what Nixon and his administration was doing.

The Kalb Report with Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

What a way for the Kalb Report to end its 20th season. Having not one but two justices from the Supreme Court. Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not going to do a whole narrative on the night but just list some of the points made by the two justices.

Scalia said lots of constitutions have a bill of rights and say they have freedom of the press. But it’s all lip service. What makes the Bill of Rights work in America is the overall structure surrounding it. The Constitution itself.

Here's a little more of what he said:

Scalia: [The Bill of Rights] should not be painted as the foundation of the American democracy… Don’t forget the Bill of Rights was an afterthought. It was not what they debated about in Philadelphia in 1787… What they thought would preserve a free society was the structure of government — that’s what they debated about in 1787. And if you think that’s false, just look around the world. Every tin-horn dictator in the world today has a bill of rights. It isn’t a bill of rights that produces freedom. It is the structure of government that prevents anybody from seizing all the power.

The link above gives you some more direct quotes from the discussion.

Funny banter back and forth between the two about their different views on the constitution. Ginsburg talked about getting a sneak peak at an opinion from Scalia and after reading it how it ruined her whole weekend.
Kalb asked if they ever felt like picking up the phone and calling the White House to get information on something. They both vehmently said no they could not do that. They could not go out and get opinions about a case they had to judge it on the information that’s given to them.

Both talked about how they have to wait for cases to come to them. They can’t go out and get cases or start an investigation. Scalia talked about the Indian Supreme Court. He said if one of their members read something in the Bombay Times (Ginsburg corrected him saying it was Mumbai. Scalia shot back that he was going to call it Bombay that was perfectly good English word to call the city) about the way a police chief treated people the court could go and start an investigation. The Supreme Court in this country cannot do that.

Interesting exchange on the NSA. Here’s some of it from the associated press story:

“I don’t think we have a choice” about dealing with the surveillance issue, Ginsburg said. “We can’t run away” from grappling with whether the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.

The Supreme Court is the institution that is going to decide these “highly significant questions,” Scalia said. “We know nothing about the degree of risk. The executive knows, Congress knows.”

They hedge a little on the NSA not wanting to give away too much. So Kalb tried to ask the question another way. Scalia said you're going to get the same answer.

Scalia is a very charming, very smart, very funny guy. Some self deprecating  humor. But boy oh boy are his decisions wrong.

But what is clear is the respect that Scalia and Ginsburg have for each other. Ginsburg even calling Scalia by his nick name Nino. And in this time of hyper partisanship, it was nice to see two people with such divergent views on the law get along. As Scalia put it: If you cannot disagree with your colleagues on the law without taking it personally, you ought to get another day job.

The Kalb Report with Thomas Friedman

From the Kalb Report site about the program:

As the fall-out from Edward Snowden’s leak to the media of the U.S. government’s massive surveillance programs—including recent court rulings involving the constitutionality of these programs—continues to reverberate around the world, moderator Marvin Kalb and guest Thomas L. Friedman, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist and author, will discuss the evolving intersection of national security and freedom of the press.

Kalb asked Friedman what is freedom. His response was freedom is the ability, the desire, the drive to realize my full potential as a human being. This was especially in the context of the Arab Spring. He added that there is freedom from and freedom to. In the Arab Spring context the freedom from was the dictatorship of Mubarak. The freedom to could be Islamic fundamentalist or the belief in a sectarian regime. The point implied the freedom to some might not always match what our notion of freedom might be.

They went on to talk about privacy and Friedman said privacy is over get use to it. He added that another attack like 9/11 people lead people to say do what you have to to keep us safe. Also said that the attacks eroded people’s trust. Not so much in government but in feeling safe. Now planes aren’t safe. There are people running around blowing themselves up. That makes people want to close themselves off. And that means the terrorists win.

This lead into talking about Eric Snowden. Friedman wouldn’t take a position one way or the other about if he would have been involved in writing about Snowden’s files. He did say that the technology has is so far ahead of the law in this matter. He added he goes back and forth on what he thinks about Snowden. He does believe Snowden should come back to this country. He thinks Snowden would get a fair trial if he did. Friedman added be thought the revelations have lead to a healthy discussion of what government should and shouldn’t be looking into.

There was a funny momement that Friedman talked about after his last book was published. His publisher asked what the next subject Friedman wanted to write on. Friedman said golf. The publisher said as in the Persian Gulf. Friedman added he’s always wanted to write a book on golf.

Another point Friedman made was that his columns reach many more people in the information age. He talked how the New York Times had a Chineses language version of the web site. It just so happens right now China is blocking it but people are still with a few extra steps able to reach and read it.

Toward the end of the discussion Friedman raised this very interesting point. He said we’re in a Gutenberg moment. What he meant was the technology is at a point that it will dramtically impact the way people and ideas are communicated like movable type did.

Friedman’s final thought was that people need to remain optimistic about the future as Americans have historically. He said if Americans don’t do that then the country and the world will be a much different place. Different  in a bad sense not a good one.

