The golden age of journalism wasn’t so golden

By Christopher Harper

As it has become increasingly apparent that the media have become political partisans, I started to wonder how neutral the press was during the more than two decades I worked as a reporter.

The more I thought about it, the more I discovered that the media back in the good old days might not have been as overtly political as today, but slanted stories and opinions often made it into the news.

From 1974 to 1995, I worked at the Associated Press, Newsweek, and ABC News in Chicago, Washington, Beirut, Cairo, Rome, and New York. I worked with Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, Hugh Downs, and many other well-known journalists. I competed against others, including Thomas Friedman, E.J. Dionne, David Ignatius, and many others.

Here’s what I recall about politics in the news back then. During my time in Washington, I watched as the nation’s press eviscerated Jimmy Carter and his team. Carter came from outside the swamp and didn’t fit into Washington culture. Neither did his top aides.

I don’t think Carter was a particularly good president, but the media took him to task on almost everything he tried. I can count on one hand, however, the number of former colleagues who voted for a Republican in the past 40 years.

Almost every reporter during the Iran hostage crisis thought Ayatollah Khomeini had to be better than the shah. How wrong we were!

In Beirut, almost every journalist backed the Palestinians, including me. Jennings had spent much of his early years in the Middle East and had a distinctly Arab tilt. Ignatius did some good work in the Middle East but has since gone off the rails with his analyses.

In Cairo, many journalists supported the peace efforts of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. I wasn’t one of them, but Sadat had an incredibly positive press in the United States. The opposite was true in many Arab states and Europe. Friedman had no understanding of the assassination of Sadat when he covered the story in 1981.

In Rome, I saw Dionne completely botch the story behind the plot to kill Pope John Paul II.

Just as I arrived in the United States in 1986 to work with ABC’s 20/20, Roone Arledge, a legend in television circles, had killed for the program on the sexual exploits of JFK when he was in the White House. Arledge didn’t want to upset the Kennedy clan and one of his top aides who worked with the family.

At 20/20, it was clear that Walters had a distinctly liberal bent, but she didn’t stand in the way of opposing viewpoints. Downs was just an incredibly decent human being.

Not too long after I arrived at the program, I included an interview with Pat Buchanan. I was accosted by a fellow producer who threatened that she would make sure people wouldn’t work with me if I ever had another conservative on the program.

Although the recollections here are merely anecdotal, they underline the powerful, albeit subtle, ways in which the media set an agenda back in the golden years. The political bias may not have been so apparent and so constant, but it was there. I am the first to admit that my biases probably made their way into my stories.

After I left the mainstream media, I wrote a column for The Washington Times for nearly three years until 2015. My former colleagues berated the conservative tone of the columns, including one who described me as “dumb as a boulder.” I was prevented from sharing my columns on a Facebook page for former ABC employees.

Today, I find that nearly all of my former colleagues have a decidedly liberal or leftist viewpoint.

In fact, a large group of ABC News retirees publicly criticized Trump over his attacks on the press. An Obama organizer and former ABC News producer started the petition. See  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/25/trump-inciting-violence-nearly-retired-journalists-condemn-presidents-un-american-attacks-press/

I wonder if these points of view crept into their news coverage back in the day. I think they probably did.

The Unexpectedly Chronicles: Trained in Fear & Helplessness

One of the least surprising things that I’ve seen in the last few weeks has been people so willing to jump on the fear of re-opening bandwagon.

Despite the data, despite what we’ve seen in Florida, Texas and elsewhere there is a solid population that are terrified of the thought of re-opening the country.

Now I’m not talking about those driven by political considerations, (a economy that comes back helps Trump) I’m talking about actual people afraid of what might happen if we do.

Some might be surprised at this development but I’m actually shocked it’s not worse.

For a generation we gave out participation trophies because we were afraid of hurting feelings of those who didn’t win.

You people pushing the idea that grades and tests were bad because it might affect the self esteem of some.

In fact we reached the point where in colleges, places of supposedly higher education we had grief counselors assigned not only over election results that people didn’t like, but also over people who dared utter opinions that differed from the status quo.

And in the last year the use of a pronoun that one didn’t like caused people to crumble

In short we spent twenty years training people not to be able to cope with little things, in fact think of the fairly new word “microaggressions” it’s very name this suggests something small and meaningless, yet for thousands it represents something unbearable.

And now take these people weaned on fear and panic and introduce a virus that can actually kill you.

Do you really expect people who have been weaned on abject panic concerning trifles to be able to cope when faced with the prospect, however small of dying from an actual deadly disease?

So if you find yourself shaking your head over their fear that chunks of the country have over re-opening consider, the surprise isn’t that so many people are gripped with fear, the surprise is that after a quarter century of conditioning more aren’t