Tom Brokaw

RTNDA Conference and Exhibition

Tom Brokaw was the keynote speaker for the RTNDA Conference and Exposition on August 26, 1986, in Salt Lake City. Tom Brokaw was anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News until 2004.

It was 25 years ago that I began my career as a full-time, grown-up broadcast journalist. I remember one of the attractions of the profession was the opportunity to grow with it. Television news was in its infancy; indeed, it wasn't until the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 that television news generally began to be taken seriously by mass, critical audiences.

So at the age of 22 in 1962 I was a second generation pioneer in a profession that in the next quarter century experienced astonishing growth, reaching as it does now around the globe in a matter of moments. And, as it is with Patrick Ewing, it is not just the length of our reach that is impressive. It is the impact we have when we reach out to whatever place it is that we have decided to aim our cameras and satellite transmitters. Just ask Ferdinand Marcos. In the end, no mis-calculation of his was greater that his belief that somehow he could manipulate the impressions conveyed by television to his own advantage. There are so many other reminders of the force of this medium. We cannot be indifferent to its power, even in our day to day familiarity.

Neither should we be careless about the change that is occurring within it even as we assemble here in our fancy suits and dresses. That is not to suggest we're unaware of the change, but it is possible, isn't it, that given the press of day to day responsibilities, that we don't measure as carefully as we should the cumulative effect of these many developments involving ownership, technology, qualifications, cost, profit and purpose.

So I thought it might be useful, maybe even, wild optimist that I am, maybe even enlightening if I spent some time sharing some personal thoughts and hopes about what the next 25 years may bring. Then, in 25 years, you can bring on the NBC anchor of the day, whoever she is, to review my judgments, to see how history has treated them.

If I tell you that when I began my career newscasts were 15 minutes long, that they didn't have "action" or "eyewitness" in their title, that there was no 60 MINUTES or NIGHTLINE, no 1986, no CNN, no television satellites, no VCR's, no agents, no consultants, will you think of me as a Daryl Strawberry might think of Ted Williams, someone who has played the game but failed to keep pace with the contemporary imperatives? I'd accept that if I could get anyone to think of me in the same passage with Ted Williams, but in fact, I am not oblivious to the radically altered environment in which we pursue our professional interests.

I have been enormously rewarded by this profession, intellectually, emotionally, financially. I cannot imagine a better place for me to have been over the past two decades and five years. I love it.

I try not to be a beneficiary who, once he gets more than a fair share of the booty, becomes aristocratic, behaving as if his place in this estate is somehow a matter of birthright. I remember when I was a local, a serf toiling in those vineyards. I remember the resentment I had for some network lords who wandered by from time to time, feigning a low level of interest in our narrower world. I vowed then not to be above the news at whatever level or to artificially place myself above those who work at lower altitudes.

So, forewarned, some thoughts on our world after 25 years. Another caveat: Byron spoke for me when he wrote, "I love wisdom more than she loves me." If not wise, perhaps I can be provocative. Failing that, I'll at least give the waiters a break.

First, despite the attempts of many of our more hysterical critics, the various news media enjoy a healthy, respectful relationship with the audiences we serve. I was heartened by last new year's LOS ANGELES TIMES - GALLUP POLL study that reflected an overall rating of mostly or very favorable for radio news, local and network television news and daily newspapers.

That same poll indicated 80 percent of the people believe we care about the quality of our work. So the relationship is strong, despite the naysayers who most often are driven by ideological considerations.

Additionally we work in a healthy political environment. Yes, we have to be vigilant about the current zeal of the CIA to threaten prosecution in cases that are at best, in my judgment, ambivalent. But, by and large, the press in this country - print and electronic - enjoys a freedom to operate unrivaled in the world. In fact, the freedom is so great and we take it so much for granted when there is an occasional question raised or a court case not entirely in our favor we often respond out of proportion to the offense, too often behaving as if we're a herd of wounded buffalo about to be driven to extinction.

The late John Osborne of TIME and THE NEW REPUBLIC put it another way. John was a thoughtful, uncompromising and combative practitioner of our craft and he was fond of saying, "All journalists have glass jaws; they go down with the first punch." I agree. I have witnessed too many cases where the press has swung freely for days and weeks at a time and the moment someone begins to fight back, the cry goes out, "FIRST AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT." As if it were President Reagan's vision of Star Wars, some kind of impenetrable shield.

