Curt Gowdy Quotes

It was difficult being a neutral broadcaster - in the people's eyes - because of my association with the Celtics.

We can trust our doctors to be professional, to minister equally to their patients without regard to their political or religious beliefs. But we can no longer trust our professors to do the same.

I pride myself on having a journalistic remove.

I'm one of these people who doesn't say that objectivity is not within our reach. I think if you're a pro, and you're a reporter, you do it. Whether you agree with the guy or not is just quite incidental. It doesn't count at all, really.

I'm only doing my job, and if I score against Mark Hughes' team, it's nothing personal.

Some people accused me of being pro-Muslim in Bosnia, but I realised that our job is to give all sides an equal hearing, but in cases of genocide you can't just be neutral. You can't just say, 'Well, this little boy was shot in the head and killed in besieged Sarajevo and that guy over there did it, but maybe he was upset because he had an argument with his wife.' No, there is no equality there, and we had to tell the truth.

Bertrand Russell used to employ the method of "evidence against interest"; in other words of deciding that a critique of capital punishment, say, carried more weight if it came from a prison governor. (My friend John O'Sullivan puts it like this: If the pope says he believes in God, he's only doing his job; if he says he doesn't believe in God, he may be on to something.)

I think once you start as an announcer, you have to decide what kind of approach you're going to have. I decided very early that I was going to be a reporter, that I would not cheer for the team. I don't denigrate people who do it. It's fine. I think you just have to fit whatever kind of personality you have, and I think my nature was to be more down the middle and that's the way I conducted the broadcasts.

If I were the commissioner of all sports media I would issue an immediate ban on three-person announcing teams on telecasts of live sporting events. In almost all cases three is one voice too many.

Many times, when you do what I do or work in journalism in general, people try to not explicitly present their opinions on topics.

National security advisors are not there to be advocates, generally. They're not there to be partisans, they're not there to be ideologues.

No man can be judge to his own cause.

Where you stand should not depend on where you sit.

I can promise to be sincere, but I cannot promise to be impartial.

Your real progressives are never fair: they are never sufficiently neutral.

For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.

Our impartiality is kept for abstract merit and demerit, which none of us ever saw.

Historians ought to be precise, faithful, and unprejudiced; and neither interest nor fear, hatred nor affection, should make them swerve from the way of truth.

The best defense against partisanship is expertise.

Objectivity means trying to give all sides a hearing. It does not, in my view, mean treating all sides as equal.

If you're the play-by-play announcer, I think it's your job to be better than just saying what's on people's TV screen.

What is called "objectivity," scientific for instance (in which I firmly believe, in a given situation) imposes itself only within a context which is extremely vast, old, firmly established, or rooted in a network of conventions ... and yet which still remains a context.

Listening to both sides does not necessarily bring about a correct judgment.