David Halberstam's Media Critique

Pultizer Prize-winning author David Halberstam, who has died in an automobile accident at age 73, was one of America's most thoughtful critics of media excess and abuse. The Powers That Be, his 1979 account of the rise of big media in the United States -- with its profound profiles of CBS's William Paley, Time's Henry Luce and other broadcast and print titans -- remains required reading.

But whatever his topic -- the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement, U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era -- Halberstam always kept a sharp eye on the role played, for better or worse, by media. He was one of the greatest reporters of his time, and a man who loved the journalist's craft. But Halberstam was no apologist for the missteps or the misdeeds of those who owned major newspapers and broadcast networks.

In 2003, shortly after the Federal Communications Commission moved to loosen controls on media consolidation, Dave Weich of www.powells.com asked Halberstam about the way in which big media shapes American society:

Dave Weich: Broadcasting is one of the most significant factors, obviously. Earlier this week, the FCC ruled that large broadcasting corporations will be allowed to become even bigger.

We pay very little attention to the rest of the world, then when the rest of the world doesn't act in concert with us and salute us, we're very angry. We think, How could this happen? Why don't they like us more? We're not paying very much attention.

There are so many reasons to mourn the death of David Halberstam, the great chronicler of America's woes and wars -- not to mention its sports teams. But his cutting critique of contemporary media will be especially missed, as will his understanding of the threat that consolidated and dumbed-down media poses to democracy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (38)

1. Halberstam: We're an entertainment society.....increasingly about celebrity, sex, and scandal. It's less about substance than it used to be......

   Well, Mr. Nichols, you fit right in! All about `scandal', that is! How about your thoughts on `substance' and solutions besides impeach this and that....when you know politicians won't ever change....Great job security to be the scandal-Decider!

   Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 01:27am

2. Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 01:27am

   Have you read Halberstam? Do you have any thoughts on his body of work, or his opinions on the current state of the media?

   Posted by drhammer at 04/24/2007 @ 03:00am

3. Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 01:27am

   Another moronic comment from an idiot.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/24/2007 @ 12:25pm

4. How about your thoughts on `substance' and solutions

   The solution IS impeachment, followed by imprisonment.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/24/2007 @ 12:38pm

5. "Halberstam: And very much to our political system now. It's really very trivialized.

   Weich: Where does that leave us?

   Halberstam: We're an entertainment society. We want to be entertained more than we want to think. It's a serious problem. We're the most powerful nation in the world, but our network broadcast is increasingly about celebrity, sex, and scandal. It's less about substance than it used to be. It's not as good as it should be. And it makes us a more volatile society."

   "trivialities"..."scandal"...and "volatile".

   Hmmm...sounds like the Blogosphere alright!

   Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 12:42pm

6. It's the lack of modern day Halberstams that has allowed the multitude of bushco crimes to proliferate.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/24/2007 @ 12:44pm

7. Another good book to read is Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business." This book concerns primarily the weakness of television as an image-based rather than text-based medium. The problem with our media, according to Postman, is that images prevail over words, hence glitz prevails over substance.

   Postman does not discuss the problem of media ownership in his book, probably since it was completed long before the infernal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the predictable media consolidation that followed. I wonder what Postman says about this?

   Posted by JakobFabian at 04/24/2007 @ 12:57pm

8. One must credit Mr Halberstam for his fairness.

   In "The Best & the Brightest" (or one) he takes BOTH Kennedy and Johnson to task (as well as the "best and brightest" they employed) for Vietnam. Something a lot of Democrat partisans still try to "fudge".

   Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 1:17pm

9. The problem with the media is not a lack of articulate and experienced critics such as Halberstam.

   The problem is that there is nothing to stop the media's slide from information to entertainment. Of course, the government could simply make it illegal, as it once was, to dominate media markets and to purchase the broadcast spectrum without regard for the public good.

   But in an age when the only way to get into a position of power is to purchase more airtime than the other guy, I don't think a return to responsibility is going to happen any time soon.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 04/24/2007 @ 1:18pm

10. Posted by MASK 04/24/2007 @ 1:17pm

    All I want is the stinking truth. Good bad or indifferent, just give me the freaking truth.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/24/2007 @ 1:19pm

11. The problem is that there is nothing to stop the media's slide from information to entertainment.

    True. Some people are still doing the legwork, but getting the story out is next to impossible it would seem.

