Golly, I wonder why that would be?
Posted on 08/27/2003 12:14:06 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
Stop the presses! Decades after retirement, Walter Cronkite can still break a major story. Saying he believes "most of us reporters are liberal," Cronkite is admitting what many on the left have denied fervently for years: that there is a bias in the news media, and that it tips to the left noticeably.
Cronkite offers the flimsy excuse that "[t]he perceived liberalism of television reporters [...] is a product of the limited time given for any particular item." Essentially, his argument is that bias stems from short segments: there isn't enough time to be balanced. But if reporters can't be fair in two minutes, why should we assume they'll be fair with twice as much time? If a two-minute piece leans to the left, won't a four-minute piece just lean twice as far? Or--at the very least--just as far for twice as long?
In Cronkite's mind, our society is defined primarily in terms of a struggle between the classes: the powerful vs. the powerless, the haves vs. the have-nots. And, by choosing sides against the powerful, Cronkite is saying that they need to be fought, and implying that they are responsible for the plight of the powerless. In his world, if someone makes a dollar, someone else loses a dollar; the few exploit their way to riches while the many are exploited into varying degrees of poverty; people gain power only by seizing it from others.
But what if power is achieved not by wresting control, but by creating something? What if people generate wealth by growing the pie instead of stealing slices from somebody else? Cronkite's view doesn't consider that. Nor does it consider the possibility that the powerless had a hand in their fate.
For years, this man, once dubbed "the most trusted man in America," signed off by saying "that's the way it was," as though reality itself was defined by the words he spoke. So, perhaps Cronkite was attempting to put the issue of media bias to rest by issuing a final decree of truth.
Sorry, Walt: now that there are infinitely more outlets than when you and two others called the shots, that's not the way it is...anymore.
(Excerpt) Read more at brain-terminal.com ...
Freeper points out: Sky is not blue. Sky is sometimes grey, sometimes black, sometimes orangish, and sometimes blue.
Golly, I wonder why that would be?
I agree, and have never seen this idea as well worded. Thanks.
A few years ago, they showed a debate on CSPAN from a girls' school in the UK between journalists from the US and UK. The subject was whether the 60s were good or bad. On the "bad" side, the most compelling point was that all times throughout history have their rebels and rebels can be good for society but society normally pushes back against the rebels to keep them in check. In the 1960s, society stopped pushing back and the rebels took over.
Those were a simpler time when liberals, leftists, socialists, progressives, agrarian reformers, environmentalists, greens, anti-war protesters, academics, anarchists and Democrats were known as what they really were: Communists.
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - The Manifesto of the Communist Party
Lest we forget.
Rhetorical to be sure. The network media practice a little introspective condemnation? When winged pigs fly out of my tush and land on the gleaming glaciers of hell...
Rush is so much bigger than Cronkite could have ever hoped to be (And I know that is saying a lot). He would have to stoop too low to as to offer a response concerning this petty little has-been propogandists.
I believe that Rush also has too much respect for this perceived giant of broadcast to say anything condescending about the man. I doubt the same be said for Ole Walter.
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.