... even though it saddens me each time I think about what we've missed because he was taken far too soon.

As for Russert: I stopped watching MTP in late 2002 when it became obvious that the fix was in to present only the administration's POV

that is all.

[...] I have just returned with a Flying Fortress crew from Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

For two hours, I sat through a vicious gun duel with German Focke-Wulf 190 fighter planes and I saw what it was like to bomb Hitler on his home grounds.

We fought off Hitler's fighers and dodged his guns. The Fortress I rod in came back without damage. But we had the element of luck on our side.

Other formations caugh the blast of fighter blows and we watched Fortresses and Liberators plucked out of the formations around us. [...]- - Walter Cronkite, journalist, 1943-- sysprog

The FW109-F was the unsung scourge of our bombers back then. They made many more of the battle hardened ME-109's, but the Focke-Wulf's were indeed formidable war planes which were a match for any plane we built during the war- bar none. To actually have been on a tin can B-17 having your machine getting swiss cheesed by 20mm cannon is entering the brass cajones* category! Think the battle scene from "Memphis Belle". Wow.

I've noticed this among politicians and actors, along with the real journalists, who actually witnessed war up close- they tend not to bullshit. James Stewart was a bomber pilot (he did his 25 missions without excuses) and you could always sense a certain dignified resolve to his later work. Chuck Hagel is the same way. A Senator who earned a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) which means he actually carried a rifle into the rodeo, and used it. These guys aren't assholes either. Just like Walter.

* (uterus for the Pedinska's)

p.s. Appreciate the link to "An Elegy for a Rubber Stamp," a classic. It was surprising to find a post acknowledging unfamiliarity with Lewis Lapham, but that needn't continue. For any newcomer, his writings on Iraq wouldn't be a bad start.

Instead of saying stuff to make a small man seem bigger, they're saying stuff about a big man to make themselves seem bigger. I suspect Cronkite would have hated a lot of this coverage.

All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else. --- H. L. Mencken

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. --- H. L. Mencken

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time. --- H. L. Mencken

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. --- H. L. Mencken

----
We will not see the likes of that one again; and it is a shame. He never went to college, but may have been one of our finest writers. Certainly one of our finest thinkers. A real news man.

But, "trouble is" if all of the above is so, which it is, then why should, would, could you or anyone ever expect or hope or wish that any "independent source" would, could or should be trusted by "the nation as a whole". The "nation as a whole" is made up of those humans you alluded to in your lead in

Perfect objectivity in reporting is as impossible as a perfect work of art, I agree. But it is precisely because we are so caught in our individual views that a reporter should fight against it, and do everything in his or her power to remain objective. I don't think Cronkite wanted to be objective. You don't call MLK a "saint" if your objective. You don't say you've only met two geniuses and one of them was Walt Disney. You don't talk about how "history" will view Vietnam. He knew that as one of the three men the nation watched nightly, and the one who lucked into having the most appealing voice and paternal manner, he could shape the way people viewed events rather than just presenting the events and letting people decide for themselves. I don't respect that. And the result is that every journalist since then has asked "When do I get to be Father Knows Best to the nation?" Yes indeed it is Cronkite who lead to Bill O'Reilly.

RMP:

Todd [...] saying he must view things at 30,000 feet because at ground level he can’t see the forest for the trees

__________

I think what you meant to say is that Todd was saying that "political realists" (such as CT) must NOT (or must not ONLY) view things at 30,000 foot but, instead, must come down to ground level and deal with the nitty gritty details of "political reality" that CT sees down on the battlefield where CT labors but that GG can't see from GG's elevated perch.

Chuck Todd said that the 30,000 foot view is wrong or incomplete.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/16/todd/index1.html

CT: 30,000 feet [...] is an idealistic view

CT: Then you have the realistic view of how this town works

GG: GG: How can a political controversy - I thought the whole point of having a Justice Department in a civilized country, was that it's supposed to be immune from political considerations.

CT: Of course, on the 30,000 feet level, it is supposed to work that way.

CT: But [...]

- - Chuck Todd and Glenn Greenwald, Thursday, July 16, 2009

RMP:It is amazing how the myth that a reporter can be objective persists to this day'!

Let's all thank Walter for it because where I live he is "hailed" for his 'objectivity' - and

I know how fast the American language is changing - but 'objectivity'?! - a Schimpfwort?!

Walter might have to turn in his grave a few times!

...and integrity does not necessarily require objectivity, but it does require honesty.

Unfortunately, our legacy media deliver neither.