Election Night: A Television History 1948 – 2012

In November 2012, the United States elected a president. Also right around the same time, author Stephen Battaglio released his latest book, an e-book to be exact, Election Night: A Television History 1948-2012. As described by the publisher, the book “is a fascinating and revealing look at the evolution of U.S. presidential election night broadcasts and how since 1948, this televised event galvanizes the nation. It explores the technical advancements in vote counting, live coverage from the field, how the networks get polling information and call a state for a candidate and how the drama unfolds in the control room. Through the lens of NBC News, Election Night highlights significant commentary by legendary news figures such as Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, and Brian Williams.”

The book makes the most of the Kindle platform, utilizing the NBC large video archives, as well as offering historical audio clips in an enhanced edition [available here [or iTunes link here]. To find out more about his latest project, Battaglio accepted my invitation for another interview (I first interviewed him in 2011 regarding his book on NBC Today Show’s 60-year history.)

Tim O’Shea: You pull data for the book, including congressional hearings as well as the David Brinkley Papers/Archives. What was the biggest surprise/most interesting aspect of delving into Brinkley’s papers?

Stephen Battaglio: I loved David Brinkley. He is my favorite TV news anchor of all time. The humor that he managed to inject in his on-air commentary came across in his papers, especially in personal letters and internal memos. What you saw on screen was his true self.

O’Shea: This project is a multimedia property, which includes audio and video clips, how did you go about picking what to include?

Battaglio: A lot of it had to do with what was available in the NBC News archives. Every hour of Election Night 1960 exists as does everything after 1976. But there was little from 1964 or 1968. So if we did not have the most dramatic moments of the election coverage we tried to offer something that was representative of how it looked that night. We also included important political TV moments of the 1960s such as President Johnson’s “Daisy” ad and the riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago. I think TV news footage is a great way to learn history. We have about 90 minutes of it in the enhanced version of the e-book which works great on the iPad.

O’Shea: But you can read a text-only version on a Kindle.

Battaglio: Correct. There are additional photos in the non-enhanced edition.

O’Shea: While the main focus is the television history, I appreciated you delving into the radio influence on politics prior to television”s impact. Had you been well-versed in radio’s impact before embarking on the book?

Battaglio: No, and it was important. In any history of television, you need to look at radio first. One thing I learned is that the development of radio journalism was restrained by the government in the 1930s at the behest of the newspaper industry, which feared competition. That all went away with the gathering storm in Europe. It was fascinating to learn that regular radio broadcasting began on KDKA in 1920 with the presidential election results.

O’Shea: You focus a lot on the years when the broadcast news networks were dominant. Did we see the same level of punditry or speculation that we see today in 24-hour cable news?

Battaglio: There was not the immediacy or saturation that we see today. But like now, there was plenty of prognosticating. In the days before the 1968 election – the three-way race with Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace – there was intense speculation over how none of the candidates would get 270 electoral votes and that the presidency would be decided by the House of Representatives.

O’Shea: Of the anchors/reporters you interviewed, would you say Tom Brokaw was one that had seen the most change in the election night TV history?

Battaglio: Brokaw provides a connectivity to NBC’s past and present. He worked with Brinkley, who was part of NBC’s first Election Night on TV in 1952, and he’s part of the team that handled the 2012 coverage. No other news anchor can give you that kind of historical perspective.

O’Shea: In writing about the RFK Assassination, were there elements about the tragedy’s coverage that you had not known?

Battaglio: That the networks were really hesitant over providing wall-to-wall coverage of another Kennedy funeral. They were worried that the public couldn’t handle it. No matter how contentious America seems today, there has never been anything like 1968. We include a clip of David Brinkley expressing fear that the country was headed towards a police state. It was pretty mind-blowing.

O’Shea: Of all the technological innovations introduced in election coverage, what do you think was the biggest game changer?

Battaglio: The use of exit polling to call election results in 1980. It was so fast and accurate, it was seen as interfering with the process as you could call the presidential election before polls on the west coast closed.

O’Shea: Is there any chance you would ever consider doing a history of late night TV?

Battaglio: Bill Carter’s books on late night have covered that territory pretty well. I’m happy to take suggestions on other TV related subjects. Especially from publishers.

So when pal of the blog, award-winning novelist and host of  History Channel’s Decoded, Brad Meltzer, sent me a link to his new TEDxMIA speech, How To Write Your Own Obituary, I clicked on it immediately.

As with most things Meltzer, it’s worthwhile viewing.

As detailed in the pitch, “In Early Innings we’ll experience the ride of a minor league baseball season with the people whose lives are inextricably bound by America’s Pastime … In year one we’ll follow the Burlington Bees at the lowest level of the minor leagues – Lo-A … Early Innings will ‘follow’ the Bees for an entire season, as 50 or so players chase the ultimate American Dream.”

