5
Edward R. Murrow

Excerpt of "Keynote Address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association"

    Delivered on October 15, 1958, in Chicago, Illinois

    Excerpted from RTNDA Speeches, available at http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtml

Edward R. Murrow (1908–1965) is widely considered to be one of the greatest figures in the history of American broadcast journalism. A pioneer in both radio and television news reporting, he was known for his honesty high standards of journalism, and courageous stands on controversial issues. Throughout his thirty-year career, he often used his influence to urge the broadcast industry to make a better effort to educate and inform the American people.

Murrow got his start in radio broadcasting. Commercial radio first became available in the United States in the 1920s. Its popularity increased rapidly, so that by the 1930s it had become the main source of news and entertainment for millions of Americans. Murrow produced a radio show during his college years, and in 1935 he accepted a full-time job with the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS). Two years later he moved to London, England, to become director of the radio network's European news bureau.

"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

Reporting on World War II for CBS Radio

During World War II (1939–45), Murrow served as a war correspondent for CBS Radio in Europe. He provided live reports from the rooftops of London during the series of German bombing raids known as the Blitzkrieg. His detailed descriptions of the war captivated American listeners and turned Murrow into a celebrity. Murrow also contributed to news coverage of the war by hiring and training a staff of talented young war correspondents to give similar reports from other cities in Europe. This team of reporters, who became known as "Murrow's Boys," included such rising stars as Eric Sevareid, Charles Collingwood, William Shirer, and Howard K. Smith. The compelling live reports broadcast by Murrow and the others revolutionized war coverage and helped radio overtake newspapers to become Americans' first choice for news and information.

When the United States entered the war in 1941, Murrow risked his life to fly with American pilots on several bombing raids. On these occasions, he recorded his thoughts and experiences so that they could be played for radio audiences later. In 1945 Murrow traveled with the U.S. ground forces that liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany, where the Nazis, under their leader Adolf Hitler, had murdered more than 50,000 Jews and political prisoners during the war. The American troops found 20,000 prisoners still at the camp—all of them weak from hunger, illness, and forced labor—as well as thousands of dead bodies. Murrow shocked many radio listeners by providing a vivid description of the horrors he encountered at Buchenwald. But he refused to apologize for his controversial report, because he believed that it was important for people to know what really happened there. In fact, he concluded his report with the words, "If I've offended you by this rather mild account of Buchenwald, I'm not in the least sorry."

After the war ended, Murrow returned to the United States. In 1946 he was promoted to vice president and director of public affairs at CBS, but he disliked working in network management and longed to return to broadcasting. In 1950 he launched a popular radio news program called Hear It Now. The following year he brought the series to the new medium of television as See It Now. The first public demonstrations of television had taken place prior to World War II, but both television development and broadcasting were put on hold for the duration of the conflict. By 1950, however, television was growing rapidly, and Murrow wanted to play a role in shaping the future of the new medium.

Using TV as a weapon

See It Now aired on CBS from 1951 to 1958. It was presented as a series of documentaries (fact-based films) that investigated serious issues affecting American society, like the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, or the unfair treatment of migrant farm workers. Many episodes presented the stories of ordinary people in a way that shed new light on social or political issues. Throughout the show's run, Murrow constantly pushed the network to use the power of television to expose problems and fight against injustice.

See It Now is probably best known for a 1954 program about Joseph McCarthy (1908–1957), a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin who had ruined the careers of many American politicians and entertainers by falsely accusing them of being Communists. McCarthy used the tensions of the Cold War (a period of intense military and political rivalry that pitted the United States and its democratic system of government against the Soviet Union and its Communist system of government) to hurt his enemies and advance his own career. Murrow's show helped turn public opinion against McCarthy, and the senator soon fell from power. Before the episode went on the air, however, CBS executives felt so nervous about the subject matter that they refused to promote it. Murrow and his producer, Fred W. Friendly (1915–1998), were forced to use their own money to purchase a full-page advertisement in the New York Times.

