Skip to comments.Cronkite Dies & Liberal Love-In Commences
Posted on 07/18/2009 9:23:11 AM PDT by Starman417
With the love-fest going on for Cronkite I felt the need to interject some reality into the situation. A few reasons why the man shouldn't be remembered as fondly as some suggest.
One reason....His part in ensuring that Vietnam would end badly for the United States by uttering these kind of words, and doing it on a nightly basis:
Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? Im not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.
It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
He uttered those opinions of his after visiting Vietnam and the Tet Offensive. Words that were completely untrue.
Another reason....He was one of the first reporters to give his opinion while reading the news, and in so doing started a gradual erosion of our MSM to what it is today. A complete embarrassment on so many levels.
Lee Cary, a Vietnam Vet:
Today, its hard to fully appreciate the stature and status Cronkite held in 1968. He was the successor in fame to the demigod persona that had been Edward R. Murrow. When President Johnson heard of Cronkites comments, he was quoted as saying, Thats it. If Ive lost Cronkite, Ive lost middle America.
In January 2006, Cronkite said his statement on Vietnam was his proudest moment. When asked then if he would give the same advice on Iraq, Cronkite didnt hesitate to say Yes.
At the time, Cronkites pronouncement added credibility and importance to all the network anchors. His was a stunning exercise of media power. But, in the perspective of history, the outcome of his pronouncement is not universally recognized as having been positive. He overtly and figuratively stepped out from behind the microphone to add his personal commentary to the news. We had not seen this before. By doing so, Cronkite issued an implicit license to his journalistic colleagues to interject personal opinions into their factual reporting of the news. The difference is that Cronkite clearly labeled it as personal opinion, while many MSM news personalities today weave their opinions into reporting. His sentiment registered with many, perhaps most, of his viewers that night. He changed opinions by offering his own. But in hindsight, his analysis was wrong dead wrong for some.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
RIP. May Walter be in good company with the tens of thousands of soldiers he stabbed in the back.
actually I hope wally is NOT with the honorable soldiers and marines he stabbed
The death of the great news god.......
May the rest of the lying “news” media join him ASAP.
He belongs on a “most overrated” list.
All I have to say is that we were a Huntley/Brinkley Report watching family.
He would have never gotten away with his lies if there had been an internet.
Look out when that happens for Wellstone redux...
Luckily, my TV came with a channel-changer and an 'off' button...
I reckon he deserves to be on the great unknown list.
Outside of America, and possibly Canada, he was a total nobody.
The media has already canonized him as it’s secular saint with accolades like “trust”. “honorable” “reliable” “voice of reason” etc.
If the pen is mightier than the sword, his misuse of his anchor perch was perhaps as treasonous as that of Jane Fonda.
But does anyone have links or quotes that Cronkite actually wanted to thwart the SEATO effort in Indochina or if he was simply wrong in his assumptions.
I realize he was not a right winger but the political divisions then were slightly different from today.
Political divides are not static or straight continuum
the irony is that back then i was an idealistic left leaning libertarian on many issues but like I said many things were not on our plate like today but yet we all thought the entire media both the three networks and print were staid establishment conservative...and that includes Cronkite.
there was no love loss between the media and the counter culture..aside from some weekly college rags
That is all anyone needs to know about this traitor.
From a VET. Good riddance. My he burn he hell for what he did to us vets.
Something to knock off the Jackson meme.
I can see Wally now taking his glasses on and off repeatedly choking up as he realizes he’s staring Beelzebub in the face.
I agree. His defeatist statement, which was not true, is the only thing I remember.
Cronkite love fest ‘remembering him’ = C L I C K
That’s The Way It Wasn’t: Walter Cronkite 40 Years Ago Today (1968)
great post and very true.
Very nicely done! Hope this makes it onto youtube!
Despite the slobbering over him by the cable channels, a heck of a lot of people aren't old enough to remember him, and many of us who are, are not the least bit interested in his passing let alone their inflated ideas of his importance to what passes for TV journalism.
Many (all too many) Freepers would agree with this Walter Cronkite quote:Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.You may say, "What can be wrong with that?" and the answer is nothing - nothing but everything.
Objective journalism would be very different from some opinion columns - but, in principle, perhaps not all opinion columns. Maybe there is someone who writes objective opinion columns.
