And thats the way it is....RIP Walter Cronkite

[ltljohn]

 

RIP Walter Cronkite

I remember with great fondness watching the Apollo 11 moon landing with Mr Cronkite when I was 10.

[Skywagon]

RIP Walter. I will always remember your coverage of JFK's assasination and how speechless you were on the first moon landing.

[upflying]

Yep, I grew up with him on the CBS Evening News. My father didn't like him because of the distorted and biased news coverage. I didn't understand what he meant at the time but I do now.

Regardless, his presence was a powerful and dominant message at a time when we didn't have access to alternative news sources.

[Mike O]

A true icon. And one which many newscasters should seriously emulate. RIP

 

Mike O

[Francois_Dumas]

An American icon indeed..... I hope he had a great life and has found peace now.

[RichEdwards]

My father didn't like him because of the distorted and biased news coverage. I didn't understand what he meant at the time but I do now.

 

??????????????

 

He was the best and most accurate television reporter ever and the one that today's reporters hope to emulate. But he probably would not be hired today because he would not pass the "very handsome" test.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

He is certainly a celebrity whose passing will affect my life. He was a man of honor who told it like he saw it. I grew up watching him every night and it was like he was a member of the family - the 'godfather' so to speak. He represented the best of the news profession when it really was a profession and not simply another pretty face in front of the camera.

RIP Walter. Thanks for the wonderful memories.

[eddd]

Evening TV news was never the same after Mr. Cronkite.

 

 

[upflying]

My father didn't like him because of the distorted and biased news coverage. I didn't understand what he meant at the time but I do now.

 

??????????????

 

He was the best and most accurate television reporter ever and the one that today's reporters hope to emulate. But he probably would not be hired today because he would not pass the "very handsome" test.

Well that's your opinion. Not to throw dirt on Mr. Cronkite, but like all talking heads, he simply read the news the writers write. It is no secret that the mainstream news media is slanted, biased and distorted. We are fed the information the writers want us to know.

 

[RichEdwards]

Bob,

Walter Cronkite wrote most of his news stories himself. He had little regard for journalists who inserted their own opinions into their material. (His one exception is the time he said that our involvement in Vietnam was never going to produce a "victory" and it was time to get out.) Most professional journalists consider him one of the best ever. To paint him (and most "mainstream" journalists) as "slanted, biased, and distorted" says more about you than it does about him.

[doc47]

Cronkite got his start with CBS Radio under Edward R. Murrow during WW II. Along with William Shirer, they pioneered live news broadcasting with Murrow's coverage of the London blitz in 1940. Up to that time reportage was sent back to network headquarters and was read by actors. It was Murrow's team that broadcast news in real time by the men and women who actually reported it.

 

Anyone remember Cronkite hosting "You Are There" back in the 50s?

 

His 1968 editorial on Vietnam is (whether rightly or wrongly) noted by many sources as a major factor in changing American public opinion about the war. Agree or not, it took courage.

 

He was the last of that generation of newsmen. RIP, Walter. Salute Murrow and Shirer for me.

 

 

[SageRider]

I just last week finished "A Reporter's Life", Cronkite's memoir. Very illuminating......

[Pilgrim]

His 1968 editorial on Vietnam is (whether rightly or wrongly) noted by many sources as a major factor in changing American public opinion about the war. Agree or not, it took courage.

 

I have to disagree about the courage it took. Instead, I'll call it chutzpah, cherrypicking the definition in Wikipedia:

In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has over-stepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame. But in Yiddish and English, chutzpah has developed ambivalent and even positive connotations. Chutzpah can be used to express admiration for non-conformist but gutsy audacity. Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish defines chutzpah as "gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible 'guts,' presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to." In this sense, chutzpah expresses both strong disapproval and a grudging admiration.

 

There was no courage in the act; all he did was join an existing domestic chorus without regard to the damage that would flow from his remarks - and the comments were outright wrong, to boot.

 

I agree that news coverage generally prior to his comments about the war in VN was superior by far to what we see today. And it was him, with those editorial comments in a news broadcast, who began the downhill slide we are still on today.

 

Will I miss him? Not a bit, any more. He belongs in the same historic grave with Robert McNamara as far as I'm concerned.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

Yeah, what would Robert McNamara know about the Viet Nam war.

 

And risking your career to tell the truth does quality as courage.