    Otherwise, how could bushco keep going?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/24/2007 @ 1:20pm

12. All I want is the stinking truth. Good bad or indifferent, just give me the freaking truth.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/24/2007 @ 1:19pm

    Sounds good to me.

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 1:41pm

13. It's kind of hard to pick out of all the noise and opinion these days.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/24/2007 @ 1:46pm

14. It's kind of hard to pick out of all the noise and opinion these days.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/24/2007 @ 1:46pm

    Well, you and I might have a WEE disagreement on what must also be considered "noise and opinion".

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 2:15pm

15. From DavidCorn.com.....

    April 24, 2007 David Halberstam

    In all the tributes to legendary journalist David Halberstam, who died in a car crash on Monday, Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter Institute explained Halberstam in Halberstam's own words, quoting a piece Halberstam wrote in 1965 for Commentary:

    No one becomes a reporter to make friends,.....

    "The job of the reporters in Vietnam," wrote Halberstam, "was to report the news, whether or not the news was good for America. To the ambassadors and generals, on the other hand, it was crucial that the news be good, and they regarded any other interpretation as defeatist and irresponsible."

    In today's political climate, given the war in Iraq, the phrase "whether or not the news was good for America" is worth lingering on........

    ......On whether or not to believe government and military claims of progress in Iraq; on whether the press corps has ignored the "good things" that have come out of this conflict; on whether journalists place their career ambitions above the good of the country and the safety of soldiers who fight on its behalf.

    Halberstam was the model. People like to say that in truth there is power. Unfortunately, sometimes that's a false cliche. Halberstam was a journalist who made it real.

    Posted by David Corn at 11:08 AM

    Why can't War Correspondents/Journalists, without lying, ALWAYS report based on the absoulte top priority of whether or not the news was good for Americans actually doing the fighting & dying? Secondarily, for America as a whole!

    I have little doubt that Journalism's decline began w/the negativism emanating from the way the Vietnam War was portrayed and how our enemies have become masters of enlisting our willing media!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 2:50pm

16. Or www.onthemedia.org if you have a good connection (it's audio). It's not a broad-based analysis of content, just a weekly peek behind the curtain to see what the Wizard has been up to. If you're lucky, it'll be on your local public radio.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/24/2007 @ 2:52pm

17. Why can't War Correspondents/Journalists, without lying, ALWAYS report based on the absoulte top priority of whether or not the news was good for Americans actually doing the fighting & dying? Secondarily, for America as a whole!

    Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 2:50pm

    There's a word for that, Happy. The word is propaganda.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

18. Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/24/2007 @ 2:51pm

    I'd go with CSPAN before mediamatters.org. David Brock is virulent (pejorative meaning) apostate (non-pejorative) now, and MM rarely if ever turns its critical eye on anything left-wing.

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 2:59pm

19. Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 2:50pm

    HAPP, just so I understand where you're coming from....Can I assume you're one of those "We lost Vietnam because of 'The Media' and liberals...we were actually winning, but everybody was lying and saying we were losing" types?

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 3:02pm

20. Have you read Halberstam? Do you have any thoughts on his body of work, or his opinions on the current state of the media?

    Posted by DRHAMMER 04/24/2007 @ 03:00am

    Can't say that I have! Perhaps he was like Walter Kronkite who said the same things over and over in his disapproving ways--in black & white! From what I've read of his views on "state of the media", can't agree more! Pathetic! Media behaviors during the British Sailor-Gate and the Duke Non-Rape are `state-of-the-art' for the "state of the media"!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 3:11pm

21. ...Can I assume you're one of those "We lost Vietnam because of 'The Media' and liberals...

    Posted by MASK 04/24/2007 @ 3:02pm

    The State Dept., Media and the Dem Congress are the prime culprits. Should have conducted all-out bombing of N.Vietnam's War-Related everything....but NO, we were SO AFRAID of `drawing' China into the fight!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 3:18pm

22. Cronkite.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/24/2007 @ 3:13pm

    Thank you! Did I ever say anything about my language SAT score?

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 3:19pm

23. I have little doubt that Journalism's decline began w/the negativism emanating from the way the Vietnam War was portrayed and how our enemies have become masters of enlisting our willing media!

    Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person

    We were lied to (directly and by omission) by media plenty during Vietnam. Heres a take on why we "lost" in Vietnam by someone who likely knows a little bit more than some two-bit chickenhawk blogger crying about not dropping enough napalm.

