Bob Edwards

Tavis: And so began a remarkable 25-year run for Bob Edwards on 'Morning Edition,' a show he hosted until last year, when he left NPR--forced out of NPR, I should say, for XM satellite radio. In addition to radio, though, he's also an accomplished author. His most recent book is called 'Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism.' I'm pleased to have Bob here, who's joined us tonight from Washington, D.C. Bob, nice to have you on, man.

Edwards: Thank you. Thank you for asking.

Tavis: National Split Pea Soup Week? Was that an audacious start or what?

Edwards: We didn't know what to say at the beginning, because we weren't allowed to billboard the program because it was a modular program. Stations were taking parts of it. Other stations were taking other parts of it. They weren't taking the whole program, we thought. So I couldn't billboard the program, so what to put in there? So, National Split Pea Soup Week was one of the biggies.

Tavis: Alrighty. Glad to know that, 25 years later. As much as I knew about 'Morning Edition,' I had never heard that particular clip of the first day, so I got a kick out of that and thought our audience would as well when I actually heard that. We all know, of course, the story of your being forced out of NPR. Let me ask you, because my sense of this is that you were awfully good about holding your tongue when you were forced out of NPR, but I remember very well that you did about a 60, 6-0, 60-city tour immediately following the announcement of your dismissal, or being asked to leave, however you wanna put it, NPR. How did you hold your tongue? How did you stifle your feelings during that 60-city tour?

Edwards: Well, just to be clear, I was relieved of 'Morning Edition,' not NPR.

Tavis: Right.

Edwards: Once I was taken off of the daily program at NPR and somebody else offered me one at XM, I left NPR voluntarily. So I wasn't forced out of NPR, but I was removed from 'Morning Edition.' Hold my tongue? I love NPR. I will always believe in NPR, and I hope listeners across the country will continue to support their local public radio station with their dollars and listen to it. It's the most valuable news service in all of broadcasting. I'm not gonna badmouth NPR. I didn't care for the fact that they took my program away from me, but you know, that's their right. They're in charge, and I'm not. But I'm not gonna trash NPR. I truly believe that NPR is a fine, fine organization.

Tavis: All right, let me ask you. Both you and I have left NPR of our own accord to some degree, and we've been asked a thousand questions about it. Let me ask you, though, very forthright, because both of us love public radio. You're back on satellite public radio. I've just announced I'm back on public radio through P.R.I., so both of us could've gone commercial outlets. We both went back to public radio because we love public radio. Let's get that out of the way. That said, let me ask you very frankly, very directly whether or not your being asked, your relievement, to use your word, was ageism. Was it ageism?

Edwards: Might be. You know, I really don't know. It could've been a lot of things, because I spoke out, you know. It could be because I was a pain in the tuchus. I have disagreements with them over news coverage and decisions about that. I'm a big union guy. Maybe it's that. Maybe they just got tired of hearing me. You know, I asked the Vice President for News the other day. I said, "You know, it's been a year. Can you tell me now why you did it?" And he said, "No, we can't have that conversation." So now I may never know.

Tavis: All right. Let me talk about some other isms that I hope will give you a canvas that will allow you to share some of your expertise and brilliance with us that you've garnered over these years on NPR. We talked about ageism. Let me ask you about journalism, since you mentioned the phrase "broadcast journalism" just a moment ago. What's still right with journalism, and what's most wrong with journalism? You wrote the Edward R. Murrow book. What's still most right with it and most wrong about journalism these days?

Edwards: What's right with it, I think, is NPR, which is doing an in-depth job of covering news and opening bureaus around the world where so many news organizations are closing them. Get in any taxicab in Washington, D.C., and you hear NPR, because the foreign-born taxi driver realizes, "This is the only outfit talking about my country." It's still interested in the world. What's wrong with it is money. The profit idea, that news now has to make money, that wasn't the case in Murrow's time. They did the news because they felt they should. They felt it was a public service. Now the news division has to make money just like any other division of that huge conglomerate that owns the networks. You know, the car rental company makes money. Why shouldn't the news division? The theme parks make money. Why shouldn't the news division?

