Section 1: Q: If you could, take us through a typical
work day for you [in journalism.]
A: Well, that would depend on what job I
had. I’ve run big papers and little papers.
When I was at NBC, I had a car and a
driver. The car and driver would pick me up
at a quarter to 6:00 in the morning. I was
only five minutes away, and take me down
to Greenwich Village and I’d go to the gym
and work out for an hour. Then I’d go down
to the Today show and screw around with
the Today show cast until that went on the
air. Then I’d sit in the control room – I liked
the Today show cast a lot and so I’d just sort
of mess around with them and joke with the
producer until about quarter to 8:00.
Then I would go to work. I had five key
people. I called them “The Doers,” because
they’d get could get anything done. We met
in the morning. I wouldn’t let them sit
down. I hate meetings, and I figured if we
sat down the meeting would last five times
[as long.] So I said bring your coffee and
we’ll stand up and everybody says what he
or she has to get done that day, if they
needed any help from the rest of us, and
what about next week and next month. Then
we’d just go do our job all day. And some
days it was dealing with the news, some
days it was dealing with the government,
some days it was dealing with general
electric company and some days it was
dealing with my kids. So it would differ
every day.
When I ran a little newspaper in Ames, I
lived up in Des Moines so I’d drive up every
morning. I figure if you’re a newspaper
editor, especially if you’re writing editorials,
you need to be pissed off by the time you get
to work. So I would read the Wall Street
editorial at home because if there’s anything
that could get under my skin it was a Wall
Street editorial because they’re so right wing
and outrageous. Then at 7:17 every morning
on WI a march came on and that would get
my blood moving by the time I got to work.
I also knew there was a President of Iowa
State University named Martin Jischke and a
governor of Iowa by the name of Terry
Brandstad and I knew that by the time I got
to work one of them would be something
stupid so I’d be all set for the day. So I’d go
there. I didn’t have an office I just had a
little newsroom. The staff was 20 people.
And we’d talk about what’s going on. When
they’d turn in their story I’d make them sit
down right next to me and I’d read their
story on the computer and we’d go over
their story together word by word and get it
in. The paper went to press about noon, so
then I’d start reporting for my editorial for
the next day. So it differs if you’re at a tiny
newspaper or a great big broadcast. But it
was always fun.
Q: You mentioned that you tend to be more
liberal.
A: I’m a tax-and-spin 1960s Humphery
Democrat.
Q: You said just now that Wall Street
Journals editorials get you mad because
they’re right wing. How do you feel in
general about objectivity in journalism?
A: Editorials aren’t supposed to be
objective. You need facts in editorials.
That’s what most editorial writers don’t
understand. And then you use those facts to
build your case and to persuade. But I think
mainstream newspapers ought to try to be
fair – as fair as they know how to be.
Alternative papers need an edge and it’s a
different kind of journalism. But I think
mainstream news tries to be as fair as you
know how to be. It’s tough to be fair. A lot
of times you don’t know what fair is.
Q: Do you think today’s journalists are
objective, by and large?
A: I think by and large they try to be
objective, unless it’s Fox News. There are
people who aren’t, but the process generally
either weeds them out or cleans them up. A
lot of time unfair words just kind of slip off
the typewriter or the computer these days.
The word reform for instance. They say
welfare reform. The word reform has a built
in meaning that it’s change for the better.
Well, all tax reform isn’t necessarily change
for the better, in my view. I think a lot of
people have inherent biases that they don’t
understand. But that is what the editing
process is all about, is to clear that up. --
Section 2: Q: Can you tell us about your involvement
in the GM truck scandal, and what kind of
journalistic and non-journalistic pressures
you were facing?
A: I didn’t face any pressures. General
Motors made pickup trucks for several years
in which the gas tank was outside of the
frame instead of inside the frame. So if you
were in a collision the gas tank might tend
blow up, which would not be good for you if
you were in the car. And so there had be all
kinds of lawsuits about this, and General
Motors had paid millions of dollars in
settlements, but they had been sealed. So
Dateline NBC, which is a newsmagazine,
decided to do a piece on it. It was a terrific
piece. Except for 30 seconds [of it.] To show
how it blew up they had a crash out at this
auto center in Indianapolis. But just to make
sure this particular car blew up this reporter,
in effect, put a cherry bomb under it to ignite
it. And [he] didn’t tell anybody. And when
you’re editing – you are the editor [or] the
producer – and you’re looking at a story
before it appears, you don’t think to ask,
“You didn’t blow up the truck yourself, did
you?” Which in fact is what happened.
That appeared in October/November and I
was out at the Super Bowl January out in
California. And an NBC lawyer came up to
me and said, “I think we have a bit of a
problem.” I said, “What?” And he said,
“You remember that Dateline piece on the
truck?” And I said, “Yeah.” He said,
“General Motors says that [the reporter]
blew it up and they have a witness to it.” I
said, “You’re kidding. Well, that’s going to
kind of screw up my Super Bowl.” And so I
went back and checked into it, and that, in
fact, was what had happened. I said, “If
that’s the case, let’s apologize.”
Just about that time General Motor sued for
$9 gazillion dollars and my wife and
children. So I went to the NBC lawyer and
said, “We can probably settle this suit by
apologizing. They don’t know we’re going
to apologize anyways, so let’s not tell them.
But let’s see if they’ll drop the suit if we do
that.” They said yes they would if we could
agree on the statement. And they took the
first pass on it which had NBC apologizing
for being on this earth. We worked it out – it
took all day long to work it out. And I said
to the head of NBC, “I want just two things.
I want the final say on the wording
otherwise I’m not going to do it. And also I
want my own lawyer here with me because I
don’t trust the NBC lawyers in this
particular issue.” So I called up a guy who is
now on the second circuit of appeals whose
name is Bob Sack, one of the great First
Amendment lawyers, and said, “O.K. Sack,
I have an opportunity for you to make a
whole lot of money from NBC for a day. All
you have to do is stand next to me.” So he
did it.
The show was to go on at 10:00, and I gave
Jane Pauley two statements. I said, “I don’t
know which one you’re going to read.” We
still hadn’t agreed with General Motors. We
were down to an argument over an and or a
comma in the statement after we’d come this
long way. I couldn’t remember whether I
wanted an and or if I wanted the comma.
But if they didn’t agree I wasn’t going to do
it. Jane Pauley was a trooper about it and
very good about it. I remember my boss was
getting pretty excited about it. He thought
that this was pretty good, that we were going
to get rid of this suit and settle. And about
20 after 10:00, when we still hadn’t settled
and the show was on, he said, “What is your
problem?” I said, “Well, it’s this and or
comma.” He said, “Just go with what they
want.” And I said, “No, my deal is I don’t
have to.” He said, “You’re just standing on
principle.” I said, “That’s the idea. I’m
standing on principle.” Which the lawyer
thought was very fun. Ultimately General
Motors said, “O.K. you can do what you
want.” So I told Jane Pauley which
statement to read and she did.
But it didn’t go away. It was a big media
story. Also NBC affiliates were very pissed
they thought it would hurt their bottom line,
when in fact it helped them. So there was all
this, “Gartner’s a jerk. Gartner’s an idiot.”