    11 Lessons from Vietnam The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's 1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:

    We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

    We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

    We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

    Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

    We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine… We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

    We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

    We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

    We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

    We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

    Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2007 @ 3:20pm

24. happy, can you prove that we were ever winning the war in Vietnam?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/24/2007 @ 3:03pm

    No need to! Use logic...you win some, lose some, the tide goes back and forth and all it matters is who is standing at the end of the `fight'! Like stocks, up & down & sideways, only matters when you sell!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 3:24pm

25. Do you think we should have fought China as well?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/24/2007 @ 3:22pm

    I am a risk-taker and have bought & sold an existing business and now spend most of my `workday' in the `risky' financial markets! Given my makeup, had I been among the "Best and Brightest" in the (liberal) Johnson admin., I would've dared China to enter the Vietnam War. I don not believe it would've done so since N. Vietnam was not being pushed to the China/Vietnam border (as was the case w/N. Korea) and the Korean War was not that far in the rearview of history at the time. Gotta go!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 3:33pm

26. Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/24/2007 @ 3:02pm

    Oddly, FRANK, I don't ascribe PERFECTION to people who have a certain political ideology or outlook.

    BTW, I don't think Jayson Blair was a "right winger".

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 4:34pm

27. I would've dared China to enter the Vietnam War. I don not believe it would've done so ...---Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 3:33pm

    Okay...what if they HAD?

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 4:34pm

28. I have little doubt that Journalism's decline began w/the negativism emanating from the way the Vietnam War was portrayed and how our enemies have become masters of enlisting our willing media!

    Posted by HAPPY

    So you prefer state sponsored propaganda to factual news coverage?

    Why don't you try reading something rather than listening to the right wing propaganda? "Try the Powers That Be" by Halberstam. You might be surprised by the role the press (those that own and run it, that is) was playing in the early stages of the war in Vietnam.

    It's odd: The crux of this article is the consolidation of the media in the hands of a few corporations, yet no comments on this from our right wingers. How is it that merging companies together (especially in an industry so vital to a free society) is good for the economy? I thought it's all about competition? Mergers do nothing but reduce the choice of consumers (and increase stock values, while eliminating jobs).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/24/2007 @ 4:50pm

29. Okay...what if they HAD?

    Posted by MASK 04/24/2007 @ 4:34pm

    Chinese forces would've been annihilated.....especially if they tried the `human wave' formations of the Korean War! US weapons' killing power were over-the-top and far more lethal than during the Korean War. Reminds me of what Robert Duvall said in Apocalyps: "Love the smell of napalm in the morning!" Unfortunately, those weapons weren't meant for pulverizing jungles and rice paddies.

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 5:34pm

30. So you prefer state sponsored propaganda to factual news coverage?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/24/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Why can't War Correspondents/Journalists, without lying, ALWAYS report based on the absoulte top priority of whether or not the news was good for Americans actually doing the fighting & dying?

    Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 2:50pm

    You well know the bruhaha concerning the alleged selective use of intelligence by a certain adminsitration....

    When our country is at war, without lying, I certainly expect AMERICAN journalists to selectively report positive developments in the war fought in all of our name! If this is propaganda, then yes, I'm all for propaganda, based on facts, that helps our war effort and its speedier end. There is no country or groups can defeat us if they believe all Americans are `in it' for the WIN!

    Thre are many truths out there but why is there such a fuss over the release of all of Cho's `package' to NBC? Overall, many Americans have lost the ability to screen out those `truths' that are more like `noise' and are not conducive to higher goals!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 5:44pm

31. I wonder what Postman says about this?

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/24/2007 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person

    Neil Postman (March 8, 1931 - October 5, 2003)

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2007 @ 5:58pm

32. Thre are many truths out there but why is there such a fuss over the release of all of Cho's `package' to NBC? Overall, many Americans have lost the ability to screen out those `truths' that are more like `noise' and are not conducive to higher goals!

    Posted by HAPPY

    Yeah, you're right. Take you, for example.

    Many truths? No. Up is not down, black is not white, east is not west. The US never should have been in Vietnam. It's that simple. We were not attacked, and our interests were not threatened. Ho was a nationalist first and foremost; we could have easily played him against the Chinese (Vietnam's age old enemy, oppressor). War should always be the last resort.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/24/2007 @ 5:59pm

33. There is no country or groups can defeat us if they believe all Americans are `in it' for the WIN! Posted by HAPPY

    2. Staying the Course

    Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war. This level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, "Our leaving would make it worse. . . . The current approach without modification will not make it better."

