counter create hit The Place to Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

The Place to Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News

Availability: Ready to download

Roger Mudd joined CBS in 1961, and as the congressional correspondent, became a star covering the historic Senate debate over the 1964 Civil Right Act. Appearing at the steps of Congress every morning, noon, and night for the twelve weeks of filibuster, he established a reputation as a leading political reporter. Mudd was one of half a dozen major figures in the stable of Roger Mudd joined CBS in 1961, and as the congressional correspondent, became a star covering the historic Senate debate over the 1964 Civil Right Act. Appearing at the steps of Congress every morning, noon, and night for the twelve weeks of filibuster, he established a reputation as a leading political reporter. Mudd was one of half a dozen major figures in the stable of CBS News broadcasters at a time when the network's standing as a provider of news was at its peak. In The Place to Be, Mudd tells of how the bureau worked: the rivalries, the egos, the pride, the competition, the ambitions, and the gathering frustrations of conveying the world to a national television audient in thirty minutes minus commercials. It is the story of a unique TV news bureau, unmatched in its quality, dedication, and professionalism. It shows what TV journalism was once like and what it's missing today.


Compare
Ads Banner

Roger Mudd joined CBS in 1961, and as the congressional correspondent, became a star covering the historic Senate debate over the 1964 Civil Right Act. Appearing at the steps of Congress every morning, noon, and night for the twelve weeks of filibuster, he established a reputation as a leading political reporter. Mudd was one of half a dozen major figures in the stable of Roger Mudd joined CBS in 1961, and as the congressional correspondent, became a star covering the historic Senate debate over the 1964 Civil Right Act. Appearing at the steps of Congress every morning, noon, and night for the twelve weeks of filibuster, he established a reputation as a leading political reporter. Mudd was one of half a dozen major figures in the stable of CBS News broadcasters at a time when the network's standing as a provider of news was at its peak. In The Place to Be, Mudd tells of how the bureau worked: the rivalries, the egos, the pride, the competition, the ambitions, and the gathering frustrations of conveying the world to a national television audient in thirty minutes minus commercials. It is the story of a unique TV news bureau, unmatched in its quality, dedication, and professionalism. It shows what TV journalism was once like and what it's missing today.

30 review for The Place to Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News

  1. 5 out of 5

    Christopher

    I very much enjoyed Roger Mudd's book - which centers mainly around his time at CBS. It is frank and honest about the personalities of the network -- from Mudd's days at its affiliate WTOP in Washington, DC to competing with Dan Rather as the successor to Walter Cronkite, the anchor of the CBS Evening News. Mudd's tone is self-assured, and he appears to hold back nothing from his recollection of others in his office - from their own personal peculiarities to their interactions with others in the I very much enjoyed Roger Mudd's book - which centers mainly around his time at CBS. It is frank and honest about the personalities of the network -- from Mudd's days at its affiliate WTOP in Washington, DC to competing with Dan Rather as the successor to Walter Cronkite, the anchor of the CBS Evening News. Mudd's tone is self-assured, and he appears to hold back nothing from his recollection of others in his office - from their own personal peculiarities to their interactions with others in the bureau. For instance, Dan Rather comes off initially as friendly with Mudd (he was on the Mudd's "dinner party list"), but according to the author, their relationship became less collegial once Rather realized he was in line for Cronkite's job. But I was heartened to read here that in recent months, Rather and Mudd have mended fences, of a fashion. CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, not unlike commentator commentator Eric Sevareid, comes off as aloof and vindictive toward Mudd - Cronkite and he crossed swords early and often, and in my own view, this contributed to Mudd's not getting the nod for the anchor chair. But Mudd sees himself as reluctant to accept such a position - even if were offered to him. He thought of the job as that of a glorified news reader - where news was basically repackaged from wire stories gathered earlier in the day. But he acknowledges the prestige the position carries, and I think this was part of the reason why he resented the way the whole matter of selecting Cronkite's successor was handled. Following this episode, Mudd did something he previously thought unthinkable - he bolted for NBC News. Bill Small, who ran the CBS Washington Bureau, comes off as a very thoughtful, wise, and decent manager, and Mudd respects him greatly. But Mudd's colleague of Watergate fame, Daniel Schorr, comes off far worse. Schorr was involved in the "Pike Papers" (on illegal CIA and FBI activities) controversy in the mid-1970s. With a possible lawsuit against the network hanging in the air, Schorr held back the fact that it was he who had leaked the papers to Clay Felker of the "Village Voice", who happened to be fellow CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl's boyfriend. Needless to say, everyone suspected Stahl and there were meetings held to decide her future with the network. But eventually it was determined that Schorr had himself leaked the documents, and as a result, Schorr resigned from CBS. Mudd is characteristically candid in describing this, and other similarly prickly episodes. All the while, Mudd is critical of his own behavior, particularly around the anchor selection process. He confesses to not being much of a self-promoter, and that he allowed the events to drive him, and not the other way around. Overall, I found this to be a very entertaining and touching memoir; Mudd has a lot to say, and what he does say is extensively documented. He inteviewed countless former office mates, and was relieved to say they were all eager to discuss their own roles in the network and to set the record straight. It all adds up to an entertaining and thoroughly believable account. I was impressed by Mudd's candor, and this is the main reason why I would highly recommend this book to anyone - but particularly those who are interested in newsgathering and current events.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Mary

