Mike Murray essay -- Courage, is it?

13 July 2005

Courage, is it?

--by Mike Murray

It sounded so inspiring, Dan, your trademark sign-off: "Courage." If only we all could be as brave as you. If only more of us followed your inspiring example, this would be a better country, eh? Give me a break.

Were your delusion a solitary one, it would be disturbing enough. But it seems that the fog that envelopes your head is crowded with the craniums of many like-minded folks in your industry. Not only do you imagine that you are saving the world, you imagine that you are bold in the effort.

Bold? Courageous? Really? I don't think espousing liberal views while hosting the news at CBS qualifies as "swimming against the tide." It doesn't take much in the way of guts for staffers there to tilt left, any more than it does for those in the employ of Fox News to tilt right.

Most people (most honest people, anyway) recognize the obvious political leanings of media outlets such as the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, Fox News, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, MSNBC, the Miami Herald, the Atlanta Constitution, National Review, ABC News, the Washington Times, and the New Republic.

If you work at any of the affiliates of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (whose PBS not too long ago exchanged donor lists with the national Democratic Party) -- you exhibit no courage when you trash Republicans; if you work within the Sky News empire (run by worldwide -- and thoroughly conservative -- media mogul Rupert Murdoch), you go out on no limb when you bash liberals.

Some news pubications' preferences are more difficult to fathom. It is to the Wall Street Journal's credit, I think, that its overall bias -- if it has one -- is hard to discern. Its columnists tilt one way; its editorial board the other. (Sure, that condition could be argued as evidence of two distinct forms of bias. But at the very least it represents some attempt at fairness.)

Here in Cleveland, readers regularly opine in the letters section that the Plain Dealer is at once liberal and conservative. On the surface, that speaks well for the publication. If some people see a bias for one side and others see one for the other, the argument can be made that (as in the case of the WSJ) overall balance is achieved.

I will leave for another day a presentation of my views about the PD's global success -- or lack of it -- in achieving fairness in its reporting. What I want to address here is Dan Rather's exhortation to us all: that we stiffen our spines, that we brace against the forceful headwind of opposition, that we exhibit courage.

Because on the face of it, I agree with him. I think we all would be better off if we'd spend less time worrying about what others think of us and more time doing "the right thing." Acting on conscience requires a willingness to suffer disapproval. Doing so sometimes involves going against the rough grain of one's own reference group.

So, yes, I think it's a good thing to be courageous. I just don't think Dan is.

For most people it begins early. It is impressed upon us that, in order to "get along" it is best to "go along." Hair style, clothing, music -- they all factor into establishing peer-group membership. When I was passing through my adolescent years, some of my friends were "greasers," others were "surfers." (Other variations included "racks," "collegians," and "mods.")

Greasers wore leather coats, Ban-lon shirts, and pointy, spit-polished shoes. They tended to favor hard-rock groups such as the Rolling Stones. (Yeah, they've been around that long. Have you taken a look at those guys' faces lately? Time definitely isn't on their side anymore.) Greasers' hair, natch, was slicked back. Surfers, on the other hand, wore plaid button-down shirts, kakis, and penny loafers. Their musical tastes ran in the direction of groups such as the Beach Boys.

One needed only look at a kid back then to determine his affiliation. (I'm leaving the girls out of the clothes / hair / music equation for now; I don't know that I have the "courage" to try to characterize what their choices said about them. Besides, I confess to a degree -- a huge degree -- of ignorance on that score.)

By my senior year of high school, many of the boys' hair rivaled the girls' in length. White males grew it to their shoulders; black males wore theirs in a 'fro. (That's Afro, to those in the audience whose knees are not yet rickety and whose eyes do not yet require correction to read small print.)

My hair was cropped short, prompting some of my classmates to refer to me as "the Marine." That term was not one of endearment. Anti-war sentiment ran high among those who were about to graduate, and whose time would soon be spent sweating out the lottery that would determine which among us would be drafted and sent off to boot camp -- and then most likely to the jungles of Vietnam.

I wore my hair short not as a political statement or as an act of rebellion. It was simply a practical length for someone who ran 70+ miles per week (requiring two workouts -- and, therefore, two showers -- per day) in pursuit of a fitness level that would lead to racing success on tracks and on cross country courses.

So I wouldn't call my hairstyle an example of bravery. Still, I took a perverse pleasure in knowing that I was bucking the trend, that I was annoying those who chafed at my unwillingness to conform. And I'm sure that it further ticked off many of them that I ended up volunteering for military service. (Though, once again, irritating "the crowd" had nothing to do with my decision to enlist in the Army.)

I long for more of that mind-set in today's society. I'm not suggesting that people be different simply to be contrary, or as an expression of novelty, or for any other frivolous reason. I'm saying that I wish people would more often be willing to be different as an extension of conscience.

And, really, doing so would only occasionally be difficult. We choose the groups we join, after all, on the basis of shared beliefs and interests. So we are "in sync" with those with whom we affiliate much of the time. Still, no one can convince me that people are universally in agreement with groups of which they are members. Especially when it comes to politics, none of us is genuinely always "on the same page" with either Democrats or Republicans.

It's hard to break ranks with your peers, to be willing to suffer their disapproval. I so seldom see evidence of the intestinal fortitude required to do so among those in the media. Too often, I read remarks by columnists intended to assure the audience that, yes, he or she is on the "correct" political side.

Columnists who aren't paid to cover matters of government nevertheless feel compelled to reassure their readers that they are members-in-good-standing of the proper political reference group. (Way too many of them in the Cleveland area, for example, are obsessed with criticizing members of the "other" party. If you don't know which party is "us" and which is "them," I suggest you take a look at the demographics of Cleveland's elected officials. Not much political diversity there.)

It takes no courage to simply follow the path of least resistance. It takes little in the way of guts to announce your liberal leanings among workmates and readers likely to agree, or to do the same where conservative colleagues and audience are involved.

On the other hand, it certainly does take courage to be one of the few conservatives swimming in a sea of liberals, or to be the lone liberal paddling in an ocean of conservatives. If you are one of those brave souls, I take my hat off to you. (Alan Colmes of Fox News, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, Kevin O'Brien of the Plain Dealer, I salute you.)

But to those of you who are simply conformists -- gutless wonders, really -- exhorting the rest of us to rise to a level of courage you yourselves do not possess, I say: get real.