Early Innings

I do not know if this was a pitch for ESPN or MLB, but the insight I gained in this 10-minute pitch made me want to see more. I would love to embed the video here for you to watch it, but Vimeo prevents me from doing that in this case. That’s fine, however, as I think you gain a great deal more insight when you visit Blackhurst‘s website.

Bonus detail: TED offers subtitles with these videos, which is always great with TMBG songs. At the nine-minute mark, they do one of my favorite songs (several songs in one song actually), Fingertips.

First up in the lists that caught my eye was The Casual Optimist‘s A Year in Reading 2010. Consider the following nitro (to a sampling of books that included items that may have not been published in 2010 :

“2010 was a year of losing battles and one of the first casualties was time for personal reading. The moments I did have were snatched on the subway and, if I could keep my eyes open, last thing at night. I often found myself unwittingly rereading chapters I had read the previous day, or worse, that very morning. The difficulty this week of compiling a list of my favourite books of the year — and the predictability of that list (to be posted soon) — made it very clear that not only did I read less than previous years, I rarely strayed off the beaten path.”

Anybody that exhibits such a great level of candor is someone I want to pay attention to more in the future.

Here’s how the History Channel describes the show:

“What if the history you knew was only half the story? Brad Meltzer’s Decoded investigates the other half: the secret history of the symbols and codes that surround us everyday. Best-selling author Brad Meltzer has been writing novels for more than a decade. He has studied and written about some of the most revered institutions and documents in human history, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the Presidency, the Secret Service, Wall Street and the Bible. Brad has assembled a team to investigate the countless clues and theories uncovered through his years of research, but unexplored until now. From the dollar bill to the first Presidential Codes, the hidden messages of the Statue of Liberty and the ciphers protecting the location of lost Confederate gold, the team uncovers the truth behind history’s most provocative secrets.”

The show looks to be an interesting premise, plus I’m jealous that his show is sponsored by Porsche and that the hosts get to drive a Porsche as part of the show. I look forward to seeing it on December 2.

The Ballad of Gram Parsons and His Cosmic American Music

Over the past few years, my increasing interest in Americana music has prompted me to explore its roots. This exploration recently led me to David N. Meyer‘s book, Twenty Thousands Road: The Ballad of Gram Parsons and His Cosmic American Music. As a Georgia native, it surprised me to learn that Parsons spent his earliest years in Waycross, Georgia. But that’s far from the only thing I learned in this engaging book. Meyer was kind enough to discuss the book and his research process in this recent email interview.

Tim O’Shea: In writing about Parsons’ life, considering that his musical career was essentially 10 years, were you surprised you were able to devote 300 pages to that aspect of his life or could you have written more if you had had the time and space (in publishing terms)?

David N. Meyer: I had to be conscious of holding back from writing too much. I found pretty much every detail fascinating, and given how compressed GP’s career was, illuminating as well. And it’s tempting to include every nugget; ask any biographer. So, no, I was not surprised.

O’Shea: Most biographies don’t sport encyclopedias. What motivated you to do one?

Meyer: I imagined a 15-year-old finding this book 15 years from now, and not having any idea who a number of the mentioned musicians, family members and cultural figures were. While ample web resources exist, I wanted to provide context. It’s that completist thing, too. I wanted readers to be able to instantly read and contextualize anyone mentioned in the book. It was also a lot of fun to write.

O’Shea: How key were your interviews with Margaret Fisher in terms of your understanding of Parsons?

Meyer: This is a perceptive question. Margaret Fisher was the single most crucial and enlightening interview for the entire book. There was a well-entrenched myth of the evening of Gram’s death, one that had endured for 30 years and put all the blame on Margaret. She had never been interviewed before and was open and willing to discuss the most painful memories. It’s from Margaret that we have the first credible, sequential account of Gram’s last night.

Margaret also provided a clear picture of the social life of Jacksonville when she and Gram were in affiliated private high schools there. She has a rare insight into Gram as a young man, and the world of southern privilege that shaped him and her. She was also candid about addiction and the drug lifestyle of her and Gram’s time.

O’Shea: Was it early or fairly far along in the writing process of this book when you felt that you understood Parsons?

Meyer: I can describe Gram, I can predict how he might respond to certain situations, I can make an educated guess at his motivations for certain actions and I feel intuitively and rationally that I have an understanding and an insight into his music.

As for understanding Gram Parsons, I can’t claim I do. The more I learned of how he acted, how he responded to various turns in his life and the more I listened to his music, the more clear it became that on some fundamental level Gram Parsons would remain opaque to me. One of the greatest challenges of the book was to communicate what I learned of Gram, and what remained mysterious. I don’t think it’s uncommon for biographers to discover that the deeper they go into their subjects’ lives, the more the essence of the subject drifts off, just out of reach.I often had this dream-like sense of Gram as a cypher, and what I learned could feel as obscuring as it did clarifying. Gram could be predictable and yet mysterious even those with whom he was most intimate. And everyone I talked to – everyone – found a basic mystery, a primal unknowable core that they could not penetrate. And in his last three or four years, that primal mystery was further obscured by drugs and alcohol. I think the best path to understanding Gram is to listen to his music.