    I enjoyed reading this book – covered a time that I largely remember (I graduated from high school in Arlington Virginia in the late 1960s) and I do favorably remember the emerging strength of network news at the time. There was nothing in this book that particularly surprised me. The relationship with the Kennedys is particularly interesting. My sense is that Mudd is more in Bobby Kennedy’s pocket than he would care to admit, although there are the concessions from him that RFK let Eugene McCart I enjoyed reading this book – covered a time that I largely remember (I graduated from high school in Arlington Virginia in the late 1960s) and I do favorably remember the emerging strength of network news at the time. There was nothing in this book that particularly surprised me. The relationship with the Kennedys is particularly interesting. My sense is that Mudd is more in Bobby Kennedy’s pocket than he would care to admit, although there are the concessions from him that RFK let Eugene McCarthy be a stalking horse for him, his stepping in once McCarthy was winning primaries certainly does seem opportunistic, and I thought so at the time. There is an interesting contrast between Mudd and his colleagues’ perception of John F. Kennedy, and how they hear (and are surprised to find) that the rest of the country perceives > him. At the top of page 132, he says he was “Astonished because many of us who covered the Congress had quite a different view of the Kennedy presidency, colored by the legislative lethargy of the Hill, the dug-in opposition of southern Democrats, and the snide comments of the Republicans …” A similar, less-than-enamored comment appears on page 115, “Kennedy’s promise of a civil rights bill remained an empty promise until …(Bull Conner)”. There was some disjointedness. Earlier this seems to be Mudd’s memoir, and later it is his researched record. I would have preferred if he had just told us his recollections, and then, perhaps in footnotes, cited what others recalled. The overall rambling, often redundant form works with a personal recollection, but is really awkward when one is reading what is purportedly a report that documents all participant views. I don’t like the redundancy, and it does read like a series of magazine articles or taped recollections, that have been put together in the same book with no editing. For instance, Chapter 49, p 361, interrupts the exciting denouement of Rather getting the CBS anchor rather than Mudd, by telling us how important (or certainly glamorous) the White House beat was, then on page 363, para starting “More than any other…” essentially repeats the same exact information - background stuff, that at best should only have been presented once. (Plus, who decided that Chapter 49 should be there anyway?) In some cases there is run-on information that makes it hard to follow the action – for instance, on page 129 we get a jump from the motorcade in Dallas(where Kennedy was shot) to the funeral cortege, describing the riderless black horse. There are some interesting forshadowings, some which may be more a reflection of remembering back from now than any perception at the time. There are a couple of references to the women’s movement, for instance, which I find unlikely – page119 suggests that women were immediately the next group that would want attention (I do not think this was the perception in 1963) – the reference on page 125 to Utt being anti-women’s lib may be accurate for 1968, but I doubt it. Other elements seem more in place, like Mudd quitting smoking (page 135) and the Surgeon General’s office coming out with warnings. While the reference on page 185 to the presence of television in the House of Representatives is over the top (“Not until July 24, 1974, did the nation fully realize there was such a place as the House of Representatives.”), I do recall that everyone on the Watergate Committee did show up the first day with blue shirts on, because they understood that blue showed up better on tv – clearly the Congress was not used to being interviewed on tv. The top of page 187 reflects the evolution of this – and of course now we have C-span junkies, which dates about from the mid-70s. One major foreshadowing that deserves more attention (Roger, how could you have done it differently so that we did not have 8 second attention spans?) is the question of what gets covered on TV news. Pages 192 – 193 are revealing – the para at the bottom of 192 points out that the CBS office did not have the attention to really understand the intricacies of what was happening on the Hill, and in the middle of page 193, Mudd says “Because television could not easily handle the fine print of legislation, I gravitated toward learning about members’ personalities and idiosyncrasies.” The same thing comes out on page 221, re the interview with RFK: “Rereading my notes and the transcript of the program I was genuinely surprised at how little of the Hickory Hill interview we used and how barely we touched on Vietnam. It was more about the glamour, the atmospherics, the excitement, the burden, the adventure, of being a Kennedy, and the mass-production press operation … shuttling in an d out of his office as if on a conveyor belt.” I do see an ego here, partly deserved because Mudd and CBS did do some good groundbreaking work, but some of it is insufferable –the description of Mudd and Rather refusing to shake hands with Ike Pappas the newcomer (page 204) makes you wonder whatever else about them was so unacceptable. What a bunch of snobs. After reading the book and making notes I did go on line to see what reviews I could find, and was interested to find that the New York Observer also picked up on Mudd and Rather’s snub. As a language nazi, there were some uses of language that bothered me - I think there should have been an editor on this: P 48 – Sylvia Westerman “… literally pitched her tent in the Fontainebleau Hotel bar…” - surely he means figuratively. Page 139 – Dan Rather “… who was campaigning with President Johnson.” - I expect he was covering Johnson’s campaign, and certainly hope so. P 289 - “the network’s motorcycle boys – they were called couriers – …” - actually, CBS’s unique term is “motorcycle boys”, and “couriers” is generic. Item of interest: P 175 – after the episode on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma on March 7, “the legislation began moving at flank speed.” I was not familiar with the term “flank speed” – Wikipedia defines it as follows: Flank speed is a nautical term referring to a ship's true maximum speed, beyond the speed that can be reached by steaming at full speed. Usually, flank speed is reserved for situations in which a ship finds itself in imminent danger, such as coming under attack by aircraft. Flank speed is very fuel-inefficient and often unsustainable because of engine overheating issues.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Thomas Ross