50th Anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination — The Kalb Report

Dan Rather and Marvin Kalb

A very interesting Kalb Report on the 50th Anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination Here's a little information on the program:

A Conversation with Dan Rather on a Presidency, a Legacy and a Day that Changed America

On November 22, 1963 time stood still as the nation and the world grappled with the sudden and tragic loss of an extraordinary leader. Now 50 years since that fateful day, we remember the life and legacy of President John F. Kennedy.

Dan Rather was on the scene in Dallas that day, reporting for Walter Cronkite and CBS News, and helped break the story we could not bear to hear. On the next Kalb Report, two legends of journalism, Dan Rather and Marvin Kalb discuss reporting the unthinkable and the profound impact of the events of that tragic day.

Here's a little of Dan Rather's story on that day. He was at the end of the motorcade. At the point where it would pass under a viaduct and head to where Kennedy was supposed to make his speech. He didn't hear any of the shots. He did see the presidential limo race past him. And what he thought at first was make a wrong turn. When the rest of the motorcade didn't follow he knew that something was wrong. 

He was one of the first reporters to report that Kennedy was dead. Most TV networks waited until the official announcement from the government. Everything moved so quickly that there was no time to react to the story. Rather said that happened after that long weekend.

Kalb was at the State Department filing a story. When he found out what had happened he had to walk around the building to calm down. He was of coursed asked by the network if this could have been the work of the Russians or Cubans.

Rather does not think there was a conspiracy. To pull something off on this scale would have taken many people and after 50 years the truth would have come out. He think Ruby acted alone. He said something that was really important he said you are entitled to your opinion (saying this to the people that believe in a conspiracy) but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts don't support a conspiracy.

Rather went on that the idea of a conspiracy came from the fact that the CIA and the FBI were not truthful with the Warren Commission. They didn't want to be seen as allowing the president to killed. And this was the first in a series of event where the government was less than truthful with people.

Both Kalb and Rather think that Kennedy would not have pulled out of Vietnam as some have said. He was an old fashioned cold warrior and would not have wanted to seen as the president who lost Vietnam. Rather then added an important point. That the war didn't become unpopular until casualties started to mount. That didn't happen until 1967-68.

The also thought that civil rights legislation would have been different. This I agree with totally. Johnson used Kennedy's death to push through the legislation. Another interesting point on if Kennedy had lived was would he have won reelection. If Kennedy hadn't died, he might have faced Goldwater but it is possible someone else could have won the Republican nomination.

Rather pointed out that one thing we should be proud of in this terrible tragedy was the peaceful passing of power. As Rather said tanks didn't surround the White House.

I'll have some of my own thought on the Kennedy assassination in an upcoming post.

 

 

The Kalb Report — Remembering a March, a Movement and a Dream

Last Tuesday, I attended the Kalb Report on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington. It was great.

The guests were are NAACP Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond, U.S. Congressman John Lewis, Ambassador Andrew Young, PBS NewsHour Anchor Gwen Ifill, Morehouse College President Dr. John Wilson, and journalist Dorothy Gilliam, the first African American woman hired as a reporter at The Washington Post (1961-1965).

From left to right Julian Bond, Dorothy Gilliam, Marvin Kalb and Gwen Ifill

Dorothy Gilliam

Congressman John Lewis

One of the interesting things I learned was that some of the major organizers of the march were not all that keen on it. They thought it would take away from what they were doing in the south. But they changed their minds when they saw all the people pouring into Washington.

Another thing I learned was that protests and sit ins were set up early in the day. The reason for that was if the protest was going to be on the nightly news it had to be on a plan to Washington by 1 in the afternoon. If it wasn't the story wouldn't make the news. They viewed the three minutes they were on the networks each night as a way to educate the American people on what was going on and what African Americans were facing in the south.

John Lewis was late. He was at the White House introducing the president. As we waited for him to arrive there was a discussion on the impact segregation had on each of the panelists. Then once Lewis arrived the official program began. So we got an extra 25 minutes of discussion. It was great!

More from the Kalb Report — Remembering a March, a Movement and a Dream

I think this is one of the few times I've been to the Kalb report where it's been sold out. In fact the woman that I was sitting next to said they had over booked by a couple hundred people. It was a very moving night. I learned a great deal and got an idea of what was going on on the inside leading up to the march. A historic moment remember by the participants who are some very amazing people.

Julian Bond

Andrew Young (back to the camera), Julian Bond and Marvin Kalb

Andrew Young

Marvin Kalb, Congressman John Lewis and Morehouse College President Dr. John Wilson

The Original March on Washington Program

I think this is just an incredible thing to be able to have and see and read. One of the copies I had John Lewis sign for me. I especially love the hand drawn map.

It is also interesting to ready about the goals of the march which have been overshadowed by the MLK speech. But they are just as important. When reading them, think about how far we have come and what has yet to be accomplished.

The Kalb Report — Democracy in Action: A Review of the 2012 Presidential Debates

What an amazing night. All of the moderators for the debates: Jim Lehrer, Martha Raddatz, Bob Schieffer and Candy Crowley. Unfortunately Crowley had a family emergency and could not attend.

It was interesting to get the perspective of each of the moderators. Lehrer had done the most debates at 12. Schieffer has done three (he said he would probably not do another one; time to choose someone else). This was Raddatz first. All of them said this was the time for the candidates to speak. It was the candidates responsibility to call into questions their opponents answers.

