You raise two questions that boil down to asking, is it still/was it really feasible to have a single newsperson with so much collective trust bestowed upon them? I'd add a third one: is it even desirable? First, it is often a feature of unfree societies to speak with one voice. In most of them, the official discourse is ultimately traceable to a dear leader, a political redeemer, a pater patriae. To have a single newsman spout off the conventional wisdom is not that much different, it seems to me. Second, healthy democracies are cacophonous, raucous, and noisy. But it's the inevitable price of true freedom of speech and of (moderate) equality of access to a soapbox. I, a transplanted ex-Commie, rather like it.
I like one thing about the post-Cronkite era, and I'm somewhat disturbed by another. The blog explosion has now made it a lot harder for the molders of official opinion to be lazy, dim-witted, prejudiced or obviously self-interested. Left-wing blogs, in particular, have been doing a great job holding op-ed writers and spokespeople accountable or correcting them when they fuck up. On the other hand, the neo-fascist Right's rejection of Cronkite and the media infrastructure of which he was a symbol has led to the creation of a communications machinery that doesn't just take commonly accepted facts and puts a right-wing spin on them. It often creates its own fantastic world, sometimes deeply at odds with reality. For some of these wackos, facts themselves have a "liberal bias."
I think you're spot on, but I would add one thing. As with all things in the US, when generalizations such as "Americans trusted Cronkite" are asserted we have to ask, 'which Americans?' The 'Americans' category usually refers to white, middle class Americans. In relation to Cronkite, we're talking about white, middle class Americans during a very specific historical moment. Of course, the level of trust was not monolithic within that group, but the level of trust Cronkite possessed was significant enough with the right social groupings to have wide spread political influence.
Bob says:
Cronkite was a corporate, insider newsman. Not a liberal, not a conservative. The right's seething hatred of him seems to have misled a lot of younger liberals into believing he was one of them. He wasn't. His reporting in WW II – while brave (he really was on the front line part of the time) was pure Army propaganda. I'm not sure I'd "blame" him for that – it was the only acceptable format for the time. Still, I ain't gonna laud him for it.
Tet was his come-to-Jesus moment in Vietnam, and frankly, it sums up everything that was wrong with him. All his hand-wringing about being misled by the Army brass while true, certainly begs the question "wft was he reporting up until then?" He was corporate. He accepted Army PAO at face value. He didn't turn on the war because of the horrible cost extracted on the Vietnamese people and America's young; he turned on it because he was shocked that anyone had had the nerve to lie to him. It was about him; not Agent Orange; not carpet bombing; not any of the human waste. Were he half the journalist those lauding him today seem to think he was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution would have been the tipping point for him. But then Walter couldn’t take that huge lie personally so all was copacetic until Tet.
Bob says:
To follow up on my previous comment here’s a real journalist writing two weeks after the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: http://www.ifstone.org/weekly/IFStonesWeekly-1964aug24.pdf
Now it’s not a 100% accurate by what we know today accounting of what actually took place. Still, note how a real journalist digs in and asks questions, refusing to accept the official version of what happened. This was available for all to peruse – note the cost – 15 cents. For 15 freakin’ cents Cronkite could have been spoon-fed the lies being pushed on the American public. Yet not until Tet – 3 ½ years later – did it dawn on Cronkite that there might be something a tad amiss vis-à-vis our little war in Vietnam.
The useless old gas bag is gone. Good riddance.
jjfg45 says:
ABC=Gibson
CBS=Couric
NBC=Williams
Cable has ruined legitimate, relevant news
Desargues says:
You raise two questions that boil down to asking, is it still/was it really feasible to have a single newsperson with so much collective trust bestowed upon them? I'd add a third one: is it even desirable? First, it is often a feature of unfree societies to speak with one voice. In most of them, the official discourse is ultimately traceable to a dear leader, a political redeemer, a pater patriae. To have a single newsman spout off the conventional wisdom is not that much different, it seems to me. Second, healthy democracies are cacophonous, raucous, and noisy. But it's the inevitable price of true freedom of speech and of (moderate) equality of access to a soapbox. I, a transplanted ex-Commie, rather like it.
I like one thing about the post-Cronkite era, and I'm somewhat disturbed by another. The blog explosion has now made it a lot harder for the molders of official opinion to be lazy, dim-witted, prejudiced or obviously self-interested. Left-wing blogs, in particular, have been doing a great job holding op-ed writers and spokespeople accountable or correcting them when they fuck up. On the other hand, the neo-fascist Right's rejection of Cronkite and the media infrastructure of which he was a symbol has led to the creation of a communications machinery that doesn't just take commonly accepted facts and puts a right-wing spin on them. It often creates its own fantastic world, sometimes deeply at odds with reality. For some of these wackos, facts themselves have a "liberal bias."
stick says:
I think you're spot on, but I would add one thing. As with all things in the US, when generalizations such as "Americans trusted Cronkite" are asserted we have to ask, 'which Americans?' The 'Americans' category usually refers to white, middle class Americans. In relation to Cronkite, we're talking about white, middle class Americans during a very specific historical moment. Of course, the level of trust was not monolithic within that group, but the level of trust Cronkite possessed was significant enough with the right social groupings to have wide spread political influence.
Bob says:
Cronkite was a corporate, insider newsman. Not a liberal, not a conservative. The right's seething hatred of him seems to have misled a lot of younger liberals into believing he was one of them. He wasn't. His reporting in WW II – while brave (he really was on the front line part of the time) was pure Army propaganda. I'm not sure I'd "blame" him for that – it was the only acceptable format for the time. Still, I ain't gonna laud him for it.
Tet was his come-to-Jesus moment in Vietnam, and frankly, it sums up everything that was wrong with him. All his hand-wringing about being misled by the Army brass while true, certainly begs the question "wft was he reporting up until then?" He was corporate. He accepted Army PAO at face value. He didn't turn on the war because of the horrible cost extracted on the Vietnamese people and America's young; he turned on it because he was shocked that anyone had had the nerve to lie to him. It was about him; not Agent Orange; not carpet bombing; not any of the human waste. Were he half the journalist those lauding him today seem to think he was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution would have been the tipping point for him. But then Walter couldn’t take that huge lie personally so all was copacetic until Tet.
Bob says:
To follow up on my previous comment here’s a real journalist writing two weeks after the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:
http://www.ifstone.org/weekly/IFStonesWeekly-1964aug24.pdf
Now it’s not a 100% accurate by what we know today accounting of what actually took place. Still, note how a real journalist digs in and asks questions, refusing to accept the official version of what happened. This was available for all to peruse – note the cost – 15 cents. For 15 freakin’ cents Cronkite could have been spoon-fed the lies being pushed on the American public. Yet not until Tet – 3 ½ years later – did it dawn on Cronkite that there might be something a tad amiss vis-à-vis our little war in Vietnam.
The useless old gas bag is gone. Good riddance.