[Matts_12GS]

Like John Fogerty said... "every night at six they showed the pictures and counted up the score... I know it's true, oh so true, cuz I saw it on TV"

 

And risking your career to tell the truth does quality as courage.

 

Today's media and the other political establishments should exercise such "courage"

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, what would Robert McNamara know about the Viet Nam war.

 

And risking your career to tell the truth does quality as courage.

 

As to McN, he knew a lot about it, of course. Trouble was, (as he admitted later) he knew at the time all the things that were being done wrong (militarily wrong, never mind the right or wrong of the war)and pursued them anyway.

 

As to Cronkite telling the truth. It was not a matter of "truth." He offered an opinion based on a faulty understanding of what was happening. He believed, and had previously said, that we were not winning any battles. He specifically referred to Khe Sanh, which was clearly a defeat for the NVA. Khe Sanh was an early part of the Tet Offensive. Cronkite saw the Tet campaign by the NVA as a draw; it was not. It was a hard fight, but it was a clear military defeat for the NVA. Their battle losses were ten times those of our side, and they held no new territory when it was over.

 

The North Vietnamese (Giap himself says so) knew that the Tet offensive was, more or less, their last significant military gasp. They pursued the offensive, not because they expected a victory in the field, but because they could only win that war if support for it in the U.S. failed (support had been well over 50% in this country before Tet and Cronkite's statement). They expected that the offensive would erode support in the U.S. by making us think the war could not be won. It was a brilliant strategy, based on a good understanding of this country's thought processes, and Cronkite helped them execute it. He was a useful idiot, to use a general Communist characterization of people who fought their battles for them. With that, I do not mean to say he was a willing accomplice to their strategy, but he was duped by it.

 

And finally, I have to ask you how he risked his career. He ran about as much risk with his statement as a guy shouting "White power!" at a Klan rally.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

Well I don't want to to hijack the thread to a discussion of military strategy of the Viet Nam war but I will say that is an, uhh, interesting view of history. The Tet offensive was indeed a military defeat for the NVA, the damage to public opinion being from the ferocity and coordination of an attack from a military force that the American public had been led to believe was essentially defeated. I'm not sure what would have happened in subsequent months or years but ultimately it was just one lie too many. Perhaps we might want to consider that aspect of the public loss of faith in addition to the actions of Comrade Cronkite.

 

And for a major public figure (who needed the support of middle America to survive) to speak against the war at that point in time did take guts. And I'll agree with Matt that the media and the other political establishments should indeed have exercised similar courage several years ago.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well I don't want to to hijack the thread

 

Well, I don't know that this is a hijack since it's about Cronkite, but we've both made our points so we can fold our tents and steal away, to clash another time .

 

Last clarification, though. You referred to "Comrade Cronkite", and the inference I make is that you think that I am some way calling him a communist or fellow traveller. Never in life would I do that - he was American through and through and a patriot. He was an unwitting accomplice to a successful strategy.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

Last clarification, though. You referred to "Comrade Cronkite", and the inference I make is that you think that I am some way calling him a communist or fellow traveller. Never in life would I do that - he was American through and through and a patriot. He was an unwitting accomplice to a successful strategy.

Sorry about that, I was just kidding with that turn of phrase and I know you didn't intend to imply that he had anything other than the best interests of the country at heart. As to being an unwitting accomplice, if true I guess that might also apply to half the nation at that point in time. Man, they had us fooled... it sure didn't look like we were winning...

[Matts_12GS]

the Cronkite Tragedy

 

I found this insightful and pretty well stated.

[Ken H.]

the Cronkite Tragedy

 

I found this insightful and pretty well stated.

Well what else would you expect from the wsj?

 

The crux of their article is, "As a reporter, however, he had a duty to stick to the facts and leave opinions to others." But as much as the wsj might like to believe they are somehow immune, there is no such thing as objective reporting. ALL reporting is slanted in some way by the writer of the story. The writer (or reporter if speaking his/her own words) is trying to convey some message about the subject at hand from, and here’s the key part, their (or their organization’s) point of view. The word "facts" is ironically one of the most un-factual words in the English language. It’s only a "fact" if the listener happens to agree with the speaker of it!

 

[Matts_12GS]

the Cronkite Tragedy

 

I found this insightful and pretty well stated.

Well what else would you expect from the wsj?

 

It’s only a "fact" if the listener happens to agree with the speaker of it!