Tavis: That covers the other--my third ism, capitalism. You're already on it, so let me just jump in right quick and ask you whether or not there is something fundamentally wrong with that. There are some who believe that news is news and news ought not to be forced to make money. There are others who believe--these conglomerates--the 3 or 4 people who own these conglomerates and control them--they believe that these divisions can and in fact ought to make money, so let me ask you again in a very direct way: should news be subjected to the pressures of having to turn a profit?

Edwards: How much profit might be the question. 'The New York Times' is a capitalist organization.

Tavis: To be sure.

Edwards: It makes money, and it does a fantastic job of covering the news. The networks are run not by broadcasters or even journalists. They're run by accountants. They're run by Wall Street types, and what they see is the biggest price per share of, you know, a share of stock, and anything they can do to increase the share--the price of that share--if it's cutting news, if it's cutting back on bureaus overseas. They outsource foreign news now. Then they'll do it, and they're not thinking like 'The New York Times' that has a responsibility first to cover the news.

Tavis: How about another ism? Liberalism. The good people at the Fox News Channel, mainly Bill O'Reilly, have fun as often as he can picking at NPR for being part of the liberal media bias. I'm still laughing at the hay that was made over Dan Rather, as if one guy controls, you know, whatever they believe to be liberal about the news, but NPR, I think, subjected more than most, perhaps even more than Dan Rather when he was at the helm at CBS, NPR, lambasted for being a liberal news outlet. Talk to me about, since you were there 25 years, whether or not you think NPR--public radio period, beyond NPR, is just too liberal.

Edwards: Fox is fair and balanced, and the rest of us are liberal and extremist. Yeah, that's basically their idea. They're trying to hurt the credibility of any organization that threatens them, that scares them, that cops viewers from them. NPR had--well, 'Morning Edition' had 13 million listeners each week. Uh, public radio overall, I think, has 22 million listeners. That's some real clout. That--that is a threat to commercial broadcasting, and yes, they're gonna call them liberal, they're gonna do whatever they can to discredit public radio because public radio is building an audience and it's still growing.

Tavis: All right, conservatism, the flip side. One could argue that given their success--I'm not trying to cast aspersion, or as we say in the ‘hood, I'm not trying to playa hate. I'm not trying to hate on Fox News. They're obviously doing something right, at least for the audience of people who watch Fox News, and I'm always cracking up when I flip through channels and I see Fox News. Part of what makes it work is that folk who have a left point of view go on the Fox News Channel, so out of one side of their mouth, they lambaste them for being too conservative, but then they show up to be guests on the programs at Fox News Channel. I haven't figured that out yet, but that said, the conservatives are starting to--they're being heard. It's not just them, of course, on Fox News. It's Limbaugh on radio, Hannity and others on radio. Talk to me about conservatism finding its way increasingly into the so-called liberal media establishment.

Edwards: I don't think there's enough conservatism. Conservatives used to be worried about deficits. What happened to that? Conservatives would, by definition, be prudent with money. Conservatives would be protective of our natural resources and be great conservationists. There ought to be more true conservatives. I don't see too many of them anymore.

Tavis: All right, another ism. Racism. And I really don't want to--I use that just to get your attention, obviously, but it's really not so much racism as it is this notion of diversity and inclusion. You know--you and I have had these conversations--that my reasons for leaving NPR had to do with the fact that I did not feel they were committed enough to the notion of diversity and inclusion. 33 years it took them to find me, the first African-American to host a show, reaching out specifically to an audience of color. And then after being there 3 years, they hadn't developed anything beyond my show to reach out to a broader audience. What's wrong with public radio? Again, not just NPR. What's wrong with public radio when the majority of this country now is made up of women and people of color, and there aren't enough of those voices represented on the airwaves on public radio? Is it racist?

Edwards: First of all, I loved your show.

Tavis: Thank you.

Edwards: I learned things from your show. It's a sad commentary, you know, that black people will talk to each other more candidly than they will to people like me. So, when you would talk with a guest, I would learn things about black people that I would never learn talking to a black person. But I could eavesdrop on you and your conversation, and I got a lot out of that, so I miss you on the radio, on NPR. What's wrong is--again, it goes back to money. NPR, in the early days, could do a lot of esoteric kind of programs that reached smaller audiences, indeed felt it was its mission to do that. But because of the cockamamie funding system we have for public broadcasting in this country, NPR and local stations are forced economically to do programs that appeal to the biggest audience.

