Walter Conkite: Did you ever watch a CBS newscast he anchored?

[LA Ute]

"The most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, died yesterday at age 92. Just curious: How many here ever watched his newscasts on CBS News?

[il Padrino Ute]

"And that's the way it is."

He was the first that I remember watching report the national news.

Cronkite ruined tv journalism for me in that I thought his was supposed to be how it was done - report the news as it happens, not with a spin. All who followed no matter the network failed to match his reporting, IMO.

[myboynoah]

"And that's the way it is."

He was the first that I remember watching report the national news.

Cronkite ruined tv journalism for me in that I thought his was supposed to be how it was done - report the news as it happens, not with a spin. All who followed no matter the network failed to match his reporting, IMO.

IPU, you are correct. Cronkite turned out to be fairly to the left in his political views, but one would not have guessed it by watching his newscast. Kudos to him. Such is very rarely the case today.

[LA Ute]

IPU, you are correct. Cronkite turned out to be fairly to the left in his political views, but one would not have guessed it by watching his newscast. Kudos to him. Such is very rarely the case today.

Not sure I completely agree about old Walter's objectivity. This guy's take sounds like what I remember.

[TripletDaddy]

I wonder how objective Cronkite really was? I think he probably benefited from not having to compete with cable news, internet, blogs, twitter, etc.

It wasn't that the news wasn't slanted. It is more likely that we had no way of knowing otherwise.

I wonder how many people in Soviet Russia thought that Pravda really was "the truth?"

[venkman]

I agree with LA Ute and DDD. Walter spoon fed us the news and believed whatever he said. I'm glad we're past the days when one man can hold so much sway over public opinion.

[LA Ute]

I wonder how objective Cronkite really was? I think he probably benefited from not having to compete with cable news, internet, blogs, twitter, etc.

It wasn't that the news wasn't slanted. It is more likely that we had no way of knowing otherwise.

I wonder how many people in Soviet Russia thought that Pravda really was "the truth?"

It seems odd now that we have so many choices. For decades there were three big networks covering national news, and that was it. Now and then you could get a new and interesting take on public TV, but even that was rare (and in Utah we had only two of those stations -- KBYU and KUED). 30 million people used to watch the CBS Evening News. Now it's down to 7 million.

[myboynoah]

Perhaps my views are clouded by blissful memories of my youth. Or perhaps 3D is correct that the limited options made Cronkite's traditional sign-off "that's the way it is" ring oh so true. Or perhaps my perception is valid, that Cronkite's era of newscasters did try to stay as objective as possible, despite their political views. No doubt that changed over time. I would still maintain that Cronkite was much more objective than his counterparts are today.

I don't see citing Cronkite's reporting on Tet as the best evidence of his "adversary" bias. During Tet we were actually fighting the VC on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy. Very disturbing. We didn't conclude that Tet was an overwhelming victory until weeks and months later when we could see how it destroyed VC infrastructure in the south. The immediate images of U.S. Embassy personnel engaged in a firefight on the Embassy grounds was more powerful than anything any newscaster could say.

Vietnam was indeed a stalemate. I would say Johnson didn't lose Middle America because of Walter Cronkite, but that he never had Middle America in the first place in taking the steps needed to win in Vietnam.

[LA Ute]

Perhaps my views are clouded by blissful memories of my youth. Or perhaps 3D is correct that the limited options made Cronkite's traditional sign-off "that's the way it is" ring oh so true. Or perhaps my perception is valid, that Cronkite's era of newscasters did try to stay as objective as possible, despite their political views. No doubt that changed over time. I would still maintain that Cronkite was much more objective than his counterparts are today.

I don't see citing Cronkite's reporting on Tet as the best evidence of his "adversary" bias. During Tet we were actually fighting the VC on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy. Very disturbing. We didn't conclude that Tet was an overwhelming victory until weeks and months later when we could see how it destroyed VC infrastructure in the south. The immediate images of U.S. Embassy personnel engaged in a firefight on the Embassy grounds was more powerful than anything any newscaster could say.

Vietnam was indeed a stalemate. I would say Johnson didn't lose Middle America because of Walter Cronkite, but that he never had Middle America in the first place in taking the steps needed to win in Vietnam.

I was only 13 at the time of Tet so I don't have a recollection of it. I do think Cronkite's generation tried to remain objective and in their owns minds actually were. It's better now, however, with many more sources of news. In 1968, it's near-certain that no one would have ever discovered that Dan Rather's story on G.W. Bush and the National Guard was based on a fake document.

[JohnnyLingo]

It is hard to remain objective when reporting news. Hard and boring. Much more interesting to inject opinion into your writing and reporting, and you probably get better ratings when you do.

And really, it's impossible to keep all of your bias out of it, but it's admirable, and I think ethical, to give it your best shot every time.