terencef – Page 13 – Terence F. Smith

RED SMITH RECALLED

http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/the_natural.php

Coming Soon….

From Library of America:

“American Pastimes: The Very Best of RedSmith.”
Introduction: Dan Okrent
Afterword: Terence Smith
Pub date: May 2, 2013

Society of Professional Journalists Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame Dinner Announcement
NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell, author and political journalist Haynes Johnson and New York Times/CBS News/PBS correspondent Terence Smith will be inducted into the Hall of Fame of the D.C. Pro Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, on June 11, 2013.

The criterion for membership in the Hall of Fame is simply this: strong journalism over at least 25 years in Washington.

The four inductees will speak at the chapter’s annual Dateline Awards dinner in the ballroom of the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C.

On the same evening, the D.C. Chapter’s 2013 Distinguished Service Award will be presented to Steve Geimann, Deputy Team Leader at the Bloomberg News Washington bureau.

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, is also the host of Andrea Mitchell Reports, a daily hour of political news and newsmaker interviews on MSNBC. One of the nation’s most familiar broadcast reporters, Mitchell also has covered the White House, Capitol Hill and multiple election campaigns. As a longtime analyst of the intelligence community, Mitchell’s assignments for NBC have included exclusive reports from North Korea, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Pakistan and Haiti. She has made regular appearances on NBC News and MSNBC programs, including “Today,” “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” “Hardball,” “Morning Joe” and “Meet the Press.” Mitchell joined NBC News in 1978 as a general correspondent based in Washington.

Thomas Boswell began his career at The Washington Post in 1969 as a copy aide. Later he became a general assignment reporter for twelve years, covering such sports as baseball, golf, college basketball, tennis, boxing and local high school sports. In 1984, the Post gave Boswell a regular column. Boswell has written many books including “Game Day,” “The Heart of the Order,” “Strokes of Genius,” “Why Time Begins on Opening Day” and “How Life Imitates the World Series.” He has written for Inside Sports, Esquire, GQ and Playboy. He also makes frequent television appearances and does live chats on washingtonpost.com.

Haynes Johnson is an author, commentator, journalist and professor at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, where he also is a contributing editor for American Journalism Review. Johnson came to Washington as a reporter for the Washington Star in 1957 and won a Pulitzer Prize in 1966 for his reporting on the civil rights crisis in Selma, Alabama. Joining the Washington Post in 1969, Johnson served as a national reporter, assistant managing editor and national affairs columnist. He has made many appearances on the PBS-TV programs “Washington Week in Review” and “The NewsHour.” Johnson is the author of the bestsellers “Sleepwalking Through History”, “The Bay of Pigs,” and “The Landing,” a spy thriller. Other nonfiction works include “Divided We Fall,” “Dusk at the Mountain” and “The System.”

Terence Smith spent 20 years at The New York Times including eight years in the Middle East and Far East, covering four wars, peace negotiations and events in more than 40 countries. Smith also served as Assistant Foreign Editor and Deputy Metropolitan Editor in New York. In the Times’ Washington bureau, he served as diplomatic correspondent and chief White House correspondent. In 1985, Smith joined CBS News in Washington, covering the Reagan White House and, for nine years, reporting the cover stories for CBS Sunday Morning. In 1998, Smith turned to public television and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. As senior producer and media correspondent, Smith broadcast hundreds of reports and studio discussions on media, national and international issues. Smith is now a special correspondent for The NewsHour.

NRA versus the NPC

For more than 100 years, the National Press Club has been neutral ground: an agreeable watering hole a few blocks from the White House where presidents and potentates have held forth on issues of the day. Sometimes, they even make news.

But yesterday, the NPC got played by the NRA.

The National Rifle Association sent its hired front-man, former Congressman and Bush Administration official Asa Hutchinson into the club surrounded by a small army of security guards — armed, of course — to announce at a news conference that the solution to violence in the schools is — wait for it — more guns in the schools.

Dana Milbank reported in the Washington Post this morning that Hutchinson was protected by about 20 guards, some in uniform, some in plainclothes, all packing.

According to Milbank, the “gun lobby goons” fanned out through the Press Club. He writes: “The NRA gunmen directed some photographers not to take pictures, ordered reporters out of the lobby when NRA officials passed and inspected reporters’ briefcases before granting them access to the news conference.”

The NRA antics, Milbank commented dryly, “gave new meaning to the notion of disarming your critics.”

