Bill Russell Has Stood Out

I've always liked Bill Russell, and, in the past few days, I've been reminded why.

I've heard Russell being interviewed about his new book on his longtime friendship with the late Red Auerbach, and, the former Celtics' star, now 75, has been the same as always - charismatic, funny, interesting. His book is called Red and Me: My Coach, My Lifelong Friend.

Russell is an original. He's his own man - and proud of it. He usually says what he wants and laughs whenever he feels like it. Most of the time, he does not give the "stock answer" that interviewers seek and enjoys being a contrarian. His spontaneous loud, high-pitched laugh is infectious; in fact, sometimes just hearing Russell's laugh triggers me to laugh.

Russell is a man of principle who seems bound to his convictions. Russell always stood out from his peers on and off the court. He was the consummate "team player," helping lead the Celtics to 11 championships in 13 seasons. He was one of the best defensive basketball players in history. Red Auerbach, in 1964, said that Russell "singlehandedly revolutionized the game because he made defense so important."

I remember, as a kid, listening to Johnny Most call the great 76er-Celtic games when Russell dueled with Wilt Chamberlain. I remember taking my little transistor radio to bed so I could enjoy Most' enthusiastic play-by-play calls. I can still hear Most going crazy as he blurted out: "Blocked by Russell!" For some reason, I felt so invested in Russell holding his own against Chamberlain. That rivalry was an early spark that helped light my connection to sports.

Off the court, Russell was a strong, compelling personality during a time of pervasive racism in Boston and elsewhere. He asserted himself, when necessary, against acts of racial prejudice. For example, once Russell refused to play a 1961 exhibition game to honor former Celtic teammate Frank Ramsay in Ramsay's home state of Kentucky after Russell realized he would not be served a meal at the hotel restaurant. Russell and three other black players decided to go home.

Russell joined other black leaders such as Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown in speaking out against racism during the 60s. Russell was among the first celebrities to call himself "black" when "negro" was still the widely-used term. Russell attended the March on Washington in 1963. (Russell had observed, growing up, how his parents were victimized by racism and when he was subjected to it repeatedly, he was not afraid to speak up and follow his conscience).

Unfortunately, Russell's own experience in Boston was clouded by the presence of racism. Even when the Celtics were thriving, fans didn't fill the Boston Garden, and, in city neighborhoods, racial tension was often in the air. Russell seemed to enjoy his teammates and his coach, but, he had a difficult relationship with the media, and, low expectations of his tie with fans. Some recall Russell's "surly" side. He had an edge (that I found interesting) and an enigmatic, aloof side that probably made him less accessible to fans. Russell once said: "You owe the public the same thing it owes you -- Nothing."

Russell, unlike many players - particularly stars, almost never signed autographs despite continuous pressure to do so.

When Red Auerback decided to retire, he named Bill Russell to be player-coach of the Celtics in 1966. Russell was the first black coach in all of professional sports. After a initial, losing season, in 1969, Russell led the Celtics to a last championship for his era. The Celtics had a private ceremony to retire Russell's jersey in 1972. Then, in 1975, the NBA Hall of Fame inducted Russell, but, he, reportedly, chose not to attend either event.

After leaving Boston, Russell later became a coach in Seattle and in Sacramento and worked as a television color commentator during NBA games. He brought his own style to the TV job, including his unique laugh. Often his comments were too lengthy, but, in an odd way, I admired that Russell, was even resisting the conventional "norms" that went with that job.

Many years later - in 1999 - the Celtics held a public tribute to Russell at the Fleet Center, which had replaced the Boston Garden, and re-retired his No. 6 jersey. I attended the event with my brother and was struck by the array of prominent guests who appeared on stage to honor Russell - not only great players like Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar & others, but also, Jim Brown, Bill Cosby, Bryant Gumbel, Aretha Franklin and Johnny Mathis and other national figures.
I sat there and felt so glad for Russell - that he was finally being acknowledged and that he appeared to enjoy it. Yet, I also felt a bit sad because the crowd, while large, in my view, should have - been much larger - and, in an odd way, it seemed that Russell was getting more recognition from this "national" group of guests than from Boston.

In the past ten years, Russell has returned often to Boston and seemed to have developed a new, positive connection to the city, the Celtics and, even, the fans here.
This brings me to my own brief encounter with Bill Russell - an incident I had as an eight or nine-year-old boy that has stayed in my memory to this day.

