PDA

View Full Version : Man, Walter is Gone!



Ken Bora
07-17-2009, 10:15 PM
Man, Walter is Gone! L


I remember being a wee little kid.
Everyone in the school was in the library sitting on the floor watching the black and white television.
Mr. Cronkite told us all that our beloved Astronauts had launched or landed or splashed down.
Every launch was an event, not like today. And narrated to us by Walter. He was the news to watch.

YardleyLabs
07-18-2009, 07:36 AM
Cronkite was an extraordinary man. It is sad to see what now passes as journalism in his wake.

Franco
07-18-2009, 08:33 AM
My mon prefered Huntley & Brinkley so, that's what we watched when I was a youngster.

Though Cronkite became controversial during the Vietnam War, lets don't forget he was a reporter at Normandy during the invasion. To paraphase Churchill, "Great events create great individuals".

dnf777
07-18-2009, 08:37 AM
What a voice! Nowadays, your voice and diction have no bearing, so long as you fill out a low-cut designer dress and know how to shoot looks at the camera!

dnf777
07-20-2009, 09:17 AM
I finally heard it today. Someone at work calling Walter Cronkite a liberal, media elitist, anti-war un-patriot!

Of all the things.......! :-(

Hew
07-20-2009, 09:46 AM
Thank goodness the days of Cronkite's form of journalism are gone. Thank goodness we have access to multiple forms of media from which we can get our news, and that the days when a mere handful of men, cloaking their political beliefs under the guise of "journalism" could hold such persuasive power over a multitude of people. Thank goodness it is no longer possible for a journalist to attain the title of "most trusted man in America." He didn't deserve the moniker then, and no journalist deserves it now.

dnf777
07-20-2009, 10:11 AM
Thank goodness the days of Cronkite's form of journalism are gone. Thank goodness we have access to multiple forms of media from which we can get our news, and that the days when a mere handful of men, cloaking their political beliefs under the guise of "journalism" could hold such persuasive power over a multitude of people. Thank goodness it is no longer possible for a journalist to attain the title of "most trusted man in America." He didn't deserve the moniker then, and no journalist deserves it now.

Walter said it best when he described himself as a liberal reporter. By liberal, he meant not beholden to any ideology, free to state facts as they are, not as they're percieved.

Franco
07-20-2009, 10:21 AM
After North Vietnam's Tet Offensive, we had the communist on their knees. They took such heavy loses after Tet that Gen. Giap wasn't sure how long it would take for them to recover, if they ever would. Then came Mr Cronkite telling the American people after Tet that we were in a war we wouldn't win and turned the east and west coasters against the war. The communist saw the turning tide in the USA and that gave them the determination to persevere. The North Vietnamesse can thank Mr Cronkite for breeding new life into thier struggle!

Hew
07-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Walter said it best when he described himself as a liberal reporter. By liberal, he meant not beholden to any ideology, free to state facts as they are, not as they're percieved.
LOL. Good one. It's always nice to start a Monday with a knee-slapper. Thanks!

road kill
07-20-2009, 10:58 AM
Wasn't Cronkite the voice of narration on the show "20th Century?"

Awesome in the day, before the Histroy Channel.

Marvin S
07-20-2009, 12:09 PM
Thank goodness the days of Cronkite's form of journalism are gone. Thank goodness we have access to multiple forms of media from which we can get our news, and that the days when a mere handful of men, cloaking their political beliefs under the guise of "journalism" could hold such persuasive power over a multitude of people. Thank goodness it is no longer possible for a journalist to attain the title of "most trusted man in America." He didn't deserve the moniker then, and no journalist deserves it now.

Amen to that - :cool:

dnf777
07-20-2009, 02:13 PM
After North Vietnam's Tet Offensive, we had the communist on their knees. They took such heavy loses after Tet that Gen. Giap wasn't sure how long it would take for them to recover, if they ever would. Then came Mr Cronkite telling the American people after Tet that we were in a war we wouldn't win and turned the east and west coasters against the war. The communist saw the turning tide in the USA and that gave them the determination to persevere. The North Vietnamesse can thank Mr Cronkite for breeding new life into thier struggle!

If what you say is true, then I owe him thanks....my Dad's draft number was just about up when we started pulling out, and he wasn't in the Cheney Deferrment Club!

subroc
07-20-2009, 08:35 PM
...your voice and diction have no bearing, so long as you fill out a low-cut designer dress and know how to shoot looks at the camera!

