 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
Enter the text or keywords here: |
|
|
| Search | |
|
| Help& Advanced | |
|
|
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
"I'm not in the truth business. You're in the truth business. I'm in the fact business."
Usagi Yojimbo:
PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer, last samurai of the nightly news, addressed the faithful at Harry Ransom Center Thursday night. Officially in Austin to booktour his latest novel, The Franklin Affair (nutshell: a classic genre-blend of the "high-stakes tale of historical intrigue" and the "intriguing tale of high-stakes historians"), the 30-year veteran of public broadcasting devoted nearly half his time to fielding a wide range of questions from an audience of River City PBS junkies.
Topics included: Deep Throat, the controversy over alleged liberal bias in public broadcasting, why it may be too early to get worked up over a House Republican proposal to slash funding for PBS, and what the future holds for the news business. Hanging out after the show, I was also able to ask one of my idols what it was like to put the question directly to that man, Mr. Clinton, about sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Lehrer's answer was both surprising and insightful, I thought.
Lehrer, signing my book at the Ransom Center
More on The Franklin Affair can be learned at your local bookstore. Following is a transcript of Lehrer's remarks on all matters non-book related. My shorthand is pretty spotty, I'm afraid. [Sentences between brackets reflect places where I didn't get the transcription exactly.] It's the gist of what was said [but not an exact quote]. The wording of all the questions is strictly "more-or-less" as audience members weren't mic'd.
Q: Is there going to be a Deep Throat to come out of this administration, and if so, do you hope he will tell his story to you? [Ed: This ain't your Jennie Finch softball question, but keep reading, it gets better.]
Jim Lehrer: To answer the first part of the question: Yes. There's always a Deep Throat. One of the things I learned in the research for this book is that the founding fathers had a lot of things on their mind that they didn't [necessarily put in the Constitution]. Jefferson said an informed public is essential for a democracy [... But the founders] set up no method for informing the public except that one line about freedom of the press. [....]
Benjamin Franklin said 'Three people can keep a secret only if two are dead.' If there are secrets that we don't know now, I assume they will come out. Who knows when. Whether it will be a few or many years from now....
Would I like Deep Throat to tell his secrets to me, and I could be a multimillionaire like Bob Woodward? Absolutely. Then perhaps the Ransom Center could maintain my archives. [*obligatory chuckles*]
Q: What do you think about the recent statements by Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson that measures should be taken to curb the liberal bias of PBS programming?
Now. Having said that.
I believe at this stage in the game it is unlikely that anything significant will happen [if the past is any kind of a guide.] People in Washington tend to look at Public Broadcasting as just another federal agency they can fool around with at any time. And none of them can because there are people everywhere, in Austin and in [a big ol' list of cities -- I think Akron and Madison were in there] who support their public television stations, and their public radio stations. And they tend to see them as their property, not the federal government's. [...] In the past, some people in Washington that didn't know that going in found that out going out. Whether that's going to be the case this time, we'll see.
If I see that something serious is afoot or about to do serious damage or get in the way of my or anybody else's ability to practice serious journalism, I will be first to speak out, and I will speak loudly.
In 30 years [...] nobody has ever tried to influence or intrude upon our journalism. Now, that doesn't mean they don't comment on it afterward, but that's as it should be. [...] We, more than any other journalism organization, we in public broadcasting should be able to explain ourselves, take criticism seriously, and get back to people when they have an issue.
Q: What about the proposed House legislation to cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 25 percent / $100 million?
JL: This has happened many times. A House subcommittee in a House committee votes to cut the budget for public broadcasting, and they end up, by the time it leaves the Senate, increasing it. There are a lot different reasons for that. [One reason I'll go into is that] some of the most powerful members of the Senate are from the most sparsely populated states, Wyoming, Alaska. [There is not a lot of media in these areas.] For example, there is no statewide broadcasting outlet, besides Public Broadcasting, in Alaska. And the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee happens to be from Alaska. [Ed: the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman is Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran. Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is the ranking majority member and chairman of the Defense Subcommittee].