    As an ex-newspaperman, I still enjoy reading about the fields of journalism and broadcast journalism, especially the heyday and the towering figures who helped inspire me in 1977. The men and women at CBS were among them so I enjoyed this memoir of Mudd’s immensely. I had read Rather’s book years ago and never quite knew what to make of him. Mudd I liked and respected because of his straight, no-nonsense approach. It was gratifying to read his account of those years and find him to be what I had As an ex-newspaperman, I still enjoy reading about the fields of journalism and broadcast journalism, especially the heyday and the towering figures who helped inspire me in 1977. The men and women at CBS were among them so I enjoyed this memoir of Mudd’s immensely. I had read Rather’s book years ago and never quite knew what to make of him. Mudd I liked and respected because of his straight, no-nonsense approach. It was gratifying to read his account of those years and find him to be what I had assessed although, my God, the egos of these folks. He freely admits that it had a grip on himself as well. He holds back not a wit here, giving the reader an inside glimpse of the personalities and egos of arguably the best network news bureau in DC in the 60s and 70s. The bitterness of being shoved aside for Rather to replace Uncle Walter seems to have lessened through the reporting and writing of this book. I’m glad. I always wanted to be an executive editor of my own newspaper. That was the goal. I was unhorsed, as Mudd aptly calls it, much earlier along my career than Mudd, but I still feel it. I get it. I like that he met with Rather and they talked and there seems to be an uneasy peace there. I don’t think I could ever do that with my Gannett nemesis.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Lisa

    #79 of 120 books pledged to read during 2019

  5. 5 out of 5

    Sharon

    Interesting read, esp. the bits on news people that I knew.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Tad