During its seven-year run, See It Now received four Emmy Awards as Best News or Public Affairs Program, and Murrow won four individual Emmys as Best News Commentator or Analyst for hosting the program. He also earned an Emmy as Most Outstanding Television Personality for hosting Person to Person, a lighter, less controversial show that aired from 1953 to 1961. On this program, Murrow conducted informal interviews with celebrities, including actress Marilyn Monroe, actor Marlon Brando, and author John Steinbeck.

Despite winning awards and earning critical praise, See It Now never attracted particularly high TV ratings. Furthermore, Murrow often argued with CBS owner William S. Paley about the content of the show. Murrow believed that the electronic news media should be used to promote democratic ideals, like free speech, citizen participation in government, and individual rights and liberties. He felt that Paley was too concerned about ratings and sponsors, and he complained that the boss forced him to water down the edgy, investigative aspects of the show. But Paley eventually grew tired of involving the network in controversy, and he decided to cancel See It Now.

Murrow made his final broadcast of See It Now on July 7, 1958. Three months later he gave the keynote address at the annual convention of the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) in Chicago, Illinois. In this famous speech, which is excerpted below, Murrow strongly criticizes network executives for wasting television's potential to inform and educate the American people. He refers to television as a "weapon" that could be useful in the battle to promote greater understanding and address important social issues. But he says that the broadcast industry has failed to develop the weapon, choosing instead to focus on entertaining viewers and increasing profits.

Things to remember while reading the excerpt of the Keynote Address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association:

• Television programming in the late 1950s, when Murrow made his speech, is generally regarded as being of higher quality than most of the programming available today. For instance, Murrow suggests airing a public service program in place of The Ed Sullivan Show, a variety program that was tremendously popular at the time. Looking back at the show, however, modern TV critics often talk about the many big-name entertainers—like Elvis Presley and the Beatles—that the show introduced to American audiences. In fact, many people rank The Ed Sullivan Show among the best television programs of all time. If Murrow found that show unworthy of viewers' attention, there is little question that he would dislike the vast majority of modern TV programs.
• One of the biggest complaints Murrow makes in his speech is that television does not address the realities facing the nation and the world. He claims that the United States faces "mortal danger" and is locked in competition with "malignant forces of evil." At the time Murrow gave his address, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a period of intense military and political rivalry known as the Cold War. Both of these world superpowers developed nuclear weapons capable of destroying the other. They also became involved in a series of smaller conflicts around the world in hopes of spreading their own political philosophies and systems of government to new regions, while preventing the other side from doing the same. "Murrow saw turmoil, danger, and opportunity in the world," CBS News anchor Dan Rather explained in a 1993 speech before the RTNDA, "and the best means of communicating the realities to the public—the communications innovation called television—was increasingly ignoring the realities."
• Murrow gave this speech to an audience of his peers—fellow TV and radio newscasters and network executives. Early on, he makes it clear to these industry insiders that he is expressing his own opinions rather than speaking on behalf of his employer, CBS.

Excerpt of "Keynote Address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association"

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily—by invitation—that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done—and are still doing—to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is—an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do—you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fallout and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence….

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility….

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks, with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time—frequently on the same long day—to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism….

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights [section of the U.S. Constitution] or the Communications Act [of 1934] which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network—any network—will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"—the networks cannot pay all the freight—and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated….

This nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision—if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program—he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as fallible human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thoroughgoing job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex —it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said—I think it was Max Eastman —that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporations that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure—exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. " The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

What happened next …

Murrow's speech did not go over well with the audience at the RTNDA convention. The members of the electronic news media attending the conference did not appreciate Murrow's harsh words about their performance. The speech also caused hard feelings between Murrow and his boss at CBS, William S. Paley. Paley finally ran out of patience with Murrow and took steps to limit his air time. "The speech Ed Murrow gave at the 1958 RTNDA convention in Chicago was a risky speech, and he knew it," Rather noted. "It was a bold shot, and he knew it. That was part of the Murrow style, and part of what has made the Murrow mystique: the bold, brave shot."

