When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963

Video of Jack Ruby Shooting Oswald

By Bob Huffaker

A while back, News 8 Austin interviewed my buddy and co-author George Phenix and posted his recollections online, along with George's film of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. George captured the murder on 16mm film while I stood at his side and broadcast the shooting live for CBS in the basement of Dallas police headquarters. Earlier I had given George a boost so that he could hang his sound mike directly above where the transfer--and ultimately the shooting--would take place.

Our engineer Jim English was behind our live CBS camera, and Phenix was shooting sound-on-film with a big Auricon camera mounted on a unipod that he had to control in the melee that broke out when Ruby lunged and fired. When CBS later replayed George's film in slow motion, they were creating something akin to today's "instant replays," though George had rushed to our newsroom to develop the film before KRLD-TV and CBS could re-run it.

Click here for the inteview and Phenix's archival film footage.

In our book When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963, George wrote about what it was like as he filmed that piece of history:

"Oswald was coming down the hall flanked by big Texas lawmen. It was happening fast. I had Oswald centered in my viewfinder when ka-bam. We were essentially in a cement box and when Ruby's gun went off, it was really loud. My reflexes won over my news judgment and my head jerked up from the viewfinder. The camera lurched on that blasted unipod. Later, I think someone timed it and I regained control in five seconds. But it seemed like an eternity. At one point, I saw a lawman hurdle over a car to get into the fray. The fight was to keep Ruby from squeezing off another round. And the cops won by sheer force of numbers. Lots of brave men jumped into that pile."

The man who hurdled a police car was Sergeant Patrick T. Dean, in charge of basement security that day. He and other officers risked their lives to disarm Ruby.

George Phenix's film and Jim English's live KRLD-TV camera made broadcast history that day.

More Comments: Where were you when Kennedy was killed?

More comments, more memories.  These are all accessible in the comments section on the right-hand side.   However, we felt these shared histories should really be shared by bringing them to the forefront, the mainpage of our blog, instead of tucking them away in the comments section.

Please take a look at all these comments from our readers.   And please keep them coming.

Here's some of the latest postings:

I was 6 years old & in Catholic School. I heard it in school that the President had been shot. I heard when I arrived home that the President had died. My parents and grandparents were "grey" for a couple of weeks. I remember that there were no cartoons on TV for quite a while. Only funerals and memorials... That was just the start, Bobby Kennedy and MLK were soon to follow... In my hometown there were race riots that forced me and a friend to serve every mass at church for two weeks... When I look back, it all started with JFK being murdered... For me, everthing goes back to that time... The bad concept of everything is only an opinion, and right and wrong are not finite, stems from that time... The moral "death spiral" began in 1963...

Posted by: Tom Nieman

I was 13 and in junior high school. For some reason, I was walking in the halls instead of being in class, and the nurse came running out into the hall crying that the president had been killed. Just a few years earlier, I had taken our portable black and white TV to school so we could watch the Kennedy inauguration in class. A few years later I would graduate from high school in the year of Martin Luther KIng, Jr.'s and Bobby Kennedy's assassinations, 1968.

Watching the president's funeral was personal, because the image of the two small children was like a proxy for the funeral my father never had after dying in Korea. The Kennedy children at the time seemed to be standing for me and my brother.

Early in 1964, I would see the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and it was as if things were coming together to make me feel that the world was changing and that it affected me.

Posted by: kulturkritik

Comments: Where were you when Kennedy was killed?

Check out the comments we're getting (all on the left hand side of the blog) regarding George's original post, "Where were you when Kennedy was killed?"

It seems to have struck a nerve with many folks who can never forget where they were the exact moment they heard news.

We'd love to hear all of these stories and we invite our readers to post their comments here.

These two below in particular have very poignant memories:

I was eight years old & in Catholic school. We got the announcement over the PA system. But more amazing then the shock I felt was seeing all these stern nuns sobbing and clinging to each other. I'll never forget it because America changed that day. We lost hope and we lost our ability to believe in dreams. No President since has been able to convey the power of dreams the way Kennedy did. I still miss him.

