What a fascinating person he would have been to talk to about the events which occurred in his lifetime. (He was probably quite conversant on many which occurred earlier.)

By contrast, if you interviewed the late Tim Russert, or Bill O'Reilly or any of the other contemporary cast of characters, it would probably quickly turn to their dealings with political movers and shakers. "What was it like to interview a sitting president?" And you would become privvy to such insights as, "This person comes across as nice but is really a diva." It's doubtful the discussion would focus on issues (as opposed to personalities).

Cronkite outlived journalism by at least 15 years.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The way things are going, it could easily be the fourth branch of government.

at Steve LeVine's blog (foreign affairs writer for BusinessWeek) is an interesting read.

http://oilandglory.com/2009/07/guest-column-scott-horton-on-pirate-of.html

Imagine if Scott Horton, Glenn, Dan Froomkin, Amy Goodman, Marcy Wheeler, Matt Taibbi and a few others around the blogosphere were the standards by which journalism was actually measured instead of people like Todd, Russert, Big Bird Gregory, Williams, et al.

http://www.harpers.org/#hbc-90005388

The interview with Prof. Balkin on the now "legally entrenched surveillance" state and the piece on John Yoo are both worth a read as well.

NYTpicker blog:

http://www.nytpick.com/2009/07/alessandra-stanleys-reign-of-error-in.html

Saturday, July 18, 2009

That's Not The Way It Is: In Cronkite Appraisal, Alessandra Stanley Gets Several Facts Wrong. Again.

Television critic Alessandra Stanley's reign of error returned this morning with three key mistakes

[...] an impressive achievement for a reporter whose primary job is to watch television.

[...] UPDATE: The NYT has appended a correction to Stanley's column, noting three other errors The NYTPicker missed! That brings the total number of errors to six:

[...] Other statements, while not outright errors, don't measure up as an accurate appraisal.

[...] It's sad to see the career of so iconic a figure in American history get such sloppy treatment at the hands of a critic who had weeks to prepare for this moment. But in much the way America came to count on Cronkite for the facts, NYT readers have come to count on Alesssandra Stanley for the careless mistakes that continue to dominate her career.

- - NYTPicker

Ignoring Glenn Greenwald and his spur of the moment writings seems to me to be the best option. Greenwald is just another self-prompter desperately trying to become rich and famous by attacking those on his enemies list. Maybe he believes what he writes, maybe he doesn't. Who knows, and should we care? Everyone of Greenwald's ilk try to do each other in personal invective and political cant.

As to Cronkite: he was mainly another 'reader of the news'. Then he gave in to a desire to make the news, to be above a mere 'news reader'. The 1968 Tet offensive did severely damage the VC, as even the communists admit, but Cronkite did not. The U.S. Military did defeat the communists in South Viet Nam. But thanks to the Cronkites and lefties of the day, the U.S. politicians preferred defeat to victory. Did Cronkite ever think of the millions killed after the communists swept down and through South Viet Nam, and Cambodia? Or was he too busy fighting to keep wind turbines from blocking his pretty view?

journalism attracted first-rate minds. Not just Halberstam, but Sidney Schamberg's reporting on the rise of the Khmer Rouge was very good.

On another thread David Sirota mentions he was handed "Red China Blues" as essential background reading for his first visit to the Middle Kingdom. The author, Jan Wong, is a Canadian-Chinese journalist who returned to the motherland at a time Americans couldn't get in. She learned the craft as an assistant to Fox Butterfield, a fluent Chinese speaker who was the first American reporter to be stationed in Beijing after Deng Xiaoping came to power.

These types don't go into the profession which relies a lot more on outside expertise. "Here's professor x to tell us about the situation in country y." The interviewer doesn't really know very much and professor x wants to land a contract as a regular commentator, which can generate fees greater than his teaching salary. Thus, he provides responses which will make it more likely he will be invited back.

at John Cole's blog:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=24271#comment-1303485

I was in the Delta during Thieu’s last run for president of Vietnam. The newspapers were shut down and the civil police were paying rewards to those who informed on their neighbors for badmouthing Thieu. Thieu’s critics often found themselves dragooned into service as unarmed battlefield labor.

I was only there in ‘71-’72 and it never occurred to us to blame Walter Cronkite for the fact that we weren’t winning. We felt that the fact that our enemy was highly mobile during the day and owned the night contributed to our failure to win (Whatever the hell “win” meant). Being surrounded by a populace that was anywhere from hostile to indifferent to us while at the same time indifferent to supportive of the enemy was another little obstacle. There were a lot of reasons why we didn’t achieve a WWII-type victory in Vietnam, Walter Cronkite and the Democrats weren’t among them.

In a just world, the coprophagous little weasels who push the “We could have won in Vietnam” would have to go back and sit with me in Firepoint 5 during a 2AM sapper attack. If they ever regained the power of speech they sure as fuck wouldn’t be talking the way they are now.

- - Dennis-SGMM

__________

The rise of the Khmer Rouge was in part due to Nixon's decision to expand the bombing of North Vietnam into Cambodia, which probably occurred under LBJ as well. This destabilized the small country caught in the middle and opened the door to the rise of a group with a radical ideology demonizing all foreigners who had interfered in Cambodian affairs since the time of Angkor Wat.

Curiously, so many officials in the Cambodian government today are former Khmer Rouge, some of whom defected to Vietnam, that the war crimes tribunal is just getting off the ground, 30 years later.