I have no problem with that.


I finally heard it today. Someone at work calling Walter Cronkite a liberal, media elitist, anti-war un-patriot!
Of all the things.......!

He was.


Thank goodness the days of Cronkite's form of journalism are gone. Thank goodness we have access to multiple forms of media from which we can get our news, and that the days when a mere handful of men, cloaking their political beliefs under the guise of "journalism" could hold such persuasive power over a multitude of people. Thank goodness it is no longer possible for a journalist to attain the title of "most trusted man in America." He didn't deserve the moniker then, and no journalist deserves it now.

I agree with this.


After North Vietnam's Tet Offensive, we had the communist on their knees. They took such heavy loses after Tet that Gen. Giap wasn't sure how long it would take for them to recover, if they ever would. Then came Mr Cronkite telling the American people after Tet that we were in a war we wouldn't win and turned the east and west coasters against the war. The communist saw the turning tide in the USA and that gave them the determination to persevere. The North Vietnamesse can thank Mr Cronkite for breeding new life into thier struggle!

This is my understanding of events as well. If anything he should have been discredited and charged with treason.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 09:13 PM
I miss having journalists and patriots with his integrity and respect for his audience. We have sacrificed all notion of journalistic integrity on the alter of the Fox, equating patriotism with being the biggest bully on the block.

With respect to Vietnam, we picked the wrong side in 1957 when Eisenhower decided to reject the elections agreed to by France and the United Nations following France's agreement to withdraw. Eisenhower's mistake was cemented by Kennedy and taken to ridiculous extremes by Johnson and McNamara (who at least had the courtesy to apologize for the lies used to justify the war). We sent 60,000 of our young men, including kids I grew up with, to die and more than 300,000 to be wounded in a war that never should have been fought with a country that should have been and may still become one of our strongest allies in Asia. I'm glad we pulled out when we did. I wish we had done so a million lives sooner.

In the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is." And in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

IowaBayDog
07-20-2009, 09:22 PM
I miss having journalists and patriots with his integrity and respect for his audience. We have sacrificed all notion of journalistic integrity on the alter of the Fox, equating patriotism with being the biggest bully on the block.
"


"Journalistic Integrity" was a fallacy that never existed. The Cronk is probably the best example, everyone took him as a respected source of news and the reality is he was just a liberal hack like most of the mainstream media today. With all the "integrity" scandals at the NY Times (Blair), CBS (Rather), et al its interesting that you singled out Fox because they lean right. Don't remember the stories of them manufacturing "evidence" on a Presidential candidate during a campaign.

Franco
07-20-2009, 09:52 PM
With respect to Vietnam, we picked the wrong side in 1957 when Eisenhower decided to reject the elections agreed to by France and the United Nations following France's agreement to withdraw. Eisenhower's mistake was cemented by Kennedy and taken to ridiculous extremes by Johnson and McNamara (who at least had the courtesy to apologize for the lies used to justify the war). We sent 60,000 of our young men, including kids I grew up with, to die and more than 300,000 to be wounded in a war that never should have been fought with a country that should have been and may still become one of our strongest allies in Asia. I'm glad we pulled out when we did. I wish we had done so a million lives sooner.

In the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is." And in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."


Jeff, you missed my point. Had Walter Cronkite reported accurately after the Tet Offensive, the war might have ended in 1968 instead of 1973. Had reporter Cronkite told the American people what really happened, that we had inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, caused massive damage to their capacity to fight and rallied American morale, The North Vietnamese would have been forced to approach the peace talks with more urgency. Instead, they learned to play into a war of attrition using the American press to serve their cause.

Yes, in hindsight the Vietnam War was a mistake. However, one journalist’s influence of it changed the course of history.

wayne anderson
07-20-2009, 09:56 PM
Just wondering, who would you label as a "conservative hack?" I am a retired journalist, and a conservative and I consider Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley and their cohorts the last true reporters to appear on TV news. They were first print journalists who moved to the new media--not the talking heads we must suffer on TV today. I agree with the notion that the majority of today's journalists are patently over-liberal and let their views enter into their reporting far too much. This has had to start with their university training. When I was a young reporter, news was news and opinions remained on the editorial pages. That was pounded into our young heads in J-school, at least at South Dakota State University, but I assume not so much today, unfortunately.

