"And I don't think Mr. Cronkite would have approved. Mr. Todd is the embodiment of the little snippet from 1975 that has just been posted".

I wouldn't think that either and how could you come to the conclusion I would?

Because nobody seems to know anymore what 'objectivity' really means?

I never thought that Chucky is or was 'objective' and I can't help that nowadays you easily

can figure out from which political or social side American journalists are writing or preaching from - and supposedly 4o years again it was quite different. When my dad interviewed Conny Chung at the beginning of the eighties she predicted that soon also 'News' would be all about 'ratings' and 'entertainment' - and I guess here we are - and I can't agree more with what Glenn wrote today - but sometimes there seems to be confusion because THE MAJOR quality of Cronkite - (and why even Johnson believed him) - was his objectivity!

(not in a 'Chucky' way - Thank you!)

*Joe Pyne: "So I guess your long hair makes you a woman."

Frank Zappa: "So I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."*

That's TV gold! Thx

that Cronkite wouldn't have been half as 'effective' if everybody would have known he is some right- or left wing ideologue!!

As for Michael Jackson, he was a sight more interesting than any of the mouthpieces of this established order or that, and that's why what's left of the media went on about him for so long. You might try to figure out why that's so, instead of sniff at it. Here's your first clue: he brought something.

Right. Now do us all a favor and make like Michael Jackson:

Beat it.

It is sad to recognize that 28 years after WC left his anchor post, he was the last of his kind.

America's Newsman Was Last of a Broadcast Breed (see sig)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071703787.html?hpid=artslot

I don't think Howie realizes the underlying truth in his statement from the article:

“But his death also reminds us that there can never be another Cronkite -- not just because of the media's fragmentation, but also because Americans will never again trust journalists how they trusted him.”

no bassanio: "They don't care about us"!!

"because Americans will never again have 'objective' journalists like him.”!

As with the death of Michael Jackson, I haven't had the TV on since Cronkite died because of the onslaught of nauseating bloviations that I have no doubt are occurring from Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, et.al., but from looking at the online coverage it’s interesting to see how it was decided he was “best known for his coverage of the Kennedy assassination”. I guess because he showed emotion and it wasn’t controversial -- the sort of thing the media love (like Skippy’s “bullhorn in the debris” moment).

Of all the accomplishments of Cronkite’s career, to think his greatest was talking off his glasses, biting his lip, and saying that Kennedy’s death was official, is kind of odd. But then again, Bing Crosby is seen as nothing more than a Christmas singer these days..

I think it fair to say that when Cronkite and Murrow left the air, TV news began its slide into the surreal world of championship wrestling and people magazine. "The prime minister carried a stern message to the conference, but more importantly, did you see what his wife was wearing?"

CBS's downfall was when Lawrence Tisch bought the network and began to 'profit center' the news department, and when Dan Rather went along with that; the money he made was just too good for him to stand up to Tisch. The rest of the networks followed the mediocrity slide, and so here we are.

If Ted Turner had any guts, he'd either get CNN back, and start over, or he'd start a new network and not allow it to fall into the newsmodel template. Even BBC World Service Radio has fallen into mediocrity---and that is saying something, given that network's history. NPR is not worth the trouble to criticize.

And I think Mr. Cronkite would be highly embarrassed and upset by the amount of time that has been spent eulogizing him. I think he'd say that a brief mention would be fine, but then please get to some NEWS.

Randy Fritz

Here's your first clue: he brought something.
___________________________________

I got it!: Bubbles-- to the Grammies!

What do I win?

that somehow some people define 'objectivity' in a complete different way than I do (or the dictionary)

"The ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices"---

In an other word:THE TRUTH?!

Halberstam and Sheenan were close to Colonel Vann, who believed from first hand experience that Diem's minions were getting in the way of effective U.S. operations. Vann wanted to clear the way for an open ended U.S. commitment, and used Halberstam to press his view of the battles.

It is true that Kennedy was upset with such reports, and that Vann was shunned when he returned to Washington for a briefing. But something must have gotten through, because Kennedy's lead diplomat, Lodge, orchestrated the coup which brought down Diem that fall. This, in turn, laid the foundation for what became the Vietnam War.

The men Halberstam despised favored a proxy war with a conflicted Diem and a limited U.S. commitment. They were more right than Vann. Sheehan wrote all about this in his book, "Bright Shining Lie." He and Halberstam were both badly duped by Vann, who convinced them he was being held back in promotions by top brass because he was too bold. Turned out, he had some sex problems instead.

What is missing from the tributes to Walter Cronkite is the fact that if he were a young reporter today doing the same things he did in his life, Walter Cronkite would NEVER be named an anchor on the evening news, let alone it's managing editor.

There were also tremendous pressures on CBS News in those days (I reccommend reading David Halberstam's book "The Powers That Be")

Just reading about how the Nixon Whitehouse (Chuck Colson) called up Bill Paley to complain about a lengthy rport that CBS news had done on Watergate in late October 1972.

Really a story that was late and compromised when it finally aired.

Let's remember his journalistic standards correctly, standards which the people in today's media who praise Walter Cronkite never come close to.

The only news worth watching today is the Newshour on PBS.

The rest is bunk.