Walter Cronkite died yesterday. He will get fawning admiration from the press.
I despised Walter Cronkite. I don’t wish ill on anyone, but I have no positive thing to say about the man. He was directly responsible in the Pol Pot Cambodian genocide. His efforts to discredit Republicans and end the war in Vietnam directly led to the deaths of millions of human beings.
He will be lauded, but if there is any justice in the universe and any consequence for immoral actions, I think Uncle Walter has been somewhat surprised at his eternal accommodations.
17 users commented in " And that’s the way it is… "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI have somewhat of a different take.
Cronkite was a product of a time where three corporations controlled the news in America. There was very little difference between what you saw on ABC, NBC, or CBS — just different mouthpieces saying essentially the same thing.
While the overall leaning of all the network news organizations was to the left of what then passed for the center, any other person to sit in that chair at that time would have had to say the same things else he wouldn’t have the job to begin with.
Further, even though the big three anchors all shared a view as to the Vietnam war, they ALSO shared a view as to corruption and the role of the press as a “watchdog” over the government. It didn’t really matter too much which party a corrupt politician belonged to … if you were the party in power, they kept an eye on you. (Again, just what they considered to be “wrong” was clearly determined from their leftist perspective. But, overall, they went after left and right alike.)
That ended around the time the last of the 50′s anchors were replaced.
I would much rather have Cronkite in the seat than any of those we have today. Cronkite at least had the decency to pretend to be objective (and, he probably thought that he was…and CERTAINLY was moreso than the crop we have today…).
That being said …
I agree with Cosmic on this one.
Because there were only 3 sources for news made Cronkite even worse.
His liberal screeds after his retirement made me sick. Trust indeed.
Reggie, I’m with Cosmic BIGTIME on this one. Cronkite was an elitists elitist. After he left the chair, it got worse. (as you noted)
Cronkite was a true believer in a “ruling class” worldwide that would direct the affairs of the underlings.
He was a miserable human being. I’m not glad that he is dead, but I ain’t crying over it either. Death is inevitable. Just like Michael Jackson, and many others…I mourn his life much more than his death.
The thing with his liberal bias being so strong, it colored what he looked for and what he reported.
Biases are always there, and his was worse in that subterfuge was used. It was subtle, and changed how you viewed things.
Drax, I think you are misreading Walter Cronkite. I’ve read plenty about his actions after he retired and it is clear to me that he was not a product of his job. He was a primary source of the bias and activism in the press. He deliberately used his position and influence to drive public policy. He was the archetype of the arrogant, elitist activist using his position in the public eye to shape public opinion to match his own.
CC: I’m always amazed at the outcries of “bias” or “agenda” against the media. It has always been present — and prior to the invention of television — or even radio — that bias/agenda based reporting was even more heavy-handed than it is today. (“Yellow Journalism,” Hearst, “Remember the Maine!” etc. etc. etc.)
There has never been a time when the media didn’t have a bias/agenda.
The way that television news reporting was viewed by most was that it was “objective” because it was presented as such. ALL propaganda is presented as objective fact — always has been — always will be.
You could watch any channel — there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between what was reported and very little difference between the channels as to HOW it was reported.
If Cronkite had died in 1965, someone else would have taken his chair and, except for the voice, the new news reader would have been identical to Cronkite.
Murdoch wants a “fair and balanced” news channel. He pays the checks. He gets what he wants.
Immelt wants an Obama (green energy) friendly news channel (and green energy and health care friendly NBC/CNBC/MSNBC channels) — so he gets them.
Someone always pays the checks.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
I went to that link, and yes it reports donations to GW Bush. But it neglects to report how much those same organizations donated to Al Gore.
And it’s not just about what the CORPORATION does, but what the individuals within the corporation do. The individuals who work within the mainstream media donate MILLIONS more to Democrats than to Republicans, and I have no doubt their donations overcome the direct corporate contributions.
I think it is harder to find a watchdog journalist today than a 4 leaf clover. It should make no difference who is on office, but we all know it does. How the media covers one party over the other is a crime.
Getting the news out of the business of shaping my view instead of reporting the news is step two in righting the ship for this country.
Step one – I think this country needs a constitutional amendment on term limits. (2 terms at any level of government and then you are OUT, and you cannot run for another office while in office)
Hey, I can dream
CC: The point wasn’t who contributed to whom, but who controls the purse strings of the various media — and how those media effectively reflect the views of those string-holders.
(Roger Kimball essentially agrees with me: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/07/19/walter-cronkite-worlds-most-overrated-reader-of-the-news/)
esox67: term limits are not only a bad idea, they are an extraordinarily bad idea.
Let’s say…Representatives serving 2 years could only be elected twice…then home.
Now, they write the laws. They write the budget.
Do you really believe that ANYONE could sufficiently familiarize themselves with current laws (and regulations — and case law interpreting those laws and regulations) so that the laws they write do what they are intended to do within that legal/regulatory environment?
