Comments on: REFLECTIONS ON WALTER CRONKITE AND THE DEATH OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM

By: Annymous

Annymous — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:35:34 +0000

To confer mere laziness on the main stream media as the reason for poor reporting reflects a lazy thought process on the part of the author. He has family members who are part of this group. They can’t be bad, just lazy.

By: crosspatch

crosspatch — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:23:20 +0000

“Journalism” isn’t dead … “reporting” is dead. A trade that used to rely on accurately reflecting the facts of events normally out of sight of most people has turned instead into painting the picture as the “journalist” would wish it to be. It is the difference between a photograph and an impressionist painting.

There are no more reporters, only “journalists”.

The REAL problem, though, is a lack of diversity of agenda. Papers were always biased but you had access to several. Ben Franklin was an absolute scoundrel when it came to “journalism” often fabricating “letters to the editor” to make them appear to come from a reader. He would also slant the real letters he did publish making his view seem the more popular.

The real problem is a lack of alternative points of view in print and broadcast media.

By: funny man

funny man — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:49:21 +0000

I liked the sympathetic article but it appears everybody in the comments section shifts into automatic when the term ‘media’ is mentioned. Ok, maybe we should clarify: there are more self proclaimed conservatives in the military than in academia. That is just because they feel more comfortable in that field. Period, that’s it. If there is one thing that I find truly pathetic, it is us whining about the elitist liberal media. Get over it and write a decent article (that’s why I’m here because I actually like the quality of the articles). Don’t like the NYT? Big deal, but at least they know how to write an article. With all his faults Cronkite was a good man.

By: Travis Monitor

Travis Monitor — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:35:54 +0000

Cronkite was respected in part because there was no reference point or alternative views to observe or contrast his bias. One major problem with the liberal media bias of the Cronkite era you mention was their blindness to their own subjectivity and the myth-creation of an ‘objective media’, when in fact it was anything but. They could get away with it because the liberal media had a virtual monopoly on national inside-the-beltway news for many decades.

Yet through a historial lens, we can review how for example CBS / 60 minutes went after Genl Westmoreland, Cronkite’s famous declaration that Tet was a defeat for the US (a dubious claim now we know that it decimated the VietCong), etc.

Now that we live in a world of a plethora of news and opinion sources, anyone can triangulate where any particular news source is, in terms of their reliability, objectivity, and bias. If you have any questions, you can always go to http://newsbusters.org or other media ‘watchdog’ places to see what critics have to say about it.

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:12:55 +0000

The problem with journalism today is a simple numbers game. Like academe, the field is simply overrun with Democrats and leftists. This, then, feeds on itself as leftist hires leftist, and they become ever more narrow and anti-intellectual in their world view. Surrounded at home and work by like-minded folks, they are never challenged, never have to defend a position, and thus become unable to distinguish opinion from fact, and erroneously assured that their views are mainstream — and “correct.” A national election is held, and you have national journalists saying “I can’t believe George W. Bush won. I don’t know a single person who voted for him.” Cronkite changed as his profession changed. As it became perfectly acceptable to assume that “everyone” felt the same way he did — because nearly everyone in his world did — Cronkite started letting the water cooler talk spill over into his public talk. Like so many others in his profession, he didn’t think his leftist views were all that startling, because, after all, everyone he knew felt the same way, and for liberal elitists like Cronkite, “everyone I know” means “everyone.”

By: Mark_0454

Mark_0454 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:46:05 +0000

I think the biggest problem with reporters is they don’t know anything. All the news is driven by pop psychology and personality. I can’t think of a mainstream reporter who actually seems to know something about science. It is almost as bad with economics.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:01:41 +0000

Rick,

I think we should distinguish journalists, who are a broad class of people who write about public affairs, from reporters. All reporters are journalists but not all journalists are reporters.

Right Wing Nut House and OTB are, in essence, online journals in which we chronicle our reactions to things going on in the world that interest us. If we’re not journalists, then what about the legion of people who do feature commentary in magazines but don’t strictly report the news?

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:40:48 +0000

Hi Rick

One trivial point - Rather was noticed about a year before for his coverage of a hurricane or other weather event. His controversial scoop on Kennedy - he was I think the first to say on air that Kennedy was dead - solidified it.

The main criticism I have is that you focus on personalities rather than money. Cronkite and his generation were essentially news men (and women) which was the source of their strength. When Cronkite took over CBS news it was a 15 minute segment thrown in as a public affairs product or a public service. When 60 Minutes came along the networds discovered that news wasn’t a “loss leader” and could be profitable. It was cheaper to produce than a “show” and could actually get ratings. That is when news became “news and information” and began the slide toward what it is today. Had Cronkite not been part of a brand he would have remained more like John Cameron Swayze on the old Camel Cavalcade of News and not “Uncle Walter” a brand positioned and defended by CBS.