Posted by: Victoria Campbell

I was 6 years old & in Catholic School. I heard it in school that the President had been shot. I heard when I arrived home that the President had died. My parents and grandparents were "grey" for a couple of weeks. I remember that there were no cartoons on TV for quite a while. Only funerals and memorials... That was just the start, Bobby Kennedy and MLK were soon to follow... In my hometown there were race riots that forced me and a friend to serve every mass at church for two weeks... When I look back, it all started with JFK being murdered... For me, everthing goes back to that time... The bad concept of everything is only an opinion, and right and wrong are not finite, stems from that time... The moral "death spiral" began in 1963...

Posted by: Tom Nieman

Library Journal Review of When the News Went Live

The Library Journal writes:

At the time of President Kennedy's assassination, Huffaker and company were all reporters in the news department of KRLD, CBS's affiliate in Dallas, which had radio and television components. Their account of reporting the events surrounding Kennedy's death goes beyond mere retelling, reflecting on issues such as ethics and duty in the presentation of news.

Unlike today's attempts to choreograph the presentation of events for public consumption, the situation then was much more fluid. As Dan Rather observes in his introduction, "the minutes, hours, and days after President Kennedy was shot provided no ready answers about just what was going on, what would happen next, or what any of it meant."

The bulk of the book is a fast-paced recounting of what they witnessed, accompanied by 43 evocative black-and-white photos . . . . It concludes with two thought-provoking chapters about the business of news and its uncertain future. Recommended for academic and public libraries devoting space to journalism.

By Ari Sigal, Catawba Valley Community College Library, Hickory, NC

 

Publishers Weekly Review

Here's what Publishers Weekly had to say about When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963:

Before November 22, 1963, people depended on the morning or afternoon newspaper for their news. But once Kennedy was shot, America turned to television for up-to-the-minute reports, most of which were supplied that fatal weekend by Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix and Wise of Dallas's KRLD, a CBS affiliate. As Huffaker explains, back then a TV reporter had to be able to do everything, from getting the scoop at the scene to writing the piece and reading it on the air. Mercer describes the huge sound cameras they'd lug, with film that they'd have to process and edit in time for the next newscast.

As each of the authors gives his account of the segment of the Kennedy assassination he was most involved with: the race to get the injured president to the hospital, Oswald's flight and capture, Ruby's shooting of Oswald and Ruby's trial, he opens a window into that earlier era of broadcast history. In the conclusion, the contributors make comparisons to today's "embedded" reporters. One big difference emerges: in 1963, the KRLD crew had a whole nation awaiting their latest report. The integrity and dedication of these four veteran journalists is impressive, as is their ability to make a 40-year-old event come alive again.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

Where were you when Kennedy was killed?

By George Phenix

At our book signings, strangers come up to tell us where they were and what they were doing. It seems they want to talk about it. That dark day was a tipping point for the entire world and for everybody living in it.

Our account of those terrible days has struck a common nerve. And people want to talk about it. That's cool.

For a time after the assassination, we were a nation united in grief. Much like the aftermath of 9/11. While I hope we never again feel that collective grief, I would hope we could ramp up the "united" part again.

The red state/blue state divide is tearing this nation apart. And the knee-jerk-offs on both sides are either too dumb or too jaded to care. I am really weary of the 24-hour attack cycle from spinmeisters on both sides of the political morass.

This is a bit of a ramble and I'll admit to getting sentimental, but someone recently sent me an email that kinda got to me.

Here goes:

A four-year-old was looking at the baby in the crib and said, "Tell me again what the voice of God sounds like. I'm beginning to forget."

Well, I'm beginning to forget what "united we stand" feels like.

Sanity, please

By Bob Huffaker

Several corners of the widespread Guantanamo Koran-flushing story remain dark.