Of course not.
Few of our elected representatives know what they’re doing NOW. But, some have carved out niches in various areas and actually know the laws and regulations — AND have formed an understanding of the industry which they “oversee.”
But, for the most part, they rely on unelected and unaccountable BUREAUCRATS to write the laws. These bureaucrats would have their power increase many times over since the government, in order to actually DO anything, would have to rely on them for continuity — for there to be SOMEONE in the government who actually knew SOMETHING about ANYTHING — rather than a fresh crop of “newbies” every two years.
We HAVE “term limits.” They’re called “elections.”
If we’re dissatisfied with our representatives — VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. But, if we think they’re doing a good job, why on this green earth would you want to swap them out with someone who might not do as good a job and CERTAINLY wouldn’t have the connections in Washington or the body of knowledge of a long-term representative?
Drax, I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree, term limits are not our elections. Our elections are a farce in my opinion.
Being from MN, I a little biased, all you have to do is look at who ACORN and our local media has put in a senate seat to see that.
The general electorate is pretty much reduced to voting for whoever the media or democratic/republican party tells them to vote for. The have no clue what they really believe or would actually do in office or how it affects our country.
If our president does not need any experience why should the legislature ? So many have stayed too long for the party, they almost drop dead on the floor of congress exposing the same tired ideas over and over again.
We need leaders that are willing to lead and make actual decisions they have to live with. Perhaps if we kick them out of office and turn them back into the public servants they once were, they will start making decisions that are best for our country, and not just for their party or to improve the chances of getting elected, again, and again, and again.
Now that is change I can believe in.
esox67: Your quarrel isn’t with the lack of term limits; it’s with an idiot voter base.
Do you believe that the voter base which elects Franken is going to somehow start electing better people than it has in the past? (Or — Louisiana’s Edwards, the U.S.’s Clinton, California’s Terminator — the Franks, Dodds, Feinsteins, Pelosis, Craigs, etc?)
So many problems… so little time…
Do you think that we’ll get better people to run for office? (Especially in the 2 year jobs…where you spend 1 year running…1 year learning … 1 year running…then, if you win, you’re a lame duck anyway…) Who will it attract?
Now it attracts those who wish power and those who wish to effect change (not mutually exclusive).
That won’t change.
What WILL change is those who wish to make a CAREER of politics. A means to feed themselves and their families. That will be replaced by only an interruption in their career paths.
So, who will run? The rich? They already do if they so desire. But, now the field is thinned, so they have an even greater advantage.
Where will they go after they’re kicked to the curb? If they are serious about effecting change, how to do it NOW? Become a bureaucrat? Lobbyiest? Of course, that’s what many do now, but there’ll be a whole bunch MORE unemployed “change effecters” out there with term limits…
I don’t see any upside to term limits.
We get the leaders we deserve. If we are so selfish and/or ignorant that we keep putting corrupt people in positions of power (“but he’s OUR thief….”) then we deserve it.
Drax, I’m on pretty much the same page on term limits. Although I do find the two term limit on Presidents to be acceptable in practice although I don’t like it in principle.
I actually think that some of the jobs would be better with term limits. The House – no, but the senate, if its a two term limit is still 12 years. That is plenty long enough. If they haven’t accomplished things in that time, they are clogging the works.
The Presidency should remain with the two term limit. Otherwise it can become as FDR was becoming… King-like. It is a temporary position, no matter how well they do the job (or not), the corruption factor would increase.
CC: I agree on the two term limitation on President. We could end up with a dictatorship otherwise. We’re edging closer and closer to full consolidation of power in the executive as it stands now.
(On that note… everyone is asking why Obama is pushing for health care NOW. Pundits answer this with the obvious — later means attempting to do it in an election year, and no one thinks that anyone will attempt to push this in an election year. BUT, they don’t state the even MORE obvious — WHY ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH will we support candidates who NOW support a plan who we would vote out of office if they supported it in an election year?)
Old Goat: I agree as to the House members. It would be foolhardy and counterproductive to have term limitations on those seats. If they were 6 year terms, like senators, then I could agree — 12 years is enough time for them to effect whatever “change” they’re looking for and enough for it to be a “career.” Of course, changing the terms to 6 years would require an Amendment which would completely obliterate the reasoning behind the Founders’ creation of House and Senate. The House is supposed to be short terms — more responsive to the voters.
Drax:
If two terms makes sense as a term limit for Senators, why doesn’t six terms make sense as a limit for the House?
unlike our current president I am happy to compromise on an issue, 2 terms for senator, 6 terms for congressman and 2 for president work for me.
If you cannot get it done by then, you are just part of the problem, let’s get somebody in there with some new ideas, maybe even a third party would be nice
CC: I could live with a term limit of 6 terms on House Members.
I just don’t think that, in general, term limits are a good idea. We’re not going to get a better crop of candidates and we would be even more captured by the bureaucracy.
Leave A Reply