 

No Ken, that's incorrect.

 

A fact is (according to dictionary.com)

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

2. something known to exist or to have happened:

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

 

What you are discussing is an OPINION about a fact. If you agree with a statement you are far more likely think it's true, but whether or not we agree with the fact doesn't change the REALITY of a fact.

 

Yogi Berra used to say "I'll see it when I believe it"

 

Cronkite was trusted because he was a pretty balanced presenter of the news. When he interjected his opinion in the broadcast he stepped over the line as it was not what he was there to do. His comment was better suited to a cocktail party or a panel discussion, not a news broadcast.

[smiller]

Yes, news reporting should be 'fair and balanced.'

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Cronkite was trusted because he was a pretty balanced presenter of the news. When he interjected his opinion in the broadcast he stepped over the line as it was not what he was there to do. His comment was better suited to a cocktail party or a panel discussion, not a news broadcast.

I think this politely and succinctly sums it up well.

[Matts_12GS]

Yes, news reporting should be 'fair and balanced.'

 

Ya know, despite the demonization of that phrase and the organization that touts it, it's not a bad to have that sort of reporting... You know, factual!

[smiller]

Ya know, despite the demonization of that phrase and the organization that touts it, it's not a bad to have that sort of reporting... You know, factual!

And of course (in line with what Ken said) the fairness and balance of the news organization that touts that phrase is very much dependent on the viewer. Facts may be absolute but which facts you choose to present is just a little more variable. When human bias in involved 'facts' aren't all they're cracked up to be.

[Shaman97]

Cronkite was trusted because he was a pretty balanced presenter of the news. When he interjected his opinion in the broadcast he stepped over the line as it was not what he was there to do. His comment was better suited to a cocktail party or a panel discussion, not a news broadcast.

 

A point to remember is that his comment was not made during a broadcast of the "CBS Evening News" - it was made at the end of a 30 minute program about the Viet Nam War that was separate from the news broadcast. This would be akin to a 60 Minutes or 20/20 piece. In that context, it's allowable for the presenter to interject their own opinion, and is customary for the presenter to do so.

If it were to have been during an actual newscast, it would have been out of place, but not during a 'news magazine' format. Paul Harvey did it all the time on radio, even back then, though Harvey's segment was called 'News and Comment' - a bit more up-front.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

Ya know, despite the demonization of that phrase and the organization that touts it, it's not a bad to have that sort of reporting... You know, factual!

And of course (in line with what Ken said) the fairness and balance of the news organization that touts that phrase is very much dependent on the viewer. Facts may be absolute but which facts you choose to present is just a little more variable. When human bias in involved 'facts' aren't all they're cracked up to be.

 

only if you don't agree with them....

[RonStewart]

So, a well-known reporter states an opinion. Clearly it is an opinion. There can be no doubt that it is an opinion. It is so unlike the rest of his work that there is no chance that a reasonable person would not recognise it as opinion. And this reporter is well-respected. He has been to a lot of places, and has seen a lot of things. He obviously considers the issue to be grave and urgent. His opinion might have some merit. He expresses his opinion with the best of intention, with the best interests of his country at heart. People are definitely going to be discussing his comment for the next few days (turns out it was decades). If the people agree with his expressed opinion, change may come.

 

So, what's wrong with that? Consider freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the assumption that the individual American has a free and intelligent mind, and all those other foundation stones of his society.

[Ken H.]

No Ken, that's incorrect.

 

A fact is (according to dictionary.com)

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

2. something known to exist or to have happened:

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

 

What you are discussing is an OPINION about a fact. If you agree with a statement you are far more likely think it's true, but whether or not we agree with the fact doesn't change the REALITY of a fact.

There is no such thing as facts.

 

There is only consensuses of opinion that something is the way it is, passed off as a "fact" by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. All of humanity even could be wrong about something touted as a "fact." Indeed, has been shown to be so a number of times.

 

There may actually be some facts in the universe, but humanity doesn't know any of them.

 

But then we’ve gone in this circle here before. Never mind.

 

[russell_bynum]

No Ken, that's incorrect.

 

A fact is (according to dictionary.com)

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

2. something known to exist or to have happened:

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

 

What you are discussing is an OPINION about a fact. If you agree with a statement you are far more likely think it's true, but whether or not we agree with the fact doesn't change the REALITY of a fact.

There is no such thing as facts.