This sort of display of firepower is so over the top, so in-your-face, so uncalled for, it can only be a political statement. The NRA was going to brandish its second amendment rights for all to see.

The Press Club, of which I am a member, was caught with its guard down.

Bill McCarren, the Club’s executive director, said there had been advance discussions with the NRA about security and that the lobby group had insisted it would bring its own, probably about nine. More than twice that showed up.

“It was definitely unusual, not a common sight,” said Angela Greiling Keane, the Club president, being diplomatic about a paying customer who had rented the facilities for the news conference. “It’s not something we would encourage our clients to do.”

McCarren said the show of force was hardly necessary. “We had General Dempsey (Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey) here and he didn’t bring a tank.”

An NRA spokesman — even one as placid and unthreatening as Hutchinson — is of course a potential target. There are crazies on both sides of the gun debate.

But in this case, the NRA was making a political point in front of cameras and reporters. Guns are the answer, they were saying, and not just a few. Subtlety has never been their strong suit.

Later yesterday, when Hutchinson showed up to tape an interview with Margaret Warner at The PBS NewsHour, he was accompanied by one security person. “We had no idea if he was armed or not,” said a NewsHour staffer.
Of course, there were no cameras in the green room, no audience to get the point that the NRA means business.

Wither the Newsmags?

As newspapers and magazines stumble along the rocky road from print to digital, two recent signposts seem to point the way forward: Time Warner’s decision to spin off Time Inc., its magazine division, and Newsweek’s termination of its print edition after 80 years of continuous publication.

The third general newsmagazine. U.S. News and World Report, went digital earlier and now is known mostly for its rankings of colleges and hospitals and the like.

What would Henry Luce think ?

His baby, Time, and its sister magazines, including People, Sports Illustrated and In-Style and others, will continue to appear in print, at least for the foreseeable. And why not? Together, they generate $3.1 billion in revenues, nearly half of the total of the nation’s 10 top-grossing magazines.

But that is apparently not enough for Time Warner, which is cutting them loose, along with some $500 million to $1 billion in debt, so the parent company can concentrate on its more profitable film and cable businesses.

In the fourth quarter of last year, circulation and advertising at Time Inc. were down sharply and revenues were off seven per cent, which is probably what prompted Time Warner to try to sell the magazine division and, failing that, cast it adrift.

Looking on the bright side, Time Inc. insiders say they will now at least be able to pour their revenues into their own magazines and websites, rather than Time Warner’s deep pockets. And this week, they were celebrating the success of their recent cover, “Bitter Pill,” Stephen Brill’s remarkable, 24,000-word takedown of the hospital industry, which was their best-selling issue in two years. It was proof, again, that people will seek out important reporting when it comes along.

But the trend lines for newsmagazines are hard to ignore. Even in these harsh economic times, I find it hard to believe that the news weeklies are not the vital magazines that I have known over the years.

During the eight years I spent abroad as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times in the Middle East and Far East, Time and Newsweek were essential reading. In those pre-internet years, they pulled the week’s news and trends together and kept me in touch with the world beyond my own bailiwick. Their correspondents were among my best and best-paid competitors. They roamed the world, usually traveling first class. Richard Clurman, Time’s longtime Chief of Correspondents, was famous for booking two first-class seats: one for himself and one for his briefcase.

But the harsh fact today is that both the editorial and economic models of newsmagazines are broken.

Newsweek was sold for a dollar and a mountain of debt to the late Sydney Harmon. He merged it with the Daily Beast and still could not support it costly print edition. The brand continues with a vibrant website and has announced plans for a paid digital version targeted to a global audience. But it remains to be seen whether that will thrive.

Worse yet, the news weekly editorial model no longer works. With the internet, I no longer need weekly summaries and analysis of news that I get — indeed, can’t escape — 24/7 electronically. Realizing this, both Time and Newsweek switched to signed essay and long-form formats that are frequently well-written and well-edited. Witness the Brill piece.

But are they viable in the long run? That is uncertain at best.

A Sad Day

Today, March 19, 2013, is a tragic anniversary.

With one exception: It is the 10th birthday of my dog, Red, a fine Borzoi, who is a splendid companion and steady friend. Happy Birthday, Red.

But it is the 10th anniversary of the unjustified, immoral, wrong-headed, foolish, ill-conceived and flat-out wrong war against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

I hold no brief for Saddam and his perverse sons and dreadful reign of terror. But Iraqis, in time, would have dealt with Saddam. It was only George W. and Dick Cheney and Paul W. and Don R. who thought we had to do it for them.