And it was this drumbeat that didn’t stop. So
I went to my boss and said, “You know I’m
going to leave in five months when my
pension vests and I turn 55. I know, but
nobody else knows, so I’ll just leave now
and this thing will stop.” And he said, “Are
you sure?” I said, “Yeah, under two
conditions.” He said, “Well, what’s that?” I
said, “I want my dignity and your money.”
And he said, “O.K.” So I did. And that was
the whole thing. That was the story behind
that. --
Section 3: A: I was born in Des Moines in 1938. I’m
66 years old. I grew up in a house on 40th
street. In fact, I’m just selling it now. My
father died three weeks ago. He was 102
years old. He and my mother lived there for
the last 70 years all most. She died a year
ago. They were married for 75 years. He
was a newspaper man, as well. A great
newspaper man. He worked at the Des
Moines Register. I went to schools in Des
Moines. I started working at the Register
when I was 15 years old, answering phones
in the sports department and as a dictations
typist. I can type faster than anybody in this
room.
Then I went off to college [to] a place called
Carlton College in Northfield, Minnesota.
And then I went to work at the Wall Street
Journal and stayed there for 14 years. The
last five years there I was the page one
editor. And I returned the favor to Carlton
for giving me a pretty good education by
whenever there was an education story on
the front page of the Wall Street Journal –
and there were usually 20 or 30 a year and it
was always about a trend – it would say,
“This is happening in places like Oberlin
and Swarthmore and William and
Amerherst” and I would always write in
“and highly regarded Carlton College.” The
Wall Street Journal style book probably still
today, you look up Carlton College [you will
find] Highly Regarded, capital H, capital R.
I get a big joke [out of it.]
I also went to law school while I was at the
Wall Street Journal. And I struck a blow for
feminism. I was the page one editor, and I
fell in love with a girl whose name was
Barbara McCoy, who was on the copy desk.
And we decided to get married but New
York is a big city and we decided to be
discreet about it. One day the managing
editor who I speak to about 40 times a day
says, “Is anything new?” I said, “As a matter
of fact something is new.” He said, “What?”
And I said, “I’m getting married.” He said,
“You’re kidding me. Anybody I know?” I
said, “As a matter of fact it is.” He said,
“Who?” I said, “It’s somebody on the copy
desk.” He said, “Who?” Which kind of
pissed me off since there was only one
woman on the copy desk. He said, “You’re
marrying Barbara.” And I said, “Yeah.”
He said, “Then she’s got to quit. We have an
nepotism rule.” And I said, “You’re kidding
me.” He said, “No. There’s an nepotism
rule.” I said, “I quit.” He said, “You can’t
quit.” I said, “To hell I can’t quit. I don’t
have a contract.” I had a standing job offer
from Time magazine. He said, “You can’t
quit.” I said, “Are you testing me?” So I sat
down and wrote out my resignation and
handed it to him. It was effective May 25th,
1968, which was the year we got married. I
said, “Here.” He put it in his pocket and
disappeared.
He came back an hour later and said that
Dow Jones no longer has an nepotism rule.
He had called a meeting of the management
committee and they had met and gotten ride
of the nepotism policy. And my wife and I
stayed there. Today the chief executive of
the Wall Street Journal is married to the
publisher of the Wall Street Journal. The
man is the chief executive, the woman is the
publisher. A lot of people don’t like the
woman and they blame it all on me. At least
one person a year will call up and say, “It’s
all you fault.” So that was my contribution
to feminism.
In 1974 I got a call from Des Moines, ’73 I
guess, and said, “Would you mind coming
back home and being the editor of the
newspaper?” So I said, “I might be.” The
subways were probably crowed that day or
something, and we didn’t have any kids. We
thought it might be time to have kids.
Barbara was from New York – she’d only
been out here to visit my parents. So I said,
“Let’s move to Iowa.” She said, “O.K.” So
here we are. I was the editor of the Register
for 10 years. I tried to buy it after 10 years
with Dow Jones. The people who owned it
thought that was kind of uppity. I was the
president of the company by then and the
editor of the paper.
And the family who owned it, the Cowels family,
a great family, thought that was kind of uppity
for somebody to try to buy the newspaper. I was
the president and editor and my partner was
the publisher and the executive vice
president. So they said it was not for sale.
We said, “Yes it is. It’s for sale. You said it
was for sale.” The family didn’t get along
and there were 300 stockholders. So they
said no and fired us. And we said, “You
can’t fire us for trying to buy the company.”
Our lawyers had told us that, too. So they
said O.K. and hired us back but took away
our duties. We just had one duty, which was
agree not too sue them. So they set us up in
offices in a building next door. And
everyday I’d read the paper and at 9:30 I’d
look at Gary and say, “Well, I’m not going
to sue them today, are you?” He’d say,
“No.” “Well, I’ve made the only decision I
need to make today.”
But after a couple months that got kind of
boring so we decided to start our own little
company. We bought some weekly
newspapers and rolled them into the Ames
weekly newspaper. And then, of course, the
[Register] was sold to Gannett. And Gannett
came to me and said, “Would you be the
general news executive of Gannett and of
USA Today. This must have been about
1985. And I said, “Sure.” So I commuted to
Washington. Then they bought the
Louisville paper they asked me to go down
there to make some changes over the next 15
months, which I did. But I commuted from
Des Moines. And then I went back and ran
Ames for a little bit and USA Today for a
little bit as a general news executive. And
then I got a call from NBC, and asked me if
I wanted to be president of NBC news. And
I said, “Do you want to be the Pope?” I
thought it was somebody’s joke. I turned it
down several times. And the more I turned it
down, the more they wanted me. So I said,
“O.K., it’s your risk not mine.”
So I went to NBC and then I left like I just
described. And came back to Ames and ran
the paper there. I owned it with two other
guys and one of them died about five years
ago and his kids needed money for their
estate so we sold that newspaper. About that
time, by sheer coincidence, a lawyer in Des
Moines who was always my First
Amendment lawyer and [who] worked for
us at the Register called me up and said, “I
understand the Cubbies are for sale.” And I
said, “Yes. So what?” He said, “If it is, I
think we ought to buy them.” And I said,
“We? You don’t have any money.” And he
said, “That’s why I said we.” So we bought
the Cubs, which I’ve owned for several
years now. And then about six months ago
or so a young guy who used to work for me
[and who] owns an alternative newspaper
called Point Blank, came and asked my
partner Gary Girlock and I would make a
major investment in that, so we did that. So
I’m sort of backing the newspaper business.
In addition, Gary and I have another
company that owns a small daily in
Nebraska and some weeklies and some
printing plants in West Virginia, Colorado
and Nebraska. That’s the story of my life.
That’s more than you want to know.
A: You really can’t keep a job. Hearing
your story, I feel like a you’re a long-
distance runner or a sprinter and you’re just
running and running.
Q: No. You know what? Life works out if
you never plan. And I never planned. I never
said, “Well, I want to editor of the Register
or I want to run NBC or I want to own an
alternative newspaper or a baseball team.”
Things happen. And you seize the
opportunity. If it’s a dumb thing you say,
“Boy, that was stupid.” And you get out.
Every job has some crappy parts to it. But
anytime you have a job that has more than
20 percent crappy parts, you’re in the wrong
job, you ought to quit because nobody
should have to put up – whether it’s an
alcoholic boss or having to sell when you
don’t like to sell. Life is full of opportunities
and having fun – that’s what it’s all about.