It is not clear whether the Newsweek item about it was false--or whether their confidential source simply backed out. Nor is the story's being the primary cause of deadly rioting certain. Nor do we know why Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon waited eleven days before attacking the story's veracity and blaming it for riots that General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had attributed otherwise. At his briefing, General Myers described his Afghanistan commander's after-action report with these words:

"It's the--it's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eikenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran--and I'll get to that in just a minute--but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan. So that's--that was his judgment today in an after-action of that violence. He didn't--he thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

The tale of the Koran flushing seems to defy the laws of plumbing. Having unstopped many johns, I know that someone might toss a book into one, but actually making it go down sounds dodgy at best.

That story of toilet desecration had circulated for quite a while before the vast festival of indignation ever arose. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann reasoned thus:

"Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called 'war on terror' has done something dumb, dating back to the President's worst-possible-word-selection ("crusade") on Sept. 16, 2001. So why wouldn't some mid-level interrogator stuck in Cuba think it would be a good idea to desecrate a holy book?"

The Bush administration's relentless attack on Newsweek insists that because riots erupted after the magazine's mention of the alleged plumbing incident, the story must have provoked the violence. In studies of logic, such a snap judgment is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (after that, therefore because of that).

Neither can we believe radical Islamists who hate the U.S. despite anything this country does right. We know that their bloodthirsty leaders will grasp any opportunity to inflame followers against us. So if they incite riots because of alleged desecration of the Koran rather than because of documented prisoner abuse, we may depend upon their motives being hostile and their words untrustworthy.

But trusting the spin of Press Secretary Scott McClellan is getting harder by the day as well. David Brooks, an evenhanded conservative columnist, disagrees with the spate of wild attempts to blame the "liberal" press for getting people killed:

"Excuse me, guys, but this is craziness. I used to write for Newsweek. I know Mike Isikoff and the editors. And I know about liberals in the media. The people who run Newsweek are not a bunch of Noam Chomskys with laptops. Not even close. Whatever might have been the cause of their mistakes, liberalism had nothing to do with it."

Brooks criticizes both left and right for using this brief mention to further their politics:

"The people who seized upon this item, like the radical clerics in Afghanistan, are cynical in the way they manipulate episodes like this to whip up hatred and so magnify their own standing. . . . The rioters are the real enemy, not Newsweek and not the American soldiers serving as prison guards."

So, dear friends, since truth is at issue and ethics are essential to fair reporting, give it a rest. And pay attention to the real story--whatever facts may prove it to be.

Part II: Keep the press free and your hands off of PBS

By Bob Huffaker

Bill Moyers, one of American journalism's role models, is calling for town hall meetings across the country--not of the sort staged by the Bush administration with only supporters permitted inside. Moyers is outraged at Kenneth Tomlinson of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting for his partisanship at PBS.

Moyers told the National Conference for Media Reform, "I simply never imagined that any CPB chairman, Democrat or Republican, would cross the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House. And that's what Kenneth Tomlinson has been doing."

Moyers' speech is on the Free Press Web site:

Audio of the speech may be downloaded here.

Video may be viewed here.

The  transcript can be read here.

Indignant email to PBS can be sent here.

Sign the petition here.

Part I: Keep the press free and your hands off of PBS

By Bill Mercer

As Franklin Roosevelt once said, "You can attack my family, you can attack me but don't attack my little dog Fala." Well now this Right-wing Republican avatar of censorship, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has attacked "our little dog Fala"--NPR NEWS!"

Tomlinson, appointed to the board by the administration, has determined that NPR News needs a baby sitter to be sure their coverage of Mideast news is fair and balanced! "The corporation's board has told its staff that it should consider redirecting money away from national newscasts and toward music programs produced by NPR stations."

THAT MY FRIENDS IS CENSORSHIP! THAT IS INTERFERENCE WITH A FREE PRESS!  THAT IS AN EFFORT TO DISCOURAGE THE TYPE OF NEWS COVERAGE AND REPORTING THAT CAN BE FOUND "ONLY" ON NPR!

According to the story in the New York Times (a paper the administration would like to suppress) Tomlinson has been waging a campaign to correct what he and other conservatives see as a liberal bias in public television programming.  The corporation has hired two ombudsmen to monitor radio and television content.

