Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: RIP Walter Cronkite

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Walter was a class act all around. I shall miss him, because the world will be a little darker without his light. There was a man- I think we shall not see his like again.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  2. #2
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Cronkite was good at what he did, but I'd never want to go back to a time when most Americans sat around for 30 minutes each even to have their news spoon fed to them. I much prefer varied sources, and competing viewpoints to having to take one person's word on it because they say "that's the way it is".

    I came across an interesting essay from an AP writer, Ted Anthony, on Cronkite, his legacy and the evolution of the media. I think it's a good read:

    Cronkite and the voice of authority gone
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "And that's the way it is," he'd say. It wasn't, but we wanted that reassurance. The idea that someone could wrangle the world each night and boil it down to a sensible, digestible half hour was so comforting.

    Barely a generation has passed since Walter Cronkite disappeared from our evenings. But the notion of one man — a single, authoritative, empathetic man, morally reassuring and mild of temper — wrapping up the world after dinner for America seems incalculably quaint in the technological coliseum that is 21st-century communications.

    Many of the network farewells to the CBS anchorman, who died Friday at 92, seemed built around the notion of the father figure. Anchors and reporters who are part of another age — a still-unfolding era of community feedback, viewer outreach and social-media interaction — struggled to summon the idea of anchor as monolith.

    "We'd all let him watch our kids when we went out to the supermarket if we had the chance," NBC anchorman Brian Williams said. Hard to imagine Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann, vigorous though they are, as national baby sitters.

    "Uncle Walter," we called him. But on the Internet, there's not much use for uncles.

    We are now confronted with a rushing, 24-hour river of information, much of it chaotic and raw, with no one to shepherd us through it.

    Though network TV news remains popular, its demographic is older and it has struggled, losing about 1 million viewers a year in the years since Cronkite retired as anchor in 1981.

    At the end of last year, according to Gallup, 31 percent of Americans considered the Internet to be a daily news source, a 50 percent gain since 2006. That's almost 100 million people actively reaching out to get their news rather than flipping on the TV and waiting for it to come to them.

    At the same time, people now want a stake in their news and direct attention from the people who deliver it. They're demanding it, and they're getting it.

    NBC's Williams, for example, does a daily blog. CNN anchor Rick Sanchez has built his midafternoon show around feedback from followers on Twitter and Facebook. News has become a two-way street, something to create community around.

    That can be at once productive and perilous.

    It gives an exhilarating voice to the voiceless. Yet it also can encourage consensus reality. If enough of us say it loudly enough, it must be true. In the 1960s and 1970s, Cronkite was accepted as the everyday incarnation of empirical truth — "a voice of certainty in an uncertain world," as President Barack Obama put it Friday night.

    Cronkite's legendary assessment of Vietnam's quagmire — the one that led Lyndon Johnson to lament, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America" — is often cast as a barometer of the anchor's power at the time. What shouldn't be ignored is that, even then, the waning of that kind of power had begun.

    "Middle America" then generally meant white and over 30, the very people that the young, energetic game-changers of the late 1960s were insisting shouldn't be trusted. Power to the people was upending the national hierarchy, and the Age of Many Voices was approaching.

    Four decades later, cacophony reigns. What room is there for the conscience of a nation, for history's anchorman, for the father we all wanted?

    In 2009, even trust, at least in the public realm, seems an uneasy notion. It's something we continue to desire. But in an age of wholesale, instantaneous, unprecedented lying, trust is something that may not be that wise when it comes to evaluating our sources of information.

    That's what has changed since Cronkite's heyday.

    Today's model works more like this: Everyone vies to get his personalized, customized, agenda-driven version of "that's the way it is" enshrined in the cultural canon. We shout, cajole, maneuver, horse-trade. We demonize the opposition. We brand ideas as products and send them on their way, ready to do battle in the marketplace.

    Our anchors follow suit, riding the rising crest of expectation and anticipation and, sometimes, misusing it. "It's not the old voice of reassuring honesty that they cultivate, but one of perpetual anxiety," Los Angeles Times TV critic Robert Lloyd wrote in his Cronkite eulogy.

    The coliseum is always open for business. If you've got a TV or a laptop, you're plugged in to the whole planet and can have your say. No one person can speak for us all — we don't even pretend that's the case anymore — and those who tried would be put in their places as fast as you can say Edward R. Murrow.

    That can be a glorious expression of democracy, or it can lead, as it did Saturday morning, to the most e-mailed story on Yahoo! News being the one about the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile crashing into a house in Wisconsin. Democracy has a way of being quite democratic.

    Nightly American comfort, Cronkite style, is a thing of the past, if it ever really existed at all. Perhaps, in the Age of Many Voices, comfort and reassurance is not meant to be our lot. Maybe that's just the way it is.
    Last edited by Xiahou; 07-19-2009 at 04:54.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  3. #3

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    Cronkite was good at what he did, but I'd never want to go back to a time when most Americans sat around for 30 minutes each even to have their news spoon fed to them. I much prefer varied sources, and competing viewpoints to having to take one person's word on it because they say "that's the way it is".
    Sorry to tell you but that's how it still is nowadays. People watch the type of partisan news (O' Reilly, Obermann) that fits their ideology to comfort themselves and not deal with having to think for themselves or possibly even realize that the opposing side might have some good points as well.

    Nowadays opinions are not based on the raw facts, select facts are manipulated to wrap around and support the opinion and only the facts which can be manipulated for either side are the ones presented in current news (at least from pundits).