Just enjoy yourself and have fun. --
Section 4: A: Talk about Iowa journalism - how things
have changed. [Talk about] how the
Register used to be the great Register and
why that’s changed.
Q: My history with the Register goes back
[a ways.] My dad worked there and when I
was five years old, I started taking piano
lessons in downtown Des Moines. I would
take a streetcar down every Tuesday night
and go up to Mrs. Herbert’s piano studio on
the second floor of the building across the
street from the Register and take my piano
lesson. Afterwards I’d go down, and there
was a shoe shine stand down below run by
Floyd, Loyd and Palestine and I’d talk to
them. As a five year old kid talking to them,
they taught me how to shine shoes. And then
I’d go to meet my father and hang out in the
newsroom with him for 45 minutes or an
hour, and then take the streetcar home with
him. I have a perspective of the Register that
goes back literally 62 years. All my father’s
friends were newspaper people at the
Register. There was no television in those
days. There were no computers, of course.
Radio was not a portable thing, it was a
great big thing that sat in your living room.
And on Sunday evenings the family would
gather around the radio and listen to Jack
Benny and Burns and Allen and stuff like
that. So the newspaper was the major source
of information, other than radio.
There was a morning newspaper and an
afternoon newspaper. Women didn’t work.
Afternoon newspapers were enormously
successful, among other things, because
there was always someone home in the
afternoon. Women would read the paper
when it came in. So the Register and the
Tribune were two competing newspapers
each on a 12-hour news cycle. The Register
was the more hard-hitting news-type paper,
and the Tribune was the better paper –
throughout their careers the Tribune was the
better newspaper, but most people won’t
believe that, but it was. The writing was
better, the story selection was better and you
had to scramble more because God never
took care of afternoon newspapers except
during the Vietnam war because of the time
zone. But by-and-large you had to make
your own news.
The penetration of the Register in those days
was probably 95 percent in Central Iowa and
50 percent around the state. It was a
statewide newspaper, it held the state
together. It was a great leader in the state. It
had two great editors: a guy named Harvey
Ingram and a guy named Kenneth
McDonald. I’m sure they would never admit
it, but they set the agenda for the state of
Iowa. They kept Iowa clean; they bound
Iowa together. They were a statewide voice.
And that was a great thing for Iowa and a
great thing for the people at the newspaper.
The newspaper was enormously successful.
It was built on the foundation of good
journalism and ruthless business practices. I
used to say it was built on cheap gasoline,
cheap labor and cheap newsprint. So they
became enormously wealthy and
enormously powerful and felt they had a
duty to Iowa to put out a good newspaper,
which they did.
It was a destination place for journalists.
They wanted to come and stay there all their
lives. Now it’s a way station. Now it’s a
chain. And now the people who manage it
are nice people, but they’re just passing
through, as their predecessors just passed
through. So they don’t understand the state.
They don’t understand the heritage of the
newspaper, the traditions of the newspaper.
They don’t understand the history of the
state. They don’t understand the role of
women in the state, women on the farm. The
role of civil rights in the state. The very first
law case in the Iowa Supreme Court was
called Iowa One, was about a slave. Iowa
said you can’t have slavery in Iowa. It was
handed down July 4, before Iowa became a
state. [It was] the very first decision by the
Iowa Supreme Court. What better
foundation for a state? And you need to
know things like that.
You need to know, if you’re going to be
editor or publisher of a newspaper in a big
town, whose brother-in-law is in jail for
being a serial murderer, and whose brother-
in-law was the greatest mayor the town ever
had. You just need to know who people are,
so you can understand your community.
And the main problem is, they don’t
understand their community; they have no
affection for their community. You have to
have an affection for your community, you
don’t want to be a city booster but you don’t
want to be a common scold. They don’t
have any of that. They are all nice people.
They are all talented people. But the Des
Moines might as well be Oakland or
Indianapolis or Nashville or Honolulu or
where ever else they own metropolitan
newspapers. They don’t have a sense of the
state.
In addition, they made a terrible decision, it
was an economic decision, but they are
owned by a publicly-held company that
must increase their earnings ever quarter. To
do that they cut back. It is no longer a
statewide newspaper. They used to be a
statewide newspaper. It bound the state
together. During the 40 years that Kenneth
McDonald was the editor there was never a
scandal in this state. And that was because
the Register was a guard dog in its news
columns and a watch dog in its editorial
columns. The Register made Iowa a much
greater state than it would have been. And
Iowa made the Register owners great,
wealthy people. It was a symbiotic
relationship that worked great for
everybody. It was a combination of doing
good and doing well.
And that all changed. Part of it was the
changing of the times, part of it was the
changing of the ownership, part of it was
changing of the state, part of it was bad luck
and bad timing and part of it was the fact
that the family was bred a lot and diluted the
ownership a lot. The clear voice started to
get a little murky. But they believed in Iowa.
They believed in a lot of things about Iowa.
They were internationalists. They believed
in the dignity of the human being. They
believe in civil rights and civil liberties. And
they believed in free enterprise. And their
editorials reflected that and they were
regularly one of the great newspapers in the
state. Today it’s none of those things.
Maybe it would be none of those things if
the Cowels still owned it. But it’s a shadow
of itself journalistically. It’s a shadow of
itself in circulation. But it’s not a shadow of
itself as a business. It probably makes ten
times the profit. The most profit the Cowels
ever made, it probably makes ten times as
much. That would be my guess.
At the same time, technology changes. The
Internet came in. More women started
working. Television came in. There was no
longer a need for afternoon newspapers. So
there was a lot of changes in the industry. At
the same time there were changes in the
state, at the same time there were changes in
ownership, so that’s what leads me to say
that the Register is a shadow of its former
self. I’m not talking of when I was there,
I’m talking about when my predecessor
Kenneth McDonald was the editor. I merely
carried on his policies for a few years. --
Section 5: Q: If you are a good journalist, do you think
you would stay in Iowa? Are there enough
opportunities in Iowa?
A: Well, it depends on what you call a good
journalist. Do you want to write good
stories? Absolutely. You could start a
newspaper in Des Moines today and call it
Low Hanging Fruit because there are so
many great stories the Register isn’t doing.
If you want to get rich, maybe not. But
you’re probably not going to get rich being a
journalist anyway unless you become an
anchor person on television, [but there are
not many] of those. They make $7, $8, $10
million dollars a year. You could be a
successful journalist. You could be a happy
journalist. You could lead a good life and
make a decent pay as a journalist in Iowa.
Not necessarily at the Register. Perhaps at
the Register, but perhaps elsewhere.
Q: Do you think there are more
opportunities for minorities outside of Iowa?
A: I think there are opportunities for
minorities everywhere. The newspaper
industry just has a horrible record [for
hiring] minorities. Every year they launch a
new diversity effort, the American Society
of Newspapers does, or APME or the
Freedom Forum. The Freedom Forum’s has
been successful, but none of the others have
been successful.
Q: Why don’t you think they’ve been
successful?
A: I don’t know. I watch them pretty
carefully. I used to be president of the
American Society of Newspaper Editors,
and I’m a trustee of the Newseum, which is
a Freedom Forum arm, so I go to all their
meetings on diversity. Maybe there’s just
never been a real commitment. You know,
commitment starts at the top. You can find
some newspapers where it’s great, like at
Gannett. Gazette’s terrific because a guy
named Al Newhart who ran it had this
commitment to it. I believe he discovered
early on that it was good business. I don’t
think he [cared] one way or another deep
down inside, but I think he found out that it
was good business so he became evangelical
about it.
