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? I’m 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.
Today, it’s 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 Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve 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 didn’t hesitate to say “Yes.”
At the time, Cronkite’s 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 ...
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 . . .
Walter Congkite
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!
fair enough..thanks
In forty years will the media ignore his death like they did the death of Mary Jo Kopechne’s on July 18, 1969?
Brilliant analysis...and a hard, bitter truth that I learned over 35 years later that was embedded in the folksy 'news' provided by Mr. Cronkite and many of his colleagues at CBS, ABC, and NBC.
While purporting to 'report' events these people inserted their own personal views into the mix and made Americans believe it was 'authentic', 'credible', and 'truth'. And with a seemingly grandfatherly persona, Walter Cronkite pulled this ruse off with ease, thus earning him the status as 'The Most Trusted Person in News'.
With all due respect to his family in mourning, what a crock.
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.