It was 1963 or 64 and my father took me to a Celtics game at the old Boston Garden. We watched the whole game and, afterward, an old sportswriter friend of my father's brought us down to the Celtics' locker room. It was very exciting for me to get a glance at all my favorite players - John Havilicek, Larry Siegfried, KC Jones, Sam Jones.....and, of course, Russell. After I'd had a chance to get a few autographs, my father and I found ourselves standing next to Red Auerbach, who was sitting in close proximity to Russell. I recall Auerbach, seeing my bright red hair, pointing to his bald head, and saying "I used to have red hair."
My father had met Auerbach before and asked if he'd help get Russell's autograph for me. Red asked Russell, and Russell - in what apparently was an exception - signed his name on a piece of paper for me. Then, my Dad asked Russell - within earshot of Auerbach - if, by chance, he could sign another autograph for my brother. That prompted Russell to pause a second or two. Auerbach remarked: "Go ahead, Russ. Sign it for him" or words to that effect.

Then, Russell, in a partly snappy, but firm, serious tone, replied to Auerbach:

"I'll do it because I want to -- not because you tell me to."

He signed the second autograph and we left. I was in a daze - in disbelief that I had just had this experience. Little did I know that for years, I would remember Russell's impromptu retort to Auerbach. I've told the anecdote to many people through the years and tried to imitate Russell's tone of voice as he said it. And, I found that sometimes, I'd be in moments when I'd think of Russell's remark -- when I didn't like someone telling me what to do. Later, it became a joke with a close friend that - if either I or someone else expressed that same kind of protest, pride and independence at the same time, we'd call it "a Russell"

I later told my daughter about that line and she memorized it.

"I'll do it because I want to -- not because you tell me to."

One-line quotes are rarely good symbols of a person's character, but, somehow, I've always felt that line that I heard Russell say in the locker room more than 45 years ago - was a decent representation of Russell's important traits.

That Russell remark has always stayed with me - as have other aspects of his personality.

Bill Russell is a public figure who has influenced my life from a distance.

We Need More Voices from the Left on Television

When I first saw Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, appearing one Sunday as a panelist on the "Roundtable" discussion featured on This Week with George Stephanopoulos , I was shocked. In a positive way!

Since when does anyone on the Left get a chance to speak on TV?, I thought.

Then, I saw Vanden Heuvel, a sharp, knowledgeable, articulate woman, on This Week another time as a guest panelist- and another time - and it was almost too good to be true. You see, all of my adult life, I've wanted people with from the Left to be invited - to participate on the Sunday news/talk shows like This Week -- and, until the past year or so, it seemed it would never happen.

For years, I commiserated with friends about the lack of any liberal perspective in television commentary. As years passed, the only constant was seeing conservative George Will - in the same central role on This Week's Roundtable - without ever being challenged by a counterpart from the Left. The hosts of the This Week - from David Brinkley, to Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts to Stephanopoulos - were all too deferential to Will, in my view. They allowed Will's intellect and spewing of factoids to intimidate them -- even when they could have found rebutted him with all kinds of facts and alternative perspectives he ignored.

So, yes, it's been a joy to witness Katrina vanden Heuvel arguing with George Will a few times in the past year. Don't you think?

I've also been happy to see that David Corn of Mother Jones has appeared many times on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Joan Walsh, editor of Salon Magazine, has been appeared numerous times on Hardball, in adidition to MSNBC's other nightly political shows. Maybe this mini-trend is the result of Baby Boomers gaining more influence in the corporate headquarters overseeing TV news and promoting more open-ness to alternative voices? I'm not sure. I'm still amazed to see The Nation's editor just sitting at the table. (I think Vanden Heuvel probably censors herself from expressing some of her more extreme positions)

I view MSNBC's shows - Hardball, Keith Olbermann's Countdown, and The Rachel Maddow Show - also as an incredible change. We've never before seen shows - back-to-back - offering a talk format from a liberal viewpoint. I understand why conservatives complain about MSNBC's liberal bias, but, it's about time the shoe was on the other foot! It's the only time, literally, I can recall anyone even having the slightest basis for even observing a liberal slant. In addition, conservatives still have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Fox news shows.

Indeed, the Right is still everywhere. Talk radio is still dominated by extreme right-wingers from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage. You still see conservatives from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation interviewed on television far more often than representatives of the Left. There is still a LONG way to go before we can say the Left is even close to being represented proportionally.

If you think about it, what news/talk shows on television have featured a Left perspective, OR, an "alternative" perspective that challenges the status quo? One that presents content that questions conventional wisdom and/or the power structure, OR, regularly interviews people with "alternative" or left-wing views? There are virtually none. Yes, Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, challenges the status quo on occasion, but his main goal is entertaining humor. Same with Saturday Night Live, on occasion.

