|
|||
|
When Trust and Media Were OnePosted on Jul 21, 2009By Marie Cocco That’s not the way it is—not now, and not for a long time. Remembering Walter Cronkite means recalling when there really was a media figure who was “the most trusted man in America.” In moments of profound national tragedy and unparalleled triumph, the country turned its eyes toward Cronkite, who unfailingly delivered professionalism and integrity. The greatest sorrow in marking Cronkite’s death is the necessity of acknowledging that we have replaced his work ethic and wisdom with puffery and ideological pontification. To watch the tapes of Cronkite’s extraordinary coverage of John F. Kennedy’s assassination—not that final, teary moment when he removes his thick-rimmed glasses to announce that the young president is dead, but the bulletins leading inexorably up to it—is to understand what broadcast news once was, and is no more. Though it is apparent that the president probably has been killed, Cronkite never goes beyond the sparse facts as they stream into CBS News from wire services and then from reporters at the local affiliate in Dallas. Cronkite tells us that “first reports” are that the president has been “seriously wounded by this shooting.” He says Kennedy has been taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where his condition is “yet unknown.” We learn that two priests were called to the president’s room and that “blood transfusions are being given to President Kennedy.” After Eddie Barker of KRLD in Dallas reports that rumors are emanating from the hospital that Kennedy already has died, Cronkite notes that the account is “totally unconfirmed, apparently, as yet.” And so it went, up until that moment when Cronkite soberly announced receipt of “the flash, apparently official,’’ that Kennedy had died at 1 p.m., Central Standard Time. Advertisement They could not have foretold that within a few years of JFK’s assassination, the very boulevards of downtown Washington that provided the solemn backdrop for his funeral cortege would be ablaze with urban riots. No one could have guessed that Lyndon Johnson’s assumption of the presidency would eventually lead to the tragic escalation of the Vietnam War and the rending of the nation into ideological camps—divisions that foreshadowed the red state/blue state shouting match that dominates political discussion and too much media coverage today. “When you talked to Walter, he would always want to accentuate the serious side, that news should not be personified. It’s serious grist that makes democracy possible,” says Craig Allen, an associate professor of journalism and author of books on broadcast news history, who worked alongside the retired anchor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Though Cronkite in retirement repeatedly warned of the perils of a fragmented, ideological approach to news, his advice has been ignored by media figures—and media consumers—alike. During last year’s presidential campaign, those who said they got most of their election news from television relied heavily on channels offering a partisan or ideological cast. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, more than a third of those who got election reports mainly from television watched the conservative-leaning Fox News (25 percent) or MSNBC (10 percent), which developed a clear left-leaning tilt. When potential voters turn directly to the Internet for information, there is an even more intense search for self-satisfying bias. Fully 33 percent of those who went online to get political news last year sought information from sites that “share my point of view,” the Pew study shows. That’s up from 26 percent in 2004. The biggest change came among the young, with the share of those 18 to 24 years old saying they got political news from online sites that reflected their viewpoint jumping to 43 percent in 2008, up from 22 percent in 2004. This generation was not yet born when Cronkite signed off from “The CBS Evening News” in 1981. It has never known an era in which news coverage could unify and not divide. Yet it isn’t enough to celebrate Cronkite’s career and mourn the decline of professionalism in journalism. For all those who complain of “media bias,” his death provides an opportunity for introspection among the very viewers who drive it to new heights. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By steve, July 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Although the story is very sad, we can take comfort. We still have Sean Hannity.
Report thisBy Folktruther, July 23, 2009 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
Cronkite was a hack journalist like the rest. That he reported accurately the assassination of Kennedy is a bad joke, it being the most outrageous public relation fraud since the Dryfus Affair. the fraud of the Warran Commission set the stage for the 9/11-antrax public relations homicide and the pressent War on Terrorism and noeloiberal police state.
Eilenn Farrell as a citizen-journalist is the future of the population’s news. these journalists would be more effecive if they were motivated by a spiritual ideology, as she is. Because in the future as Obama installs a police state, US agents are going to target citizen-jounalists, as they are beginning to do now.
I wonder if it is possible to train citizen-jounalists en masse to provide a counter truth to the professional truth of the power structure.