Tavis: Mm-hmm.

Edwards: Because they get the most contributors that way. And they can grow and expand and do other things. Now, as part of that, that should include doing minority programs, specialized programs, the more esoteric kind of programs that would have smaller audiences. But now they find there just isn't that much room in a local station's broadcast day to do those kinds of programs that are not going to appeal to the mass audience. Again, it's economics.

Tavis: Yeah, but what happens long-term if we live in the most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic America ever? These are not my numbers. These are census numbers. If we see how the demographics are changing in our society and our programming, I'm not beating up on NPR, on public radio, public television, in commercial media. If we don't start to make the media look and sound more like America broadly, what happens to journalism long-term?

Edwards: I'm with you on that, you know? We...Look at the--I mean, look how diverse the world is becoming in terms of place of origin. More people in this country every day are foreign-born. We ought to reflect that, and it's a loss to journalism, because we're not truly reflecting the country in reporting on the country. I mean, there are neighborhoods that wouldn't welcome me, and I wouldn't be able to get a story, you know? But somebody should. You'd be welcome there, and that's how diversity serves journalism, but what we need is a funding system for public broadcasting that would insulate it from that need to have this vast audience to bring money into the system. We need a sufficient government commitment to public broadcasting as they do in every other country except this one.

Tavis: Talk to me about this speech you gave the other day that made some news. I was a bit interested when I saw a bit of the transcript of what you had to say, but there are people who have reported on that particular speech. It was turned into an op-ed piece where you have some pretty provocative things to say about the way the Bush administration treats, mistreats, maltreats the media these days. Talk to me about what you said in that speech and the point you were trying to get across about the Bush administration in particular.

Edwards: Well, every administration tries to, what, maximize its message and use the media in one way or another. This one is a little more, well, thuggish about it, I think. I really wonder if that--that guy--forgotten his name now--was planted in there to ask softball questions of the president.

Tavis: Jeff Gannon was the guy's name, yeah.

Edwards: There you go. There was a news conference right as the U.S. was going to war 2 years ago in which none of the established regulars, the press corps, 'The Washington Post,' A.P., NPR, none of them were chosen to ask questions. Instead, President Bush, if you recall, read from a list, picked them off a list that undoubtedly was compiled by Ari Fleischer. I don't know who...what publications they represented, 'Guns & Ammo,' I don't know, but the questions were not appropriate to the leader of a country on the brink of war. I think the most compelling question asked of him at that point was "how do you pray?" which, you know, might be useful an hour into the news conference or something, but not breaking news. There's too much news management by this administration, too much of the putting out important pieces of information at 5:00 or 6:00 on a Friday. The things that are damaging or the things that are embarrassing. The classification of information is so extensive. Under the Clinton administration, these rules have been liberalized. The Freedom of Information Act was very useful in the Clinton years. Now, this administration, one of the first things it did was to roll back the liberalization of access to media that Janet Reno was responsible for. Also, the release of presidential papers. President Bush tightened the rules on that, protecting his own papers, the papers of previous presidents, including his father. There's a reaction to that now from newspaper editors, radio and television news directors and the like to have openness be the default position, that a government record--and after all, that is something that every citizen should know about. Our business should be public, because it is our business, that there should be openness automatically and then the consideration of whether release of this piece of information could be harmful to national security. Right now, closure is the default position, and then reporters have to beg to get records open.

Tavis: Let me follow that up if I might, with, as they say in the White House, a follow-up, Mr. President, if I might. A follow-up, Mr. Edwards, if I might, 2 follow-ups specifically. One, what do you make of the White House's statements, over the last few days, at least, that the President wants to have more access to the media and that they should expect him to do more press conferences. They've even suggested he might do one as often as once a month. What do you make of this newfound respect or at least availability for the press on the part of Mr. Bush and the White House?