    3. More Troops for Iraq

    Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world. (Iraq Study Group Report, page 30)

    I know you think you're real smart (must dumb people do), but I seriously doubt you're on par with Baker and the others that authored the report.

    Some problems cannot be solved by military might.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/24/2007 @ 6:07pm

34. It's odd: The crux of this article is the consolidation of the media in the hands of a few corporations, yet no comments on this from our right wingers. How is it that merging companies together (especially in an industry so vital to a free society) is good for the economy? I thought it's all about competition? Mergers do nothing but reduce the choice of consumers (and increase stock values, while eliminating jobs).

    No explanations about how this is good for us?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/24/2007 @ 6:22pm

35. Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 5:34pm

    Well, what if they DIDN'T try "human wave" attacks (BTW, DID they use "human wave" attacks during Korea???)?

    What if they merely blended into the jungle with the VC and boosted their number by a million men?

    Well, no matter...we lost....just as we're losing this war. And no doubt when the final pull-out of Iraq occurs (likely under the next Prez...likely a Democrat...likely Hillary) you'll blame the loss of Iraq on "the Media", "liberals", etc. ("State Dept" is out since Condi's loyal to the end).

    But regardless Bush has given a quagmire a Republican/conservative face and despite all the attempts by Rush, Sean, Michael Weiner "Savage", and yourself...nobody, except the 30% Club, is going to buy that it wasn't his screw-up and vote accordingly.

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2007 @ 7:38pm

36. Happy,

    It's my opinion that you are a sick SOB. You don't mind the massacre of innocent people with the use of napalm just so we can protect.......what was that we were fighting over again?

    You don't mind killing people even if the reason for war was completely made up? Then, if facts surface which can prove that what you are doing is wrong and/or not working, you think those things should be ignored?

    That makes you a terrorist dipshit. We are supposed to be fighting against people like you. I'm sure you don't care though. You are probably one of those "kill them all and let god sort 'em out" kind of people. But I bet you are one of those sideline cheerleaders though. Go get 'em guys, we are behind you....see, I put a yellow ribbon on my car!

    A hand full of people who can control most of what we hear, see and read is very scary to me, as it should be to anyone who is for free markets and competition. We are a sick society. I believe most of the blame lies directly on the media and our advertisement saturated society.

    We are such a bland, superficial, lazy, overweight, hair-trigger, sound-bite, hypocritical and delusional society. Most people happily drive their fat asses to and from work every day just to have money for fast food and a roof over their TV.

    You happy, think you are talking like a tough conservative/republican or some kind of macho cowboy, but you swallow so willingly the BS you are fed by your masters.

    Why don't you dust off your brain and think for yourself.

    Posted by IndyMinded at 04/24/2007 @ 8:59pm

37. Why don't you dust off your brain and think for yourself.

    Posted by INDYMINDED 04/24/2007 @ 8:59pm

    You do remember the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Do you remember how many Russians were exterminated by Joeseph Stalin? Do you remember why? Well, you probably believed all those killed deserved it!

    Also, I haven't seen an original thought out of your Indymindness! You and MODERATE are copouts! Last but not least, your liberal rant contained words of immaturity & are offensive to me and you are now on warning!

    Posted by Happy at 04/24/2007 @ 10:12pm

38. Posted by HAPPY 04/24/2007 @ 10:12pm

    I can't believe it! You are so brainwashed! You think it's a liberal rant to want real competition in business? You think its a liberal idea that we should be strong enough to hear the truth, even if it's ugly?

    Here are some other "liberal" things I believe: The government should be smaller, less intrusive, more fiscally responsible, transparent and should only fund social programs if there is evidence that money spent up front will save us money in the long run.

    You are so blind that you really do think you are not a liberal, but you fight for this administration who has all but abandoned any semblance of "conservatism". Who is it that wants government to control our every move? Seems like its bush to me, and yet you so blindly follow the rhetroric.

    And by the way, the death in cambodia and in Stalin's russia were perpetrated by megalomaniacs that were so convinced that what they believed was right, that they could even kill thousands and thousands of people in the name of some idea.

    Guess what, America is doing the same thing now. We have and are now killing thousands and thousands of people in the name of democracy and freedom. We have very precious little of these things in our own country, thanks to our out of control corupt government. I blame both parties, but bush has really spit in our faces.

    Wake up dude! Things have changed. Try using you brain. Talk to real people and stop watching fox news and listening to rush. You are being played like a fool. Go back and read up on what it means to be a conservative.

    Posted by IndyMinded at 04/25/2007 @ 09:02am