Raddatz talked about how she really hadn’t followed the campaign and had to cram to get ready for the debate. She said when she was asked to moderate it felt either like winning the lottery or having a terminal disease. She also said it was like taking the LSATs in front of 60 million people.

Schieffer said he didn’t want to cover any of the other debates so as not to have that influence how he moderated the one he did. He also said there was funny tweet asking who he was. One saying isn’t that one of the old guys from the Muppets. Schieffer also thought that the first debate should be right after the last convention. This might help to have the campaign take on a higher tone. He thought the candidates should be seated for the debate. He also added he wasn’t a huge fan of the town hall style debate. Lehrer agreed with that.

Here are a few other things that were said by each of them.

From Martha Raddatz:

Candidates come in with a set idea of what the debate will be like. It takes them a while to adjust to how the debate is really going.

The gothcha question really isn’t appropriate for a debate.

The GOP wanted Ryan to be called Mr. Ryan instead of Congressman. Raddatz didn’t do that.

And this funny statement scrutiny thy name is twitter

From Jim Lehrer:

Not about the questions but what is said. It helps to bring context to what the candidates say.

He only looked at the candidate that was talking so never saw what the other one was doing.

Debates are the only time the candidates are on one stage at the same time talking about the same topic.

He wanted to see 6 debates with each debate being on a single subject.


From Bob Schieffer:

The debates seem to be the only time both sides watch at the same time. They watch to see their candidate but also here what the other one has to say.

He thought Romney played it safe in the last debate because he thought he was ahead in the polls. The reason he didn’t take it to Obama on issues like Benghazi.

They all agreed that the debates were good for the country. And as said early thought there should be more of them and they should be earlier in the final campaign cycle.

It was a really interesting and informative evening.

The Kalb Report — Ted Koppel

A very interesting conversation with Ted Koppel last Monday at the Kalb report.

Koppel made some really interesting points:

News has become a business. It makes money now where in the past it really didn't. It was supported by the networks. 60 Minutes changed all that. News has become a profit center. And what drives those centers is what the public wants to hear not what they necessarily need to hear.

Today networks are too concerned about being first with something. What lost in that rush to be first is the context of what is taking place. He pointed to the conflict in Gaza. Lots of reports on what was being bombed but not enough on what's the context/background of what is going on.

What sells, especially on cable, yelling at each other or about each other. He pointed out that you can't expect people to reach across the aisle if they are going to be attacked. I'd add that this seems to mainly happen on the right. Or at least the right screams louder about it.

The internet gives us instant access to news and information but you don't know where that information is coming from, what the agenda of the person or persons putting out the information or how accurate the information is. You still need someone to help put it into context.

He also told an interesting story about a search two people did. One was a conservative and one was liberal. They Googled Egypt. They came up with different lists of information on Egypt. The reason was the search engine took into consideration the sites the two guys visited. It gave the results on Egypt based on earlier searches.

A really great evening of conversation.

Kalb Report: Jim Lehrer

A very interesting Kalb Report which took place last Monday. It was the last for this season. The guest was Jim Lehrer. He was a very interesting and funny guest. Had some very good insights. I didn't know that his written 20 books both fiction and non-fiction.

Here are few:

The hardest questions to ask someone are always the simplest. The example was when Roger Mudd asked Ted Kennedy why he wanted to be president.

Journalism is about the facts; fiction is about the truth.

The Kennedy assassination was the most memorable event for him. He happened to be in Dallas at the time of the assassination. It showed how fragile every thing in is; how things can change in an instant.

Import to make the News Hour available on any and every device.

He's also been the moderate of more presidential debates than any other correspondent. He said as moderator he asked questions to get the candidates to talk. Then the thing to do is step back and let them talk.

Lehrer talked about the Republican debates. He said the problem was that the news organization partnered with a local Republican organization. He said the debates are not entertainment. That the audience is an observer not a participant. As he said the audience sits down and shuts up. He believes that next time around the debates will be set up differently.

He thought it would be a good idea to have mandatory national service. He thought it would make the country less divided. He said something that I've long talked about that only the armed forces are at war; not the public as a whole. He also thought the all volunteer force made it easier for troops to be committed to a war. The reason being that so few people's loved ones are being put in harms way.

It was a very good evening.

The Kalb Report — Anchoring 9/11

Friday I went to the Kalb Report. The topic was Anchoring 9/11: The Day and the Decade. The panelists were Charlie Gibson, Dan Rather, Brit Hume and Frank Sesno.

It was interesting to hear from each where they were when 9/11 started. Gibson was of course on the air with Good Morning America. Rather was at home in the shower. He said he literally dressed as he was riding the elevator down to the lobby of the building he lived in. Hume was having breakfast with another reporter. Sesno was at his office.

All told how they had to set aside what they were feeling and report on the story. Rather talked about being an honest broker for what was going on. All talked about how important it was to inform people about what was going on as quickly as possible. At the same time when they knew very little of what was going on.

Each talked about how important it was to be steady when reporting the day's events and the events going forward from that day. It was a very interesting night.