    Mudd eschewed the typical memoir and wrote a book about the heyday of TV news and CBS News. For any journalist, it's a kick. For non-journalists, there's some great insight into the J world and the writing is crisp, interesting and loaded with great stories. Mudd, who started out as a print journalistm, was in Washington with JFK and RFK and during Watergate. There are some first-rate stories. For one, Mudd covered Capitol Hill for years, including the famous filibuster designed to stop civil ri Mudd eschewed the typical memoir and wrote a book about the heyday of TV news and CBS News. For any journalist, it's a kick. For non-journalists, there's some great insight into the J world and the writing is crisp, interesting and loaded with great stories. Mudd, who started out as a print journalistm, was in Washington with JFK and RFK and during Watergate. There are some first-rate stories. For one, Mudd covered Capitol Hill for years, including the famous filibuster designed to stop civil rights legislation in 1964. At one point, Sen. John Tower, R-Texas, was speaking in a deserted Senate chamber at dinner hour. Only Sen. Tom McIntyre was there, and he was presiding. Tower looked at McIntyre and said, "Mr. President, may we have order?" Great anecdote. Mudd also tells the story of Lillian Brooks Brown, television makeup artist to presidents from JFK to Clinton. Brown covered up the fact Nixon had been crying the night he resigned the presidency. Called to the White House, Brown couldn't get Nixon's makeup to stop streaking because the president's tears would not quit. She said he was sobbing as he sat alone with her in the sitting room off the Oval Office. Finally, she reminded him how Nixon's excitable dog disrupted the hanging of Christmas tree ornaments one year and she suggested putting the dog in the bathroom. She led the way and was suprised that it was Nixon who brought the dog behind her. Somehow, the door to the bathroom closed behind him and Brown found herself trapped in a bathroom with the president of the United States and his dog. The story calmed Nixon, the makeup worked, the president returned to the Oval Office and announced his resignation on TV. In the same chapter, Mudd captures the goofiness of reporters with a quick story about writer Jack Germond finally getting on TV. Until his break on CBS' Meet the Press, Germond wasn't considered a TV face. During the night before his debut on the Sunday morning show, his buddies Jules Witcover and Tom Ottenad burst into his hotel room and began shaking talcum powder all over him, yelling, "Makeup, makeup!" Oh, and Walter Cronkite had a magic number: 5-and-a-half minutes. He demanded that much face or voice time in every news broadcast he anchored. The most striking part of the book, and it is terribly underplayed, is the battle between Mudd and Dan Rather to replace Cronkite as the anchor of the CBS Evening News. Rather comes off badly, but Mudd gives Rather a chance to defend every complaint. Certainly a different way to write a book, but very refreshing. The sense one has reading one person's side in a book and wondering how realistic it is was replaced by wonder at the complexities of human interaction as the two men present their sides. Of course, Mudd gets the last word, and Rather does look bad, but I tend to buy Mudd's version.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Debbie Jacob

    Roger Mudd's The Place to Be...is a rare treat and an important contribution to the history of television journalism. Funny, profound, insightful and spoken with great finesse, this is a captivating story of Mudd's journey as well as the building of a television news network. It's also important in capturing the transition between radio and television journalism. Mudd's vivid writing style is an unbelievable treat.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Paul Lunger

    Roger Mudd's "The Place To Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News" is the story of the Washington Bureau at CBS during Mudd's time there from the 1960s until his leaving CBS for NBC in 1980. The book is a fascinating look at just what made that bureau tick & goes in depth as to how important that cast of characters were many of whom would become household names for CBS & other networks in the decades to come. Each step of the story tells of the ups & downs of the news industr Roger Mudd's "The Place To Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News" is the story of the Washington Bureau at CBS during Mudd's time there from the 1960s until his leaving CBS for NBC in 1980. The book is a fascinating look at just what made that bureau tick & goes in depth as to how important that cast of characters were many of whom would become household names for CBS & other networks in the decades to come. Each step of the story tells of the ups & downs of the news industry & just what it took for CBS & Walter Cronkite to rise to number one in the ratings. The book is engaging as we the reader get an insiders look at just what it was like working in DC & the lengths sometimes that needed to be employed for a story. There is a lot of time spent on Watergate, but that is to be expected considering the era Mudd worked in. Granted the book somewhat ends abruptly when we reach the decision to pick Dan Rather as Cronkite's successor on the CBS Evening News, but it still very well done. Overall a book that I'd recommend for anyone with an interest in not only the news but also American history as well.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Maria C.

