the North Vietnamese, committed Marxists, assumed the offensive would provide the window of opportunity for their southern comrades to rise up and overthrow the puppet Saigon regime. Yet there was no such effort among southerners who instead largely tried to dodge the bullets.

But from the point of view of the American TV viewing public, who learned of suicide bomber penetration of the US Embassy in Saigon, it must have been like, "If this is winning, well then what would losing look like?"

The Tet offensive is regarded as a strategic military blunder but a great public relations coup for Hanoi.

No. Even if I misworded it, I think what I mean is fairly clear. There is the evidence and there is what the various factions claim. The journalist's job is to evaluate what the various factions say compared to the evidence.

What Cronkite was saying is that the evidence contradicts those who say we're winning the war in Vietnam. Emphasizing that would make clear what the reporter's function is.

The sentence that GG chose to emphasize : "We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. . . ." instead points to the time when reporters did what they do today - have faith in the statements of American leaders; and Cronkite seems to be saying, "only reluctantly have we abandoned that faith". Which Chuck Todd may have this apostasy six months from now - so what? Many reporters have concluded the Iraq war was founded on untruths six years after the war started - so what? "We have faith no longer...." points to an initial abdication of duty.

The job of the reporter is not to have faith in the first place. The reporter's duty is to the evidence.

The GWB administration tried to avoid bad press from the field by embedding reporters with deployed units, in order to "let the American public see it from the soldier's point of view."

This is a letter by someone I went to graduate school who wrote in response to a column by Tom Friedman which appeared in the NYT's:

I served with the Army in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, so I appreciate the faith that Mr. Friedman has in the average foot soldier. Unfortunately, his expectation that the troops will tell America when it's time to leave is misplaced for two reasons: the civilian leadership tells us when to stay and when to go, directing policy that we carry out, and war is intensely personal to the G.I. -- we don't want to leave thinking our service has been in vain.

We have to believe that we can contribute to a good outcome by simply crawling out of our sleeping bags each morning. While heartfelt, such optimism might be misplaced. If the White House is not able to define an end-state in Iraq, then Americans must demand that it do so.

Questioning authority does us no disservice. Grunts will fight as long as there's someone to fight. It's up to the public to decide when to call the game.

Great article, question where is the "journalists" of the past to challenge the power structure of today. The Chuck Todd problem is pointing out that the Journalists have turned into propagandists.

The Editors have turned into YES people, where is the journalists????

Under current network ownership another Cronkite or Murrow will NEVER be found sitting in the anchor chair.

There's NOTHING we can do to change that fact.

What we CAN do is demand reinstatement of a new improved Fairness Doctrine to rip the broadcast licenses from the talons of the media megaliths that own and abuse them.

Then we need to demand that a can of Sherman Anti-trust Act be busted open on their azz breaking these ministries of propaganda into a thousand little pieces.

Little noticed on progressive blogs was that Obama recently nominated and the Senate confirmed Julius Genachowski to head the FCC, a position that's perhaps more powerful than a Supreme Court Justice and Fed Governor combined.

Mr. Genachowski does not support a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Nor do Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, and Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who are certain to be confirmed for two of the four remaining seats.

There's a reason the far-right defends their dominance of the public's airwaves with more venom than any other issue. Controlling information is the most powerful weapon a fascist can wield. Take it away and not only would the Iraq war never have happened but the torturers would've been in jail long ago.

Trying to catch any one of the thousands of Chuck Todd's who infest our media in a 'gotcha moment' is good fun. But if you want more Cronkites and Murrows on the air you're going to have to first remove GE, Disney and Viacom's death grip on their broadcast licenses.

The airwaves belong to the public. That's you and me.

It's way past time to take them back.

viva la revolution ! ! !

hee hee hee

(hmmm, is 'revolution' feminine or masculine ?)

ho ho ho

in spite of pee dee ehh's (justifiable) lionization of me (*blush* comparing me with ghandi-gi and emm ell kay and such), i'm just a humble meme-bomb thrower...

ha ha ha

and my memes are blowin' up babbitt brainz ! ! !

ak ak ak

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

eof

Very nice article, Glenn! And unfortunately, it will be a message all but missing in the MSM. Even KO's Countdown (perhaps because Olbermann was on vacation, replaced by the less impressive David Shuster) mentioned the moment you praised - of Cronkite opposing the government's propaganda on Vietnam - as a sort of failure: Corporate America's Most Trusted Door-Matt Lauer, in his inimitably bland style, said "And once, in 1968, he dropped his anchorman's objectivity." Later in the same show, Tom Brokaw described him as the "quintessential American" because he was "from the heartland," a sentiment far too stupid to have ever crossed the mind or lips of Cronkite himself.

Still, I have long wished that, in the last couple decades especially, Cronkite would have used his stature to more loudly and regularly decry his failing, flailing profession. But, he seems to have been very proud of the fact that most people never knew his true opinions. This is fine regarding matters of opinion, but not with regard to issues of government policy, secrecy, lying and criminal behavior. As your column so frequently describes, we're in a mess largely because of the fallen state of journalism and reporting, today. I think we could have used more outspoken help from Uncle Walter to counter that.