|
Editorial -
Polished Up, Very Ready To Go,
Diane Sawyer Manages ABC News
By William Finucane
Lights go on and it’s a new
person before the American Broadcasting Corporation audience as the nightly
news begins: Diane Sawyer. There is virtually no fanfare at all. ABC kept the
rollout as quiet as possible. But suddenly she was there. There was no
introduction for the news anchor. There was no identification of the
broadcaster.
She was just there. Sure,
watchers of Good Morning America on ABC knew her; she was a nine-year veteran.
But that was in the morning and this was nighttime. Besides, this was the
official nightly news of the ABC network, and it was entitled “World News with
Diane Sawyer.” One who watches this news ‘show’ ought to be able to judge what
the newscaster’s background is; this is, after all, the news of the world as
interpreted by this expert. This is ABCs daily view of the world, and now its
broadcast voice, and face, is that of Diane Sawyer.
This 64-year-old broadcaster
is good on camera. Hair colored blonde and with a courteous smile, she smoothly
moves around the script; perfectly professional in appearance. One of ABCs
first stories on Sawyer’s maiden voyage in the anchor chair was a report of questions
some people asked about the national health plan pending before Congress.
This was, remember, the work
of a national broadcasting corporation’s news gathering team. Yet this top news
story aired without attribution of the questions. That is not merely an
editorial quibble. That is the most important element; who is asking these
questions? Are they informational questions, adversarial queries, supporting
questions? Are they a mixture of the three?
Any editor knows that questions are leading entities: they lead to varied
conclusions. But none of the queries discussed were identified.
It was sophomoric material
for a news lead on the biggest issue in American current affairs, and it left
Ms. Sawyer appearing to manage a point of view rather than deliver the news.
Just from that one instance, viewers were given insight into Diane Sawyer and
ABC News. ABC and Ms. Sawyer seem to be doing something different than making
their viewers informed; they look to be inculcating them with one side of the
news. This is a perfect instance of seeming objectivity that is, really,
grossly slanted.
Viewers were treated to an unidentified
woman who is allowed to pose leading questions but is not asked to provide
attribution for asserted facts or defend the assertions. This is not – in any
way – news. In the end, it appears that Sawyer’s ABC news ‘show’ is just that,
a show meant to push a given perspective on world events; it’s decidedly not
news.
Many who watch televised
news have no clue about the broadcasters’ background. Such news ‘customers’
simply presume the anchor is trustworthy. But as networks are now often owned
by mega-corporations, such as the conservative Disney organization that owns
ABC, this can be a terrible miscalculation.
Without a word regarding
Sawyer’s portfolio, she is front and center as the ABC news syndicate’s anchor.
She is – for all purposes – ABC’s news voice. Yet much of her work seems like
solid journalism. But watchers cannot make a judgment on a reporter,
correspondent or editor’s work merely based on that person’s list of subjects
covered.
Certainly she has lots of
honors to her name. Some of them as listed in the Diane Sawyer biography are
spelled out: “Prior to joining ABC News, Sawyer spent nine years at CBS News.
She was the first woman to co-anchor 60 Minutes. Prior to that, she co-anchored
the CBS Morning News and was CBS News' State Department correspondent.”
In the course of her career
many doors have been opened to her and she has made good use of the afforded
opportunities. She has been a podium correspondent at national political conventions
and over the years has been amply honored by broadcast television’s
professional organizations. This is all laudable. But when a news reporter
fails to strictly follow traditional rules and guidelines, which always demand
attribution and balanced insight, then no number of awards will ultimately
shield that person from skepticism and a need to know more about the political
‘leanings’ of the individual.
In Sawyer’s case, the best place
to begin is to look back at her first big break, when she was perceived to be
ideologically suited for employment with the administration of President
Richard M. Nixon and its hard-ball politics.
After three years as a television
reporter for WLKY-TV in Louisville, Ky., Sawyer was recruited by Nixon Press
Secretary Ron Ziegler to join the White House. Ziegler, one of Nixon’s prime
supporters, a true believer, was well satisfied with Sawyer. In the course of
working with the Nixon Administration, as it hunkered down under the Watergate
siege, Ziegler, Sawyer and others essentially changed jobs from journalism to
propaganda. Of course, anyone who works for a politician should expect to
reflect the official’s views, whatever those views are, but the Watergate era
exceeded all such normal shading of information; Nixon’s Whitehouse was a
pressure cooker of misleading and defensive disinformation.
And Diane Sawyer not only
stayed the proverbial course, but she went way beyond that; she went into exile
with Nixon to San Clemente, CA. She worked on Mr. Nixon’s defense and rehabilitation,
and she also worked on the transition that put Gerald Ford into the presidency.
Then she helped Nixon write his memoirs in 1978; later she prepared him for his
television interview with David Frost.
These are not journalism
assignments; they are political roles – Nixon’s statements were smoothed by
public relations expert Diane Sawyer. Sawyer had every right on earth to take
on these jobs for Nixon; she was, after all, a Nixon loyalist. But the politics
of that era still cast a shadow on the American political landscape today, and
it is reasonable to wonder how it was that a woman whose TV credentials were
skimpy and who was, aside from her loyalty to Mr. Nixon, professionally an
obscure figure, should somehow emerge in key positions within the national
broadcast media.
Every time she appears on a
supposedly ‘objective’ news show, viewers have the absolute right to know
Sawyer’s background. For some viewers, it will make no difference. They are
either strong conservative and believe what Nixon-Sawyer stood for, or they pay
no attention to who delivers the news, other than perhaps a friendly,
attractive face. But there is another segment of the involved public that does
pay attention, and when these people are not given background information they
are being tricked.
All news is slanted in some
way, since in the end it’s impossible to remove all human sensibilities from
the newsgathering effort. But professional journalists strive to repress their
own views so that they can deliver a better report. Lesser journalists are
comfortable in allowing subtle slants within the given report. This is
exacerbated geometrically when the news agency itself holds the same political
viewpoint as the lesser journalist.
Of course there is always a
responsibility that falls upon the viewer – or the listeners or readers – to be
as alert as possible to slanted stories. If a story seems tilted in one
direction or another, it probably is, and if the news consumer knows something
of the background of the journalist and the outlet involved, it is that much
easier to sort out.
Clearly it is increasingly
important, in the current video age, to find out who is delivering the news,
and to consider where a given newscast seems to be heading, and why that may be
the case.
Recipients of ‘news’ have
got to become their own editors. To get a real picture, they must look more
carefully at all the news. They must question it all. They must go to other
sources to get different views. News readers and viewers must be active participants;
otherwise it is possible to be duped daily. The fact that Diane Sawyer could
make such a mockery of the basic rule of attribution – define and identify the
source – on the very first night of her ascension to the ABC anchor chair, drives
the point home, and serves to remind the knowledgeable of her own professional
history.
1/2010
|