Report thisBy eileen fleming, July 22, 2009 at 3:39 am Link to this comment
I wonder what Cronkite would have done about the ongoing ordeal of Mordechai Vanunu, a prisoner of conscience held captive in Israel ever since he emerged from a tomb sized cell after 18 years in jail for telling the world the truth and providing the proof that Israel already had manufactured upwards of 200 nuclear warheads by 1985.
In April 1999, thirty-six members of the House of Representatives signed a letter calling for Vanunu’s release from prison because they believed “we
have a duty to stand up for men and women like Mordechai Vanunu who dare to articulate a brighter vision for humanity.”
President Clinton responded with a public statement expressing concern for Vanunu and the need for Israel and other non-parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to adhere to it and accept IAEA safeguards.
NOT a word has been spoken from any president or congressional rep since.
On July 6, 2009, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish continued to deny Vanunu the RIGHT to leave Israel and stated that his “case is still
generating great interest, like any other security-related case. The media’s attention he gets is proof of that.”
She could NOT possibly mean corporate media as they all have been MIA for Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial which began Jan. 25, 2006.
However, the efforts of a member of the New Fourth Estate [citizen journalist] has filled that vacuum.
Freely streaming are 2005, 2006, 2008 video with Vanunu and reports from day one of his FREEDOM of SPEECH trial in the ‘democracy’ of Israel @ VANUNU ARCHIVES:
http://wearewideawake.org
Report thisBy 2215bee, July 21, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In general I am in agreement with the tone, if not always the specifics of the comments to Marie Cocco’s article on Cronkite. What I find really objectionable about the news today is something that is perfectly illustrated by tonight’s 6:00 news on ABC—the news with Charlie Gibson (from what I know, ABC is owned by Disney Corporation, so maybe it should just be called “the Disnews.”) On tonight’s episode, after news of Obama’s push for a healthcare bill, there was an account of the injury Bob Woodruff suffered while serving as an embedded journalist in Iraq, and all the brave, devoted, talented, committed and caring army medics who treated him and took care of his injury. (Frankly, this is my account, and maybe a little off: I was trying to make dinner while I was watching the news, but frankly, I was so repulsed by what I was watching that I paid more attention to my shrimp curry than to Bob.)
Report thisThe point I wish to make is that this news segment flies directly in the face of that kernel of wisdom from Cronkite, related by the journalism professor in Marie Cocco’s piece.
Craig Allen, the professor, says, “he (Cronkite) always wanted to accentuate the serious side, that news should not be personified.” So if today’s newscasters so revere Cronkite, and if his memory is so idolized by the people at the networks, how can they possibly allow Woodruff to stand up there and serve as the poster boy for the Army in its illegal war in Iraq? This is just so blatantly an abuse of journalistic ethics that they should be rung up on charges on their own g-damned network, during primetime.
Woodruff, the dashing, heroic young journalist who is tragically (sic) wounded while trying to bring you the news from the front, now brings you an account of his treatment, while neglecting to mention that the military has done its utmost to sweep under the carpet its own problems with one of the most grievous problems of the war, its miserable neglect of soldiers who are coming home with terrible cases of PTSD, soldiers who are often suicidal. This has been reported in more responsible news outlets, such as magazines like The New Yorker, where I read about it last year, and I have no doubt that journalists know about it. So why does ABC allow Woodruff to carry the torch for the military when the the military itself has done so little to help their own soldiers in their hours of need? I am completely disgusted by this utter contempt for the ordinary men and women who are fighting the war and coming back sick and desperate, while attempting to boost the morale of the rest.
Kudos, Marie, for a thoughtful and well-written piece, but as many of the commentators here have testified, this is a post-Cronkite, anti-Cronkite media that we are living with now.
By Fat Freddy, July 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
Cronkite was an aberration; an anomaly. He strayed from the traditional sensationalism which has driven journalism since its inception.
Report thisBy Tokin Lib, July 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment
As far as I can recall—and I can recall “You Are There,” like it was yesterday—Walter Cronkite threw over the traces on exactly two occasions: first, with the ‘stalemate’ remark about the Vietnam war, and then on Watergate.