Q: Give us some examples about how this
state has changed without the leadership of
the Register.
A: The first thing would be that there was a
thing called the Iowa Trust scandal. There
was a scandal involving investments that
towns had entrusted and it was kind of a
scam. It never would have happened if the
Register had still been statewide. They
would have picked up on it before it became
a scam. And then there’s just been a series
of scandals afterwards. Another thing is the
legislature became more contentious [and]
rural urban became a little worse because I
think all those years there was a statewide
paper that provided a fact base for the
leaders around the state. Whether it was the
veterinarian in a town or the druggist or the
principle. In every town the important
people bought the Register. So they had the
same fact base and knew what was going on.
And the legislature knew that too. So it kept
the place clean.
In addition, especially with the editorial
page they were great leaders. Iowa couldn’t
have elected John Culver and Dick Clark to
the Senate if it weren’t for the Register
making people aware of internationalism,
making people aware of liberties and civil
rights. Without the Register, Iowa would
have just been Nebraska East. Sort of maybe
what it’s becoming now. So it sort of
provided intellectual leadership. It provided
a common fact base. And it provided a bond
for people throughout the state, it was the
glue that held the state together. The only
possibility now for that is public television.
And especially as digital television comes,
they will become the new Register. They
will be the force that holds the state
together.
A: Do you think there are other newspapers
that are doing that around the country, like
what the Register was?
Q: I don’t think there’s many left, maybe
none. For a while Providence did, but then it
was sold to Pillow. I’m told it doesn’t do
that much anymore. There’s still some
terrific newspapers. There are 16 million
newspapers. I read five. So people say,
“What’s a good newspaper?” I say, “I don’t
know. I read five.”
A: The unique thing the Register had [its
wide influence.] I’m wondering if it still
exists anywhere. Can it exist?
Q: I don’t know. It can exist in a
community. We built it up so that it existed
in Ames by the time we sold it. It existed
through the editorial page in Ames. We did
readership surveys and it showed that people
read the editorial page before anything else
because we were intensively local. We
showed people what was going on. We
would point out if something was stupid,
which was every third day at the University
or when the city-owned hospital was
squirreling away money to the point were
we had an editorial that said we should
rename it to the Mary-Greely Trust Fund
Company because it was so wealthy at the
same time property taxes were going up on
people and they were trying to meet in
secret. You can do it in a community. You
can probably do it in a region – maybe four
or five counties. I don’t anywhere, anymore
where it happens. The Register doesn’t even
have 50 percent penetration in Pope county.
I just looked up their circulation numbers
the other day – I like to giggle about it. They
have only 50 percent of the daily Register
Pope county. So, I don’t know that it exists. --
Section 6: Q: I was wondering what your definition of
news is and what you think is newsworthy.
A: That’s very interesting. There’s a thing
in Washington called the Newseum, which
was in Arlington, Virginia. It’s closed but
they’re opening a big $100 million dollar
one on a prime piece of land in downtown
Washington. It’s rising now. I’m on the
board and I’m also editing all of the copy for
all of the 30-some galleries because they
want it to sound like one voice. And there is
30-some writers, so I’m editing it. And I was
at a meeting there the other day and I said,
“You ought to have a display on what news
is. All the different definitions of what news
is over the years.” Somebody says news is
anything anybody doesn’t want in the
newspaper. Somebody else says news is
anything that isn’t advertising. Or news is
anything that’s interesting. I guess news is
probably all of those things. You can make a
case that advertising is news if it informs
and educates. Somebody once said, “News
is whatever I say it is.” Some editor or
publisher said that.
A: Brinkley?
Q: Was it Brinkley who said that? John
Chancellor. I love John Chancellor. He was
a great, great newspaper man at NBC. David
Brinkley was a very famous anchor person.
First at NBC then at ABC. And Chancellor
came in one day and said, “You know, I was
talking to David. David would like to end
his days at ABC. He’d be willing to come
back to NBC. Would you hire him?” I said,
“Yeah, I’d hire him. Bring his Sunday show
over.” This was before we invented Russert
and Meet the Press. And so he said, “Yeah,
I’ll talk to him.”
I called up David. He said, “Come on
down.” So I went down. I went out to his
house and had lunch, and he showed me all
his beautiful cabinetry that he had made and
[we] took a couple cheap shots at Ted
Copple because he’s so short. He said, “You
know, Ted always insisted on standing on a
box when we were together.” I thought that
was funny. So we made a deal. He was
going to come back. And both Tim Russert
and Tom Brokaw said, “No, he won’t come
back. He’s never coming back.” I said, “No,
no. I’ve got this deal.” They said, “He’s
never coming back. Trust us. He’s never
coming back. He’s using you.” And I said
[to Brinkely], “You know what you do with
ABC? You say my contract is up. I’m free.
I’ve talked to my agent. I’m coming over.”
So I said, “O.K.” A couple days later I
called him: “You sign those papers yet,
David?” “No, no. I’m just getting to it.”
Next day I picked up the Washington Post
and it said Brinkley is in intense
negotiations with ABC. So I called him up
and said, “What the shit is this, David?” He
said, “I don’t know where that came from. It
must have come from you.” I said, “No, I
didn’t do that.” He said, “Well, I’m coming
with you.” The next day I picked up the
paper and it said Brinkley had signed with
ABC. So I called him up and said, “What
the hell is going on?” He said, “Well, yes I
did. It turns out that my contract they had
the right of first refusal so I had to sign with
them.” So I said, “O.K. Thanks.” And I
hung up. And I went up to Chancellor and I
said, “That’s just a bunch of bullshit.” And
Chancellor said, “I will go to my grave
believing that David really wanting to come
back to NBC.” So I said, “I will go to my
grave believing that you believe that.” But
[Brinkley] was a jerk. --
Section 7: Q: Who is your greatest inspiration in life?
A: My father. He was a good writer and a
he was a nice man. What more can you say?
Like in Charlotte’s Web: “Not very often do
you have a good friend who is a also good
writer.” Isn’t that the last line in Charlotte’s
Web. When Charlotte is talking about
Wilber the spider, “It’s not very often you
meet in life someone that’s a good friend
that’s also a good writer.” It’s not very often
in life that you meet someone in life who’s a
good father who is also a good writer. So my
father, hands down. Nobody is in second
place.
Q: Did he teach you about journalism?
A: He never taught me anything about
journalism. He just was a good journalist
and I just sort of picked it up by osmosis
around the kitchen table: what’s right and
what’s wrong, what’s fair. When I won the
Pulitzer Prize my partner had a little party
for me that afternoon, up in Ames. And he
invited my father. My father and my mother
were up there. And I saw in the corner of my
eye my father talking to a Register reporter.
And I thought, “Oh shit. What’s he talking
about.” And talking and talking. The next
day I pick up the Register – the Register had
a story about it – and there was one quote
from my father. He said, “I taught him how
to dangle his first participle.” I thought that
was just a great quote. So you learn about
dangling participles from your father. You
learn how to write; you learn you to think;
you learn what’s fair; you learn how to be
nice, how to be tough. You learn how to
have fun. He was great. He was probably my
closest friend, but for my wife.
Q: Which papers do you read everyday?
