Spiro Theodore Agnew: Television News Coverage i think it's oby ious from the cameras here that i didn ' t come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. I have a subject which i think if of great importance to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. No medium has a more profound inf luence over public opinion. Now here in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious respons ib il ity exercised than by the news media The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations? And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves? Monday night a week ago, pres ident Nixon de livered the most importa nt address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade. His subject was Vietnam. My hope, as his at that time was to rally the america n people to see the conf lict through to a lasting and just peace in the Pacif ic. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million cas ualties in the longest war in its history When the President completed his address--an address inc ident lly that he spent eeks in the preparation of --his words and policies were subjected to instant analys is and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self -appointed a na lysts the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed President Johnson's dramatic disclosure of intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of nonpreparedness. This was not it One commentator twice contradicted the President's statement about the excha nge of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh. another challenged the presidents abilities as a politician a third asserted that the president was follow ing a Pentagon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disap proval. To guarantee in advance that the president's plea for national unity would be challenged one network trotted out Averell Harriman for the occasion. Throughout the president' s address, he wa ited in the wings. when the preside nt concluded, mr Harriman recited perfectly. He attacked the thieu government as unrepresentative he critic ized the president's speech for various def iciencies he tw ice issued a call to the senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again; he stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want militarySpiro Theodore Agnew: Television News Coverage I think it's obvious f rom the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. I have a subject which I think if of great importance to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media. The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?" "And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves?" Monday night a week ago, President Nixon delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade. His subject was Vietnam. My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting and just peace in the Pacific. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history. When the President completed his address -- an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of -- his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say. It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. Those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed President Johnson’s dramatic disclosure of his intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of nonpreparedness. This was not it. One commentator twice contradicted the President’s statement about the exchange of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh. Another challenged the President’s abilities as a politician. A third asserted that the President was following a Pentagon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval. To guarantee in advance that the President’s plea for national unity would be challenged, one network trotted out Averell Harriman for the occasion. Throughout the President's address, he waited in the wings. When the President concluded, Mr. Harriman recited perfectly. He attacked the Thieu Government as unrepresentative; he criticized the President’s speech for various deficiencies; he twice issued a call to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again; he stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want military