Reporters, Authors

We have had the pleasure through several decades as a member of the Capitol Press Corps of working with two or three (at least) generations of outstanding reporters.  And that tradition continues with a corps of dedicated professionals who often spend more hours at the Capitol than our elected representatives in the House and Senate do (somebody has to stick around after they go home and write the stories that tell you what they did with, for, and to us).

It is often said that reporters record the first draft of history.  And it’s true.  We don’t often ponder that  issue because the daily reporting of news becomes so consuming that there is little time to think of the value of our writings ten, fifty, or a hundred years from now.  But that’s as it should be.  We write of contemporary issues and actions for contemporary consumers.  The aggregate of what we write constitutes a historical narrative of our times, a record to which future scholars can apply context that is often not visible as events unfold.

Sometimes members of the press corps write later drafts of history.  Lew Larkin, who had reported for several years for the Kansas City Star when I came to the Capitol, wrote several books. Jerena East Giffen, who became the press corps’ first woman bureau chief when she headed the UPI bureau in the 50s, has written about First Ladies of Missouri and Jefferson City schools.  Terry Ganey, who headed the AP bureau before a long career as bureau chief for the the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has written of Anheuser-Busch and of a well-known murder case.  The PD’s Tim O’Neil has written of St.Louis mobs and crimes since leaving the Capitol press corps.  Daryl Levings, who was a Capitol reporter before he became an editor at the Star, brought out a Civil War novel a year or so ago. Former Missourinet reporter James Morris has penned several books including a ground-breaking biography of Joseph Pulitzer (once a Missouri state representative as he was becoming a controversial newspaper owner in St. Louis). Now, Rudi Keller of the Columbia Daily Tribune is about to bring out his first book.

A century and a half ago journalists were writing about the Civil War, a terrible time for the badly divided state of Missouri.  We were an occupied state run by an interim government that had seized control when the Confederate-leaning elected Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and several other officers and legislators fled Jefferson City before the oncoming Union troops could capture them as they captured the Capital City.

Rudi has been mining the microfilmed newspapers at the State Historical Society of Missouri for the first-hand accounts compiled by our ancestor-reporters as well as personal accounts left behind in books, diaries, letters, and other records at the society, the Missouri State Archives, and other sources, to write daily columns for the Tribune about the intrusion of the war into the lives of people in mid-Missouri.  He’s digging out the human stories of people caught in that conflict, some of which he shares with me as we sit together at the Senate press table.

One of the joys of researching and writing history is the discovery of these forgotten accounts, these first drafts, and bringing them to new generations who will gain greater understanding of the humanity of the past and the way those times remain part of our culture.  The passage of time sucks real life out of historical periods and leaves us only with cold accounts of movements  and trends, presidents and conflicts.

But Rudi’s book, “Life During Wartime: 1861: The War Comes to Missouri,” pumps real life into the accounts that too often focus on the strategies of that war.  It is a compilation of his articles with additional material there wasn’t space for in the newspaper.  He hopes to have additional volumes for succeeding years.

Although his book will focus on mid-Missouri counties, it will record the fears and anxieties, the hopes and ideals, the triumphs and the sorrows, justices and injustices,  compassion and barbarism that were common to people throughout Missouri.

Jim Spainhower, who was a state Representative and later Missouri Treasurer, wrote a book in the 1970s about how he, a Christian Church (Disciiples of Christ) minister, could reconcile  pulpit and politics.  He once told me when my first book came out that authorship of a book is a form of immortality, a capturing of your words in a form that will exist long after the author departs.  There’s a certain satisfaction for authors in that, I suppose and it is driven home if the author has a chance to go the Library of Congress and give a librarian a call slip for one of your books.  A short time later, an attendant brings it to your desk.  And you sit there and you think to yourself that as long as the Library of Congress exists, you will exist, too.  And then you think of the company you will keep  through all those decades to come, centuries, in fact.

Writing history compounds that distinction because in writing of human beings whose lives have been long buried in the columns of old newspapers, and other records, the author provides some of that same immortality for them.

The ancient Egyptians had a saying, “To speak the name of the dead is to make them live again.”  The reporter writing the first draft of history captures those names in contemporary times.  The historian in rediscovering their actions, thoughts, and words makes them live again.  We’ve ordered some copies of Rudi’s book (advance orders are being taken through the Tribune).  We look forward to those Civil War Missourians living again, telling of their lives during those terrible times that remain part of who we are.

There’s another lofty reward that comes to those whose published works appear between the covers of books.  Jim Spainhower mentioned it to me almost three decades ago.  And as a minister, he should know.  “You can begin your prayers now,” he said, “by starting out, ‘O Thou who also has written a book…’”

And that’s being in VERY special company.

Conscience

Reporters in Capitols throughout the country, we suppose, have watched their legislatures get consciences.  More and more proposals are being made and passed excusing more and more people in occupations of broad public service  from serving that public.

Suppose you were to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription for, say, Lipitor, a popular anti-cholesterol medicine.  Suppose the pharmacist said, “I’m sorry. I have a moral objection to dealing with any medications that regulate cholesterol.”

“But I have a prescription from my doctor,” you say.  “Don’t you have to fill a prescription from a doctor who thinks this medication could reduce a life-threatening condition that I have?”

