William Safire's Passing and the Decline of American Journalism

[kallend 2,026]

A great article spurred by his death over the weekend:
____________________________________________

William Safire's Passing and the Decline of American Journalism

Nancy Snow

Today's Google News has the wedding of reality TV star Khloe Kardashian and LA Lakers' forward Lamar Odom getting more hits than the passing of New York Times columnist, William Safire. Now granted, Khloe and Lamar have more blogger followers, including Perez Hilton's "wedding deets" to share with those not privy to be in LA.

This suggests, albeit unscientifically, that the death of an esteemed giant in American journalism is less newsworthy than a secondary tier celebrity wedding. The media weren't reporting the wedding of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, but two people who have been dating for a month and decided to get hitched before basketball season begins.

We're so awash in infotainment sludge that we can't distinguish the truly irrelevant from the significant.

Safire, 79, was a conservative columnist for the New York Times. He was a fish out of water, to say the least, and many of the Times reporters were not happy with his swimming around for thirty years at the liberal newspaper of record. The Sulzberger family knew better.

Part of journalistic appeal, especially in opinion writing, is to provoke reader interest through saying something that jolts a reader's perspective out of somnolence. Safire did just that with his political columns that undoubtedly raised the blood pressure of some liberal readers, and with his "On Language" columns, which soothed the souls of etymologists and grammarians.

I recall a most memorable political column he published in the Times shortly before he retired. It was called "You Are a Suspect."

It was against type for this former Nixon speechwriter. The date was November 14, 2002, a year after 9/11, and before the invasion of Iraq. The U.S.A. Patriot Act had already passed with barely any debate. I immediately shared Safire's column with my journalism students at Cal State Fullerton. I told them, "This matters to you."

Here is what Bill Safire wrote in part:

If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:
Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.


That Safire column sparked Congressional action that stopped Poindexter's push for a big net approach to data collection.

Safire didn't always get his facts right. He was pilloried for his many columns that linked al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq. (See David Corn's "The Propaganda of William Safire")

Safire attended Syracuse University and gave its commencement speeches in 1978 and 1990. I now teach public diplomacy and global communications at the Newhouse School here at SU.

Safire's relationship with Richard Nixon began at a public diplomacy venue. In 1959 Safire was a publicist and his client Herbert Sadkin, president of All-State Properties, built the famous modern American home featured at the American National Exhibition in Sokolniki Park, Moscow. Safire coaxed Vice President Richard Nixon into attending the exhibit opening on July 24, 1959, also attended by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev.

The two men got into some back-and-forth conversations about the merits of Soviet communism versus American capitalism that came to be known as the "The Kitchen Debate." Nixon's proud defense of American know-how raised his public profile both at home and abroad. He later asked Safire to join his inner circle, and Safire served the president in the White House, along with Patrick Buchanan, Diane Sawyer, and David Gergen. In 1973 Safire began writing for the New York Times, where he remained a columnist until 2003.

If you want some advice for what to pay attention to in the news, read more about the "life deets" of self-proclaimed libertarian conservative Bill Safire and not about the wedding of Khloe and Lamar. Relevant knowledge is good and powerful.

Dr. Nancy Snow is the author of six books, including Information War and Propaganda, Inc. She teaches in the S.I. Newhouse School at Syracuse University, New York. Reach her at www.nancysnow.com

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the post.

I heard a short retrospective this morning on NPR.

Sometimes I agreed with Safire (especially w/r/t his musing on language in the Sunday magazine) and sometimes I disagreed, but he most often made me think. And for that I deeply respected his opinion and tried to understand the process he used to get to his conclusions.

RIP Mr. Safire.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[marks2065 0]

american journalism is dieing because of its loss of objectiveness and its desire to promote it's own political views. people no longer trust the mainstream media to report the news acurately or without furthering the agenda it desires. I have never heard of William Safire but the fact that he worked for the times and I live in chicago might be the reason. the fact that he wasn't a bigger story has probably more to do with how the times reports the stories and the loss of people using them as a credible sorce.

Quote

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

american journalism is dieing because of its loss of objectiveness and its desire to promote it's own political views. people no longer trust the mainstream media to report the news acurately or without furthering the agenda it desires.

I disagree. Journalism has never been objective. I think it's moved more to that side than it has ever been.

Journalism, though, has lost its relevance because of the vast increase in alternative media. Newpapers are dying because people don't read them. Why would one read an opinion piece by William Raspberry when they could log onto MoveOn.org and actually put something up there?

Consider this - the treatment received with the death of Tim Russert and the treatment received with the death of any print reporter. There are no soundbites for a print columnist. No image. Just printed words and the relative anonymity of the writer. It's just the way it is.

Safire was huge. He will be missed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

I have never heard of William Safire

Quote

THAT explains a whole lot.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[mpohl 1]

Just like anything else, things head for the shitter when money and GREED become the overriding themes: for example, (i) health care, (ii) journalism; (iii) politics, (iv) feel free to add on.

Quote

american journalism is dieing because of its loss of objectiveness and its desire to promote it's own political views. people no longer trust the mainstream media to report the news acurately or without furthering the agenda it desires. I have never heard of William Safire but the fact that he worked for the times and I live in chicago might be the reason. the fact that he wasn't a bigger story has probably more to do with how the times reports the stories and the loss of people using them as a credible sorce.

Quote

• Quote

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

I disagree. Journalism has never been objective. I think it's moved more to that side than it has ever been.

I also feel it's not been objective, although many writers DO make an honest attempt to be. To me, the value in reading certain writers versus the "you can post" places on the web is in their viewpoint and thinking. I can't claim to be totally open minded about a lot of things even as much as I try to be, but if people can't read other's opinions who they have learned to place some value on over time, how can they ever really learn? The "you can post" forums and blogs on the web seem to only perpetuate already held opinions for most, not help people form or adjust their's. Yes, newspapers are on the way out, and I think it will be a very sad thing when the are gone. I'm another "read him in the sunday papers" reader of Safire. I always enjoyed his writing, even when I did not agree with the content.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Just like anything else, things head for the shitter when money and GREED become the overriding themes: for example, (i) health care, (ii) journalism; (iii) politics, (iv) feel free to add on.

Greed didn't push newspapers to the shitter. Greed built them. See "Hearst" and "Pulitzer."

And yes, the health care debate is driven by greed - people wanting a free ride paid for by others. The same reason newspapers are going down. A newspaper cost 50 cents. I can get more content for free on yahoo.

The newspaper is a snapshot of what was happening in the world at 10 p.m. the night before. Online news is instantaneous. People get the news, pop onto the Huffington Post to see instant analysis from those whom they agree with posting their thoughts, and move on.

My wife is hotter than your wife.