Institutional Memory. Who Needs It?

The short attention span forever being ascribed to us in the reading/viewing public actually seems to be more of a problem for those on the other end of the media tube.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The short attention span forever being ascribed to us in the reading/viewing public actually seems to be more of a problem for those on the other end of the media tube. I was reminded of this again over the weekend when I saw Tony Harris of CNN interviewing an official of the Tribune Freedom Museum (!) opening in Chicago, and the subject of censored songs came up. When the guest mentioned that "I'll Fly Away" by Lenny Kravitz was one of about 100 songs taken off the air by a large radio conglomerate because it thought the public, in the wake of 9/11, might find them offensive, Harris' reaction was, "Wow!" As if he didn't remember that move by Clear Channel less than five years ago.

Another example: the debate about the generals calling for Rummy's resignation. Those who oppose the generals speaking out say, among other things, that such talk threatens our cherished tradition of civilian control of the military. As if we've forgotten how uncherished that tradition was a few short years ago. Here's a memory-jogger, from the Washington Times:

"Loss of trust and confidence"
By Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson
14 March 1999

President Clinton and his Secretary of Defense make much of the importance of "credibility" in defending NATO's involvement in Bosnia and now in possibly waging war on Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, a huge gap in trust and credibility separates these politicians from the troops they would send into the field to fight and die for NATO's "credibility." A young active-duty captain in the U.S. Army Special Forces has published a letter in the Fayetteville Observer-Times (2/17/99), in which he states,

"As a United States Army officer, I have always loved serving my country. Military service is a higher calling, a desire to protect something greater than myself. There should also be security in knowing that the president is our commander-in-chief. As a civilian, the president swears an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land and is ultimately answerable to the American people. I have always believed that, even if our civilian political leadership makes mistakes, they are honest mistakes, made with the good intentions of protecting the United States."

With that said, he goes on to say:

"But something remarkable has happened. The Senate has acquitted a president of impeachable offenses, a president who deliberately misled both the American people and a jury in a civil lawsuit. This disturbs me so much as a military professional that I feel compelled to express my views publicly."

Then he tells us the hard facts.

"I distrust my commander-in-chief. When called upon to serve in a 'hostile fire zone,' I will question the justness of the cause. I will worry that my subordinates' lives are being risked to cover up another of the president's false statements. I also worry that Congress may fail to hold the president accountable for breaches of integrity, perhaps even if those breaches risk the lives of American soldiers."

He concludes,

"I still love my country and the Army, but I have lost my trust and belief in the credibility of our civilian leadership."

Memory. It's a cool thing for media types to have, and not just to keep track of anniversaries of major stories.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot