SPIRO T. AGNEW A BIG MOUTH WITH A HINT OF GOOD SENSE

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32164, 6 December 1969, Page 12

SPIRO T. AGNEW A BIG MOUTH WITH A HINT OF GOOD SENSE

(By LESLIE STONE in the “Guardian”, Mancheater) (Reprinted by arrangement)

To many people in Britain Spiro Theodore Agnew, Vice-President of the United States, is just a light-weight figure of fun. During last year’s Presidential election campaign he became notable for his verbal and political lapses—his reference to a foreign newspaper correspondent as a “fat Jap,” his airy comment on a tour of a black ghetto area that “when you’ve seen one slum, you’ve seen them all.” Since the election he has been dismissed all too readily as a mere mouthpiece for the White House—- “ Nixon’s Nixon” as Senator Eugene McCarthy has put it.

In recent weeks, however, Agnew has come to be regarded in left-wing circles as a symbol of the old kind of McCarthyism. His attacks bn the communications media, on the major television networks and on those formidable bastions of the East Coast press, the “New York Times” and the “Washington Post,” have been eyed suspiciously as heralding a possible return to the bad old witch-hunting days of the early 19505.

Attitudes Change It all goes to show how short—or how selective—political memories can be. Today, Agnew is the “heavy,” the bad guy on the scene. Only a short while ago, he was the man on the white horse, the the liberal hero who would save the fair state of Maryland from disaster, a respectable Republican who even the most sensitive of Kennedy Democrats could vote for, worthy of the blessing and political endorsement for Governor of the “New York Times” itself. Agnew’s original choice for President in 1968 was Nelson Rockefeller, until Rockefeller made that famous first statement removing himself from the race without bothering to let Agnew know what he was going to say. So In examining any of Agnew’s recent speeches. It is necessary to beware the stereotype image. His words may have been put together for him by a team of writers in the White House. He may be spearheading a carefully co-ordinated campaign to intimidate, if not silence, some powerful voices in the media. But it would be unfortunate if the Vice-Presi-dent’s arguments were to be ruled out “ipso facto” just because they fall from Agnew’s lips. That would be a mistake indeed, since many of the criticisms that he has aimed at the communications system in the United States contain more than a small grain of truth. Agnew says that he Is concerned about the growing centralisation of news and opinion in the United States. They, like us in Britain, are cursed by a steady movement towards monopoly in the newspaper industry. Only we in Britain do at least retain some semblance of a choice, with nationally circulated newspapers competing for audiences in similar fields, serious or popular. In most cases too there is a political alternative. But in great cities like New York and Washington this wide range of choice does not exist There is no longer a “Herald Tribune” in New York to complement the “Times.” In Washington it is the “Post” or nothing. Media Monopoly Agnew is worried about the extensions of that monopoly situation, the way in which the same big company is able to own newspapers,

radio stations and television channels all in the same area or locality. All the evidence indicates that this power over the whole communications field Is being exercised with discretion by the owners. But Is It a happy situation? And how far ought we to be worried about the power that might be invested in one group, like the Thomson Organisation or the Cowdray empire if we too succumb to the temptations of commercial sound radio?

Of course, Agnew’s biggest blast was directed at the newscasters themselves, the men who help to put the news bulletins together and actually deliver it direct to camera. These men have no exact equivalents in Britain. It is as though Robert Dougall or Kenneth Kendall or Reginald Bosanquet had virtually unlimited freedom to read the news and comment on it at the same time. The American press, like the British, makes strenuous efforts to keep news and comment separate. But in American television the division is far from clear-cut No superhuman attempt at impartiality can hide the fact that many American newscasters are opposed to the Vietnam war. It will not take the most casual visitor to Washington who bothers to turn on his television set for the news very long to realise that Columbia Broadcasting Service’s Eric Sevareid would not be allowed to deliver his little homilies on British television—excellent ! though they are. Neither ' would local newscasters like ‘ Tom Braden (an ex-Central ; Intelligence Agency man) and Frank Mankiewicz ; (Robert Kennedy’s former ’ press secretary) get away ' with many of their value judgments in the context of a news programme. [ Adverse Comments The keen rivalry between the political parties, jealously fighting to protect their own interests, helps to ensure that under the British television system a basic impartiality is maintained. It is hard to imagine the 8.8. C. allowing a former ambassador and politician (say Lord Harlech or Lord Gladwyn) to make adverse comments, however mild, immediately following a ministerial broadcast by Harold Wilson. But this is exactly what Agnew complains the American Broadcasting Company permitted Averell Harriman to do after President Nixon’s last television address to the nation on Vietnam. In Britain the interview with Harriman (or his equivalent) would at the very least have to be balanced by an interview with a comparable figure on the other side: someone acceptable to the Nixon administration or the Republican National Committee. And is there any doubt what the Prime Minister’s reaction would be if Gerald Priestiand were suddenly to pontificate on incomes policy, strike situations, Biafra and Ulster, making criticisms of Government policies on all these points even by implication in his mini-commentaries at the end of the 8.8. C. main news?

The British approach to television news may be duller. It may be less stimulating and entertaining, more anonymous and inhibited. The system is hard on both producers and audiences who would probably prefer a more free ranging, more personal approach. The producers in particular would all heave a great sigh of relief if they felt that they need not bear in mind the reaction of the Government Whips or Conservative Central Office every time they hire someone to appear in a political programme. Relieved of the necessity to always balance a programme, to make sure that not too many rebels appear and that the official viewpoint is always represented, they. could undoubtedly put on a much livelier, more : informative show. Television Ethics : But the virtues of the ' British system should not be lightly dismissed. Even those ; who regret the passing of the , David Frost confrontations , with Dr Savundra or Dr ; Petro must surely be dis- ’ turbed by the ethics of the recent C.B.S. interview with Paul Meadlo concerning the alleged Pinkville massacre. , What impact are programmes like this going to have on the judicial process and how :do they affect the individual’s right to a fair trial? At the same time, those who are so eager to do away with party political broadcasts might do well to heed Mr John Lindsay’s eloquent please on the eve of his re-election as Mayor of New York for the adoption of something similar to the British system in the United States. To listen to Agnew is not necessarily to agree with him, let alone to love him. Many of tbe solutions he offers are ludicrous. If not dangerous. Like all politicians he is not too angry when the news is slanted in his direction. But he has raised important and legitimate problems. He is not the American Mary Whitehouse. He is expressing popular grievances and has focused on some vulnerable, unpopular targets. Agnew is now a political figure in his own right. He has growing support in the Conservative South and the Midwest. President Nixon could cut him down to size tomorrow, but not without cost. Anyone who dismisses Agnew as a bad joke has neglected to look at the opinion polls recently.

This assessment of a leading American political figure who will visit New Zealand next month is by Leslie Stone, a "Guardian”, Manchester, writer.