Actually, what they thought — to the degree they thought it through at all — was that they could topple Saddam quickly (right) and get out promptly(wrong), and a Jeffersonian Democracy would bloom in the Iraqi desert in his wake (Really wrong.) And, they could finish what George H.W. left unfinished a decade earlier. Sheer fantasy.

So they listened to the siren song of Ahmed Chalabi and other Iraqi hucksters about how we would be welcomed as liberators and all would be well.

Instead, we spent $2.2 trillion and 4,200 American lives and countless Iraqi lives to produce what? A fractured, violent excuse for a country that is likely to split in thirds, with Kurds running the show in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.

Hardly worth the price.

Anyway. Red had a fine birthday, even if he didn’t know it was his day. He got an extra treat after dinner.

WOODWARD VS SPERLING: A TINY TEMPEST

Tom Brokaw had it right on NBC’s Meet The Press when he described the war of words between White House aide Gene Sperling and journalist Bob Woodward as “a speck that became a sandstorm overnight.”

Overblown is the word for it, since Sperling clearly was not threatening Woodward when he wrote in an e-mail that Woodward would “regret” accusing President Obama of “moving the goalposts” in his budget negotiations with the Republicans in Congress.

But Woodward chose to make an issue of it publicly, and repeatedly. Finally, on the Sunday shows this week, they both called for a truce and promised to put the argument behind them. We can only hope.

But this manufactured tempest did focus a spotlight on the often combative relations between the White House press corps and the Administrations they cover. It is, as the Daily Download’s Howard Kurtz described it on Reliable Sources on CNN, “a contact sport.” And it has been for years.

White House Press Secretaries often fight back when their respective presidents are criticized in print or on the air. It is a deliberate tactic, designed to intimidate reporters and make them think twice about taking the President to task.

Ron Ziegler and Larry Speakes were famously nasty in their tilts with reporters, as was the sarcastic Ari Fleischer. Jody Powell had an explosive temper and would rip into reporters when he thought they were overly critical of his boss, Jimmy Carter. As the New York Times White House correspondent , I was on the receiving end of blowback from Powell when I wrote critically of President Carter’s handling of the Iran-hostage crisis, but Jody would blow his stack and then forget about it. He did not hold a grudge.

“The closer a press secretary is to his President, the more angry and defensive they get,” Bill Plante, the longtime CBS News White House correspondent said Sunday. “When they are totally invested in the President, it clouds their view and they are less useful to us.”

Other press secretaries, like Marlin Fitzwater and Mike McCurry take a more gentle approach, often using humor to disarm, rather than the verbal sledgehammer. They are both considered to be among the most successful press secretaries.

The current incumbent, Jay Carney, is famous for the angry e-mails and phone calls he makes to reporters who criticize President Obama. Does his approach work? Many reporters in the White House press room think it makes him less effective.

But, of course, all loyalty in the White House is vertical, and if the President thinks his press secretary has it right, then he has fulfilled his first obligation.

And the attacks, no matter how angry, are rarely personal. Both parties — the media and the officials — recognize the arguments for what they are: a tactic.

CRISIS FATIGUE

Crisis fatigue: we’ve all got it. With good reason.

Last year it was the Debt Ceiling standoff. At New Year’s, it was the famous Fiscal Cliff. Now it is the awkwardly-named Sequester. A month from now, the threatened shutdown of government. After that, the debt ceiling. Again.

In all, that ‘s five cliff-hanging, manufactured budget and spending “crises” in less than a year. No wonder the public — and the media — are sick of it.

The challenge for news organizations is to retain some grasp on reality while reporting the political bluster.

Obviously, if the President barnstorms around the country warning darkly of the worst consequences of the sequester, that has to be reported. When he and his cabinet secretaries talk about defense jobs that will be cut, children who will be cast out of Headstart, air traffic controllers that will be furloughed, airport security lines lengthened, all of that should and will be on the evening news.

When Republican leaders insist that they have made all the compromises, that the government is spending us into penury, that the sequester was really the President’s idea in the first place, that our national security is threatened — all those claims should and will get airtime and ink and digital digits.

But at the same time, news organizations need to point out the smoke and mirrors on both sides.

They need to explain that not all the most drastic cuts need to be made immediately, if at all. They need to remind their readers and listeners that agencies retain some flexibility in how they administer the reductions and, most important, that Congress and the President can reverse and replace the sequester at any point.