The only shows I can think of that raise serious, large questions about governmental policies or challenge the status quo are Bill Moyers Journal and Frontline. I watched a recent Moyers show that raised original, new questions about the facts on the ground in Pakistan, for example. What would we do without Frontline, one of the best shows ever, always willing to take on the Establishment - particularly US foreign policy decisions like invading Iraq?

Through the years, you can count on one hand the voices of liberal dissent that ever surfaced on TV. Let's see: Forty years ago, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour questioned - among other things - the US role in Vietnam in the late 1960s and got censored, and, eventually, cancelled. There have been excellent PBS documentaries and occasional shows that raised good questions.

In general, however, television simply has not allowed true dissent or radical alternatives. You still don't see Marxist economists asked to participate on Sunday talk shows, right? I've always wished I could see Howard Zinn, someone I've long admired, voice his views spontaneously in prime time -- Maybe with Noam Chomsky as another guest. (I've heard Zinn only on PBS programs, unsurprisingly) Further, I think it'd be terrific if we could all hear socialists comment on the US economic crisis and related topics.

We'll never see that day, however, because those corporate executives who own and oversee television networks view those voices from the Left as threatening to their very interests - and too outside the mainstream to appeal to the mass audience. That's unfortunate because I think people could "survive" being exposed to alternative viewpoints on the Left.

We still have a conventional news media that usually is predisposed to protect the powers that be and our most powerful institutions. (Usually, the Right, naturally, aligns with "the system" because it includes a capitalist framework they support). The recent economic crisis was proof of a lazy, protective press, which was slow and sluggish in searching for the causes of the crisis. You didn't see anyone questioning the entire structure and underlying philosophy of the US economy. Imagine if we had seen a Marxist or two interviewed on the nightly network news?

I would challenge anyone to show me where all the liberal commentators on television have been in the past 25 years. For that matter, despite conservatives whining for years about "liberal bias" in news coverage, I'd challenge them to prove that bias existed. Yeah, I know that more journalists vote for Democrats in elections. Big deal. I used to be a reporter and I can tell you that reporters care a hell of a lot more about pursuing "the story" - whatever that may be - than hesitating due to the political leanings or affiliations of their subjects.

Where was the "liberal coverage" of Richard Nixon's administration when Nixon escalated the Vietnam war, ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, and, later, got overwhelmed by the Watergate cover-up for two years? How can anyone look back and complain that "liberal journalists" were just too aggressive in covering Watergate when it took so long for people, politicians, and, the media to hold Nixon responsible for his lies and misconduct?

Where were all the "liberal" reporters during the Iran/Contra scandal? What I recall is that most of the media went very easy on former President Reagan most of the time. I could go on listing scandals, but, my point is that too often, the news media has often defended the powers that be. There has been a need for more journalists challenging the status quo.

Years ago, I used to want Ralph Nader to appear on some of these shows to present his sweeping critique of corporate abuse - whether it was contributing to environmental pollution or circumventing food and drug regulations or whatever. When Nader ran for President in 2000, occasionally, I'd feel delighted simply to witness someone representing such a left-leaning, alternative outlook get a chance to speak.

I recall, in the last days of his 2000 campaign, I happened to catch Nader on C-Span. He was giving an outstanding speech on poverty. He was in the District of Columbia and he cited statistics of poverty in D.C. and elsewhere to make his point. He mixed his facts with passion, and, I thought to myself: Why is this kind of speech never on mainstream television? I knew he was a longshot candidate, but, then, I realized, Nader was touching on just a little too much of the depressing truth about our economic system to draw coverage regular news programs.

I'm tremendously disappointed with Nader in recent years, but, I give him credit for attempting to bring a different viewpoint to American politics. The more different voices we hear, the better our democracy is. (Plus, it's nice to hear one's own viewpoint represented once in a while!) So, I am pleased to see even the marginal progress of the past year or so - when we've heard from writers and editors of left-leaning publications on television talk shows.

I hope to keep seeing Katrina vanden Heuvel on This Week and that she makes all the points she can -- while she can. We need more progressives to counter the pervasive Right-ward tilt in American politics.

I think I'll start a new subscription to The Nation to honor this idea.

Cheney Does Not Deserve Status and Attention

Perhaps many people can shrug off the repeated remarks of former Vice President Dick Cheney suggesting that President Obama's administration has made the country "less safe."

