Isn't the bill sent to Mason's family the logical end result of the minimalist state conservatives advocate?

It may well be. I am talking mostly from the point of view of someone who has travelled to New Hampshire in the past and has fond memories and is now thinking twice about returning. I find myself thinking "What statutes do I need to bone up on before I go? Maybe I'll go someplace else." Basicallly, I don't feel as welcome as I used to.

And if the agenda is conservative, then I would assume it is pro-business. As per my previous post, this decision seems anti-business to me as it will drive away tourists.

"I think what was irresponsible, though that lacks legal consequences, was setting out alone in a remote place. He was unlikely to encounter other hikers at this time of the year should he need help.

It may actually be that he was irresponsible. I would need to know a lot more before deciding. I do admit that all Eagle scouts I have known have been very capable alone in very adverse situations and that leads me to think he honestly felt he could take care of himself, even under the circumstances cited. Again, I need to know more before deciding.

You get gravitas by eating lots of gravlaks.

Just look at the people in any Ibsen play or Bergman movie or Munch painting.

Every dang one of em is weighed down with gravitas.

Eric Sevareid got plenty of gravlaks, and thus plenty of gravitas, from growing up Norwegian.

He shared some lunch with Murrow and Cronkite . . . and there you go.

So your theory is that "gravitas" is actually a physiological condition-- in fact, gravlak-induced agita, if I'm picking up what you're putting down.

I'm intrigued by this analysis, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Hold the complimentary gravlaks, though. I'd gladly trade a dozen graavilohi for a single ravioli, and be finnished with it.

I'm sure he thought he could, and he did. He's not like some of those who were rescued in the Sierra Nevada, "Oh, it gets cold up here?" A missing hiker was found dead today near Palm Springs, where there's no shade, no water, and the mercury hits 115 at this time of year.

In more populous states search and rescue has been outsourced to volunteer organizations. My brother has traveled all over California, at his own expense, to help find people. Part of it is to test his mettle and the other the satisfaction which comes from finding someone alive after their family has feared the worst. There was one where they had to drag dead bodies down from a private plane crash so it doesn't always end happily.

There's a California teenager well known in hiking circles, Mary Chambers, who hiked 120 miles on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) through Washington last summer. When she was 10 she walked the entire PCT, 2,650 miles from Mexico to Canada.

She doesn't go out alone, though. That does seem irresponsible at this time of year in such a remote locale as the White Mountains.

I'd certainly agree that Chuck Todd lacks grav.

LittleBrother-I think it was mentioned, but certainly not expounded on like you did.

I see your point, but I worry when we talk about personality traits, particularly because the MSM nowadays is a cult of personality. Personally, Cronkite earned my respect more by an accumulation of individual actions, and less because of his personality. For me, when he spoke truth to power, I was not surprised. I grew up expecting that from journalists. (I had a similar expectation from the Supreme Court. I remember thinking many times: "Well an injustice has been done, but at least the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it and will do the right thing." ) How far we've come!

I know you are not espousing cults of personality and that I'm a bit hard-line on this. And especially so since the link to "The Elements of Journalism" earlier in the thread http://www.journalism.org/node/72

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

I think it was RMP who supplied the link, so h/t.

Anyway, it's where I'm coming from and it's not inconsistent with gravitas.

Thanks for un-thread-jacking. The sucker on top of my head was getting sore. I tried to stay out of it. I just couldn't.

Betzee-I'm bowing out.

Tuesday, Feb. 27, 1968: Cronkite tells the nation the truth about Vietnam after getting a firsthand look.

Thursday, Feb. 29, 1968: McNamara's departure is announced.

We report. You decide.

Points taken.

That said, while I was ruminating over how I perceived Cronkite-- I was 8 years old when he announced JFK's death-- I bethought myself of another character trait manifestly lacking from the present generation of mediots: sobriety-- in the deeper original sense of the term, which comprises gravity and seriousness.

To a discerning observer, both politicians and media celebrities substitute pomposity for sobriety, as pollock is substituted for crab. (I hope it's clear that I regard "true" gravitas as modest in nature-- the very antithesis of the Common Bloviator.)

Another concept begging to be noticed is authority.

That said, I did not mean to suggest that these qualities are inherent personality traits; I do think of them as character traits, which can be learned or acquired. And I certainly agree that someone who respects and follows the principles you've set forth will acquire a natural gravitas and authority regardless of his or her personality.

Amazing.

I was just coming back to leave that word here for you. And basically say what you said (thought probably not as clearly.) That authority must be earned. One BECOMES an authority. I picked it up over at NPR, relistening to Saturday's Weekend Edition, {but unfortunately didn't get the exact quote.)

Some other snippets from NPR:

Network executives often pushed for softer stories. As they brought entertainment values to their news divisions. [Andy Rooney]: "But Walter didn't care. He was absolutely in favor of giving the American people what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear."

Boy, try and get the MSM to do that today.

And this quote from Walter himself (through commenter Sally Richey over at NPR comments)

The nation whose population depends on the explosively compressed headline service of television news can expect to be exploited by the demagogues and dictators who prey upon the semi-informed...

And then this drivel from Juan Williams:

Why there's No Place for Another Cronkite.

Host Scott Simon talks with NPR news analyst Juan Williams about the life and impact of Walter Cronkite.

It wasn't just that he was reluctant to become the pundit, but he was, in terms of the news show that he produced, he was highly competitive about beating NBC. He would watch their show after his show to make sure that he had everything. But here was someone who did not allow the show to devolve into the cult of personality, which now defines lots of prime time news programming. And he wouldn't pander to the audience by putting on entertainment and celebrities in order to boost the ratings. It was really about the news. On that point, when he then does that special on VietNam, it was rare that he would do a 1-hour special, it carries tremendous weight. Or when he does the extended segments on Watergate, again it carries tremendous impact because the audience understands that this in not someone who is attacking the politicians coming from left or right but simply trying to give you an account of our time and that is such a rarity today. I don't think you can have a Walter Cronkite in the fragmented niche media that we see especially on television today. There is no space for Walter Cronkite.

As GG would say, is there a better example of the vapidity of today's MSM...

The story does nothing to answer the question in the title.

I learn nothing about the impact of WC

I resent the insipidness of implying that WC was a pundit; that is an insult.

I don't remember any of the network news programs "pandering to the audience". JW implies that WC was unique in that. To me, though I appreciate that WC was that way, it didn't make him special in relation to the other networks. JW adds an air of uniqueness to WC on this issue, probably in order to make it special when it was just normal.

He pronounces that "There is no space for Walter Cronkite" without really telling us why or, heaven forbid, what he might be able to do about it. David Fochenflich (spelling?) in the previous piece had also said "He expected to hold a senior role at the network during the Dan Rather era and was hurt to learn there was no room." They make it sound like CBS ran out of office space or something. And I've forgotten the details of that incident.

On sobriety-the lack of it in journalism today leads to the same in me. : )