Posted on 07/18/2009 9:23:11 AM PDT by Starman417
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)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1977013/posts
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.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
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.
BTTT
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.