I cannot stand it. I'm disgusted by Cheney receiving sustained attention and deference as he keeps issuing warnings about how the US is more vulnerable to terrorists' attacks because the policies and practices of the Bush-Cheney administration are no longer in effect -- i.e. torture, detention and other actions. Cheney, because of HIS awful record in contributing to the world being LESS SAFE today, does not deserve this recent media attention. He is not credible on terrorism and national security.

If Cheney IS interviewed at all, he should be answering tough questions (that he's never been asked) about his role in shaping the US' failed efforts to fight terrorism and make the world more safe during his tenure. Cheney has a lot of explaining to do. He needs to be held responsible for his misconduct rather than solicited for his opinions. How and why are his views getting attention when he has - so far - evaded any truth-telling about the decision to invade Iraq, his role in the Valerie Plame affair, his administration's role in inspiring Al Qaeda to multiply and go in throngs to Iraq, and, in inflaming people across the globe to hate or mistrust the United States?

Cheney was at it again on Face the Nation, on Sunday, May 10th, spouting his views that the Obama team's repeal of Bush-Cheney anti-terrorist policies has made our country significantly less safe.

Here are several things I want to tell Dick Cheney:

1) It's time to get off the stage. Though I know you see yourself as an all-powerful, uniquely intellligent wise man who can save us all, you're no longer in power. It's time to go home and be quiet now.

2) When a new President takes office, it's not usually the best idea for the previous President or Vice President to begin repeatedly and harshly criticizing the new President constantly - particularly on the most sensitive national security matters. Historically, there is a reason why Presidents and their VPs have chosen to keep a lower profile - at least for a while. You, Mr. Cheney, not only don't "get" this, but your remarks aren't even close to being thoughtful or constructive; rather, they're blatantly political, self-serving and alarmist. They seem designed to scare Americans into thinking that without the Bush-Cheney approaches, terrorist attacks are more likely to happen. You've offered NO substantiation for these hysterical comments.
So, unless you have evidence of pending terrorist attacks to share with President Obama -- which you could always do privately, by the way -- you should "zip it."

3) You still come off as if you're oblivious to the impact of your actions. Your anti-terrorism policies and invasion of Iraq were not some video game or fantasy football league. Thousands and thousands of human beings died - and, yes, many more of them were Iraqi citizens whose lives and deaths were just as important as those of US solidiers. The Iraqis didn't ask for you to send the US military into their backyard to kill them for no reason - and doing that didn't reduce world terrorism, Mr. Cheney.

4) Please tell us the truth - as if you're under oath - about exactly how you, Bush and the neoconservatives in the White House made the decision - before and after 9/11 - to identify any countries that support terrorism in any way as the "axis of evil" - and, therefore, potential targets in new wars. Tell us how you chose Iraq as the target - the prime substitute for Osama Bin Laden. Also, tell us about the propaganda campaign during 2002 and 2003. How did you personally help craft the lies and misleading content used to "sell" the war on Iraq. How did you plan and implement the gradual substitution of Saddam Hussein's name in place of Bin Laden's?

5) How did you think you could justify your large role in enhancing the powers and capacity of the executive branch to replace the role and function of other parts of the government? What made you think you had more power, at times, than the Central Intelligence Agency?

6) You owe us the truth about your role in the Valerie Plame affair. Your man, Scooter Libby, took the rap. Were you not involved, Mr. Cheney? Many news stories and accounts suggest you were heavily involved. Your own statements suggest your knowledge. Why did you support pardoning Libby? Was it only because of your view of the legal case, or, because you and Libby were both involved?

7) Tell us exactly how you interacted with President Bush. Did he tell you what to do, or, did you, in essence, tell him what to do? Did you guide and manipulate him, or, even, push him around, on occasion?

8) Do you believe that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" If so, please supply us facts that convince us that you were not corrupted or influenced negatively by the power you wielded for eight years.

9) How could you repeatedly suggest Al Qaeda was tied to Saddam Hussein in any way --even long after you and Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq? Please provide facts - not rhetorical phrases - that prove any Al Qaeda link to Hussein's Iraq. (Or, admit there are none).

10) I've long thought you had a lot of gall and arrogance to say and do what you've done. Now, as I watch your behavior in the months after leaving office, I'm revising my view. I think you suffer some kind of extreme "state of denial" -- to borrow from the title of Bob Woodward's book on your Administration's handling of the Iraq war. "Denial" is too mild a term, though. It seems closer to "near-delusional" to me.

That brings me to a final suggestion for you: Instead of appearing on television talk shows, perhaps you can explore getting some therapy to help get you in touch with your feelings --- and, reality.

Coverage of Swine Flu, Predictably, Lacks ANY Context

The loss of context.

