Telling The Story Of Jerry Falwell

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Media Issues

(AP)

Journalists covering the deaths of controversial figures like Jerry Falwell must deal with two sometimes contradictory impulses: The noble impulse not to speak ill of the dead, and the journalistic impulse to tell the full story.

Falwell was an important figure – though perhaps not as important as members of the media thought. He was both passionately admired and passionately reviled. Late in life he made a number of ludicrous comments, chief among them his claim that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America" were in part responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. (He later apologized.)

Falwell also said, as Timothy Noah notes, that "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." He claimed that feminists "just need a man in the house." He argued that evangelical environmental activism is the work of Satan. And let's not even get into the whole Tinky Winky thing.

The "Evening News" coverage of Falwell's passing included two packages, one on his life and the other tied to last night's Republican presidential debate. The packages were evenhanded and addressed both Falwell's successes and the comments that made him so controvertial. Katie Couric also interviewed Reverend Robert Schuller and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, both of whom heaped praise on Falwell. At the end of the show, she spoke to CBS News' Jeff Greenfield and Douglas Brinkley. The latter, especially, did not cast Falwell in a positive light.

Here's part of their exchange, from the Nexis transcript:

COURIC: And, Doug, he did blame the "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays" and others for helping to make the September 11th attacks happen. How did that affect his standing, in your view?

BRINKLEY: Well, many people started writing him off as a joke. He was a vibrant political force in the 1980s but by 2001, Falwell was kind of comedy fodder for people. The feminists never liked him in the United States. He was always warring with the women's movement. In many ways he's a backlash figure. He was opposed to the great society and opposed to some of the progressive liberal high watermarks of the 1960s, and certainly he wanted--his returning to family values was returning to women being in the kitchen, in many ways.

I think that's a pretty fair characterization – at least as fair as Schuller's claim earlier in the show that Falwell was "prepared to pay the price with [his] life if [he] needed to" for his beliefs. Ultimately, portraying the whole individual -- warts and all -- has to be the bottom line for journalists when it comes to summing up the life of a public figure. The "Evening News" was right to leave the hagiographies to the eulogists.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

18 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 18 Comments


by sty1 May 19, 2007 9:03 AM EDT: Thank you for taking this demon off the planet. He was a top five lowlife. I hope his family and friends follow him as soon as possible. It would be a much better place for all. Thank you so much Holy Spirit for answering me with this wonderful death. YEEHAAA; Reply to this comment


by sty1 May 19, 2007 9:03 AM EDT: Thank you for taking this demon off the planet. He was a top five lowlife. I hope his family and friends follow him as soon as possible. It would be a much better place for all. Thank you so much Holy Spirit for answering me with this wonderful death. YEEHAAA; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 May 18, 2007 7:03 PM EDT: "Are you saying people are forced to be uneducated? Anyone with access to a library or a computer can educate themselves quite well. I would give a computer or two away to ppl who would educate themselves with it."
Posted by jburdman7 at 02:06 PM : May 18, 2007

People, lets just say like Mexicans don%u2019t see the need for education because even the educated people in their country can%u2019t make as much as a non-educated labor worker in the United States.

Also, we have seen our very own middle class with work experience and education see their jobs being sent over seas, and earning potential diminishing against the rate of inflation.; Reply to this comment


by jburdman7 May 18, 2007 5:06 PM EDT: Are you saying people are forced to be uneducated? Anyone with access to a library or a computer can educate themselves quite well. I would give a computer or two away to ppl who would educate themselves with it.

But 99 out of 100 times I am afraid the computer will be loaded with video games and porn. Now Im not talking about Hispanics here. It doesnt matter. Humans enslave themselves with stupidity. Its not a race issue.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 May 18, 2007 12:45 PM EDT: Well so far, as I sit back and observe the Right Wing Extremists divulge their intolerance towards people of Hispanic Culture and a Romance Language. The Conservative Republic Party has created a quandary for themselves. The elite fascist visionaries desire the United States to be controlled by the top 2% while the rest of the population will be forced into an underpaid, under educated, and under skilled slave class. This type of two class system is already in effect in Mexico.

The Republic Party has been, and will continue their conservative agenda into the realization of this trance. What most Republics don't realize is that amnesty and low paid, unskilled workers flooding the United States contributes towards their (or, perceived) vision for America. The dilemma rests between the yearning for a Fascist Conservative Agenda and their Bigoted, Racists, and intolerant attitude towards the Hispanic Culture.; Reply to this comment


by jburdman7 May 17, 2007 8:52 PM EDT: I see many have posted here on Falwell's divisiveness. And we are told by these posters that divisiveness = bad.

Then these same posters go on to divide in their own ways. You see, some classes are allowed to divide, and others not. It all depends on if the PC pollice considers your group affiliation a protected class. Of which Christians are not. Is tolerance a two way street?

Enough on that. Let me also say that good division is good. Bad division is bad. Dividing ideas that ruin our republic, from those which help, is good division. Dividing classes to incite class warfare, is bad division.

So to all you anti-divisive posters, are you ready to call John Edwards, "DIVISIVE"?

Oh, no! Thats division you like and support.

Double standard, called out. Check mate. Go deal with your bad, bigoted, intolerant selves.; Reply to this comment


by londoninny May 17, 2007 4:27 PM EDT: I would prefer to get my "NEWS" from the Daily Show than the Murdoch owned "Faux News" Network, America's Stasi Propaganda Machine. The notion that some view intellectually bankrupt meatheads like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as legitimate journalists is more scarey than it is funny. John Stewart is a more credible commentator on the state of our culture. Jerry Falwell was a devisive self promoting self righteous, godless political figure. Men of god do not try to divide god's children regardless of their socioeconomic status, political or cultural beliefs. You must love all of god's children, including the gay ones and not only those who worship in your manner.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 May 17, 2007 3:42 PM EDT: Falwell must have said, "May the good lord strike me down" maybe one too many times?; Reply to this comment


by shingles1 May 17, 2007 2:49 PM EDT: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."

And I guess "Death is the wrath of a just God against Jerry Falwell."; Reply to this comment


by ancient6 May 17, 2007 1:39 PM EDT: Jerry Falwell was a self-appointed egangelist touting a religion based on the principals of love, mercy and non-judgement. Yet he distributed hate, non-forgiveness and bigotry at every opportunity. He pandered to the ignorant and uneducated.

To speak ill of the dead inacurately is mean and petty but to remember them accurately and take a lesson from their lives, good and bad, is necessary to the growth of our person and our culture.

To spew hate generates hate - not a positive force in the growth of man - and Jerry Falwell spewed hate. Perhaps somewhere, sometime he preached love and forgiveness and understanding but when he could grab a national sound bite he used it to put down, put out and isolate societial segments.

If there is an afterlife,then today he knows the truth and the consequences of his philosophy.; Reply to this comment