“No, I don’t, ” the pharmacist replies.  “State law says I do not have to stock any medications if I have a moral objection to them.”

There is no state law yet that allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill your prescription for Lipitor. Yet.  But one has been proposed.  Although the sponsor, Senator David Sater, who ran a pharmacy for 29 years, says it’s nothing more than free enterprise, a look at who has testified for it makes clear what it is.

His bill gives pharmacies the right to stock whatever medications they want to stock.  That means, of course, that they can refuse to stock whatever they don’t want to stock.  And if they have a moral objection to any medication, they can refuse to stock it and therefore don’t have to make any medication available that any doctor in his or her professional opinion believes is essential to the health and life of a patient.   “This is no different from a clothing store,” Sater has told a Senate Committee.  A clothing store, he argues, is under no obligation to stock clothing that is not stylish enough to sell or that the proprietor thinks is objectionable.  The decision of what to stock, he says, should be made on the business level.

Except the bill he proposes does not say “business level.”

Testifying for the bill were representatives of the Missouri Family Network, the Missouri Baptist Convention, Missouri Right to Life, the Missouri Pharmacy Association, and Campaign Life Missouri.  As often happens in the process of law-making, the list of people testifying in favor of a bill indicates what the true target of the legislation is even if the proposal is wrapped in seemingly innocuous wording.

There is nothing new in this.  Organizations of all kinds have written self-serving bills that sound like something a well-meaning favorite old uncle might write.

Today the word “conscience” is the word that is being used to try to impose through state law one moral system upon a general public that has a diversity of consciences on a diversity of subjects.

Imagine a civilization in which all people were free to deny rights and services to others because each wished to exercise his or her conscience.

Laws are created, among other reasons, to set the balance between conscience and organized society.  Reporters get to watch those who write the laws seek that balance, to determine whether in a pluralistic society one faith or moral system should be imposed on all, to determine if service to a free general public outweighs a personal standard that can limit that service.

In reporting these stories, we leave it to the public, to the voters, to the competing interests, to determine if it is really true that your personal space ends at the tip of my nose.  And what to do about it.

Brushes with Greatness

If you’re in this business of journalism long enough and you spend a career fortunate enough to wind up in the right places a few times, you might brush up against some great people. They wouldn’t know you if you met them on the street later but that’s okay because you are richer from having touched the hem of their cloak.

There is a difference too easily ignored between being famous and being great. There is a difference between being a celebrity and being famous. I can count the great ones on one hand.

Stan Musial was great. And I got to talk to him once.

In the fall of 1985, the St. Louis Cardinals and the Kansas City Royals played each other in the World Series. The Cardinals went to Kansas City and won the first two games. Governor Ashcroft and his people arranged for a special train, the World Series Special, to carry fans from Kansas City to St. Louis on the travel day. Reporters got to go along. There were St. Louis fans in one car. Kansas City fans in another. Assorted bigwigs here and there. And some retired major league baseball players. And then there was Stan Musial, bigger than any bigwig, a greater fan of the game than any fan of either team, THE ballplayer among the ballplayers on that train.

I’d talked to some fans. I got some words from the ‘wigs. Chatted up some of the retired players. And then somewhere between Jefferson City and St. Louis I decided that if I was ever going to talk to the great Stan Musial, I better assert myself.

A reporter can ask nasty, pointed questions of the highest political officers in the country, of generals, and top scientists, and big-time authors, some celebrities — but those people were never the heroes of you and your fellow Little Leaguers.

So there was Stan Musial.

I introduced myself. He greeted me warmly. I asked if he had a couple of minutes for an interview. “Sure, sit down,” he said, or something to that effect (it’s been 27-plus years, you know). I remembered that the last time the Cardinals traveled by railroad was the day he got his 3,000th hit. The train arrived in Union Station that evening from Chicago and a huge crowd was waiting to celebrate Stan’s achievement. At the time, only seven other players had gotten 3,000 hits. Since we were on a train, I thought it would be an appropriate story to hear him tell.  And he did. He recalled that he told the crowd that night that to celebrate his 3,000 hits, he was calling off school the next day in St. Louis.
The next day he was chagrined (a word I doubt Stan ever used) to learn hundreds of school children skipped school. And he cut loose with that great laugh that many remember him for. I certainly do. It was a wonderful laugh.

Somewhere I still have that recording. I’ve looked through box after box of old cassettes at the Missourinet and I haven’t found it yet.  But I will, and when I do, I’ll post it here.

Stan seldom went anywhere without a harmonica in his pocket. He was famous — but not great — as a harmonica player. I’ve wondered through all these years if he had it with him that day on the train and if I didn’t miss a huge opportunity by not asking him to play it.
I did find the recording of the day the bronze bust of Stan Musial was unveiled in the Hall of Famous Missourians at the Capitol on September 12, 2000. Before the event, Stan held a press conference. If you’d like to hear it, click on the first link below. And if you’d like to hear his remarks in the rotunda at the unveiling ceremony, click on the second link. He’s introduced at the unveiling ceremony by Jack Buck, who also has a bust in the Hall.

And, by the way, at the end of his remarks at the unveiling — he played his harmonica.

AUDIO: Stan Musial bust unveiling press conference
AUDIO: Stan Musial remarks in the rotunda