A: I get home delivery of the New York
Times, the Register, the Wall Street Journal
and USA Today. I usually read those every
morning. I read the Times very carefully. I
skim the Journal. I skim USA Today, but I
read their sports very carefully and [the] life
[section] very carefully. I read the Register
if there’s anything in it. Then, during the
baseball season I pick up a copy of the
Chicago Tribune and read the sports section.
And that’s it.
Q: Why did you go to law school?
A: I went to law school on a dare. I was in
New York and I was young and single at the
Wall Street Journal with some friends that I
had gone to college with and they were in
law school. We’d go out and drink. In those
days I drank beer – I don’t drink anymore –
and all they’d talk about is law school. I’d
say, “You guys are so God damn boring.
You’re just boring.” And they’d say, “Well,
you’re just jealous. You’re not smart enough
to get into law school.” I said, “Fuck you.”
And so I went back and found out when the
next LSATs were and I took them and
applied to one school. NYU, which is where
they went and I got admitted. So I thought I
might as well go. So I went and really, really
liked it. I knew right away I would never
want to practice law. But I thought, “This is
really, really interesting.”
If you go to law school with the idea that
you’re not going to practice law, it’s a lot
easier because you don’t have to worry
about “Oh my God, I’ve got to get good
grades, I’ve got to get on the Law Review so
I can get into a big firm.” I was working
full-time at the Wall Street Journal. I had a
great job at the Wall Street Journal. So I
took courses I wanted to take. And I was a
good writer. Writing is in your genes and
you either know how to write or you don’t.
My father was a good writer, so I knew how
to write.
So I got through law school. I took subjects I
wanted to [and] I was a good writer, so I had
a ball. And then I thought, well, as long as I
went through law school, I might as well
take the bar. So then I took the New York
bar and passed that. But I never practiced.
I’ve only been in court once in my life. And
that’s when I had a Volkswagen in New
York, and my wife and I were out late one
night and we came back and I parked the
car. I went out the next morning and I
couldn’t find it. I went back in and said to
Barbara, “How much did I have to drink last
night.” And she said, “Not that much, why?”
I said, “I can’t find the car.” And she said,
“Where did you park it?” I said, “Riverside
Drive between 78th and 79th. You come out
with me.” And she said, “It’s right - it’s not
there.” And so I called the police and the
cops came and said, “When did you last see
it?” I said, “About 3:00 this morning. It’s the
only dune buggy on Long Island.”
So I called the insurance company and they
didn’t offer me what I though they should.
So I sued. I went to small claims court. And
I’m there in jeans and a shirt and they have
three lawyers in suits [from] Liberty Mutual
insurance and there’s this judge. And the
judge says, “Tell me what the problem is.” I
said, “My car was stolen. They’ve offered
me $700. The blue book says it’s worth
$1,100.” So he says, “What about it?” He
gets them to stand up. And they said, “Well,
the blue book says $1,100, but that’s for a
cream puff. His car had some scratches.”
The judge says to me, “Give me the blue
book.” So I gave him the blue book. He
says, “Average retail value $1,300. Doesn’t
say cream puff doesn’t say banana
meringue. Give the guy his money.” So that
was my only law case. I won. I retired
undefeated. --
Section 8: Q: What’s the last book you read? And give
us the names of three books we absolutely,
positively must read.
A: The last book I read was a manuscript
from a friend of mine. But the last book I
read was called “What’s the Matter With
Kansas?” It’s a political book by Tom
Frank. And if you read it before last night’s
election you would have absolutely
understood last night’s election. It’s about
how Republicans have persuaded people
who are poor and making minimum wage
and don’t have health benefits that the
Republican party is the party for them
because of God, guns and abortion. Even
though the Republican party acts out of their
best interest how their swarming and
breaking down the mansions in Kansas City
with people saying, “We demand you lower
our taxes.” It’s just a very good book. That’s
the last book.
Q: What are books we absolutely, positively
must read?
A: I would say one is called Booknotes.
There is a show on CSPAN called
Booknotes. It’s been on since CSPAN
started. It’s done by a guy by the name of
Brian Lamb. And he interviews [nonfiction]
writers only. And he periodically puts out
books about them. And one is how the
writers write. So he took excerpts from
about 120 interviews and maybe they are
two pages long. Because he always asks
them, “How do you write?” And some guys
say, “Well, I have to use a blue pen and I
can only face east from 5:45 to 6:15 in the
morning after I’ve had three cups of coffee.”
But as you read it, you learn a lot. You learn
you need an outline. You learn that reporting
is everything. You learn you have to rewrite
and rewrite and rewrite. You learn that you
have to be able to tear everything up and
start over. And you see these themes.
So not only is it hugely interesting [about]
how these famous people write, but also you
understand right away how you can be a
better writer. Like one guy says, “I read
everything out loud after I’ve written it.”
Well there’s no better way to know if you’re
a good writer or not than to read you’re stuff
out loud because if it’s crappy, you’ll know
it’s crappy. If it’s clunky or junky, you’ll
know it. And so that’s great to read. Another
book I’d read would probably be the essays
and letter of E.B. White. E.B. White is, in
my view, the best American writer. [He]
wrote essays, [he] wrote stories, [and he]
was with the New Yorker for most of his
career. [He] worked for other magazines as
well. [He was a] great thinker and just a
beautiful, beautiful writer. Just absolutely
lovely. And so from that, you can not only
learn good writing, you learn good thinking.
And I guess the third book would be
Huckleberry Finn.
I wrote and editorial every day for six years.
And often I would have it all composed in
my mind and rewritten and revised in my
mind even before I sat down. Every day it
took me 45 minutes to drive to Ames and 45
minutes back, so I’d be thinking about it. I’d
be alone in the car so nobody would know I
was crazy reading it out loud to myself. So
sometimes I would sit down and say, “Boy,
that was great for a first draft.” But really it
was the 16th draft – the first 15 were just
oral or mental. But I’m always looking for a
rhythm when I write. I like sort of a staccato
style and alliteration. But mainly I like facts.
You can’t write if you don’t have facts. So I
report and report and report before I sit
down to write. A good writer can get by
with writing maybe twice before someone
says, “You know, that’s really interesting
but there’s not a fact in it.” That’s a David
Ipsen column. David Ipsen is a political
reporter and writer for the Register. Often
I’ll ask my wife to read it. She’s a very good
copy editor. She has a very literal mind. So
sometimes I’ll ask her to read it. And I read
it out loud. And sometimes if I read
something that’s I like I’ll giggle to myself
and say, “That’s pretty neat. You’re not
bad.” --
Section 9: Q: You mentioned that you read the life
section in USA Today very carefully, what
do you think of the life section at the
University?
A: Well, that’s how I keep up with what
you young people are interested in. My kids
don’t live a home anymore so I don’t know
any of that stuff. And I’m surrounded by
young people. We have young people in the
front office at the ballpark and then young
people are the players. And they listen to
this music that I’ve never heard of and so I
read it defensively so I can know what the
hell you guys are talking about. A service
my own kids used to provide for me, but
now I get from lifestyles. I don’t know if it’s
good or bad. I have no idea because I have
nothing to compare it too. I don’t read
anything else that talks about that kind of
stuff. The other thing is it has a lot of
television gossip in it. And since I hired a lot
of those people, a lot of those people are my
friends did I tend to look at that to see what
Katie Couric latest salary is. Because when
it gets to $20 million a year I think maybe
she’ll send some to me.
