You are one of the few, Rachael, Ed and Keith all tell the truth, but fall short of challenging the other journalist on their MSNBC Network that spin the truth. CNN and the other networks present half truths to present themselves as being impartial.

I do not know who to complain to, to I chose you, the editor. Is there anything you can do about the annoying 'Roll Over Ads' you have in your site. It is impossible to navigate and read an article without one of those ads popping up and blocking the article.

I will purposely avoid any advertiser who uses them. They are intrusive and annoying. I realize it takes ads to pay the bills, but this "in your face" stuff really stinks.

Thank you,

PS. I do not know how you keep your composure when debating 'Uncle Pat'. (More like the relative that you are embarrassed to have show up at family events)

I have to disagree with you slightly about Russert, my friend. What he did to David Duke, certainly no left-winger, was classic. Russert is probably the closest since Cronkite and the golden age of network news to a journalist who was seen by most as non-partisan, and even he had his critics. Ask Bob Somerby over at the Daily Howler what he thought of Russert.

The simple answer to Joan's question is "no", there will never be another Cronkite because, unfortunately, there is no longer anyone whom both sides of the political spectrum see as unbiased in their presentation of news. Plus, the audience for journalism is far more splintered now. People dont just get their news from the three networks and the local paper. We have blogs, websites, cable, etc. What worries me for the future is that we increasingly are getting our news from sources that tell us the story as we want to hear it. Left-wingers go to left-wing websites, and right-wingers go to right-wing sources. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, unfortunately; I cant bear Fox News at all, or the Weekly Standard. We have a left, and we have a right, but I'm not sure we have a middle any longer.

I was a young man at the time of Cronkite reign at CBS. I admit with embarrassment that I didn't watch nightly. I was living my own life. However, I feel great scepticism when I hear TV news people canonize one of their own. Yes, probably Cronkite's greatest moment was when he reported that the Vietnam War was hopeless, but it seems to me that predominantly, like all of his colleagues, he hued to the style and format of TV news, which is to truth what chopped meat is to fillet mignon. We found out after the fact that he was more or less a liberal. He very likely was a decent man, but if he was the man we trusted the most, we were certainly in deep trouble. We are in deep trouble. We should be able to trust our leaders. TV news should admit openly and frankly when we cant trust them. I don't know anyone, except Bill Moyers to trust on that score. Moyers is the man, if anyone is, to be trusted by Americans. I think it is a distortion of reality to claim that any TV journalist is completely trustworthy. Cronkite had a successful career, but it is interesting to me that the name Edward R. Morrow is not mentioned in any of the TV homages. Don't tell me he didn't influence Cronkite and those that came later. In sum, Cronkite was undoubtedly an accomplished professional, but the degree of praise is overdone. Where is the journalist who will condemn George Bush and his cohorts? I wonder if even Walter

Cronkite would have had the courage to do so.

overdone

In the fall of 1972 I had the pleasure to meet and spend a few minutes with Walter Cronkite as he was covering a McGovern campaign event in Long Beach California. I was struck by how human the man was and that the man I met that afternoon was the same man I saw nightly on the CBS evening news.

If our country had more credible journalists like Cronkite maybe but maybe our country would be in a better place today. While it is true that Cronkite's comments on the Vietnam War following the Tet Offensive in 1968 changed American public opinion about the war, it must be remembered that America's participation in the war continued through 1973 and the war itself did not end until 1975. As a history teacher I share with my students that while Cronkite's comments were significant, students of the Vietnam War should not be mislead into believing that Cronkite's comments actually shortened the war or America's participation in the Vietnam War.

When Nixon realized that America's participation in the Vietnam War was interfering with his grand vision he moved to finally end America's participation. Unfortunately, more people died following Cronkite's famous comments that the war was not winnable than before he made his comments.

Are you kidding me?

He was a suck up. He may have been a nice guy, and his family stories were moving. I'm sure he was well liked by his peers and was a good family man, etc.

But he was a suck up.

He never "grilled" anyone. Though he was always tougher on Dems. He also always had on more Republicans than Dems, too.

"Meet the Conservatives" was the name of his show. No wonder you like him, virtue.

If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Conservatives!!!

Sheeeesh.

You would be the exception, then. Because the vast majority of the people who screamed about the letters being fake, said -- actually said, outright -- that it meant Bush was innocent of all charges.

And, most were not satisfied with even that. They manufactured an entire conspiracy theory about how all of CBS was out to ruin Bush and get Kerry elected.

To believe that is to believe in the tooth fairy.

Why? Because it means a person would have to ignore all of the scandals CBS (and the entire MSM) DIDN'T report. The MSM was extremely easy on the Bush administration, and we find evidence of that daily. The New York Times, for instance, knew about the illegal surveillance on all American citizens (before the 2004 election), but decided to squash the story until well after the election.

Scandal story after scandal story was withheld by the MSM. They never scrutinized the lies and the bogus rationales for war before Bush invaded. They acted like cheerleaders, actually.

We will eventually learn the full extent of how much the MSM (including CBS) was in bed with the Bushies someday. We already know they were serious lovers.

The other obvious fact: CBS is owned by Viacom. A major multinational. Again, its best interests were being met by the Bush administration. Big Business always gets a much better deal when conservatives are in power. They get lower taxes, more tax breaks, more subsidies and less regulation. They have no incentive to elect someone like Kerry. It flat out doesn't exist.

To be honest with you, I think the Rather story is a major distraction. It just allows the right to push their bogus myths about "liberal bias" and takes us away from the real truth:

Bush was a corrupt, lying, incredibly incompetent and destructive co-president. And Cheney was even worse. The MSM let them both skate for the better part of the last eight years, and it looks like the MSM hasn't learned a damn thing. Reading those emails sent to the Sanford staff is beyond embarrassing. It shows the Media's slavish devotion to access and its prime directive of protecting the establishment.

They don't speak truth to power, and we Americans are massively hurt in the process.