That was of course twice more than anybody else ever actually did.
But for the rest of his tenure, he was a reliable, enthusiastic water carrier for the the mythology of Murkin Exceptionalism.
Report thisBy Earthprisoner, July 21, 2009 at 11:43 am Link to this comment
I worked in the media when the FCC lifted the regulations that no one owner could own more than 3 broadcast stations and 12 newspapers. Now they all work for the same rich elitists (the Builderberg group) who run the world for profit. You won’t be getting any news from the mainstream media any more! The real journalists are to be found on the internet. and Cass Sunstein is about to silence the web…DON’T let him do it!
Report thishttp://www.nypost.com/seven/07112009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gag_the_internet__178749.htm
By hippie4ever, July 21, 2009 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
Could you imagine the UPROAR if an anchor such as Brian Williams were to publicly state on the news his belief that the war in Afghanistan was doomed to stalemate or defeat? He’d be yanked off the air so fast his head would spin, and would immediately become an “unperson.” No more “Brian Williams” on TV or anywhere else.
When WC was anchor of CBS in the 1960s and 1970s he said much the same about the Vietnam War, calling it a mistake and unwinnable. That was before the triumph of fascism in the United States.
Report thisBy HighHopes, July 21, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
All this media hype shaping Cronkite’s TV image is just more of the same sort of hype it decries.
I’m old enough to remember Cronkite on TV. I don’t remember him being a saint. He was a guy on TV doing the news. As far as network TV news shows went I liked The Huntley-Brinkley Report better. I didn’t dislike Cronkite’s TV show, I just preferred Huntley-Brinkley. The notion that any of these TV personalities were any more than they were is nonsense at best and dishonesty at worse. They were TV personalities not heroes. That’s how they were viewed back then. They were highly paid famous TV personalities reading the official news. We all knew it and they knew it.
If you like that sort of thing you can still find it today in its purer form. Tune in the Sunday morning news shows like “Meet the Press.” Not only will you get the official news, but they will bring on the actual officials to give it to you.
Report thisBy Robert P, July 21, 2009 at 9:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
We trusted Walter Cronkite perhaps too much. But he was an honest and professional reporter, and we got away with it.
Today there are still a lot of good men and women like Walter Cronkite in the news business. Most of them would jump at the chance to try to fill his shoes, though it’s uncertain how many could.
None of them will never get the chance. Broadcast news has changed since Cronkite’s day. It is mature now. It knows the commercial and political value of its access to the public. It uses its access to the advantage of commercial and political interests that control it.
There is no place for a truth-teller like Cronkite in broadcast news today. Pretty-to-look-at news-readers are a better fit.
Report thisBy MarthaA, July 21, 2009 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
Marie,
Locally, there is NO NEWS on television with a clear Left leaning tilt, everything is Right leaning with the slight exception of Public Broadcasting; Bill Moyers does what he can to cover the Left in the small time he has allotted. On satellite and cable there’s world wide DemocracyNOW and world wide LINK TV and FSTV, FREE SPEECH TV. Cable and satellite’s Maddow Show on MSNBC and Bill Moyers on the Public Broadcasting Network are as clear as the Right will allow the Left to be represented, as the Right owns all major networks and selfishly represent the Right to the exclusion of the Left. I think it is more like 1% representation of the Left. ALL Republicans represent the Right and only a very few Democrats actually represent the Left. No Right-Wing conservatives or moderates should be on the Left, as all the Right’s REPUBLICANS are conservative and vote the straight conservative line, lock step with the Right; and the Right’s Democrats on the Left will also vote lock-step with the Right.
When Cronkite brought the news, the media had not yet been taken over by fascism, now fascist leaders rule the media and government; fascism being authoritarian corporate governance to the best interest of the Right; NEVER the Left.
It will be a miracle if the Left gets worth while health care out of this Congress. I expect it to be an oppression something like the auto insurance scam that doesn’t cover everyone and is of no benefit to the poor or the working class, what so ever, just an oppression.
Get rid of fascism, we will get the real news back in the United States and the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the working class will cease to be oppressed.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 21, 2009 at 6:11 am Link to this comment
News coverage which unifies and does not divide is the mark of a totalitarian state.
Report this