Franco
07-20-2009, 10:01 PM
It's really not journalism today but, rip and read entertainment or political party talk on both sides of the issues.

Henry V
07-20-2009, 10:03 PM
Amazing discussion. Is there anything you right wingers can't blame on the media?

Walter Cronkite, a left wing hack "journalist" who, as part of the media mafia of the time, single handedly extended the Vietnam War. Truly a mainstream point of view.

road kill
07-20-2009, 10:05 PM
I miss having journalists and patriots with his integrity and respect for his audience. ."


You mean like Dan Rather??

Please, stop, your killin' me!!:lol::lol::lol:

subroc
07-20-2009, 10:16 PM
Amazing discussion. Is there anything you right wingers can't blame on the media?

No. they are pretty much resposible for the downfall of the west but if there is any blame left over we blame liberal educators.

Franco
07-20-2009, 10:20 PM
Amazing discussion. Is there anything you right wingers can't blame on the media?

Walter Cronkite, a left wing hack "journalist" who, as part of the media mafia of the time, single handedly extended the Vietnam War. Truly a mainstream point of view.

I don't think there is any question that much of the media and then Hollywood became sympathetic with the North Vietnamese, extending the war. Cronkite was the first personality with a major audience to do so.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 10:36 PM
Jeff, you missed my point. Had Walter Cronkite reported accurately after the Tet Offensive, the war might have ended in 1968 instead of 1973. Had reporter Cronkite told the American people what really happened, that we had inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, caused massive damage to their capacity to fight and rallied American morale, The North Vietnamese would have been forced to approach the peace talks with more urgency. Instead, they learned to play into a war of attrition using the American press to serve their cause.

Yes, in hindsight the Vietnam War was a mistake. However, one journalistís influence of it changed the course of history.
I actually suspect that the journalists were behind the curve and that public tolerance for a war without end to anything but casualties had already reached its end. The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish anything. More troops was not a real option plus our earlier expansion of the number of troops had failed to meet any of the objectives set for those expansions.When McNamara left in early 1968, he was convinced that there was no winning strategy. Further, intelligence reports at that time suggested that there would be no negative geopolitical consequences to a withdrawal. Cronkite didn't make support for the war go away. The parents of the kids being killed made that happen. We look today at the 4000 US troops killed in Iraq and forget too easily what it was like to lose 58000 dead and another 2000 MIA's presumed dead.

A trip to Vietnam gives some pretty immediate feedback on just how misguided our war strategies were. 25 years following the end of WWII, the destruction from the war was still apparent everywhere in Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, and Russia. This was true despite the Marshall Plan and major efforts at reconstruction.

25 years following our withdrawal, you could not tell there had ever been a war except from the missing limbs of the survivors and the complete absence of wildlife. This was true despite the fact that Vietnam had operated in isolation because of American embargoes until 1992. The reason was simple. Vietnam had no infrastructure to destroy: no major road systems, no major rail systems, no major ports, no electrical grid, etc., etc. The idea of winning by bombing someone back to the middle ages assumes that they are not already there. I am very skeptical of all claims that we might have "won" had support for the war remained strong.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 10:38 PM
No. they are pretty much resposible for the downfall of the west but if there is any blame left over we blame liberal educators.
:D:D:D:D
There we have it in a nutshell.

Franco
07-21-2009, 06:26 AM
Again, had the American Press not aided the communist, the war would have ended in 1968-69. President Nixon's goal of, peace with honor could have been achieved if not for the support the communist received by much of the U S Press. The Vietnamese learned how to play the press like a puppet to thier benefit and that cost us another 20,000-25,000 dead.

quote:The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish
:end quote

Hot air? The communist were on their knees after the Tet Offensive. Had we used the Tet Offensive as a reason to start bombing the north, they would have worked much harder for peace at the talks in Paris. But, then they realized the American Press was on their side. CIA Intelligence stated that bombing the jungles of S Vietnam was ineffective that that we need to concentrate on the Ho supply line and the the ports of the north which Nixion beleived to be true. That's why we went into Cambodia and incresed our attacks on the north. I believe your statement above to be a bit "revisionist".

Again, just like Iraq, Vietnam was a war we should have never fought. However, it was the American Press in both cases that has given aide to the enemy.

dnf777
07-21-2009, 09:14 AM
:D:D:D:D
There we have it in a nutshell.

Who was clipping the Depends coupons?? I need a few about now!

Of course, my bladder incontinence isn't from laughing so hard, its part of the Cronkite-Clinton-Carter communist conspiracy to rule the universe and give us all leaky bladders! It's also their fault the latches on my barn door broke. And my truck squeaks, and the air-conditioner isn't as cold as I'd like. Oh wait, that's Biden's department. :-P

Hew
07-21-2009, 10:33 AM
Of course, my bladder incontinence isn't from laughing so hard, its part of the Cronkite-Clinton-Carter communist conspiracy to rule the universe and give us all leaky bladders! It's also their fault the latches on my barn door broke. And my truck squeaks, and the air-conditioner isn't as cold as I'd like. Oh wait, that's Biden's department. :-P
So says the reigning and still undefeated POTUS Place "Bush Did It" Champion.

Leddyman
07-21-2009, 10:50 AM
I actually suspect that the journalists were behind the curve and that public tolerance for a war without end to anything but casualties had already reached its end. The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish anything. More troops was not a real option plus our earlier expansion of the number of troops had failed to meet any of the objectives set for those expansions.When McNamara left in early 1968, he was convinced that there was no winning strategy. Further, intelligence reports at that time suggested that there would be no negative geopolitical consequences to a withdrawal. Cronkite didn't make support for the war go away. The parents of the kids being killed made that happen. We look today at the 4000 US troops killed in Iraq and forget too easily what it was like to lose 58000 dead and another 2000 MIA's presumed dead.

A trip to Vietnam gives some pretty immediate feedback on just how misguided our war strategies were. 25 years following the end of WWII, the destruction from the war was still apparent everywhere in Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, and Russia. This was true despite the Marshall Plan and major efforts at reconstruction.

25 years following our withdrawal, you could not tell there had ever been a war except from the missing limbs of the survivors and the complete absence of wildlife. This was true despite the fact that Vietnam had operated in isolation because of American embargoes until 1992. The reason was simple. Vietnam had no infrastructure to destroy: no major road systems, no major rail systems, no major ports, no electrical grid, etc., etc. The idea of winning by bombing someone back to the middle ages assumes that they are not already there. I am very skeptical of all claims that we might have "won" had support for the war remained strong.

Why don't you try telling that to the South Vietnamese who were slaughtered after we pulled out. No negative geopolitical consequences my ass, do you remember what Ben Laden said gave him confidence? He said we didn't have the will to engage them long enough to win. Viet Nam is where it started.

Interesting that you are concerned with the missing wildlife. There's a lot more than that missing.

I'm not sure we should have been there in the first place but I AM sure we should go ahead and win if we go. Cronkite turned public opinion so that a bunch of idiot politicians started trying to micro manage a war from overseas...sound familiar? You can't win that way. War is an us or them proposition. We decided it would be us because of men like Cronkite.

cotts135
07-21-2009, 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
After North Vietnam's Tet Offensive, we had the communist on their knees. They took such heavy loses after Tet that Gen. Giap wasn't sure how long it would take for them to recover, if they ever would. Then came Mr Cronkite telling the American people after Tet that we were in a war we wouldn't win and turned the east and west coasters against the war. The communist saw the turning tide in the USA and that gave them the determination to persevere. The North Vietnamesse can thank Mr Cronkite for breeding new life into thier struggle!




[QUOTE=subroc;473923]This is my understanding of events as well. If anything he should have been discredited and charged with treason.


I'm thinking he probably doesn't meet that criteria.

Here is the Constitutions definition of treason:

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And then there is that little thing in the First Amendment of our Constitution that protects free speech. Cmon Subrock I expected a little better from you:p

















;

subroc
07-21-2009, 08:39 PM
...giving them aid or comfort...

Seems to fit.

Claiming the war is lost when in reality, at the time, it was less than true.

road kill
07-21-2009, 09:13 PM
[QUOTE]

I'm thinking he probably doesn't meet that criteria.

Here is the Constitutions definition of treason:

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And then there is that little thing in the First Amendment of our Constitution that protects free speech. Cmon Subrock I expected a little better from you:p

















;

Jane Fonda??:confused:

subroc
07-21-2009, 09:50 PM
I'm thinking he probably doesn't meet that criteria.

Here is the Constitutions definition of treason:

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And then there is that little thing in the First Amendment of our Constitution that protects free speech. Cmon Subrock I expected a little better from you:razz:




Jane Fonda??:confused:

I expect most lefties think Jane Fonda is a great American.