    From what research I have done, modern news began to turn into what it is now after the removal of the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine) in 1987:

    The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

    I really don't know what to think of it, on one hand I think it is pretty sad when people listen to pundits instead of hearing the raw facts from journalists and making their own decisions, on the other hand I wouldn't care for government saying what the public can and cannot watch.

    Hey, maybe I could make a thread about this doctrine and get a better view of both sides.


  4. #4
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Quote Originally Posted by ;2292092
    Sorry to tell you but that's how it still is nowadays. People watch the type of partisan news (O' Reilly, Obermann) that fits their ideology to comfort themselves and not deal with having to think for themselves or possibly even realize that the opposing side might have some good points as well.
    Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong.

    People have varied news sources, with the Internet being the most prolific and fastest growing medium. Note- before anyone starts handwringing about unreliable Internet blogs:
    Very few Americans (1%) consider blogs their most trusted source of news, or their primary source of news (1%).
    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
    From what research I have done, modern news began to turn into what it is now after the removal of the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine) in 1987:
    From what research I've done, our news has greatly improved since it's removal. The fact that a solid majority of people are not happy with the current state of journalism speaks volumes to how far we've come from a time when most people were perfectly happy to be fed news from one or a couple sources.

    I don't want to drag a memorial thread too far off topic, so I'll leave it here.

    RIP Cronkite, but I'm also glad that our news media has evolved beyond the need for a Cronkite.
    Last edited by Xiahou; 07-19-2009 at 06:56.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  5. #5

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong.

    People have varied news sources, with the Internet being the most prolific and fastest growing medium. Note- before anyone starts handwringing about unreliable Internet blogs:

    From what research I've done, our news has greatly improved since it's removal. The fact that a solid majority of people are not happy with the current state of journalism speaks volumes to how far we've come from a time when most people were perfectly happy to be fed news from one or a couple sources. To suggest we were better off with less ways to get information is insane.
    Link gives error.

    When did I say I wanted less ways of getting information? I am just saying I would like less propaganda perpetuated by both sides if selected facts that everyone on the left are baby killing socialists and everyone on the right are war loving fascists.

    When I read "varied" news sources like the Huffington Post and the Dredge Report I feel most of the time like I am not closer to the truth of the matter. Which reminds of me a Jefferson quote:

    "To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

    I believe at this point television can be used instead of newspaper as well.

    The fact that a solid majority of people are not happy with the current state of journalism speaks volumes to how far we've come from a time when most people were perfectly happy to be fed news from one or a couple sources.

    So doctrine gets removed ----> People begin to dislike journalism nowadays = Journalism has improved from lack of doctrine?

    Maybe it goes like this: doctrine gets removed ----> Internet comes about with raw facts and information now more prevalent then ever = People realize what a sham modern news is nowadays?
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 07-19-2009 at 07:19.


  6. #6
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    From what research I have done, modern news began to turn into what it is now after the removal of the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine) in 1987:

    The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

    I really don't know what to think of it, on one hand I think it is pretty sad when people listen to pundits instead of hearing the raw facts from journalists and making their own decisions, on the other hand I wouldn't care for government saying what the public can and cannot watch.

    Hey, maybe I could make a thread about this doctrine and get a better view of both sides.
    AFAIK, the fairness doctrine was aimed at talk show hosts, mostly conservative. ever since the 90's conservative talk radio has shot up, while the tv and newspapers have gone down in popularity.
    the whole point of a talk show is for some guy or gal to run his/her mouth off about some topic and his/her opinion about it. making the talk show host present the other side undermines what free speech is all about. the host should be allowed to say whatever he wants as long as he is not hate-mongering.
    if people want the one sided view, ok, go and listen to that show. but dont make them hear the other side if they dont want to hear it.

    in short: the news is meant to be fair and seeing both sides. talk radio is not.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 07-19-2009 at 06:56.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  7. #7

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    AFAIK, the fairness doctrine was aimed at talk show hosts, mostly conservative. ever since the 90's conservative talk radio has shot up, while the tv and newspapers have gone down in popularity.
    the whole point of a talk show is for some guy or gal to run his/her mouth off about some topic and his/her opinion about it. making the talk show host present the other side undermines what free speech is all about. the host should be allowed to say whatever he wants as long as he is not hate-mongering.
    if people want the one sided view, ok, go and listen to that show. but dont make them hear the other side if they dont want to hear it.

    in short: the news is meant to be fair and seeing both sides. talk radio is not.
    I don't know why people are accusing me outright supporting it when i say I don't know what to make of it, but anyway, when this doctrine was in place it was enforced for all mediums which I don't care for, for the reason you say in your post, but in terms of the news which we need to make important decisions it is important that it should not be spun/manipulated in favor of the presenters bias would you agree with that?EDIT: You do from your last sentence.

    So how do we go about making sure the news is unbaised without trampling over anybodies free speech?
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 07-19-2009 at 07:21.


  8. #8
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    i wasnt saying you were supporting it. i was just making a point against the doctrine.

    the way how you get unbiased news is to make the fairness doctrine ONLY apply to the news. not talk radio.

    news =/= talk radio
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 07-19-2009 at 07:50.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  9. #9

    Default Re: RIP Walter Cronkite

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    i wasnt saying you were supporting it. i was just making a point against the doctrine.

    the way how you get unbiased news is to make the fairness doctrine ONLY apply to the news. not talk radio.

    news =/= talk radio
    (Just asking) What about the pundits who give news but put their opinion on it? Is Bill O Reilly news or is he entertainment?


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO