Daniel Schorr
Farwell to one of the great two-fisted broadcast journalists
Daniel Schorr
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
If only Daniel Schorr had remained healthy a little longer, he would've been afforded the opportunity to weigh in on the WikiLeaks/Afghanistan story. And he surely would've relished doing so. To borrow a baseball term, that story was right in his wheelhouse.
Schorr, who died Friday after 93 years on earth and 60 years in journalism, was one of the last links to the pre-Internet golden age of two-fisted broadcasting, which is why he rates a special mention here. During his long career, particularly at CBS News and at National Public Radio, he crafted a well-earned reputation as a combative reporter and analyst who bucked governmental authority in the service of the truth. He ferreted out the real story, often aided by leakers on the inside. He shared his findings with the public, and, most admirably of all, he couldn't have cared less who got ticked off.
Schorr would've instinctively understood the purpose of the Afghanistan document dump, that the leaked battlefield reports (as vetted by three top newspapers) are intended to enlighten the public about a war that's going worse than officially portrayed. He would've noted that messengers often pay a price for disseminating unwelcome messages; after all, he was thrown out of Moscow during the '50s when the Soviets grew displeased with his CBS reporting, and he was essentially eased out of CBS in the mid-70s when the network grew displeased with his attempts to air a secret congressional report on CIA illegalities. (Threatened with jail time and a $100,000 fine for contempt of Congress, he ultimately gave the leaked document to the Village Voice, which published it. Congress backed down on its threat. The republic didn't fall.)
Schorr was the 17th name on President Richard Nixon's official "enemies list." One incident during that era best illustrates his relationship with authority (or, more precisely, the reverse):
One summer night in 1971, Nixon gave a speech to the Knights of Columbus and promised that he would give federal money to private parochial schools. The next day, anchorman Walter Cronkite asked Schorr to do a piece on the issue for The CBS Evening News. Schorr interviewed various administration officials and parochial school lobbyists, and learned that Nixon's promise was a con, that he was merely pandering to Catholic voters with an eye on his '72 re-election, that he couldn't have funded the schools even if he wanted to because the U.S. Supreme Court had put the kibosh on those kinds of funds.
Schorr duly aired his report. Three days later, the FBI, acting at the administration's specific request, opened an investigation into Schorr's background. The FBI sent agents around the country to quiz 25 of Schorr's friends, family, and colleagues. The ostensible reason to check out rumors that Schorr's wife may have had some "Marxist" associations in her past.
The FBI probe didn't stay secret; ultimately, it was disclosed in The Washington Post. Then came the fun part. The Nixon people decided that, in order to spare themselves embarrassment, they needed to concoct some fake spin about why they had been investigating Schorr. So they publicly claimed that they'd screened his background with the intention of offering him a job, bringing him onto the Nixon team - as assistant to the chairman of the Environmental Quality Council.
It later turned out that Nixon himself had crafted this lie - and apparently he came to believe it. In 1991, Schorr attended a Nixon speech; as he recalled in an interview two months ago, he approached the former president when the speech was over and said, "Mr. Nixon, I'm not sure you remember me. My name is Daniel Schorr." To which Nixon replied, "Sure, Dan Schorr. Damn near hired you once."
Just 17 days ago, Schorr was still on the air at NPR, in what would be his final stint - offering historical context on U.S.-Russian spy swaps, opining on the sensitive but necessary Obama-Netanyahu alliance ("they are condemned to be good friends"), and envisioning a long legal battle over the Arizona immigration law. Host Scott Simon then said, "Dan, thanks very much."
Schorr replied, "Any time."
If only.
