Walter Cronkite, 1916-2009

That's the way it was. R.I.P. televised integrity.

I don't believe you, Jim Emerson!

But seriously it's a sad bit of news, though the guy hung in there for a long time. No News Caster of today would be able to denounce a war and somehow make it a non-Partisan statement. Cronkite was just being logical.

"Once, there was journalism. Even, sometimes, on television."

Mandatory read on this subject: "Due to Circumstances Beyond Our Control," by former CBS News president Fred Friendly.

Mandatory movie tie-in: "Good Night, and Good Luck."

Cronkite contributed to and continued for his entire career in the great tradition of CBS News at its best. I wonder how many people growing up today (who don't study journalism in college) can understand what that means, and what the world is missing.

The sad part is that Michael Jackson gets days of non-stop coverage, but Cronkite will only get a passing mention on the evening news.

I'm 24 years old. I can never understand what it must have been like to be a member of Cronkite's audience during the prime of his career. His death is sad for me because I admire him, in the way that I can admire any fantasy hero whose characteristics don't make logical sense with the realities of the world around me.

Or, to put it more succinctly, I've never known what it's like to get the news from an implicitly trustworthy television reporter. It must have been nice.

I agree with:

By Ken A. on July 17, 2009 10:08 PM
I'm 24 years old. I can never understand what it must have been like to be a member of Cronkite's audience during the prime of his career. His death is sad for me because I admire him, in the way that I can admire any fantasy hero whose characteristics don't make logical sense with the realities of the world around me.

Or, to put it more succinctly, I've never known what it's like to get the news from an implicitly trustworthy television reporter. It must have been nice.

I'll never understand the praise for his spinning the TET offensive as an American defeat when it was actually a huge victory for the good guys. Oh that's right, those of you on the left never considered AMERICA as the good guys...my mistake...sigh

"an American defeat when it was actually a huge victory for the good guys."

The good guys are the sons and daughters who fight these battles, and for what? For what? Some come home and get on with their lives, some come home walking wounded, and some don't come home at all.

You don't have to be liberal to ask, What are we accomplishing?

Cronkite understood we won the battle, and lost the war.

Kris Pigna wrote: "I wonder how many people growing up today (who don't study journalism in college) can understand what that means, and what the world is missing."

Unfortunately, Kris, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the journalism schools aren't creating the next generation of Cronkites and Murrows; they're churning out O'Reilly/Olbermann clones faster than you can say "massive unwarranted egomania." Today's j-school grads have no interest in uncovering truth or reporting on what's actually happening. Most of them only want to be famous TV personalities, and they see a career in journalism as the easiest route to that.

What we were trying to accomplish in Vietnam was not an easy thing to describe, and perhaps we were going about it the wrong way. However, I'm sure the effort meant a lot to those thousands of South Vietnamese who ended up in re-education camps or became one of the thousands of Boat People who escaped or died trying.

More people (@102 million) have died under the heel of totalitarian Communist regimes than under the Nazis or the Inquisition.