Q: What did you think of Fahrenheit 911?
A: I loved it. It played to all my prejudices.
I could have watched it for another hour. It
was probably taken out of context, but it was
a propaganda movie. That’s was it’s
supposed to be. And [Michael Moore] was
terrific. I like all the stuff he does. I mean,
he’s kind of a SOB. Did you see the movie
Outfoxed? I liked that movie too. I never
watched Fox’s stuff. I never knew what a
mean bastard Bill O’Reilly is. That was
before he wanted to take a shot at producer.
Q: Have you seen any of these conservative
films that are acting as a rebuttal to
Fahrenheit 911? There’s Michael Moore
Hates America or Celsius 41.11.
A: No, I haven’t seen them. And I haven’t
read Ann Coulter’s books either. And I don’t
watch Fox news.
Q: What kind of changes have you seen in
technology through the years and how has
that technology changed journalism?
A: Every technology has changed
journalism. I’ve lived through probably five
major technology changes. Each which was
going to kill newspapers, the doomsayers
said, and each of which made newspapers
even better – more efficient from the
production standpoint or easier for reporting.
It’s so easy today to be a reporter with the
Internet. You want to read a Supreme Court
case? It’s there. You want to read a bill in
the Iowa legislature? It’s there. You want to
look up research on somebody? It’s there. It
used to be you’d have to go up to the
legislature, you’d have to go through all the
bills, you’d have to find them or you’d have
to go up to the Supreme Court and get a
copy of the decision that was handed down.
And now it’s just so easy and so much
better. It makes it so, so much better. Like
writing a paper for school – you don’t even
need libraries. Everything is there. It’s a
great tip sheet. It can send you to sources
you didn’t know about. The technology
changes are great. You guys probably don’t
even know what a stereotyper is or a printer,
probably. You think a printer is something
next to your computer, but a printer was a
person. A stereotyper was a person at a
newspaper. And an engraver was a person in
a newspaper. They were all jobs. They were
the factory part of the newspaper and all of
them have been eliminated by technology
changes. That’s just massive savings. And
the good newspapers have poured those
savings into building bigger newsstaffs and
putting out better newspapers. The bad
companies have put it into their pocket to
make more profit. Technology has just been
wonderful for everything, not just for
newspapers. It’s been great for everything.
Q: Is there any bad aspects?
A: Easier to plagiarize. Gil Cranberg thinks
plagiarizing is a disease like kleptomania
and some reporters just can’t help
themselves. And it is much easier for
reporters to plagiarize with the Internet. And
easier to get caught plagiarizing. But I don’t
see any other negatives. Before you
interview someone you want to do as much
research and reading as you can about them
anyway, and the Internet provides that, and
they you call them up and they start to say
something and you can say, “Well, what
about in 1952 when you said the Boston Red
Sox were going to win that year.” You can
get people’s quotes and you can talk back at
them. The Internet serves as a kind of great
truth squad.
Q: You said there had been five changes.
A: I don’t know if there has been five. It
started out there was something called cube.
It was a Knight Ridder deal that brought
some changes. I mean, Xerox brought a
huge change. And then direct computer to
tape so you eliminated the printer – and one
after another. I don’t now much about
technology. It’s one of the many things I
don’t know anything about. All I know is
that I learn what I need to learn and I don’t
learn anything else. --
Section 10: Q: Mention several stories that you’re
responsible for that you’re proudest of,
either at Point Blank or the Register or
NBC. [Stories] that really effected change
and did what journalism is supposed to do.
A: I disagree with you there. I don’t think
journalism is supposed to effect change.
That’s a big fight I have. Especially with
people your age. I don’t think you go into
journalism to effect change. I think you go
into journalism to explain or to explore. If
you want to change the world become a
teacher or become a social worker or a
mother or a father or a politician. I think that
journalists are supposed to explain and
explore. And on the editorial page expound
and expose. But I don’t think they’re
supposed to change the world. If the world
changes as a result of something they did,
fine. But I certainly think it’s the wrong, for
mainstream journalism. Now if you’re going
to go into advocacy journalism, that’s
something else – alternative papers or
opinion writing or things like that. So I’ve
never set out to change anything. If I want to
change anything I sue them. I’m very proud
of many of the great stories. I’m proud of
many of the editorials in the Ames paper.
I’m very proud of a lot of the stuff on Meet
the Press. I put too much into Meet the
Press. I’m very proud of a lot of personnel
moves. A lot of people I’ve hired, whether I
was at the Journal or at Ames or NBC or the
Register.
I’m proud of some editorials I’ve written on
the First Amendment. [One editorial I was]
trying to defend lap dancing as free speech.
That was one of the ones I won a Pulitzer
Prize for. The police chief says I never
would have won the Pulitzer Prize if it
wasn’t for him. He was a good guy, but he
was always trying to keep things out of the
newspapers. The Register, historically, in
the 10 years I’ve been there fought to open
court rooms and open records and to cover
the hell out of the state. I’m proud of the
way I was a manager and an editor and the
Wall Street Journal and [how I] kept
everybody happy and productive and doing
great stuff.
I’m proud of the organizational changes I
made at NBC. I was brought in to change
the organizational culture. Change has no
constituency. You start out all by yourself
and you build that one by one. And pretty
soon you have momentum. And I’m proud
of the way that worked. Proud of the
business success at NBC. We went from
losing $60 million dollars a year to making
$120 million dollars a year. Some people
will think that’s bad, but you can’t be
journalistically vigorous if you’re not
financially strong. Because you’re subject to
too many pressures: Government pressures,
stockholder pressures, advertiser pressures.
So you must be financially strong to be
journalistically vigorous.
So I can’t say there is one great piece I
wrote, or there was one great piece I edited.
I’ve just done a lot of things that I liked, that
I had fun doing. There was a great writer at
the Des Moines Register named Bob
Hollhand. He left me a note once. He said,
“On my tombstone please put this: he was a
hack, but a very good hack.” That’s what I
am. I’m a hack, but a good hack. --
Section 11: Q: What do you think of the Boston Herald
picture of the body of the Emerson student?
Do you think it was too much or do you
think the Boston Herald covered well?
A: Was it a morning paper or an afternoon
paper? I always had different standards for
morning papers than afternoon papers. I
didn’t want people to throw up at the
breakfast table. I don’t know because I
haven’t seen the picture. It’s hard to tell if
you haven’t seen the picture. But I know the
general principle you’re talking about. There
are certain things you hold out of taste.
Q: How do you decide what to put in and
what to keep out?
A: Oh, I just say let your conscience decide.
You’re stomach tells you. You can’t have
standards. You can’t say, “We aren’t going
to show more than one square inch of
blood.” It’s just something you kind of
develop over the years. Everybody has a
different line that they won’t cross. You
know the Herald is a tab, not a broadsheet.
It’s an edgy thing, not this big, sophisticated,
heavy [paper] like the Globe. So, what’s the
newspaper, what’s the time of day, what’s
the event, and how do you feel about it? I
don’t think you can say what is right and
what is wrong. Most journalism you can’t
say what is right and wrong. It’s very, very
hard to pass judgment.
Q: You talked about Bob Novack and
defended him for not disclosing his sources.
But in that instance what he did could have
caused someone their life. He’s protecting a
senior official who should by all accounts
lose their job for disclosure. So how can you
defend him?