Here is the link to government tax revenue............... http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html- former, I agree we should cut govt. spending as well as taxes. We could just keep the increases in each federal dept. at 0% for 2 years or so since no one in Wash DC has the guts to cut anything specific. Unemployment benefits have to be taxed out of the economy 1st, before it can be put back in & its unlimited extension keeps rates artificially high. Also, as the rich get richer, they hire more people and it yes 'trickles down' to the rest of us or another cliche 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. If the economy is humming along who cares if the rich get richer. Do you think this recession has hurt rich people? Look at Kerry's new yacht above for your answer. It only hurt the middle and lower class.— NEPhilly
- Nigel - point taken...although I didn't say NE was dumb - said he SOUNDED dumb. Big dif. I don't call people names but I do catagorize their opinions and behavior.— jti
- No argument that business creates jobs - and when they don't who does or should? Especially when businesses in the U.S. are presently sitting on an estimated $1.7 TRILLION in cash that for some unknown reason they are not ploughing back into the economy. Gee, wonder why? Maybe there isn't the demand for their products and services above what we see today so why expand? So when the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending to the tune of an estimated 70% in good times and there isn't that level of demand in the private sector - for many reasons - who should step up and where should the spending to increase demand come from? Let's think about that - oh, yea cut taxes. But if 10% of people are out of work they won't be paying much if any taxes anyhow so tax cuts will improve what? No, that's right, if we cut the RICH people's taxes they will spend all the money needed to drive the demand for the economy to pick up so business will loosen up on the 1.7TRILLION and jobs will start picking up and we will all live happily ever after.— jti
- Since I am near Medicare benefits, I am not agains old people getting increased Medicare benefits - quite the contrary. What I find amazing is the new found zealousness of the deficit neocons that cavalirly passed a Medicare extension without paying for it and now cry out about too much spending! But nice slight of hand by taking my remark out of context. I think I asked the other day and never heard back but you sure you don't work for Fixed news or the Rush? You work the slight of hand so well........— jti
- jti, maybe I should work for them & I am glad you liked it. I'll take that as a compliment:) I would say business are saving that $1.7 Tril to pay for increased healthcare costs via the health reform act, higher energy costs via cap and trade, higher capital costs via financial reform, higher taxes via letting the Bush tax cuts expire and if that is not enough we have the President out there using his bully pulpit to bash the very companies he needs to hire people to cut unemployment. Not a very business friendly environment if you ask me! If I owned a company I would be sitting on my cash too:) Off to football practice folks. Speak with you all later & have a good night!— NEPhilly
- JTI- " butwhatabouts " aside the Bush defict was 600 billion in 2008 vs 1.4 trillion now. Bush's unpopularity was enhanced because so many conservatives became dis-illusioned but in hindsight Bush would be frugal compared to Obama. As I illustrated in a prior post, tax receivables increased by over 700 billion dollars since the 2003 tax cuts. so the real problem is government largesse and runaway spending. And as both you and I both know, congress controls the purse strings and Bush was saddled with a Democratic congress for the last two years of his presidency. I know Republicans spend like drunken sailers too, but you guys are out of control. What you're spending is an insult to drunken sailers.
- jti - please if you are going to use the word neocon know what it is. The first people that were call neocon's in the early 70's were socially liberal democrats that believed in a strong defense. While you might be right that neocon's were for the Medicare Part D. Most regular conservatives or constitutional conservatives as I like to call myself were against it whether or not it was paid for. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html— Mike Welbourn
- jti - Also what I find funny is that when the Medicare Part D was passed the only problem many of you neosocialists had with it was it didn't spend enough. Not that it wasn't paid for.— Mike Welbourn
- what I think is funny is right wing wackos who label anyone wanting to return to tax brackets and regulations in place under Clinton..... remember when the economy was good?...as neosocialists. I recall medicaire part d criticism from the left was mostly centered around it being a giveaway to big pharma.— PA_Dutch
- Mike Welbourn : couple of quick points. The Romer study came out in 2007 (unless there's at update from June I haven't seen). In any case, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, also from the conclusion "Finally, we find suggestive evidence that tax increases to reduce an inherited budget deficit do not have the large output costs associated with other exogenous tax increases. This is consistent with the idea that deficit driven tax increases may have important expansionary effects through expectations and long-term interest rates, or through confidence." So this same study you're quoting is saying that raising taxes to lower a deficit don't seem to be negative on the economy. Second, please note that she keeps using the term "exogenous" tax increases. She distinguishes these from counter-cyclical taxes. Put simply, the gains her paper show related to cutting taxes do not apply to cutting taxes during a recession. Finally, it should be noted, that even using her numbers, tax increases are not self-funding..... All that being said, I agree that raising taxes right now would be a bad idea (as would large spending cuts). But this study, once you go through it, doesn't make that case at all (the GWB tax cuts are more typical of the exogenous cuts she's analyzing).— still_independent
- Mike Welbourn : sorry, I missed your link. It is an update to the 2007 paper. All of my comments still apply to it, though. Also interesting to note that they are also explicit that "Similarly, our results do not speak to the issue of whether taxes are a more powerful tool of fiscal policy than government purchases." - I guess, given hur current job, she had to throw that in there :)— still_independent
- NEPhilly : again, under GW, there was a net gain of 1.1 million jobs (less than population growth). That's not exactly very good - for a frame of reference, under Clinton there was a net gain of ~ 23 million jobs. Even Carter had a net job gain of over 10 million. It would be stupid of me to "blame" the anemic job growth unger Bush on the tax cuts, but at a minimum, it does illustrate that far more than tax policy effects the economy and employment.— still_independent
- Mike W. is correct about the Leftist position on Medicare D. Libs didn't think it spent enough.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- I loved Polman mentioning the Village Voice, once a truly great source for real journalism. Since the departure (ahem, firing) of the great Nat Hentoff and also James Ridgeway, the paper has turned into a fluff entertainment weekly.— p-diddy
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
