Harlan: In seemlier '69

By Bill Harlan, Journal Staff Writer | Friday, December 22, 2006

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

When Sen. Tim Johnson fell victim Wednesday to bleeding from a tangle of malformed blood vessels in his brain, he also fell victim to a series of reflex reactions that are endemic to the malformed tangle of modern journalism.

Triggered by illness or injury in public figures, these reflexes can result in detailed medical graphics, interviews with health professionals and, in the worst cases, ghoulish interviews with political speculators about what the world would be like without the afflicted public figure.

Fortunately, Johnson's prognosis by Saturday was good. His arteriovenous malformation, which he has probably had since before he was born, chose the perfect time to burst. The senator was working closely with people who quickly noticed he was ill and rushed him to the best medical care in the world.

Unfortunately for Johnson, he's also about to join a 51-to-49 majority in the U.S. Senate.

If Johnson, a Democrat, somehow couldn't serve out his term, the fallout could ... uh oh ... uh oh ... I can feel it coming but can't stop it ... it could CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY and alter the lives of billions of people planet wide. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

OK, I'm not proud of that speculative outburst. But as I explained, I can't help it. I blame congenital audio-visual misanthropy. (When you send your check to the "AVM Foundation," make sure you get the right one.)

Which brings me to another variety of journalistic depredation - a second-level reflex, if you will.

Last week, no sooner had journalists begun their autonomic speculation about the impact of Tim Johnson's misfortune, than pundits began decrying that speculation.

Thursday morning, for example, before the ink had even dried on the speculation, FOX News anchor Dari Alexander, co-hosting "The View" on ABC TV, said, "I think the thing that's really sad about this is that it takes a political angle when this guy is really critically ill."

The next day, our own Rapid City Journal editorial page weighed in with an "Is this what politics has become?" editorial.

On the Rapid City Journal's Internet political site, "Mount Blogmore," which I help run, Blogmorites inveighed against such speculation, calling it "crass," "unseemly" and "cruel."

To these commentators I say, have you no shame? Can't you wait a decent interval before pontificating about the speculating?

To support my case about how we lizard-brained journalists are powerless to resist calling people up and asking them to speculate about the misfortunes of others, I descended into the basement morgue of the Rapid City Journal.

I was in search of the edition from Nov. 24, 1969.

South Dakota Sen. Karl Mundt suffered a stroke on Nov. 23, 1969, which was a Sunday. My theory was, our coverage of that event would provide historical evidence of the inexorability of a condition I'll call AVM-J (for "journalism"), just for clarity.

I hate when facts get in the way of a good theory.

Not only did the Nov. 24, 1969, edition of the Rapid City Journal not contain rampant speculation about the effects of Mundt's stroke, that edition of the paper didn't even report the stroke.

Neither did the next day's paper. Or the next. Or the next.

The Rapid City Journal didn't report Mundt's stroke until Monday, Dec. 1, 1969. The seven-paragraph story was short and to the point. Mundt was recovering at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He was "partially incapacitated." He had to be hospitalized six to eight weeks. Doctors were "hopeful for a normal recovery."

The story did not lead the page. (That spot was reserved for "Highway Death Mark Set," which reported the 272nd highway fatality of the year - a record!)

I paged through papers from Nov. 24 through the end of the year.

They were full of news about national figures: Lt. Calley, Charles Manson, the Apollo 12 astronauts.

The Homestake gold mine labor negotiations rated half a dozen stories. A headline proclaimed "Legislators tell teachers: State Income Tax Not Likely."

But there was no follow-up on Sen. Mundt, except for the Rapid City Journal editorial page, which offered this: "Premature at best describes speculation surrounding the prognosis of South Dakota Sen. Karl Mundt." (Anti-speculationist vultures!)

Mundt did not return to the Senate, though he didn't resign, either. He remained in office, but at home, through 1972, when Democrat Jim Abourezk was elected.

Republicans tried to get Mundt to resign so Republican Gov. Frank Farrar could appoint a fellow Republican. The pressure was intense - even from the likes of Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater - but Mundt's wife, Mary, was having none of it.

"I think essentially it was denial," Scott Heidepriem told me. The Mundts did not want to give up hope.

Heidepriem, who lives in Sioux Falls, will be sworn in as Democratic leader in the state Senate next month. He also wrote a biography of Mundt, "A Fair Chance for a Free People: Biography of Karl E. Mundt, United States Senator," published by Leader Printing Co.

I asked Heidepriem about the difference in coverage of Mundt and Johnson. "I think it's the difference between a photo and a movie," Heidepriem said. Back then, news media offered "snapshots," he said. "Now, it's streaming video, 24/7. We know everything about everything."

OK, maybe you should make that check out the AVM-J Foundation.

Reporter Bill Harlan's column runs every other Sunday. Contact him at 394-8424 or at bill.harlan@rapidcityjournal.com