    I started reading this book because I had read the biography of Cronkite, and was reading Dan Rather (anchor of CBS), and wanted to get different viewpoints. First, Roger Mudd's writing is much better organized and well written. Second, he gives you a flavor of washington and CBS that is really lacking in other books. He really manages to pull in the personal, professional and intrapersonal relationships at home, work, and at CBS, and between the CBS bureau and the washington CBS bureau. He is a I started reading this book because I had read the biography of Cronkite, and was reading Dan Rather (anchor of CBS), and wanted to get different viewpoints. First, Roger Mudd's writing is much better organized and well written. Second, he gives you a flavor of washington and CBS that is really lacking in other books. He really manages to pull in the personal, professional and intrapersonal relationships at home, work, and at CBS, and between the CBS bureau and the washington CBS bureau. He is a good writer; and it seems to me that Roger Mudd represents the new type of reporter/anchorman; for he never spent any time in Vietnam; Cambodia (nor do most of the reporters today); instead his post was outside on capitol hill. A privileged and safe post; and not like some of the other reporters of CBS or other networks who covered war, mayhem, and disease. Roger Mudd is the new kind of reporter and anchor, probably more at home with todays reporters who just report from studios in New York or Washington, or in the U.S.., but never ventures out.

  10. 5 out of 5

    judy

    I loved the book but I'm not sure many people would. In the first half, Mudd names people that only those inside DC network news circles would know. Really gracious of him to note their names and contributions for the record. CBS couldn't have done it without them. The second half of the book takes on the reporting of more major issues of the day with some wonderful behind the scenes commentary. He lets out some secrets but never departs from his gentlemanly self. I have never understood how Mud I loved the book but I'm not sure many people would. In the first half, Mudd names people that only those inside DC network news circles would know. Really gracious of him to note their names and contributions for the record. CBS couldn't have done it without them. The second half of the book takes on the reporting of more major issues of the day with some wonderful behind the scenes commentary. He lets out some secrets but never departs from his gentlemanly self. I have never understood how Mudd was dethroned as Uncle Walter's successor in favor of Rather. Mudd helped with some reasons but it's still a mystery. There was never a question who Rather was--and I mean that negatively. I keep wondering if the decision would have been the same had the powers that be realized that Rather would keep Cronkite from coming back in any form. Spilled milk but in another cliche, the devil got his due--finally.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Michael Todd

    This book is a reminder of what a proud tradition journalism used to be. The journalists Mudd highlights in this book, such as Bob Trout, Eric Sevareid, Dan Schorr, Marvin Kalb, George Herman...came through the Washington bureau at a time when reporters were expected to be good writers. Mudd took great pains to provide background on the people he worked with, competition with NBC, the battles with network brass in New York, scrutiny from the government (especially after CBS News produced "The Se This book is a reminder of what a proud tradition journalism used to be. The journalists Mudd highlights in this book, such as Bob Trout, Eric Sevareid, Dan Schorr, Marvin Kalb, George Herman...came through the Washington bureau at a time when reporters were expected to be good writers. Mudd took great pains to provide background on the people he worked with, competition with NBC, the battles with network brass in New York, scrutiny from the government (especially after CBS News produced "The Selling of the Pentagon") and an overall description of how the Washington Bureau worked. He gets into the competitive nature of journalists fighting for airtime. Yes, there's also a chapter devoted to him being passed over to succeed Cronkite in favor of Dan Rather and the events preceding that same day when he cleaned out his desk and walked out of CBS.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Matt Philipps

    I wanted to like it more than I did I think. It was obviously impeccably researched-which makes sense. I think it got a lot better around half way through as though he remembered this was a book not a tv broadcast. It was a good period piece and seems like it must have really been that way. Compared to other stories of the time though about xerox park or NASA the characters/people were less sympathetic. They were not innovating for their own creativity or because they were patriotic but in order I wanted to like it more than I did I think. It was obviously impeccably researched-which makes sense. I think it got a lot better around half way through as though he remembered this was a book not a tv broadcast. It was a good period piece and seems like it must have really been that way. Compared to other stories of the time though about xerox park or NASA the characters/people were less sympathetic. They were not innovating for their own creativity or because they were patriotic but in order to beat other stations in the ratings, which isn't bad but was not inspiring. On the other hand I wish all history books in college were written closer to this style as you did get a real sense of the time the people and the scenarios they faced.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Judy

