Replies

THE AYATOLLAH CRONKITE.

By: Jesus J. Chao

October 1, 2001

Walter Cronkite’s hysterical attack on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson shows to the world the lack of respect by the semi-gods of the U.S. elite media for the First Amendment Rights of those who do not share their ideology.

Falwell’s crime; the evangelist alleged that the attacks were divine retribution on American for "pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way."

Many considered, and rightly so, Falwell’s remarks inappropriate, but Cronkite should be the last person to be involved in a vicious attack on his freedom of speech affirming that Falwell’s remarks in regards to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as "the most abominable thing I've ever heard," and told TV Guide columnist Max Robins, "It makes you wonder if [Falwell and Roberson are] worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the Trade Center and the Pentagon."

It is preposterous to equate Falwell’s commentary with the terrorists’ abominable actions. Mr. Cronkite’s remarks are more appropriated for a fundamentalist Ayatollah than for a U.S. media demi-god. Where was Cronkite’s wrath when a professor in New Mexico lamented that the whole Pentagon was not destroyed or the elementary school teacher who lamented to the students that the President was not killed?

It is clear that the elite media does not worship the same God than the rest of us. Cronkite is one of the demi-gods of the media’s Olympus, where he shares with Walter Duranty, Louis Fisher, and other, who were also media luminaries, the paeans of their worshipful comrades.

Certainly the elite media's idols are made of clay.

Thanks for your post. IMHO, our country no longer has idols which is why Cronkite balks at not being able to influence anyone. No idols means the country will require leadership of its leaders. No idols explains a genuine love for GW and an expectation of leadership...not a blind following such as enjoyed by Slick and company.

Many considered, and rightly so, Falwell’s remarks inappropriate, but Cronkite should be the last person to be involved in a vicious attack on his freedom of speech affirming that Falwell’s remarks in regards to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as "the most abominable thing I've ever heard," and told TV Guide columnist Max Robins, "It makes you wonder if [Falwell and Roberson are] worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the Trade Center and the Pentagon."

How is critizing Falwell's comments equivalent to attaching Falwell's freedom of speech? Did he call for Falwell to be muzzled? Did he call for Falwell's right to speak to be taken away? No, so Cronkite didn't attack Falwell's freedom of speech, he critized the content of Falwell's speech, which is entirely proper.

Where was Cronkite’s wrath when a professor in New Mexico lamented that the whole Pentagon was not destroyed or the elementary school teacher who lamented to the students that the President was not killed?

Cronkite's criticism of Falwell and of anyone else stands alone. It's validity doesn't stand or fall on who else he may or may not have critized. If you have to criticize everyone to criticize anyone, then no one would be able to criticize anyone.

And, practically, comments (if they were actually made, and not some urban legend) such as are described have limited circulation, and haven't got nearly the impact as Jerry Falwell speaking on a national form such as the "700 Club". Thus, his comments are worthy of more note.