How would Watergate have played in today's 24/7 News Cycle?

There have been more than a few comparisons between the current trials and tribulations the White House is experiencing to Watergate. The IRS targeting of conservative groups, hassling reporters for doing their job and of course, Benghazi. I admit to having more than a passing interest just where POTUS was while the latter was going on and why his handlers remain "hesitant" to tell us. I'm absolutely aghast with the 1st Amendment implications of the DOJ targeting reporters. But that's just me.

Watergate started out as a stupid political burglary. It ended up with President Nixon forced out of office in disgrace. Not for the burglary, but for subverting the Constitution covering it up. Those who forget the past are always doomed to repeat it and I'm seeing a lot of repetition.

Carl and Bob back in the Day (That's a typewriter on the desk)

What's got me really thinking however,  is how differently things were covered then and now. During Watergate it was the dogged determination of Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post. Real journalism and real personal risk to those covering Watergate. The story took a while to catch the attention of the rest of the news media but when it did, wow. What's really key is we had to wait for news as the story unfolded. We didn't hear about it until the latest edition of the Post came out. There were no websites, Tweets or Facebook posts and 24/7 outlets like CNN or FOX.

Yes, we had to wait for what was "New." But we had time to digest it before the next information dump came as Woodward and Bernstein dug and dug and dug some more. Both being of the belief that news is indeed what's new, they would go several days before publishing new stories. At least early on.

Today, it's non-stop. You can't avoid it. On both traditional and digital media. Regurgitation of old news plus information and misinformation at the speed of light. Then there are the pundits. There are times where I simply say "ENOUGH!" I love a chocolate shake once in a while, but not every minute of the day.

Regardless of whether you agree or not between comparisons of what's happening today compared to Watergate, what's making a difference at least to me, was how we got the news a generation ago compared to today. It was solid, it was backed up and while we had to wait for it, it was worth waiting for. Today, not so much.

If you really study the history of Watergate, how it unfolded and compare it to today's rash of scandals, they are eerily familiar. But is the information overload because of today's technology turning us off to what could be something that is potentially dangerous to our civil liberties moving forward?

In other words is too much of a good thing ...a bad thing? You know, for us?

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversation about you?"

Memo to: NPR, Re: 1st Amendment

Memo to: National Public Radio
Att: Vivian Schiller, NPR CEO
From: Brian Olson
Re: 1st Amendment

It's been brought to my attention that you have terminated Mr. Juan Williams for statements made while appearing as a guest analyst on FOX News. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller had this comment which was posted on NPR's own website:

She says, and we quote directly. Williams should have kept his views about Muslims to himself, "his psychiatrist or his publicist."

Ms. Schiller, the issue here is not what Mr. Williams said, but a part of our Constitution which allows him the freedom to do so. As you may not have had time to read it, I'm providing a copy of it for your review. You may want to share this with your legal department as well, and if you'd like, your psychiatrist.

1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Aka, FREE SPEECH.

As a journalist and RTDNA board member I've spoke on behalf of the 1st Amendment to numerous civic groups, members of government and the judiciary including the National Judicial College.

It allows us the freedom to speak our minds. Often times people say things that make our blood boil, but there is no alternative to free speech other than censorship and tyranny, which in this case NPR is guilty of.

Ms. Schiller, you have brought disgrace to NPR, yourself and the very fabric of our nation, our Constitution.

Accordingly you should apologize to Mr. Williams and the nation immediately if not sooner.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters LLC
"We start the conversation about you"
(Because thankfully, the Constitution gives us the right to.)

When is more...too much?

"When is more...to much?"

That's a line from the most recent edition of CSI New York said by CSI Danny Messer. (Carmine Giovinazzo.) The plot line involved another one of the CSI's witnessing a murder live while on a chat room. Danny, in the scene, is talking to his wife about the huge potential dangers of the Internet, all created by the plethora of technology available to us all.

There are a myriad of pipelines available to all of us to post just about anything we want. Most, but not all of us use these pipelines in positive and creative ways. Most.

It brought to mind the current case of the college student who killed himself after a "friend" posted a video of him in a sexual act; a case of "Cyber Bullying" as profiled in this report on Minnesota Public Radio.

CSI New York isn't the first television plot line involving online crime.

So when does Cyber Bullying cross the line established by the 1st Amendment? For now, it seems the law says it's ok to yell fire in a digital theater. Not so much in a real one. There are other examples. The Washington Post for example has very strict rules about fairness and making sure both sides are heard in a story in its print edition. Their online edition however plays by different rules. Many stories posted are ones-sided to the extreme. But their position is that the online edition is essentially a bookshelf and they are not responsible for the "books" on those shelves. It's a lesson I learned the hard way some time ago.

All of course by the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court starts its latest session today, and free speech is first on the docket.

Free speech is a precious thing. The 1st Amendment makes us unique in the world. It's worked wonderfully for a few hundred years. At least up until now. The good news is everyone has access to the Internet. The bad news is everyone has access to the Internet.

As a member of the Board of Directors of the Radio-Digital-Television News Association (RTDNA) I spoke in defense of the 1st Amendment across the country including twice at the National Judicial College. Thankfully, the 1st Amendment isn't going anywhere.

Sadly, abuses of it aren't going anywhere either. How we deal with it all remains very unclear.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters LLC
"We start the conversation about you"

The Business of Journalism should be just that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

There's a little (but dangerous) initiative flying just below the radar screen in Washington which should trouble us all. Government is trying to "Re-invent" Journalism. It's a line they should not, and must not cross.

Here's just one article about it all, but in a nutshell here's what government wants to do to "fix" what ain't broken.

-Establishing news vouchers for citizens to support non-profit journalism. i.e. Public Broadcasting.
-A 5% sales tax on consumer electronics to pay for even more government owned broadcasting.
-A "News" Division of Americorps

Commercial broadcasters and print outlets are going through tough times. But they don't need "help" from the government. They'll figure it out. The founding fathers of this nation realized that a free, unfettered and INDEPENDENT press was critical to the success of the nation and our freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Please don't confuse this with an anti-government rant. (Although if you want to, that's fine too.) We need government to fix potholes etc, but not to fix journalism. I spent 20 years in the craft, including serving on the Board of Directors of the Radio-Television-Digital News Association which represents the interests of journalists. Our patron saint is Ed Murrow. Walter Cronkite sitteth at his right hand.

Anything, and I mean anything that somehow casts doubt, or restricts the ability of a free and open media to ask the tough questions, and then to report to us the answers, is a dangerous step towards erosion of our freedom of independent thought and exchange of ideas and opinions.

This also isn't against Public Broadcasting. Donate during their telethons, please. But I want a choice besides Public Radio and Television. You have your favorite news outlets, and so do I. They often may differ but the common theme we must embrace and protect is choice.

I have far too many good friends in journalism who work their rear-ends off to inform us. The last thing I want is for their stories to be approved by the government prior to air. Or to be charged a sales tax on a new television to pay for it.

Freedom starts with a free media. This "initiative" could be the beginning of the end of a free and open media.

Brian Olson
CEO and Founder
Conversation Starters LLC