    This memoir primarily covers the years 1961 when Roger Mudd arrived in Washington, D.C. to work at the CBS news bureau there until 1980 when he left after losing the CBS anchor's job to Dan Rather. Since I grew up in D.C. and it remains my emotional home, I was very interested in his descriptions of working in the nation's capital during those years. Mudd obviously doesn't suffer from self-doubt which is probably a necessary character trait to excel at the national level in journalism. His take This memoir primarily covers the years 1961 when Roger Mudd arrived in Washington, D.C. to work at the CBS news bureau there until 1980 when he left after losing the CBS anchor's job to Dan Rather. Since I grew up in D.C. and it remains my emotional home, I was very interested in his descriptions of working in the nation's capital during those years. Mudd obviously doesn't suffer from self-doubt which is probably a necessary character trait to excel at the national level in journalism. His take on the political changes in Washington and in the news industry during the pre-Regan years was extremely interesting, but there was little new information revealed. Most interesting were the personal moments that he had with many of our nation's political leaders over the years.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Craig Brantley

    A very interesting read. There’s no doubt that Mudd is still bitter toward Rather for getting the anchor gig after Walters retirement and he makes that clearly evident from the very beginning. With that being said this book chronicles an amazing time in our countries history and Mudd’s first hand accounts of events that shaped the 60’s and 70’s are riveting I have all new respect for Mudd and a totally different opinion of Daniel Schorr. I highly recommend this to anyone who remembers the Cronki A very interesting read. There’s no doubt that Mudd is still bitter toward Rather for getting the anchor gig after Walters retirement and he makes that clearly evident from the very beginning. With that being said this book chronicles an amazing time in our countries history and Mudd’s first hand accounts of events that shaped the 60’s and 70’s are riveting I have all new respect for Mudd and a totally different opinion of Daniel Schorr. I highly recommend this to anyone who remembers the Cronkite era.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Kevin

    "Being the news junkie that I am, I enjoyed this book. What is must have been like to share cubicles with Dan Rather, Daniel Schorr (who Mudd didn't like), Robert Pierpoint, Leslie Stahl, Richard C Hottelet and Phil Jones. Working the Vietnam war and Watergate. Wow. What it must have been like to get "the call" from Uncle Walter in New York with a compliment on your last story. Maybe a little gossipy, but what the heck."

  16. 4 out of 5

    Chris

    A solid memoir of the good ole days of television news. Not essential, but a fun, quick read. Mudd's writing style is a little odd, but only because he writes as if he were writing for the news. He captures the cutthroat nature of the news business really well, and is very frank about his colleagues. Beach reading+.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Don

    Mudd tells the story of the Washington bureau of CBS news, which he claims is the best ever. I can't argue with him. There were plenty of interesting anecdotes, but Roger fails in following the narrative arc that he aims for. Still, it works just as well as a memoir--which Roger freely admits near the end that he would not have been able to sell that book.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Cheryl

    Page 159... Can you find the typo? ....Or is it??? "The legislative process was really not so much a process as it was a changing mixture of tradition, arcane rules, bruised egos, hardened pubic opinion, soaring vanities, senatorial ignorance, genuine patriotism, posturing, knee-jerk reactions, low motives, and high principles."

  19. 5 out of 5

    HBalikov

    Mudd was: 1)the key man for decade's in reporting on politics in our nation's capitol; 2) supposed to be Cronkite's successor; 3) maybe one of the last in the Edward R. Murrow mold at CBS; 4) a subsequent success at PBS and The History Channel. A "fair and balanced" and engaging memoire.

  20. 4 out of 5

    JRB

    Mudd condenses the major stories he covered into chapters that reveal his thoughts on the work he was doing and tricks of the trade.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Nancy

    Roger Mudd's memoirs. He is a good writer and sheds new light (to me anyway) on many events and gives an interesting look at how broadcast news was put together.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Cathy Ingersoll

    loved it. grew up watching these television icons. loved all the history,and how the nedia,even back 30 years ago,was affecting our views of the world

  23. 4 out of 5

    Abby

    Great mix of memoir and journalism. I really enjoyed this!

  24. 4 out of 5

    Joe Hilley

    This is a well-written insider's story about the CBS News Washington Bureau, with a glimpse of Roger Mudd's life. A very good book. Mudd should write more.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Laura

    The Place to Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News by Roger Mudd (2008)

  26. 5 out of 5

    Bob Hochstein

    Fantastic book from a well respected news reporter talking about when network news the primary source for news and what a job the networks did in the day.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Marc McAfee

  28. 4 out of 5

    Phil Meadows

  29. 5 out of 5

    Andy

  30. 5 out of 5

    Larry

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.