If I had to summarize what's happened to news coverage, particularly on television, over the past 25 years, that's what I'd say. The driving force in television news has been to entertain viewers and that means entertain - at all costs.

So, if it takes a news anchor or correspondent another few minutes to provide "background" or "perspective" on a story, that option is usually rejected. The choice is to use black and white - not gray - to tell the story. Attempting to include context is the lowest of priorities.

Clearly, the priority in television news - local and national - is to grab and hold onto viewers by using any means to enliven the broadcast and make it as "easy" as possible for them. That's why national news anchors, at the start of the news, read catchy, little headlines to forecast upcoming stories. It's a little gimmick to get your attention -- and based on the assumption that most of us have no attention span and may grab our remote control any second.

So, these dynamics help explain coverage of the swine flu story. When the story broke, reporters, anchors, and, news executives chose to dwell too much on worst-case scenarios and "signs of death and disaster" rather than to present the hard facts - with less frequency and with important qualifiers and contingencies. The swine flu was covered initially like it posed imminent, scary, out-0f-control threats to people everywhere. However, as each day passed, it became increasingly clear that the inital frenzy was unjustified and irresponsible.

The story picked up its first steam on Sunday, April 26, with the wild coverage peaking on April 27 and 28th as cable news gave it non-stop, "TOP STORY" status. The mere time and weight suggested the flu constituted a national crisis. The tabloid Boston Herald's April 30th Page One headline typified the continuing tone: "Killer Flu Stalks Mass."

Well, neither the Herald or other news outlets mentioned often enough that, in fact, 36,000 Americans die from flu-related (REGULAR flu, that is!) causes each year. The mere mention of that fact instantaneously gave the swine flu story a different context, so, I wish it had been mentioned much more often rather than only once in a while. As I write this, on May 4th, "no deaths and a few serious cases" have been reported outside of Mexico, where this flu outbreak originated and, even in Mexico, the spread of this swine flu has slowed, according to Time magazine's website.

Accurate context is part of the truth. We've just grown so accustomed to ratings-crazy, sensational, shallow news coverage that we accept either distorted context or no context. Television, and now, the Internet, have, unfortunately, dragged down the quality of much news coverage. Truth has been a casualty.

The treatment of the swine flu story was, unfortunately, very predictable. The TV & Internet-dominated media had to choose whether to hype the dramatic, black and white qualities vs. the more bland, gray realities about the illness. The hype sizzles and "sells" while the sober, more accurate version does not. Too many chose approach of the Herald characterization: "Killer Flu Stalks Mass."

For many years now, context has been disappearing from TV news, and, to a lesser degree, often from reporting in newspapers and magazines, which have been trying to compete with television.

The coverage of the OJ Simpson trial, back in 1995, was confirmation that we had entered a new era of "news" coverage. Coverage of the trial shattered any historic boundaries relating to how much attention a story should receive national "news-like" attention driven by entertainment rather than by hard news.

Since then, the examples of "context omission" multiplied to the point of absurdity. Do you recall the extent of attention given to the Monica Lewinsky saga during Bill Clinton's second term? If an alien from outer space reviewed the sheer scope of that episode, he might conclude that Monica Lewinsky was some important, international figure involved in a world crisis. Of course, that story brought incredible entertainment, so, it qualified as a major "news" story when, in fact, it did not deserve more than a tiny fraction of the attention it received.

The O.J. Simpson story opened the door for individual murder stories to be regularly treated as national entertainment stories. It's routine now to turn on cable news and find someone re-hashing the details and speculative angles of some murder story - usually one with a sensational element. (Years ago, individual murders were mostly covered in the place they happened)

Then, there is the variety of ways context is distorted in the day-to-day news. We keep hearing about Madonna's attempts to adopt a baby in Malawi, for example. I'd rather see a story about adoption in Massachusetts, its impact on families and how it's working out or not for children in different circumstances.

I have to mention coverage of weather (once again) because it so disregards reality and context. If there is a chance of a storm, that's the only rationale a local news station needs to inject an overdose of speculation and chatter about "possible" weather contingencies three days away. The good ratings resulting from that attention to weather are treated as more important than the actual weather outside!

That observation is entirely relevant to the swine flu coverage. Several days ago, I was watching a rare television discussion about the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak and one person commented, in essence, that this was a case, at least initially, when "the interests of the media were not the same as the interests of the public. "

Yes. The lack of context in media coverage is SO bad that even when there's a public health threat, decisionmaking about how to convey the news is influenced to a very disturbing degree, by how to attract ratings rather than how to present the truth -- in context. That's pretty bad.