Today, on the eve of the sequester deadline, the media are doing it. The off-lead headline of the Washington Post: “Sequester Spin Gets Ahead of Reality: Despite alarms, rhetoric, neither side can be sure how badly cuts will hurt.”

The New York Times’s off-lead: “Parties Focus on the Positive as Budget Cuts Draw Near.” “The sword of Damocles,” writes Jonathan Weisman, “turns out to be made of Styrofoam.”

NPR debunked some of the most extreme claims this morning and Chuck Todd on MSNBC did a good, two-minute, “sequester-made-simple” segment that pointed out that each side was nakedly playing to its political base.

What no news organization has needed to point out is the simple truth: this is no way to run a government. No one has needed to say that this makes Washington look silly. Nobody has taken the time to say that the whole Sequester debate has damaged U.S. credibility abroad.

That would be too obvious.

NOW TO WORK

With a splendid second inauguration behind him, Barack Obama sits down at his desk this morning to grapple with a huge agenda of problems and opportunities, challenges and openings, dangers and adventures at home and abroad.

“America’s possibilities are limitless,” the President proclaimed yesterday beneath a blue sky and bright sun, “for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive, diversity and openness, an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”

We will need all of that and more, and so will he.

Speaking from the West Front of the Capitol, the President sounded like the most confident lame duck in recent memory (think George W. confronting the morass in Iraq, Bill Clinton already tempted by Monica, Ronald Reagan, tiring and already embroiled in the early stages of Iran-Contra.) Obama was unapologetic about his agenda, from immigration reform to gay rights, and once again invited Congressional Republicans to join him in pursuing it. The GOP Speaker of the House, John Boehner, squinted into the sun with a sour look. The contrast between the two men spoke volumes.

Looking back over the last six months or so, say, since the nomination of Mitt Romney, the most striking development in American politics is not the re-election of the President or the relative status quo in Congress, it is the virtual disintegration of the Republican Party.

Who leads that party today and what does it stand for?

Is it Boehner, who cannot control his own caucus? Is it Senator Mitch McConnell, who sat expressionless in the crowd of faces behind the President yesterday? Four years ago, he laid down a marker by declaring his number one objective to be confining President Obama to a single term.

Is it Eric Cantor, who looked none too happy himself on the dais? Is it the Tea Party, with its response of “No” to virtually everything the President proposes?

What does the GOP stand for? Smaller government, yes; reduced debt, yes. But is less really more? Is it an answer to persistent unemployment and sluggish growth? To persistent challenges abroad? What is the affirmative Republican strategy and who will articulate it, not just now but in the run-up to 2016? Paul Ryan? Marco Rubio? Who will reach out to an increasingly diverse America?

Never have there been so many unanswered questions about the policies and future of a major American political party.

And yet, history illustrates that political fortunes are cyclical, that a party that reaches its nadir will come back up, that politics abhors a vacuum. Republicans remain powerful in statehouses, especially in the south and southwest, and their financial backers are far from tapped out. So the status quo will change.

But it is hard, in the first full week of a new Presidential term, to see when and how and who will lead that change.

A Literary Larceny

In the interests of law and order, and the historical record, I have to report a larceny.

It’s a literary larceny, perhaps not punishable in prison, but a theft, nonetheless.

In the course of Hemingway and Gelhorn, Philip Kaufman’s docu-melodrama that ran — and ran — for two-and-a-half hours Monday night, May 27, on HBO, the script writers crafted a scene in which Martha Gelhorn, with battlefield blood on her shirt, laments to Ernest Hemingway that she cannot write about the war. She doesn’t know enough about it, she says, to write about it. Writer’s block, you know.

The Great Man, standing in a t-shirt and pounding on his portable typewriter, looks up irritably and says: “There’s nothing to writing, Gelhorn, you just sit down at your typewriter and bleed.”

It is a memorable line, but Hemingway never said it. My father, Red Smith, the late sports columnist, did.

Not only is the line stolen without credit, it is misquoted. The correct quote, attributed in print to Red Smith by the columnist Walter Winchell in 1949, reads: “Writing is easy. All you do is sit down at the typewriter and bleed.” I heard my father repeat it many times.

Was it original with Red Smith? Not necessarily. The sportswriter, Paul Gallico, said something similar in 1946, and others are quoted before that.

But not Hemingway.