There have been comments that editorializing is not journalism, which is simply wrong. Fact-based, carefully presented, they can be the best of journalism, and is a primary reason for the 1st Amendment. Journalism is the difference between editorial and opinion.

Of today's television newspeople, I think the only ones Cronkite would applaud are Couric and Maddow. Couric is sometimes too deferential, but when the BS gets too deep, or the story too important, she circles for the kill. While she's not "Aunt Katie," in some ways her style is similar to Cronkite's: stay out of the fray until someone needs to stand up.

Cronkite must have loved Maddow. While affable and polite, she cuts no one slack. She dosn't attack but let's her interviews keep spooling the rope until they hang themselves. In fact, when she smells a hack jpb, she encourages the guest to keep going, like a cat playing with her prey. The quintessential example is just the other day, when she let Patrick "Uncle Pat" Buchanan implode before our eyes. And she adores Pat Buchanan. Maddow has two things that no one else uses as well: brains and integrity. Compare any of the talking heads, the reporters, the pundits. She's head and shoulders above them all.

The last of the old-schoolers is Olbermann. Olbermann? Yup, KO. But he can also be the biggest disappointment. Nobody respects a blowhard. HOlbermann seems to believe bluster is a good substitute for gravitas. The more important his story or comment, the louder he gets. The louder he gets, the worse his ability to communicate. It's a classic example of if a little works well, then a lot must be that much better. But it's not.

One of the reasons Cronkite's comments had so much impact was they were few and far bwtween. So if he took the time to say something personal, you knew it was important. When he interviewed he wasn't afraid to ask the tough question, and to expect an answer. He was a lot like the BBC interviewers, except not in-your-face confrontational. Finally, as an old-school reporter he knew nothing was as important as the facts, and nothing else gets equal time.

Most of the rest are what Glen Frey aptly called the "bubble-headed bleach-blondes who come on at 5." And while he may never have said it directly, you could tell they disgusted Cronkite.

Being judged by your name is nothing like being judged by your public "persona." It's not fair that you are treated poorly (or better) based on your name alone. On the other hand it is not only fair, but reasonable and necessary that people are judged on their worst behavior. Intolerance, bigotry, lies, and antisocial behavior in public is not excused by being affable in your personal life.

Should we celebrate the pedophile priests because they're such wonderful, faithful people in public? By the same token people such as your cousin and Coulter are, based on their public actions, low-life scum. I don't care if "Rusty" pays the college tuition for a thousand disadvantaged students, or if Coulter works every weekend for Habitat For Humanity. They've both done more damage, and harmed more people than they can ever make up for in 5 lifetimes. And his using largesse and apologizing seems a transparent, insincere attempt to convince you otherwise.

What really doesn't wash is that your disdain for Coulter doesn't carry over to Rush. You may have to attend family gatherings, but you don't have to associate with or make excuses for him.