Murrow's outspoken criticism of commercial broadcasting essentially led to his being forced out of the industry. His speech received praise and admiration from people outside of television, but it created anger and resentment within the broadcasting establishment. Under increasing pressure from network executives, Murrow quit his job with CBS in 1960. The following year, he accepted an appointment from President John F. Kennedy to serve as head of the U.S. Information Agency. This agency provided the official views of the U.S. government to citizens of other nations through such organizations as the Voice of America radio network.

Edward R. Murrow died of lung cancer on April 28, 1965, at the age of fifty-seven. Shortly before his death, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian (non-military) honor in the United States. He was also made an honorary knight in England. After Murrow died, the broadcasting industry gradually let go of its anger and began recognizing his many contributions. In 1971 the RTNDA established the Edward R. Murrow Awards to honor outstanding achievements in electronic journalism. CBS placed his photograph in the lobby of its headquarters in New York City, along with a plaque that reads, "He set standards of excellence that remain unsurpassed."

Did you know …

• Murrow came up with his signature opening and closing lines while reporting for CBS Radio in wartime London. He started each broadcast by stating, "THIS … is London." The unique way he said the phrase—with added emphasis on "this," followed by a dramatic pause—caught the imagination of the public and helped make Murrow a star. Years later, the CBS television network adapted the phrase for its promotional spots, in which a narrator said, "This … is CBS." Throughout his career, Murrow closed each broadcast by telling the audience, "Good night, and good luck." He borrowed this phrase from London residents during World War II. They always wished each other "good luck" upon parting because they never felt certain that they would live to greet each other the following day.
• Much of Edward R. Murrow's 1958 address to the RTNDA appears in the 2005 film Good Night, and Good Luck. Based on interviews with Murrow's colleagues and family, the movie follows the legendary journalist's efforts to discredit anti-Communist crusader Senator Joseph McCarthy on his TV program See It Now. Good Night, and Good Luck received a number of Academy Award nominations, including one as Best Picture and one for David Strathairn as Best Actor for his performance in the role of Murrow.

Consider the following …

• Murrow argues that if television is not used to serve the public interest, it is "merely wires and lights in a box." What suggestions does Murrow make in his speech that he believes would improve the quality of television in America? If you were in charge of a major broadcast network, what changes would you make?
• According to Dan Rather in his 1993 address to the RTNDA, "Murrow was worried because he saw a trend setting in—avoiding the unpleasant or controversial or challenging. He saw the networks shortening news broadcasts, or jamming them with ever-increasing numbers of commercials—throwing out background, context, and analysis, relying just on headlines, and going for entertainment values over the values of good journalism." Rather had not seen many improvements by the time he made his speech. What is your assessment of the state of TV news today?
• Murrow's purpose in making this speech was to convince his peers to care more deeply about an issue he believed was important. Think of a social, political, environmental, or humanitarian issue you care about. Write a one-page speech to try to convince your classmates to share your concerns.

For More Information

BOOKS

Edwards, Bob. Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism. New York: Wiley, 2004.

Kendrick, Alexander. Prime-Time: The Life of Edward R. Murrow. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969.

Murrow, Edward R., and Edward Bliss, Jr., eds. In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow, 1938–1961. New York: Knopf, 1967.

Persico, Joseph E. Edward R. Murrow: An American Original. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.

Sperber, A.M. Murrow, His Life and Times. New York: Freundlich, 1986.

WEB SITES

Edgerton, Gary. "Edward R. Murrow." Museum of Broadcast Communications. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murrowedwar/murrowedwar.htm (accessed on July 26, 2006).

"Edward R Murrow Biography." Edward R. Murrow Center. Tufts University. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/murrow/murrow/biography.html (accessed on July 26, 2006).

Montagne, Renee. "Edward R. Murrow: Broadcasting History." National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=1872668 (accessed on July 26, 2006).

Murrow, Edward R. "Keynote Address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association." RTNDA Speeches, http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtml (accessed on July 26, 2006).

Rather, Dan. "Speech at 1993 RTNDA Convention, Miami, Florida." Radio and Television News Directors Association. http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/rather.html (accessed on May 22, 2006).

Heretical: An opinion contrary to generally accepted beliefs.

Candor: Openness or honesty.

Labor in this vineyard: Work in the field of television.

Instruments: Communication media like TV and radio.

Unprecedented: Has never been seen before.

Approbation: Praise.

Heritage: Traditions passed down from previous generations.

Kinescopes: Televised images.

Decadence: Decay or decline.

Insulation: Isolation or protection.

Spasmodic: Occasional.

Intellectual ghetto: A place where there is little stimulation for the mind.

Indifference: Lack of caring or interest.

Nero and his fiddle: A reference to a Roman emperor who casually played his fiddle while the city of Rome went up in flames.

Chamberlain and his umbrella: A reference to Neville Chamberlain, a British prime minister whose policies led German dictator Adolf Hitler to believe that he could take over Europe prior to World War II.

Sustaining show: An informational television program paid for by the station or network, rather than by a commercial sponsor.

Documentary: Fact-based film.

Illuminate: Shed light on; inform.

Agitate: Upset or annoy; cause arguments.

Egypt and Israel: Neighboring countries in the Middle East that were involved in a dispute.

Handed your head: Face harsh criticism from all sides.

Zionists: Supporters of the state of Israel.

Count: Account; version of the story.

Wary: Cautious or distrustful.

Radioactive fall-out: Potentially dangerous materials released through nuclear explosions.

Timidity: Fear; lack of courage.

Precedents: Examples.

Editorialize: Express opinions about controversial issues.

Unsponsored: Without support from advertisers.

Conduit: Route or path.

Libelous: An unfair written attack.

Defamatory: Harmful to someone's reputation.

Rate card: Sheet used to determine the amount charged for commercial time on a TV program.

Covey or clutch: Group.

Manifold: Many.

Quarter: Person or department.

Irate: Angry.

Potent: Important or powerful.

Deficit side of the ledger: Problems in the TV industry.

Free enterprise: A system that allows private businesses to operate for the purpose of earning money.

Enterprising: Ambitious or energetic.

Philanthropies: Charities.

Net profits: The amount earned after subtracting expenses.

Subsidized: Paid for; given financial support.

Marginal time: Less-desirable time slots.

Licensee: Holder of a license to broadcast over the airwaves.

Public interest, convenience and necessity: A phrase from the Communications Act of 1934 describing the responsibilities of broadcasters.

Welshed: Failed to follow through.

Punitive: Discipline or punishment.

Malignant: Actively mean and terrible.

Menacing: Threatening; potentially dangerous.

Tithe: Offering or donation.

Stockholders: People who hold shares of ownership in a corporation.

Pluralistic: Large and varied.

Fill the hall: Attract an audience.

Exposition: Explanation.

Fallible: Capable of making mistakes.

Exalt: Give high praise to.

Ed Sullivan: (1901–1974) Early television personality best known for hosting a variety show on CBS.

Steve Allen: (1921–2000) Actor, comedian, and television talk show host.

Palatable: Clear and understandable.

Magnitude: Importance.

Accruing: Growing or accumulating.

Marshal: Gather or organize.

NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization; a group of nations that agreed to help and protect one another.

Perpetual: Constant or never-ending.

Complacent: Lazy and satisfied; willing to accept things as they are.

Fat surpluses: Big money profits.

Delude: Fool or confuse.

Advocate: Support or argue in favor of.

Wailing wall: Place of mourning.

Longhairs: Nickname for intellectuals and hippies.

Redound: Reflect or transfer.

Nielsen, Trendex or Silex: Companies that measure television audiences and publish ratings for programs.

Mouthings: Things said without sincerity.

Max Eastman: (1883–1969) American writer.

Retribution: Punishment.

Appropriation: Budget.

Contagion: By example.

Stonewall Jackson: (1824–1863) Confederate general during the Civil War (real name Thomas J. Jackson).

Scabbard: A sheath to hold a sword.