I should recognize [...] I have a huge conflict of interest here. I've been a practitioner of journalism in Public Broadcasting for 30 years. This story is about us, but we're also covering this story. We're trying to cover this story in the most evenhanded way possible. If the time comes that I feel I need to speak out, I will.
Q: Standard-issue "what's the future of journalism going to be, Jim," question.
JL: I'm a purist when it comes to increasing the number of outlets and diverse voices. I don't care whether they're shouting, left wing, right wing, no wing, we as a people have got to make decisions [and to do that, we need to hear as many different views as possible] I'm a Jeffersonian in that respect.
A lot of the ways of practicing journalism are being re-examined. Journalism has gone through a period of plagiarism problems, and some absolutely-made-up problems, some real malfeasance here. [...] But I think that can be corrected over time.
As you may know, while newspaper circulation is down, and cable news viewing is generally down, viewership for public broadcasting is actually increasing. What technology is doing, what that says to me is as the flow, the swirl of information, from the internet, cable television, radio, and as the volume grows, and the blogs, you have an increasing desire for a place you can go every few hours where someone can say 'Here's what's happened in the last few hours, here's what's straight.'
The Ransom Center is known for its collection of busts of writers. This one of Dylan Thomas is one of the coolest.
It has almost returned to the old-fashioned model of the 'gatekeeper journalist'. The function of the credible, trusted journalist who sorts through all this stuff is going to make a come back in a big way.
Q: How do you decide which stories you run, in what order, how long they are, and who reports them?
JL: [A very long and meandering answer from Jim about attending a bunch of different types of meetings. What's good here is the very first thing he said, and about the third from the last thing.]
[1.] First, we don't have to wake up each morning having to remind ourselves who we are, what our soul is, so we can get right to it. [Ed: Jim's sounding very Dubya right about now.]
[n-3.] There isn't a mistake out there that we haven't made it. [Ed: Eh, notsomuch.]
Q: A question from a very sincere fellow upset that we've been duped into fighting a war with Iraq, and now we're going to be duped into invading Syria, and what's Jim going to do about it.
JL: I'm not in the truth business. You're in the truth business. I'm in the fact business. My job is to bring you as much different information as possible [...] At the end of the night, I'm not going to look into that red light and say, "OK, you've heard what these two clowns think, here's what I think." Not going to do it.
[It's impossible to tell you everything you need to know in a 60 minute newscast.] Sometimes you have to follow up on your on your own. You have to do more. We hope to arouse your interest so that you will go out and find your own understanding. If you're depending on the journalists of America to supply the outcry to decisions of the United States government, forget it. [Lehrer continues at some length, more or less saying: 'Pal, that's your job.'].
After the talk came the book signing. I hung around and was able to ask Lehrer something I've always wondered: What's it like to be in the White-House, one-on-one with the most powerful man in the world, and really putting the screws to him.
Bumperactive.com: I wanted to ask about Monica Lewinsky. You were the one who was on the receiving end of perhaps the most memorable line of the Clinton presidency ["I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"]. What was that like?
JL: It was hell. And of course there was no preparation, nobody had asked him the question before. I didn't know whether he'd say "I did it" or not. I think if he would have said "I did it," would have had to say "I did it. I quit. Pfft -- That's it."
BAC: No kidding? [Conventional wisdom being, at least as I've always heard it, that it's always the cover-up that get's presidents in trouble; If they just come clean, the tempest can generally be confined to a teacup.]
JL: If you remember at the time, before impeachment, he hadn't become a victim yet. If he'd have said at that time "I've been fooling around with a 21 year-old-woman," he'd have had to quit. Had to. I think so. And I think he thinks so. As a matter of fact, I know he thinks so.
[Ed: Jim-Lehrer-deadpan-eye-twinkle is even cooler in person.]
|
|
|
|
|
comments |
||||
Follow links in the comments and you're on your own. |
||||
| ||||
( top ) | ||||
post |
||
( top ) |