O’Shea: Why do you so strongly dislike the Eagles? Was this an opinion you formed while researching the book?

Meyer: I had always found the Eagles music and personae deeply irritating. (Though, like everyone else in the world, I have the lyrics to at least four of their songs engraved in my memory.) Before I started the book I found their music repetitive, insincere, cheesy, sexist, faux-profound and moronic. Also, they always seemed to be such assholes. At the same time, I’m moved – in spite of myself – by Desperado and admire the band for covering a Tom Waits song [Ol' 55] and, one assumes, allowing him the financial freedom to make his great later albums. And Bernie Leadon disproved the asshole theory (at least regarding him) a thousand times over by his generosity, patience, and willingness to explain aspects of music to me that no one else ever made clear. My understanding of the pedal steel guitar grew exponentially after one of our conversations. As I said in the book, they took every aspect of Gram’s music and made it as stupid, mass market, predictable, dull, self-aggrandizing and obvious as they could….The more I learned of Gram’s musical progress, and of the burgeoning country-rock scene in LA, the clearer it became that the Eagles took the absolute worst of every musical virtue of country and turned it up to 11.

O’Shea: What first made you interested in writiting this bio, the music or legend of Gram Parsons?

Meyer: As I wrote in my intro, I heard Gram’s voice floating out of a dorm window onto a quad in Chapel Hill NC and that was it. I ran up the stairs to the room his voice emerged from, and bought the GP/Grevious Angel LPs the next day. I’ve been obsessed with Gram ever since.

O’Shea: Who among your many interviews were the least and most reticent to talk to you?

Meyer: Margaret Fisher was the most reticent who finally agreed to speak. But Jim Stafford, Emmylou Harris, Phil Kaufman, Gram’s wife at the time of his death, and Chris Hillman were the most reticent – they wouldn’t talk to me at all. A couple of those wanted money to be interviewed, and of course I would not pay. The Snively family was remarkably ready to talk, and were hugely helpful, as was Chris Etheridge.

O’Shea: When you delved into Parsons’ family history and did your interviews in Waycross, Georgia, were you surprised to find folks still willing to talk about the family (considering by the time of your research, they’d been gone from the town for well over 30 years)?

Meyer: No I was not surprised at all. That’s the way of small towns; all of Gram’s contemporaries in Waycross and Winter Haven remembered him as someone special, and the Parsons/Snivelys were the most glamorous folks in both towns. Folks were a bit obsessed with them, and Gram’s death cemented that obsession. It’s important to remember that Gram was not famous and not regarded as influential when he died. For the people in both towns, he was a home-town boy who pursued an inexplicable career (rock star?) and died of drugs. That’s how they remembered him.

O’Shea: Given the number of fascinating musicians you interviewed in the course of this book, have you found yourself tempted to pursue a biography of any of them?

Meyer: Not so much other musicians, but I very much wanted to write, and pitched unsucessfully, a biography of a group of insanely cool, forward-thinking and acting groovesters in whose orbit Gram moved, people whom you could reasonably argue invented the Sixties. And I’d love to write about James Burton, who’s seen and done it all.

O’Shea: In covering a subject like Parsons, a person who’s life was heavily shaped by addiction, did it ever get too depressing for you–did you ever have to step away from the book just for your own well-being or were you careful to guard against getting overwhelmed?

Meyer: I couldn’t stay away from both time and money constraints, but yes, the constant interviewing of junkies and ex-junkies proved really depressing. Margaret Fisher is quite insightful about her own addiction, but she is the exception that proves the rule. I got really tired of drug stories, and grew to truly despise the romantic, Dionysian myths that sprang up around the early and drug-derived deaths of that era (Gram, Hendrix, Joplin, Lowell George, etc.). The saddest lesson of writing this book is how little romance accrues to addiction and its consequences.

O’Shea: In writing this book do you hope readers take away an appreciation of how much Parsons influenced American music–up to even today?

Meyer: Very much so. I made some grandiose claims in the introduction to alert readers to how seminal Gram remains in the dominant musical trope of our day – that of appropriation and the blurring of boundaries between one sort of music and another. Sadly, mainstream commercial country has turned more toward the Eagles and less to Gram, though the rock aspects in mainstream country could be connected to Gram easily.

O’Shea: Are you in the midst of developing your next book?

Meyer: I am – I’m going to write about The Bee Gees for Da Capo books.

O’Shea: Is there anything you’d like to discuss that I neglected to ask you about?

Meyer: Writing the Gram book really opened me up to the world of country music and how many great, moving singers sprang from that world. So I’d urge everyone to listen to the Louvin Brothers, Wynn Stewart, Webb Pierce, Ernest Tubb, Lefty Frizzel, Conway Twitty, Porter Wagoner, Charlie Pride, George Jones, Buck Owens, Patsy Cline…even now, with all their success and fame, I think they’re underrated as emotional interpreters of American music.