A: That’s what the First Amendment is all
about. You may say that’s irresponsible.
Well, O.K., that’s irresponsible. That’s what
you need the First Amendment for: to
protect the outrageous and the outlandish
and the outspoken. You don’t need it for
nice guys like you. You need it for jerks and
renegades and everybody else. The reason
is, is because if you don’t stand up for them,
maybe tomorrow someone will think what
you do is outrageous or outlandish or
outspoken. And you’re the guy then who all
of a sudden is thrown into jail. So the First
Amendment should be absolute in its
protections.
Now, what responsibilities you have differ –
who you are, where you are, kind of like this
picture you were talking about. But you
can’t have rules, except the only rule you
can have is freedom reigns. Without
freedom of the press and an independent
judiciary, there is no democracy. And so,
you go to your death fighting for the First
Amendment, fighting for freedom, fighting
for freedom of the press. Even if, especially
if, it’s a jerk like Novak. Even if what
they’ve done is reprehensible. That’s what
the First Amendment is for. The First
Amendment is for reprehensible people.
Q: But as you said, the newspaper is
supposed to inform people and shed light on
issues.
A: Let somebody else find the story. And
then let’s defend their right to print it. That
his source is Karl Rove, and then let Karl
Rove sue them that it’s not true. And then
defend them for doing it. It’s this great
discussion, this great debate, this great,
vigorous shouting back and forth in which
we all need to be defended. You can’t just
say, “I’ll defend you because you’re a nice
guy but not her because she’s a scoundrel.”
The First Amendment is for everybody. And
the moment you don’t defend it for a jerk is
the moment it becomes weaker and weaker
and weaker.
Q: Do you think there are incidences when
the names of alleged rape victims should be
mentioned?
A: Always. If it is not a minor. Yes.
Q: There are very few papers across the
state that would ever mention the names of
an alleged victim of rape.
A: And there are very few papers that
would use the word “alleged” in victim of
rape. They say “victim of rape.” There’s not
a rape until the perpetrator is convicted. The
Kobe Bryant case is especially outrageous.
Even today this woman has filed a civil suit
and they are still not naming her and he is
not a rapist. By law, he is not a rapist. The
charges were dropped. Like William
Kennedy Smith. [When] I was president of
NBC there was a guy named William
Kennedy Smith. He was a Kennedy, and he
was accused of rape down at the Kennedy
compound down at Long Beach, Florida.
And nobody would name her name. And I
said, “That’s bullshit. We named his name.
It’s an interest of fairness. You got to be
fair. If you’re going to name an alleged
perpetrator you got to name the alleged
victim.” So I named her on NBC. You’d
thought I’d have shot the president there was
such an outrage about it. And the affiliates
got mad and put a blue spot over her face
and cut out the name. I can argue the
sociological reasons for doing it too. But
journalistically, it’s simply a matter of
fairness. --
Section 12: Q: Do you think a newspaper should lead a
community or follow a community?
A: Neither. It should inform the
community. But by picking what it informs
about it in effect leads. A newspaper editor
by choosing what to put in a newspaper
everyday and by choosing what to comment
on sort of sets the agenda for the
community. Now, newspaper editors hate to
use the word agenda because they say, “No,
no. I just say what’s going on.” But
everything you put in means something
you’ve held out. What are you holding out
and what are you putting in? It might just be
you own interests; it might just be what you
think the community is interested in, but you
are in effect setting an agenda for the
community. And that is a form of
leadership.
Q: Have you ever written anything in
against discrimination of women or
minorities at any of the papers you’ve
worked at?
A: Against my wife at the Wall Street
Journal when they were going to fire her. Oh
sure. When I came back to the Register in
1974, I got the paybooks and women were
uniformly paid less than men. Same thing
when I went to NBC in the ‘80s. The first
thing I did was set up a system – I’ve never
seen it against minorities, but I’ve seen it
against women, both at the Des Moines
Register and at NBC, and then, on a
personal thing, at the Wall Street Journal. I
don’t think there’s discrimination against
women at most places. I’m talking about
salary.
I own a baseball team. It would be very,
very difficult for a woman to go into the
locker room right after a game the way a
male reporter could. There’s all these naked
guys in there, and they would be either
outraged or maniacal. There’s some things
that just wouldn’t work. So you would have
to say to the guys, “You got 10 minutes to
shower and get your underwear on.” To the
woman reporter: “You’ve got to wait out
here for 10 minutes.” Maybe that’s
discrimination. I don’t know. But it’s a
practical issue. It would be the same for a
man covering a women’s soccer team.
There’s just certain things that don’t work. I
don’t know if that’s discrimination. I don’t
know if that’s old fashioned morality, but I
do know if a woman walked into a locker
room with 25 naked baseball players chaos
would result.
And I’m interested in having happy baseball
players more than I am in the woman
reporter’s problem getting in. now if I’m the
newspaper editor, I’ll come over and argue
with the baseball team and say, “God damn,
you got to let her in there.” And as the
baseball guy I would say, “Sorry.” And as
the newspaper guy I’d say, “You got to do
it. It’s unfair.” And I’d say, “Well, you got
to let me sit in on your editorial
conferences.” I’ve seen salary
discrimination throughout my career almost
everywhere. I’ve never seen it with
minorities maybe because minorities have
become such a prized possession for so
many newsrooms that they can’t get by with
it. I don’t know. But my own personal
experience is that I haven’t seen it with
minorities but I have with women. And with
older people. You see it with older people
all the time. --
Section 13: Q: What advice would you give to [aspiring
reporters]?
A: Don’t drink and drive. Have fun. Decide
where you want to live. Then go there and
look for a job. I don’t you, I don’t know
what you want to do, so I’d say have fun and
remember, whatever you do it’s easy to
undo. It’s easy to undo mistakes.
Q: Are there certain topics you like to write
about more than others? Certain issues?
A: I love writing about town affairs. I love
writing about First Amendment issues. I
love trying to make complicated issues clear
and simple. I’m basically a copy editor and a
rewrite man at heart who fell into everything
else that I’ve done. I can’t read a book
without a yellow marker in my hand. One is
to point out every time there’s a typo, but
the other is to underline everything that is
interesting. I never understood why I’ve
done it, but I’ve always done it. Now I’m
putting together a book on the greatest
editorials ever written – I’m judge and jury.
And I’ve chosen the four best editorial
writers in history: Horace Greenly, H.L.
Menken, William Allen White and Vermont
Royster.
I’ve chosen subjects for this book; how I’m
going to organize it. And I’ve been reading
newspaper books all my life, biographies
and things. I have a library full of them. I
started pulling them down a few months ago
to look through them to see what I have
underlined. It’s the greatest help in the world
because, “Oh yeah, of course they did that
because there was the big controversy that
the NY Times was against women’s
suffrage.” So then I go on a database and I
get the NY Times editorials at the time. And
there’s great quotes in these books about this
or about that. I like writing research projects
that involve interesting facts and people and
then putting them together.
Like I said, I’m a rewrite man. I spent five
years at the Wall Street Journal writing a
story every day under someone else’s name.
Page one stories, top to bottom everyday – a
reporter would just give me their notes. The
world is full of great reporters who can’t
write and the world is full of good writers
who can’t report. And the Wall Street
Journal and the newsmagazines discovered
this 70 years ago, so they had two different
staffs. Reporting staffs and writing staffs.