Edwards: Yeah, what kind is he gonna have? Frequently, he will go to a town and talk with the local press and completely bypass the White House regulars, so maybe he counts that as one of his press conferences. I'd like to know about that. But also maybe it reflects his confidence. Maybe he figures that, what's he got to lose now? He's not gonna run for re-election again. Maybe he feels that he can finesse that sucker now and, I don't know, probably more confident.

Tavis: Let me ask you the other follow-up. How culpable, if at all, do you think the media is in this shell game, as it were? And what I mean to suggest or certainly ask by that is whether or not you think the media is at all responsible? There are any number of examples I can point to. I won't. It's your conversation. But one could argue, I think, persuasively and legitimately, perhaps, that the media has been rolled by this administration, that in a number of ways: the media using the language the White House wants them to use, not asking questions that should've been asked, not raising issues that should've been raised, being embedded in the Iraq war. I said I wasn't gonna do it. Forgive me, I just did. But tell me whether or not you think the media is culpable and the Bush administration using effectively the media, as it were.

Edwards: Absolutely. After 2001, the President's numbers went up to, what, 80% or something like that. And initially, there was this getting behind our President, our leader, when the United States was under attack. But after a while, you're supposed to wake up from that stupor, from that snooze. I think the media just took a nap, a very, very long nap, and didn't wake up from it until well into the war, maybe last year. And that's a long time to give a free pass to an administration. It also affected again the classification of documents. 9/11 was of course a horrible tragedy, but it was used by this administration in a number of ways, and one of the ways it was used was to classify more documents, to keep more of the government's business, the people's business, secret, in the dark, under wraps. Including the embarrassing, not just, you know, matters affecting national security. It was used as an excuse to close up.

Tavis: Let me ask a personal question if I might. I only had the pleasure of being your colleague on NPR for the last 3 years of your 25-year 'Morning Edition' run, but I must honestly tell you, Bob, this is the most open--you're very conversant all the time--but the most open I've ever heard you. I wonder whether or not getting away from NPR has in any way allowed you to be more candid about your own thoughts. Again, I've never heard you this open. Conversant always, but not so expressive as you are tonight.

Edwards: Oh, I think I was. I wasn't particular--I did a speech in Lexington, Kentucky, at the University of Kentucky not long after that news conference that upset me so much 2 years ago. And that made the wires, and I'm not sure my bosses were real happy with that. They didn't say anything in particular, but I just got the feeling they didn't care for that. They'd like me to just say how wonderful public radio is, and I do, and I mean it.

Tavis: Speaking of how wonderful public radio is, I'm delighted to be able to hear you, of course, on XM satellite radio. Tell me how you're enjoying that. I can only assume that the hours are much better for you than the NPR hours were.

Edwards: Well, that's for sure. No, it's great fun. I'm doing an interview program. So the people I used to interview for half an hour--and that interview would have to come down to 8 or 9 minutes on the air, max--can now run 10 minutes, 20 minutes, half an hour, even an hour in some cases if someone is particularly interesting and compelling. And I love that. I love the idea of having a sustained conversation, you know, like we're having. It's really nice.

Tavis: Let me ask you, with a minute to go here, what you think satellite radio will do long-term to grow or somehow, some way to impact these kinds of conversations that we've become accustomed to hearing on public radio. Right quick, what kind of impact can satellite radio have on that?

Edwards: I see them not as competitors, but as, you know, supplementary. I think public radio has done wonders in the news area. And I think satellite radio in particular is going to bring entertainment and music back to the radio spectrum, because commercial radio has just been a horrible failure and just a greedy bunch that's turned it into a cash register.

Tavis: Well, he's still the best newsman for my money on all of radio and still, without question, like or loathe the guy, has the best pipes you will ever hear coming through your radio. It sounds awfully good coming through XM radio these days. Bob, nice to have you on. All the best to you.

Edwards: Tavis, thank you very much. I enjoyed it.

Tavis: Delighted to have you on. Xmradio.com is the website. Xmradio.com. Where you can learn more about the new Bob Edwards radio program. That's our show for tonight. I'll see you back here next time on PBS. Until then, good night from L.A. Thanks for watching, and, as always, keep the faith.