Hey Bush's soul buddy Putin does this all the time in Russia!

How do the CPB Republican-appointed board members KNOW that NPR and PBS are biased? Quoting from the Times: "...there was a brief discussion by board members in which one of them, Gay Hart Gaines, talked about the need to change programming in light of a conversation she had had with a taxi driver about his listening habits!"  Undoubtedly a fair and balanced research project of one...by this Ms. Gaines a Republican fund-raiser and the head of the political action committee of Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker.

The is the same Gingrich, BTW, who wanted to eliminate NPR and PBS when he was the "Tom Delay" of the House. Newt also wanted to lop off the Education Department. There is no real news on radio anymore except on National Public Radio. Their "Morning Edition" and the afternoon "All Things Considered" are the BEST, the ONLY in depth news reports anywhere.

Fair and balanced? As much as humanly possible.

You want bias? Read the Washington Times, NY Post, listen to Limbaugh, most talk radio and much of Fox TV news.

Hey that's fine...this is allegedly a free country with free press.

SO I say to Mr. Tomlinson and his board member who talk to taxi drivers, KEEP YOUR CENSORING HANDS OFF NPR AND PBS.

I urge anyone reading this to call your congress and senate persons and get on line and yell at CPB. It is time to stand up for Freedom of the Press...again and again and again!

Please read Bill Moyers' speech at the National Conference for Media Reform, then sign this petition, sponsored by Free Press.

Then write to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and urge it do the right thing.

CONTACT:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Phone Numbers:
202-879-9600
800-272-2190

mailto:comments@cpb.org

 

Fluff

By Bob Huffaker

Discussing media overdosing on Michael Jackson, the runaway bride, and celebrity gossip, a radio pundit said that those stories are news. But he quarreled with the current emphasis in reporting such stuff, saying that the real Jackson story is how money corrupts. As for the wildeyed absconding betrothed, he said that the real story concerns her social and mental "issues."

"If people are interested in it, it's news," he said.

No.

Soap operas interest some people. But news concerns reality, and media hype is not reality, no matter what its current label.

As a reporter I saw gawkers at minor accident scenes. They were interested, but their undeniable curiosity hardly made those mishaps news. Nor does the grotesque Michael Jackson merit unrelenting national coverage, no matter how much he interests the rubbernecking public.

Reporting the antics of so-called reality shows wastes a lot of journalistic energy, too. TV programmers gull viewers into following such trivia among trivial people, but voyeuristic news coverage of those exhibitionist shows cheats citizens of real reporting about real events that really matter to them and their world.

ABC actually broadcast a "news" special about the inflated American Idol Sex Scandal. Among publicity perpetrators, using supposedly legitimate news programs to push thier entertainment programs is called "cross-promotion," but such fakery feeds citizens phony news about phony events.

I prefer the candidly fake news of The Daily Show, which is unfailingly honest and often more informative than "mainstream" reporting. The show's anchor, Jon Stewart, and his talented colleagues satirize real events and how the mainstream press reports them. We learn more from their humor than from real news reporting that is either blatantly slanted or diluted by excessive obeisance to power and cash.
 
Excellent journalists like Bob Schieffer, Jim Lehrer and Peter Jennings still anchor broadcast news, and others such as Aaron Brown and Lou Dobbs present responsible and authoritative news in a tone of sanity. Others, especially Keith Olbermann, having taken Stewart's cue, present news with a mix of humor that is often sardonic but usually evenhanded.

Forty years ago, I tried to end my newscasts on a light note--brief closing accounts of Chinese panda matings, inept robbers, and non-lethal domestic goofiness--but I spent the bulk of the time telling people things they needed to know in this open and free society.

Our reporting was a trust to keep. Our job was telling fellow mortals about things that they needed to know: government at all levels, dangers, disasters, discoveries, and opinions of wise and dedicated leaders in all segments of local and world events.

Of course we mentioned the doings of celebrities, but they usually stayed in the same category with the sexy pandas.