And reporters reported and writers wrote.
And that’s why the writing is always so
good in Time and Newsweek and the
Journal and that’s why the reporting was so
good because they had different reporters.
[The rewriters] just couldn’t put their name
down. I remember a managing editor at the
Wall Street Journal had a big long story
from a guy in Europe and he tossed it to a
rewrite man and said cut it from the top. It
was so terrible. The meat of the story was
down at the bottom. --
Section 14: Q: What makes a good reporter?
A: Insatiable curiosity. And widespread
[curiosity.] And a healthy dose of skepticism
and a love of facts. Nice personality helps
because you got to sit next to them. It’s
awful to sit next to a jerk. Pleasant people
are an attribute to a newsroom. You give a
pleasant person a lot more leeway than you
do a jerk. You know the really, really good
jerk you have to keep. The really, really
awful pleasant person you got to get rid of.
But there are competent pleasant people and
there are competent jerks. You keep the
competent pleasant person and you get rid of
the competent jerk.
Q: Are you disappointed you were never
able to buy the Register?
A: Sure. I wanted to buy it. We tried to buy
the Register, and like I said, the owners
thought that was kind of uppity for the
workers to try to do something like that. So
we didn’t get it. It was our dream to buy it.
It may have been great that we didn’t get it.
We may have gone broke. I don’t know.
Q: Well you had Dow Jones behind you.
A: Yeah, to a point.
Q: Why did you want to buy it?
A: Because I thought that the family [who
owned it] was splintering, and I thought they
were going to merge it with a company in
Minneapolis and move the headquarters to
Minneapolis and that Des Moines was going
to lose both the headquarters and the
autonomy. We wanted to buy it and keep it
here and keep it locally owned and have the
employees own 25 percent of it and keep it a
statewide newspaper. We had these great
dreams, we were just miserable negotiators
and not very smooth or artful in the way we
went about doing it.
Q: Aside from the Cubs, how much money
do you make in a year?
A: Well, I take a small salary from the
Cubs. I’m on Social Security. This other
company that Gary and I own, I take about
$35,000 a year out of. I get paid for
attending board meetings for the Newseum,.
I get some money from doing that. But the
way I made my money was when the
Register was sold, I owned some stock.
When I left GE I owned some stock options
and when we sold Ames we made some
money. So I’ve got a net worth of several
million dollars, but my income is relatively
modest, but I get dividend income as well.
When I was at NBC, my salary and bonus
was about $500,000 a year. I was president
at NBC news, but I was about the 20th
person in the division. But I got stock
options and such. That’s how I got the
money to buy the baseball team.
Q: What do you think of Grassley, Harken
and Vilsack?
A: I consider Vilsack a friend. I like Vilsack
a lot. Jim Flansburg called me up when I
was in Ames and said, “ There’s a guy I
want you to meet. [He’s] down in the
legislature. He lives down in Mount
Pleasant. Let’s go down and have lunch with
him. His name’s Tom Vilsack.” Maybe it
was 15 years ago. And he said, “I think he’s
going to be governor someday. I think you
should meet him.” So we went down and
had lunch with him and his wife. And we’ve
been friends even since. I’m a big supporter
of his. I do a lot for him. He made me the
division chairman, the person who hands out
all of his money. And I consider him a
friend, and I’m crazy about his wife. I like
his politics, I like his personality. I like
being around him. I admire him. He’s smart.
Harken. I like his politics. A lot. He can be a
little rough around the edges. I like him.
He’s enjoyable to be with. But I don’t have
the same feeling for him as I do for Vilsack.
Grassley I admire him as a politician. The
guy is a genius as a politician. [He’s] a guy
who argues against government waste and
then puts $50 million into the rainforest.
He’s just a master politician. He takes good
care of the folks at home. He’s got this great
advantage of being smart and looking dumb
[which] is a lot better than looking great and
being dumb, which was the way Roger
Jepson was. I mean, the guy used a credit
card at a whore house. Politically it’s not
smart. I admire Grassley. I applaud Harken.
And I genuinely like Vilsack. --
Section 15: Q: What was the most exciting time to be a
journalist?
A: The most exciting time I ever had was in
1990-1991. The executive vice president of
NBC, a guy by the name of Don Brown –
he’s now the head of a big Hispanic
broadcasting company – came in to me one
day and said, “You know, I think the Berlin
wall is about to come down.” And I said,
“Why do you think that?” He said, “Well, I
think it’s going to come down quick. Let’s
send down Brokaw.” I said, “O.K.” I had
great faith in his judgment. Brokaw will tell
you a different story, I suspect. My
recollection is that Brokaw didn’t think it
was a good idea, but being the good team
player he is he said O.K. I think Brokaw
doesn’t think that it was Brown’s idea, he
thinks that he wanted to go, memories differ.
But anyway, we sent Brokaw over there. At
which point Brown says to me, “Let’s go.”
So I said, “O.K. Let’s go.” So then we went
on the next plane. And NBC was the only
network there when the wall came down. He
was right the wall came down. I was in
one of those cherry pickers, up about 100
feet watching the Berlin Wall come down.
To me, that was tremendously exciting.
The second most exciting time would also
be at NBC when Brian Gumbel came to me
and Don Brown and said, “Let’s take the
Today Show to Cuba.” And I said, “Nobody
can get into Cuba.” They said, “Let’s try.”
Gumbel was the co-anchor of the show
before Matt Lauer. [He was] one of the
smartest guys and one of the nicest also one
of the most complex. He said, “Let’s try.”
So I said, “Let’s talk about it, how would we
do it?” And so we do this, this, and this. So
first you have to go to the CIA and then you
have to go to the State department and the
Cuban Interest Section. So then we got
permission to try and go down and negotiate
the deal. So Don and I went down to Cuba
to negotiate bringing it down. And not very
many people could go to Cuba in those days.
Cuba was this unbelievable country, in
which everything had stopped in about
1952. There were all these 1948 Chevrolets.
There were no skyscrapers. There was no
neon. It was like walking into a time
capsule. And we negotiated to bring down
the Today Show. And then I went back and
we did that. And that was just great.
For me those were really, really exciting. I
went to China in 1976 with a bunch of
editors, but it was a controlled deal. There
hadn’t been many Westerners there at the
time. There were no gas stations, no dogs –
it was very weird. That was fun and
interesting but there is a great Iowan named
John Crystal. Great, great Iowan he went to
Russia a lot and he called me up one day and
he said, “Come to Russia with me.” I said,
“When?” he said, “Next week.” I was living
in Ames. And I said, “O.K.” I usually don’t
do things on the spur of the moment. He’s a
hero in Russia. So it was very interesting to
see that country that way, with John.
So the four things I’ve mentioned are
overseas trips. I’ve never taken many
overseas trips or been a foreign
correspondent so maybe that’s why they
were impressive. Earlier one of you asked
me about the best thing I ever wrote. I had a
son who died 10 year, three months and
three days ago. He got sick and dropped
dead from an initial attack of juvenile
diabetes. I wrote a piece about him. I was a
columnist for USA Today at the time and I
wrote a piece about him that got just this
huge outpouring of mail. I still get mail
every month. And Tim Russert just wrote a
book and has a chapter about Christopher in
that. And it wasn’t hard to write. Hard to
live through, but it wasn’t hard to write. So
that would be the most poignant or powerful
thing I wrote.
