Unlike many other television journalists, Walter Cronkite was not an "actor" but a true journalist. He was also the same man in person that you saw on television. This is what I learned when I met and spent a few minutes with Mr. Cronkite in the fall of 1972 when he was covering a McGovern campaign event.

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.

As a child, I watched Walter Cronkite read the news and was inspired. Since my father was fighting in Vietnam, I was keenly interested in the coverage of the war. Although I thought about other things I might like to be when I grew up, a writer/reporter/journalist kept rising to the top.

My dreams of being a writer/journalist were not well received by my enormously working class parents, neither of whom had gone to college. My father had left school in 8th grade to work in the timber industry and then the military, which he seemed safer.

So, my degrees were gained in other, even more "useless" areas (History & Anthropology).

And today? I'm a writer/reporter/journalist.

But I don't cover mainstream news. Seems plenty of entertainers are already pretending to do that.

I work in and cover adult entertainment and alternative sexuality. Would Cronkite have been flattered that his journalistic integrity pointed me in that direction? I dunno. But I do know that these are areas where very few people who cover them tell the truth -- and the truth is Very Important to me. I began covering these topics in order to learn more about them, since all I really knew was the "conventional wisdom" that so often is only conventional.

Now I'm a board member for the Free Speech Coalition and Free Speech Alliance. I am the liaison to the adult entertainment industry for the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and I am *convinced* that it is important for serious journalists like myself, Mark Kernes, Kathee Brewer, and Tom Hymes to continue the work we do -- because so many of the MSNBC/FOX/blahblahblah media stars are sure the hell not worrying about whether they're reporting the news or just blathering somebody's press release when it comes to such a marginalized industry and such marginalized topics.

Thanks, Walter!

These are very hard times and its not just the economy stupid!

1. Newspapers and investigative journalism are disappearing faster than an ice cube in hell.

2. Responsible journalistic blogs are hard to distinguish on the internet from all the crazies. You are only safe if you don't believe any of them.

3. I agree with Glenn Greenwald's comment about Cronkite's best moment. I blame journalists for the Iraq War as much as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. There were so many news conferences that I screamed at my TV, "Why not ask the hard questions?"

Some of the biggest failures were Tim Russert and "It not our Role" David Gregory. Tim Russert, I am aware that he is a god to some people, week after week had a high preponderance of right wing politicians and I never observed a show or mention by Tim that there was a possibility of global warming. David Gregory is following in his foot steps to a tee.

4. Brian Williams is so insipid and gives off a manner of an insidious aura. I wouldn't trust him with a little old lady crossing the street. Yet . . . . he is the best of a questionable lot in the Network newcasters. The only hope we have currently is the likes of Rachel Maddow. She is in Walter Cronkite's best tradition. True investigative journalism is not completely dead with her tenacious approach.

5. Glenn Greenwald touched on the matter of the current media rabble commemorating deaths of famous journalistic people as if the mere mention would rub off on them. I don't think that will succeed by them. They are too busy twittering or texting and hitting the SUV in front.