 

There is only consensuses of opinion that something is the way it is, passed off as a "fact" by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. All of humanity even could be wrong about something touted as a "fact." Indeed, has been shown to be so a number of times.

 

There may actually be some facts in the universe, but humanity doesn't know any of them.

 

But then we’ve gone in this circle here before. Never mind.

 

LOL!!!!!!

[smiller]

Damn, Ken... and I was so sure that the Earth revolved around the sun...

[Matts_12GS]

by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness.

Sounds like the voice of experience Ken...

 

See ya in a couple weeks if you can reconcile your carbon footprint enough to make a non-essential trip across an international border that is...

 

 

[SageRider]

There is only consensuses of opinion that something is the way it is, passed off as a "fact" by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. All of humanity even could be wrong about something touted as a "fact." Indeed, has been shown to be so a number of times.

 

There may actually be some facts in the universe, but humanity doesn't know any of them.

Is that a fact???

[DavidEBSmith]

According to Wikipedia, Cronkite said:

 

"We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds"

 

and

 

"we are mired in a stalemate that could only be ended by negotiation, not victory."

 

It's hard to draw the line between fact and opinion in these statements. It's fairly well documented that the US government was painting an overly-rosy and intentionally inaccurate picture of the progress of the war. It's a fact that there was a perception of a "credibility gap" between the government and the public. There is factual support for the conclusion that McNamara's strategy for the conduct of the war would not lead to a conventional victory, but to stalemate.

 

If Cronkite had used the Faux News method and said "some say we are mired in a stalemate that could only be ended by negotiation, not victory" would that have been acceptable factual reporting?

 

The disturbing thing about the "Cronkite made us lose the war" notion is that it sounds awfully like another revival of the Dolchstoss legend.

[Matts_12GS]

That may be eebie, I was 4 when those statements were made so I know of this only what I learned in government schools and by doing my own reading.

 

I know there are many angles to this, and I think that we're seeing many of the same parallels in the middle east.

 

During the previous administration we were beleaguered with every bit of potentially bad sounding news from the war front to underscore an agenda, at least UNTIL the change in strategy (a.k.a. the surge) proving itself. But, as we saw, the worse the presented news the lower public opinion. As successes are reported up goes public opinion. Have you noticed the lack of such news being reported now that the media establishment has their choice of candidate in the white house? I know I haven't seen near the volume...

 

Wally may not have been one of the official useful idiots of the day, but his statements certainly damaged the war efforts. They weren't the only factors, but they were substantial.

 

My bottom line on this is that in the same way that Cronkite pushed public opinion over the tipping point with his remarks, we see popular media and pop culture doing the same thing with current war fronts. They have long since lost their objectivity and their credibility and now ( on both sides of the equation...) they are little more than parrots for their respective sides.

[David]

There is no such thing as facts.

 

There is only consensuses of opinion that something is the way it is, passed off as a "fact" by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. All of humanity even could be wrong about something touted as a "fact." Indeed, has been shown to be so a number of times.

 

There may actually be some facts in the universe, but humanity doesn't know any of them.

 

Yeah, weren't you taking the OTHER side of that argument in the last thread about global warming, that a widely held consensus of opinion is the safe bet? And that there can be no doubt about what scientists agree on in relation to this?

[David]

My bottom line on this is that in the same way that Cronkite pushed public opinion over the tipping point with his remarks, we see popular media and pop culture doing the same thing with current war fronts. They have long since lost their objectivity and their credibility and now ( on both sides of the equation...) they are little more than parrots for their respective sides.

 

Nearly any useful change of direction almost always involves the minority speaking up. You could say that it was a self-fulfilling prophesy, and that he contributed to the failure, but do you think we ought to still stay in Iraq? How about Afghanistan.

 

I think we ought to pull out of the latter as soon as we can. It's the next Vietnam or Iraq.

 

So maybe he was right, albeit uncomfortably so.

[RonStewart]

According to Wikipedia, Cronkite said:

 

"We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds"

 

and

 

"we are mired in a stalemate that could only be ended by negotiation, not victory."

 

It's hard to draw the line between fact and opinion in these statements.

 

Thanks for posting the quotations. My point, David (and I am not sure if you were addressing my comment) is that these are so obviously statements of opinion that they ought not to be controversial.

 

edit: The quotations are not opinion disguised as facts, in the Fox News style. They are just opinion.