But it depends on your definition of "objective." If objectivity is the same thing as wisdom - and is there any such thing as "unwise objectivity?" - then a claim of objectivity made by a journalist (or by all journalists for each other in a mutual admiration society) is a claim of wisdom, and a claim of wisdom is (to put it charitably) notoriously unreliable. The very term "sophist," from which we get the term "sophistry," comes from the Greek and means "wise man." The term "philosopher," meaning "lover of wisdom," was developed to counter the pitfalls of sophistry coming from people who claimed wisdom.
So the point is that objectivity requires the conscious discounting of any self interested reasons you may want to believe what you are thinking, writing, or speaking. Thus, an opinion writer might say that "I have Apple stock and I use an Apple computer," before stating a favorable opinion of anything Apple. That would be at least a gesture in the direction of objectivity. On the flip side, it would also be a gesture in the direction of objectivity if that same person said that same thing, and noted that he could be speaking out of a desire to avoid suspicion of being a "fanboy" if he said something negative about Apple.
But would anyone care to attempt to find any instance of an "objective journalist" giving his hearers/readers any disclaimer which would help his audience to see any possible bias in the "objective journalist's" report? Since that is a rhetorical question to which the answer clearly is "no," "objective journalist" is an oxymoron.
Any claim of objectivity is a denial of the possibility of one's own subjectivity - and is therefore proof of the very thing it seeks to deny.
July 17, 2009
Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Finally, Michael Jackson is off the TV.
I expect all the facts and not just cherry picked ones. I expect ALL the news and not just cherry picked news stories. That’s my gripe with the media.
I’m taking a moment to express my gratitude for the internet. If I were still captive to the networks for my news, I would have to put up with hours of phony reverence for Walter Conkite. Now I don’t have to see or hear a word of it. Is this a great country, or what?
“He would have never gotten away with his lies if there had been an internet.”
They get away with it now. Look at all the brainwashed hoardes supporting Obama because of the MSM.
It was more subtle until Reagan was elected, but we were still spoon fed the liberal apple sauce. They hated McCarthy, Nixon, Agnew, and Goldwater and got their point across.
I thought old Walter was going to bust his britches when announcing Roe vs Wade and when Nixon resigned.
nice essay but no one has offered anything to bolster the assumption that Cronkite wanted us to lose in Vietnam
i don’t know to be honest
“sophistry”...love that word
My “takeaway” from Cronkite is that he “called” the defeat in VN right after Tet, and LBJ took it to heart and also began to fight the war as if defeat were a foregone conclusion.
Then decades later, we find out he was a “world govt” mole since the 1940s!
To me, Occam’s Razor applies. 2+2=traitor.
Not to the extent that they did. Anyone can get the truth online. Granted there ARE those who don't care what the truth is.
And if the internet wasn’t a foil, the left wouldn’t be trying to shut it down or control it.
He was no hero of mine!
Just like there is no proof that Harry Reid wanted the US military to fail in Iraq. And have I got a deal on a bridge for anyone who sincerely believes THAT!
In both cases the evidence of the desire for American defeat can be illustrated by the fact that they were saying what they would NOT, on any account, say if they wanted the opposite result. If you sincerely believe that Reid didn't want American defeat when he openly predicted it, just ask yourself what price you think Reid would have accepted to predict that the Democratic Party was going to suffer a debilitating defeat in the next election. Even Obama can't print enough money for THAT!
And the same thing was true of Walter Cronkite and Vietnam.
So typical. Liberals want us to prove other people’s motivations before advancing a point, while they give us hate crime laws.
You expect what never was, and never will be.
What you should expect is that reporters will not all be in cahoots. And that is something that has never been true in living memory. The AP was founded 150 years ago . . .
Fox News has been covering this non-stop as well. You’d think it was Roger Ailes or O’Reilly who had passed.
I remember that post.
That moment in 1968 was a defining one for Cronkite.
I watched the Vietnam special because I was interested in the Tet Offensive action as a child.
I watched Huntley and Brinkley every night, then later in the mid-70’s ABC with Reasoner and Smith.
Cronkite was horribly biased but a hardworking reporter who climbed over the competition to the “top.”
I will try to dig up the 1951 Washington TV Guide interview for some insight into Cronkite and post it sometime this weekend.
My 1st words about this old Commie Cronkite, hope the SOB likes his new hot home...no RIP for you!
Leftists don’t believe in an afterlife. Lying their way through life is all they have.
Thansk for the ping/posts...especially IncPen’s classic; thanks for the post. BTTT!