The Geneva Conference 1959
(Howard K. Smith, Daniel Schorr, Charles Collingwood, Eric Severeid, Ernest Leiser, David Schoenbrun discuss Berlin)
"If, at this conference we could make a beginning toward relaxing the tension then, as they believe, in diplomacy as in forestry that great oaks from little acorns grow, perhaps we could plant an acorn at this conference."- Charles Collingwood.
On the eve of the G-20 Summit in London, I was thinking back on previous summits, back when there was a Cold War. Before The Soviet Union dissolved, everything that seemed to go wrong in the world after 1945 was either directly or indirectly attributed to the goings on of The Evil Empire. The ever-present threat of Communism seemed to be the one glue that held most of Europe and the Western Hemisphere together. It was the one fear that held everything else in check. All out nuclear war was never far away from peoples minds, and the threat of total annihilation made for many sleepless nights.
And so it was this particular Summit Conference, held over the question of Germany, or to be specific, West Berlin that drove all the Super Powers to the negotiation table. The question of reunification was argued since the end of the War and would stay that way until well into the 1980's. And it was always the potential flash point for a crisis threatening to become World War 3.
So fifty years ago next month, on May 10 1959, the Geneva Conference of Foreign Ministers would begin, in another attempt to negotiate another Cold War strategy. Nothing was particularly accomplished, and whatever was achieved died the following year with the U-2 incident and the eventual building of the Berlin Wall. On the eve of the Conference, a panel of CBS News correspondents got together to discuss what lay ahead. It's interesting to compare journalistic skills then and now - how, even within a news organization there was no lock-step point of view, opinions ran the gamut.
Information, even in the relatively primitive days of the 1950's was considered important.
journalism now is more inline with entertainment. this could be said by design. several variables one being the importance of time/short sound bites. this is to sell product and appeal to the inability of people to focus. when i watch/listen to bloomberg financial they consistently interrupt. they do the same on cNBC especially if the guest is pro regulation or is exposing unsavory behaviors within the financial industry. i personally have a need to hear various opinions/sides. i appreciate the charlie rose
show for the longer interview format. special interests/lobbyists/elites have changed journalism to their benefit. keep some people in the dark.
Yes the US used the Atom Bomb and saw millions die quickly and many millions died later. The World saw what Bombs can do. A rush to make bigger batter bombs as to protect one's country from such a threat. The Nuclear Arms Race as who can build more Nuclear Weapons was on. Today many countries have Nuclear Weapons and Plant sites. The US and Russia have the most and even countries like Pakistan and Israel have Nuclear Weapons to protect their countries. Just the thought of a country could bring an attack. Right now Israel is using the Bush thought policy to attack Iran. I think they might want to attack me so I'll attack them first. Bush said Iraq had WMD's even with UN inspectors saying they didn't and showed proof. Bush used Powell to lie to the World and even showed fake pictures. Yes Iran and Syria are right to be scared.
Anyway we could buy time during the Sunday morning bobble-head hours and broadcast that tape? The interviewers nor the interviewees would bother to watch so it's not like we'd be embrassing anyone. Might be an eye-opener to people who don't remember, or weren't around, when there actually was something called television journalism.
Just because someone has a college degree in journalism doesn't make them a journalist.
I second Bobbie's idea. We need more of this type of discussion. Each reporter didn't seem overly concerned with scoring points. They also seemed intellectually secure they could take being corrected or disagreed with, nobody needed to yell and nobody became defensive. I'm interested in European history, Cold War history isn't at the top of my list but I do like to learn about it. This was 10 minutes and I feel more informed about the late 1950s Cold War attitudes.
Comments are closed on this entry