Haynes Johnson Interview (2005): Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
Page 8 of 8
In the time we're living in right now, there have been institutional changes, for example, the mergers of the media, the poor quality of the information we get (even though there's more and more information), the failure of the opposition political party to enunciate an opposition. Does history tell us that this has happened before and we can right ourselves, or have there been subtle changes that make [reform] more difficult?
Actually the tactics and the kind of attacks that we see from McCarthy to now continue. It's much more difficult today for the reasons you're suggesting. The press -- we have the 24-hour television [news on cable]. That is now the dominant factor in our lives. The networks are declining in audience, [cable networks] are rising. Talk radio, we saw, already had become [a series] of ideological food fights and attacks and distorting, not analyzing, not giving perspective, not giving authority.
And then you have a cowering of the political system. The Democratic Party has been really cowed since McCarthy in some ways. And not speaking up in the last election -- ! John Kerry never defended himself from charges, smears by the "Swift Boat" ads, attacking, falsifying his war record, and so forth. The party itself was afraid to take on the national security elements of the president who was running as the savior of the country.
It's much more complicated [today]. It means the test may be more critical, more difficult, but the need is greater for people to rise up independently and, again, demand accountability, by voting, and turn out people that use these tactics. That's the only solution I see. The press itself -- there's good reporting but if you allow these things to go on without calling them to account -- I heard Bill O'Reilly the other night on television, just two nights ago, attacking the press for not giving the "good news" about Iraq, that the reason that all they talk about are the deaths and suicide bombs is a deliberate left-wing [conspiracy]. He said, and I'm quoting him directly, "It's treasonous." And I thought, "Where have I heard that before?"
That's the kind of thing. [There's] a large audience, and there will be people who will believe that unless you counter it. So we need to be much more vigilant. Democracy is an experiment. No one guaranteed it was going to work. We've got a lot of work to do.
You were an editor, you've been a reporter for the Washington Post, and you've been in the Washington setting. Is the compromising of reporters that we're seeing -- from the New York Times especially -- is that just one or two rotten apples, do you think? Is it that they've crossed over because of the milieu in which you do get information, that is, it's part of the way Washington works? Or is it more systemic, do you think?
It's more systemic. I don't want to defame my colleagues. You do want to protect your sources, absolutely, and you should be willing to go to jail if the source is giving you material that is in the public interest to expose wrongdoing. The whistleblower -- that's whom you protect, and you protect them because they could lose their jobs or even their lives. You don't protect someone that comes to you, like Scooter Libby, and lies to you, and outs people, and then you allow yourself to present that material to the public.
I think that is more endemic today, for a lot of reasons. The attacks of the press as being liberal have had a toll, I think, on this part, and I also think the corporatization -- I don't want to get into a demonization, but there's a bottom line, you want entertainment, you want shock, you want conflict, they want to mix it up, that's what they want, and they want more profits and that's what sells. So, I think there are a lot of factors involved.
One final question. What advice would you give to students as they prepare for their future, so that they can be part of the solution and not part of the problem, whether in journalism or in other institutions?
Participate. Be informed. You can be informed in this society, even despite the problems we're talking about. There's an enormous amount of serious information. It's hard work. It's in your interest, not because it's noble, not because democracy is the only possible answer, but because it's in your self-interest, for your life and your security and your future.
Be willing to stand up and be counted. Don't be silent, don't be quiescent, wherever you are. If you're in the press, if you're a public citizen, wherever you are, if you're a prosecutor, you do the job that the society requires you to do, and don't be afraid to do it, and then we'll be all right.
Well, Haynes, on that note, I want to thank you very much for being here. And I want to show, again, your book which is -- thank you for writing it. It's a timely account whose timing is even more perfect than one could've anticipated.
Too much so, I'm afraid.
Yes. Thank you very much, again, for joining us today.
Thanks, Harry, very enjoyable. Thank you.
And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation with History.
© Copyright 2005, Regents of the University of California
To the Conversations page
See also the 2002 interview with Haynes Johnson.