Daniel Schorr (1916-2010)

Daniel Schorr passed away on Friday at the age of 93.  On this Monday’s Bob Edwards Show, we will rebroadcast Bob’s interview with Dan which originally aired January 2, 2008.  Below is the blog post written by Bob before that 2008 airing.
 
Click here to listen to that original hour-long conversation.

 

By Bob Edwards

 

schorr1960_200x220.jpg
Yes, we finally got him, and you can hear our conversation on Wednesday, January 2nd. We have to give Dan the full hour because there’s so much ground to cover—-his journalism career spans more than 70 of his 91 years. 
 
For the last 17 years, Dan Schorr has been the senior news analyst for NPR (hired by Robert Siegel in his prior incarnation as director of news).  Twice a week, Dan researches, writes and delivers a timely commentary for All Things Considered on an  important issue in that day’s news. On Weekend Edition Saturday, Dan reviews the week’s important world events in conversation with host Scott Simon. Then on Weekend Edition Sunday, Dan contributes what Edward R. Murrow used to call “a think piece,” a little essay. That’s four contributions a week, which means he’s heard more often than many NPR reporters who are a fraction of his age. He’s also sometimes used in breaking news situations. His analysis nearly always offers a perspective the listener has not heard before—-and it often incorporates an anecdote from his long reporting experience.  Frequently, I hear a sort of audio “sigh” in Dan’s delivery, as if he’s noting that some news is cyclical—-history DOES repeat itself—-and political leaders never learn from past mistakes—-even their own.   Many of Dan’s commentaries for NPR have been collected in a new book titled Come to Think of It, and it’s impressive to see how his judgment has held up with the passage of time.
 
In our interview, we review the many peaks and the occasional valley in Dan’s long career.  Of all the fabulous journalists hired by Edward R. Murrow for CBS News, Daniel Schorr is the only one still working in daily journalism.Murrow once said to him, “Schorr, you’ll do.” Everyone on the staff knew that was the ultimate Murrow compliment. Dan’s first TV interview was with Nikita Khrushchev in the Kremlin.   In August of 1961, he reported that East Germany was building a wall through Berlin.  Twenty-eight years later, he went back to report on the Berlin Wall coming down. Dan’s aggressive reporting infuriated public officials—-and sometimes his fellow journalists.  He covered the Senate Watergate hearings, where John Dean revealed that President Nixon had an Enemies List.  Copies were passed to reporters and Dan went live, on camera, to read the names on the list, not knowing it included his own name until he read it on the air.   A few years later, Dan nearly went to prison for refusing to reveal who leaked him a Congressional report on CIA covert activities.  In effect, this incident cost him his job at CBS. That freed Dan to become a cable TV pioneer—-Ted Turner hired him to do commentary for the bold, new journalistic experiment called CNN. It took a few years, but ultimately the two titans clashed and Dan was looking for yet another new opportunity, which turned out to be NPR.
 
Dan Schorr, 91, has all the important journalism trophies, a number of books to his name and a solid reputation as a legend in our field. That’s why it’s sad that  he still carries a hurt inflicted on him 60 years ago. Listen Wednesday and hear him explain. And Dan likes a Gershwin tune—-and will sing one for you on Wednesday.  As my 73-year-old good buddy Carl Kasell likes to say, Dan is an inspiration to all of us youngsters. 
 
Watch Dan Schorr interview Nikita Khrushchev (1957) 

7 Replies to “Daniel Schorr (1916-2010)”

  1. The edited version of this interview, which aired on Bob Edwards Weekend, is available to listen or download. Some photos from Mr. Schorr’s visit to Politics and Prose are also available.

    As a friend of mine remarked when hearing the sad news, "Damnit."

  2. Great interview. Too bad that Daniel Schorr is at the end of his career, and there don’t seem to be (m)any young journalists today (besides you, Mr Edwards – young in relation to Mr Schorr) who would report as Schorr used to.

    Fascinating stories.

  3. Daniel Shorr as Icon

    When Daniel Shorr demurs, I wonder. It’s just not like him.

    Edwards engaged Shorr in a friendly repartee celebrating Shorr’s years in journalism. Shorr gave his views on everything from Frank Zappa to the beginnings of CNN. But when asked about the current election cycle, Shorr’s response was as surprising.

    He’d rather not get into the predicting game, he said. He’s afraid any predictions would be proven wrong not by next November, but next week. The whole situation is “fluid” he said.

    He wasn’t being asked to predict. The gist of the interview had been to establish Shorr as the entirely too rare commodity he is; an independent, valued and trusted voice of reason, insight and wisdom.

    So why did Shorr jump to the conclusion he was being asked to predict the presidential race? Why not turn the question into a topic he did feel he could address?

    This is a different campaign. It’s the first time when a woman, a bi-racial, an Hispanic, a libertarian, a former Baptist preacher, a senator-become-actor-become candidate, a 9/11 mayor, a Mormon, a war hero have run for the presidency at the same time. “What’s your view, Dan?”

    Global warming is a top concern. Some believe the country is doomed unless we stop all the illegal immigrants. The NAFTA treaty is coming into full force and relations with traditional allies are souring. “Talk to us, Daniel.”

    This is where conspiracy theorists thrive. Could it be Shorr’s publicity people or publishers have colluded and have an understanding only certain topics are open in forums outside their purview? Or, even more darkly, does the government have the goods on him and he feels threatened?

    All right, that’s a totally far-fetched idea. No one silences Daniel Shorr.

    Yet the question is still viable. And it leads to wider questions about other reporters – in particular those covering the presidential race. Why (and by whom) is it decided so early (months before the first caucus and primary) only top tier candidates – those polling at a certain percentage – are worthy of note? Who arranges them during the televised debates? How can a virtual unknown vault overnight into the top-ranking contender? How many knew Wyoming had a caucus about the same time as Iowa? What, is the real impact on the gargantuan amounts of money being poured into campaigns?

    I admire Mr. Shorr. I appreciate his presence and words. When he retires we will lose a powerful advocate for reporting the raw truth in a way that can be understood, incorporated into our thinking and acted upon rationally. I would never begrudge Mr. Shorr an opportunity to kick back during an informal chat on public radio and choose to not answer potentially sticky questions.

    I only hope that he, and other reporters, will remember their primary job is to go boldly into the fray and tell us – who cannot be there in person – what is really going on. Especially in times as uncertain as those we live in today, we need journalists who cannot be bought, muzzled, intimidated or distracted.

    Journalists are not saviors of humankind, but the light their brave words shed on the road we travel together will, if fueled by the truth and courage, illuminate the choices we make individually and together. We create a better future because of them.

  4. Bob Edwards Weekend show on the Hollywood Blacklist (January 5-6, 2008) only skimmed the surface. The House Un-American Activities Committee’s witch hunt and its Senate counterpart’s (McCarthy) weren’t limited to the entertainment profession. The head of my high school’s mathematics department lost his job because he refused to testify, and it affected other professions as well, ending only after McCarthy went after personnel in the U.S. Army.

    I thought you should have explained more about the chain reaction of the blacklist; people were fired based on accusations of communist thought before the HUAC even got around to those people. Also, what the HUAC most wanted was to get the accused who appeared before them to name other artists and professionals who could be accused of this non-crime.

    Committees of Congress continue even today to misuse Congress’ investigative powers on topics where neither oversight of the Executive Branch nor contemplation of legislation are involved. All politicians like to get free publicity and to be on TV, and investigations of anything of public interest is a way of doing that.

Leave a Reply