I was ready for my interview with Jake Tapper on CNN. The questions would revolve around President Trump’s claims, parroted by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr, aimed at censoring news.
George Orwell was on my mind. He had been given credit for the phrase “double-speak”—speech that was inherently contradictory. Carr had bent a knee to “free speech” while censoring it.
Then the interview began, and I was in the world of TV news; “Breaking News” is the pulse. Or is it “Breaking Bad.” Tapper’s show is called “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” In today’s world, if it is in the lead, it is breaking.
There was then no time to talk about the real truth—journalism’s north star. We were going to talk about the FCC. I am a former head of the agency and, at the time, of the same political party as Carr. My Washington stint included working for two Republican President’s—first Ronald Reagan and second George HW Bush as Chair of the FCC.
So we were off and running. I was first asked about Carr’s claim that broadcast news personalities had been fired because of Trump’s targeting and therefore Trump was winning. I noted that winning is what the voter’s think, not the revolving door of personality hires. But hold on, I won’t press my luck— realizing that what was breaking on Monday is not very interesting on Tuesday.
So let me turn to ultimates—our country’s future.The overarching question is whether electronic media-based free speech can find its way to truth? Again, news seeking truth. We, the consumers, are, of course, a part of the question and answer.
Is it possible in our advertising-centric world to allocate the time, indeed patience, necessary to probe verbally for the truth? Are those assigned to “talking head” roles sufficiently thoughtful to even engage in the necessary back and forth? Can they examine facts and interpretations outside the “hot house” environment? Are the personalities able to go three and four questions into a subject in their search?
I ask this last question because my own experience with both the news media and Members of Congress at hearings answers that question in the negative. In short, if you are prepared for the superficial, you are adequately prepared.
On reflection, I should have taken the well-traveled path of advocacy, not responsiveness. But, my background screams, “answer the question”.
Maybe I should have cited Theodore or “Teddy” Roosevelt. He, too, was a Republican. He characterized the White House as a “bully pulpit.” Trump has used the brute force of the White House daily. He has lambasted and threatened. He has used it to distract and when the news is not good to change the subject. And he has used the FCC, which is supposed to be an independent agency, and associated economic penalties (direct and indirect) to his agenda. If Roosevelt was around today, he would blush.
Back to the Breaking News. Jake Tapper is good at his trade, yet hemmed in by the restraints of headline news. I have no idea about his trajectory with CNN, but if I were in charge, I would give him the same opportunity Fareed Zakaria has on Sunday. I would give him enough time and discretion to bring on thoughtful guests toward the end of looking for truth. Truth overall, but most especially how today’s journalism can be rescued from Breaking News. Maybe journalism schools would pay attention.
