Huge difference between Johnson giving preferential access to those reporters deemed “Friendly,” and the direct coordination of “News” coverage between the DNC and the current “News” media. Cronkite reported what he saw, he did not ask the DNC what he should be saying.
NO President prior to 2004 ever had one of the 3 major new networks, in addition to one of the major new magazines, acting as campaign outlets for his foe. None of them ever let a campaign operative plant a phony “news” story based on obviously fraudulent documents that the “News” organization was warned against using.
A Presidential speech use to be a news event. NOW days the only place you can get the text of a President’s speech, other then the State of the Union, is the White House Website.
Use to be a Presidential speech drove the new cycle for days. NOW it last about 6-12 hours.
It use to be the person quoted was quoted. With the statement put in context. Now days they paraphrase people or only selectively quote partial sentences. I have Even see examples, where reporter simply attributed statements to the govt source that the source never actually said. They simply used the press release or statement and put their own personal spin on the topic.
So looking back in hind site, fallible memory can imagine that the Vietnam era media was just like this one, it in fact was nothing like this one.
As someone who served in Vietnam, it was worse. We had no alternative media.
Cronkite reported what he saw, he did not ask the DNC what he should be saying.
Listen to what Cronkite says now. He has always been a Dem and a Lefty. He didn't have to ask the DNC since he agreed with everything they said. Do you think that Dan Rather's reporting from Vietnam was unbiased?
NO President prior to 2004 ever had one of the 3 major new networks, in addition to one of the major new magazines, acting as campaign outlets for his foe. None of them ever let a campaign operative plant a phony “news” story based on obviously fraudulent documents that the “News” organization was warned against using..
How do you know that? If the bloggers had not jumped on Rathergate, we would have never found out the truth. Do you think Nixon was treated fairly by the MSM when he was running for office? I don't know how old you are, but I remember those times very well and have a basis of comparison. The MSM has lost its credibility because we now have different sources of information. They no longer have a monopoly. Conditions today are much better than before in the 60s or 70s.
It use to be the person quoted was quoted. With the statement put in context. Now days they paraphrase people or only selectively quote partial sentences. I have Even see examples, where reporter simply attributed statements to the govt source that the source never actually said. They simply used the press release or statement and put their own personal spin on the topic
Now we can go to primary sources. We didn't have C-SPAN, YouTube, MySpace, the Internet with transcripts, etc. readily available to the public. Search engines like Google and Lexis-Nexis make it much easier to retrieve information. We are living in the Information Age and literally have access to the world's media. My God, don't you understand what is happening is truly revolutionary?
So looking back in hind site, fallible memory can imagine that the Vietnam era media was just like this one, it in fact was nothing like this one.
I am not senile and yes the Vietnam era was not like this one. Today is far better and more open. No longer can the political and media elite dominate and control our access to information. Wake up and smell the coffee.