The First Amendment, we should remember, also protects those who speak out against us. Or think of it this way. When you start throwing newspapers across the room threatening great bodily harm and making dark references to the ancestry of the local television critic who has just reviewed your efforts, remember he or she too can claim the First Amendment rights you find such a handy defense when confronted by an outraged public or private citizen.

The First Amendment gives all of us enormous freedom, broad latitude to print and broadcast news, to express ourselves in a wide variety of ways on an almost limitless variety of subjects. Within those generous boundaries we should be able to conduct ourselves with honor. We should pay heed to Justice William Brennan, a great friend of the press, who nonetheless has counseled caution in our rhetoric and constitutional claims, saying, "This may involve a certain recognition, but the press like other institutions must accommodate a variety of important social interests."

We should heed his words. As this country examines the direction it will take for the remainder of this century and beyond, so too should the press in all of its dimensions examine the direction it will take. We have an awesome role in American life. I believe we provide the body politic with the oxygen it requires to breathe: information about the crucial choices before it, news about the changes that will affect the shape of the body politic today and tomorrow.

The question is, how can we concentrate on that role when there is so much change going on within our corner of society?

I worry that much of that change is or can be distracting, that it will lead us away from our fundamental assignment and a responsible execution of it. That is to cover the news our audiences not only want to know, but need to know.

For example, we now know we can get pictures from far over the horizon back to the studio in whatever city or town our license is located. We can get a local reporter to Geneva, Manila, Mexico City or Moscow and, gosh, doesn't it look good in the full page ad?

But city hall and the county courthouse, that's boring. Nevermind that those are the places that directly govern the lives of our viewers, or that in any city hall or courthouse in the country the potential for corruption or abuse is lurking out there in the back-stairs, waiting for the watchdogs to leave the building. Politicians everywhere have mastered the medium. They know how to use the 6:00 and 11:00 for their purposes, never mind the public good. Why? Because they're largely left unexamined except when a scandal becomes so great it cannot be ignored.

I am not suggesting you give up Manila for Main Street. I am suggesting the formula is out of balance. It seems to my eye as I travel the country that we've become a hit and run business, racing from one trendy issue and format to another. I am keenly aware of the importance of form and style, of flow and promotion, but I know in my heart and in my mind that they alone are not our nourishment.

I worry that we have become hostage to these matters, that we are a profession so bedazzled by the technology available, so frantic in our determination to prevail in the short run that we have lost sight of the fundamental reason for our privileged place in this universe.

That reason, it seems to me, is simple and honorable: to provide the American people with an honest portrait of the world in which they live. To provide them with the truth as best as we can determine it. To alert them of day to day change. To warn them of impending change. To provide them with the information they need to make decisions about their lives and this society. Some of that information may be painful. Much of it is complicated. All of it requires careful examination and preparation. And the packaging is the final step; it should not be the motivation. It's hard work. It's not easy to do it well. But then we demand the best of everyone else, don't we? Public servants, sport stars, businessmen. Why not our own work?

News, and I don't have to define it for this audience, will not go out of fashion. Hard news, real news that has impact and meaning in your community, however large or small that community may be. News that is defined and prepared and reported by professional journalists. By the way, does anyone want to be a reporter anymore? Nine out of ten young communications majors I meet, when I inquire about their career goals, say I want to be an anchor. The tenth one is more direct. He or she will boldly declare, "I want your job." In almost every case a little gentle probing detects little or no interest in the stuff of news. The rewards of news, that seems to be the career motivation. I am not a curmudgeon, but that is wrong, a disturbing sign of a mis-directed generation. Whatever else it is, the first rough draft of history, or however you want to define it, news, hard information, socially and politically meaningful, that's not incidental to our lives. That is our life-line. We're imperiled if we ignore it, if the public begins to perceive what we do is a kind of entertaining diversion from the rest of the programming. Not too threatening, but not too memorable either.

Why do I feel compelled to raise these issues at such a gathering? Simple. We're the trustees. If we don't protect, preserve and nourish this trust, who will?

Almost 30 years ago Edward R. Murrow appeared before this organization at another time of change. Speaking of television he said something I believe should be installed in bold print in every network and local newsroom, every general manager's office and in every network executive suite. He said, "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

A great deal has changed within television since Murrow made that speech in 1958. What has not changed is the hard truth of his observation.

As those people, issues and events we cover on a day to day basis will be judged in a more reflective light by future historians, so, too, will we be judged. What will be our legacy? I trust it will be more than uplinks, flow, trucks and sweeps, more than wires and lights in a box.

Comments

Add Comment