Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001

For many, King has been an icon, even more so for the "liberal" media. Typically, there is not much media criticism of civil rights leaders or their families.

But here was Stahl, burrowing away – actually, hatcheting away – at Coretta Scott King, Dr. King's widow; his son Dexter, head of the King Center foundation in Atlanta; and Dr. King's other children.

Little was left of their reputations after Stahl was through – though "60 Minutes" never presented one shred of evidence that any King family member had engaged in inappropriate conduct or had misused nonprofit funds.

The "60 Minutes" segment was titled "Selling the Dream" and strongly implied the family was doing something improper and had been "cashing in" on the heroism of the late Dr. King and his high esteem with the public.

Every insinuation and suggestion in the "60 Minutes" Mike Wallace playbook was used to make the family of Dr. King look bad.

Lots of dollar figures were bandied about. The program reported the King family was selling rights to Dr. King's speeches and works, and even his image.

How dare they!

And the King family members refused to speak to "60 Minutes."

What were they hiding?

Like many other Americans, I watched this piece in horror – but with a slightly different perspective.

I was horrified to see a decent, upstanding family have its reputation slaughtered for reasons that were not apparent to the American public.

Let me state, for the record, I disagree with some of Dr. King's views.

For example, I do not believe that nonviolence will solve the world's problems or can deal with evil of the magnitude of Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler.

Dr. King's views on dealing with economic problems often veered sharply left. Too left.

Anyone who has witnessed the massive social spending since Johnson's Great Society has to wonder if it helped.

Welfare programs, in fact, may have done a lot of harm. More than three decades since King's death, government intervention has not done much to help African-Americans.

Though they represent 12 percent of the population, today they only control less than 0.5 percent of the national wealth.

Of, course, Dr. King's "dream" was that all Americans, of whatever color, creed or faith, would be treated equally and accorded the dignity of being children of God.

Since Dr. King's assassination in April 1968, his widow raised their three children quietly on modest resources.

Mrs. King could have been out front, leading demonstrations and engaging in political and financial deals. Instead, with grace and decency, she has sought to preserve and protect her husband's legacy.

The King children, with their family name, could have easily "cashed in" for their personal benefit, taking careers in corporate America or in politics.

The record shows, however, the King kids have stuck to careers in public service rather than being opportunistic. All of the King children are deeply involved in their father's causes and the King Center in Atlanta.

Dexter, King's youngest son, heads the King Center.

King's oldest son Martin is a minister who heads the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the civil rights group once headed by his father.

King's eldest daughter Yolanda is an actress who is also involved in the family foundation and speaks on civil rights and for charitable causes. King's youngest daughter Bernice is an assistant pastor at a church in Atlanta.

Not exactly the picture of a family "on the make."

But still, you have to wonder why a reporter like Stahl, who I guess pulls down an annual salary of $5 million-plus a year for easy work, would be gunning for the family of the slain civil rights leader.

As limousine liberal Stahl knows, King died practically penniless.

Does this mean that his family should live in poverty as well? Forever?

Does this mean that the King family should not benefit from the martyred civil rights leader's writings, work and image?

Does anyone think, for example, that actor John Wayne's family should not be benefiting from his icon status in American society? What about the Kennedy clan?

But we don't hear stories about other families "cashing in" on "60 Minutes," just the Kings.

So that has to make you wonder.

Why is a very liberal network (CBS newsman Bernie Goldberg has confirmed this) and a liberal reporter (of whom I had a high opinion before this story) engaging in an out-and-out smear campaign against the Kings?

Why, with so many questionable activities of current civil rights leaders, is the King family targeted?

I'll take a guess.

The first reason is that CBS has an ax to grind with the King family.

After CBS improperly used footage of Dr. King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech, the King family sued.

Last year, CBS was forced to settle out of court in this lawsuit. It also paid the King Center an undisclosed sum.

Perhaps Stahl's hit job was payback for that.

But there may be other reasons as well.

I recall when the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994.

Soon after, Mrs. King was interviewed by Newsweek. She was asked a loaded question about how she felt about Republicans undoing her husband's dream.

Mrs. King gave a very surprising answer. She said her husband's dream was not tied to any political party or any political agenda.

No doubt this was surprising to some liberals who think African-Americans should be permanently on the plantation of the Democratic Party.

The King family has stayed on a fairly apolitical path – a reason, perhaps, they have been admired by so many Americans. Republican Ronald Reagan signed into law Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday.

The Kings' problems with the establishment really began when son Dexter took over the King Center.

In late 1997, Dexter began questioning the official version of his father's death.

When Dexter, his mother and the rest of the King family openly said they did not accept the verdict that James Earl Ray had killed their father and they demanded a new investigation, it set off a firestorm.

Only after the King family challenged government claims about their father's death did stories begin surfacing that questioned the King family's activities and motives.

The most notable was an August 1997 Page One story that appeared in the New York Times: "Sheen of the King Legacy Dims on New, More Profitable Path."

Quoting unnamed sources, the Times made many of the same allegations Stahl would later make on "60 Minutes."

Clearly, by challenging the official version of King's death, his family was challenging the entire federal government – and the major media that had agreed with the official assessment.

Whether that led to the recent "60 Minutes" hit piece, I don't know.

I just know that thinking people have to wonder when millionairess Leslie Stahl attacks the family of Dr. King for rightfully protecting and benefiting from his life and legacy.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias

A product that might interest you:
Get the video of Chris Ruddy vs. Mike Wallace – blows the lid off media cover-ups!