Replies

Good post - I'm sure TGJ will be interested. Thanks.... You're welcome. I didn't get a response back from WmShirerAdmirer, who inspired me to look into Edward R. Murrow's character assassination attacks on McCarthy with his profile. Yes, I think journalism was better in those days. But we didn't have blogging and the pajama cadre to crosscheck assumptions. Murrow was wrong. He was a liberal, what else can we say? They're predisposed to a certain inability to recognize true evil while they battle invisible threats.

Thanks for the ping originally and later the compliment.
Wasn't able to read the article you posted or respond earlier because of lack of time here. I did read the article this morning and it is a real eye opener.

Unfortunately I didn't know much about Joe McCarthy and only a little about Murrow (mostly about his association w/ Shirer and the WWII CBS broadcast. When I'm not very well educated in personalities and news worthy events I tend to stay out of the discussions in order not to embarrass myself.
(I tend to jump to conclusions often and am trying to delete this from my methods of reading, posting and replying.)

Followed a thread between you and a couple of other Freepers on a tangent of something I posted last week. It was a good discussion to read, but I didn't feel I knew enough about it to add my two cents.

One other thing I should admit to, just picked up a book of Shire's broadcasts from Berlin from local library ( it was published within the last couple of years) and discovered that most of these are not "straight and hard news". He often speaks from a personal point of view and in regards to what he is observing and experiencing on the streets. There isn't too much fact to verify his observations, (he was heavily censored)unless he was given a copy of degrees that the Nazis were putting into effect daily. So I must admit that from today's perspective on journalism he might be considered a Liberal.

I have to say the big reason I am such an admirer is that in reading his books I can understand the political webs and associations that existed (it's not the preponderance of names and society or party connections that were so cut and dry in my 20th century European World History classes I took in college. Shirer's reports made me see what he saw, and as an American feel what he felt. I also feel that he had a sane,logical and honest perception of what was occurring, something that seems lost to reporters today. Black was black and white was white and you didn't question what your "common sense" or your basic sense of morality told you. You didn't go around each issue and personality making excuses for them, or try to get people to "understand why psychologically or sociologically it happened. You just reported the facts, truthfully and honestly with little or no commentary. The 'chips would fall where they may', 'the proof would be in the pudding' and readers would be able to make up their own minds of how they felt given what they knew.

Thanks again.