[Kathy R]

This cyber campfire thingy is nice, but in person, at the UN, will be even richer.

 

I have gleaned something from everyone's point of view, except Ken's. I'm KIDDING!!! I'M KIDDING!!!!!

[Matts_12GS]

[You could say that it was a self-fulfilling prophesy, and that he contributed to the failure, but do you think we ought to still stay in Iraq? How about Afghanistan.

 

I think we ought to pull out of the latter as soon as we can. It's the next Vietnam or Iraq.

 

So maybe he was right, albeit uncomfortably so.

 

David, I'd love to have that conversation with you in person, but for this moment, I'll not answer these questions as I think they'll change the direction of the thread.

[David]

Fair enough. I hope to take my first ride after the spinal surgery next week, so hopefully we'll connect at some event soon!

[Matts_12GS]

How's the bling thing coming along? I'm hoping to catch up soon, I need some GS advice!

[Ken H.]

There is no such thing as facts.

 

There is only consensuses of opinion that something is the way it is, passed off as a "fact" by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. All of humanity even could be wrong about something touted as a "fact." Indeed, has been shown to be so a number of times.

 

There may actually be some facts in the universe, but humanity doesn't know any of them.

 

Yeah, weren't you taking the OTHER side of that argument in the last thread about global warming, that a widely held consensus of opinion is the safe bet? And that there can be no doubt about what scientists agree on in relation to this?

Nope. Consensus of opinion does not equal a fact.

 

Once upon a time mankind had a consensus of opinion that the world was flat. It was an accepted fact. Now the consensus of opinion is, and widely accepted that it isn't flat.

 

My point is we're too small to say anything is a cast-in-stop, undisputable, absolute fact.

 

Something may be accepted as true by a wide enough percentage of humanity that it can function as a “fact” (e.g., the sky is blue) for the purpose of guiding decisions, but especially in the context of this particular thread (criticism of Cronkite) to say that someone could/is/should only report the facts, is far too narrow of a perspective. Almost all reporting is subjective “non-factual." One man's fact is the other man's lie.

 

[Ken H.]

by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness.

Sounds like the voice of experience Ken...

Yeah, I've got a lot of experience with people’s arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. See it every day.

[Matts_12GS]

Sounds like the voice of experience Ken...

Yeah, I've got a lot of experience with people’s arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. See it every day.

 

Maybe spending less time looking in the mirror would be healthier...

 

See you in a couple weeks

[VinnyR11]

There is no such thing as facts.

 

There is only consensuses of opinion that something is the way it is, passed off as a "fact" by the arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. All of humanity even could be wrong about something touted as a "fact." Indeed, has been shown to be so a number of times.

 

There may actually be some facts in the universe, but humanity doesn't know any of them.

 

Yeah, weren't you taking the OTHER side of that argument in the last thread about global warming, that a widely held consensus of opinion is the safe bet? And that there can be no doubt about what scientists agree on in relation to this?

Nope. Consensus of opinion does not equal a fact.

 

Once upon a time mankind had a consensus of opinion that the world was flat. It was an accepted fact. Now the consensus of opinion is, and widely accepted that it isn't flat.

 

My point is we're too small to say anything is a cast-in-stop, undisputable, absolute fact.

 

Something may be accepted as true by a wide enough percentage of humanity that it can function as a “fact” (e.g., the sky is blue) for the purpose of guiding decisions, but especially in the context of this particular thread (criticism of Cronkite) to say that someone could/is/should only report the facts, is far too narrow of a perspective. Almost all reporting is subjective “non-factual." One man's fact is the other man's lie.

 

So, are you trying to say that if Canada magically disappeared from the Earth, the indisputable fact that "nobody would notice until hockey season" isn't really a fact??

 

I'm confused?

[Twisties]

Sounds like the voice of experience Ken...

Yeah, I've got a lot of experience with people’s arrogance of righteous close-mindedness. See it every day.

 

Maybe spending less time looking in the mirror would be healthier...

 

See you in a couple weeks

 

Leave off the personal attacks Matt.

[Ken H.]

So, are you trying to say that if Canada magically disappeared from the Earth, the indisputable fact that "nobody would notice until hockey season" isn't really a fact??

 

I'm confused?

Hee, hee! Good one!

[Matts_12GS]

See you in a couple weeks

 

Leave off the personal attacks Matt.

 

Deep breath Jan, it was a joke...