|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 18, 2009 13:53:15 GMT -5
At long last, Walter Cronkite has arranged to meet with the soldiers he lied about in the 60's and 70's.
It was bad enough that he took sides against his own country, but his lying about the war, and how it was going, deceived the public and the politicians into believing we were losing every battle; every day.
Of course, that was in the bad old days when we had no alternative media to address the bias and lies that the Cronkites and Rathers fed us with, oh, such sincerity.
Thank God for Rush; Laura; Michelle and Fox.
Without them, we would still think Cronkite had something of value to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 18, 2009 19:53:49 GMT -5
Walter Cronkite was a reporter, not a pundit like the group you mentioned harpman1. They are a biased group, that on a daily basis tell the like-mided what or how to think. None of them have reported from a war, but from the comforts of their chairs and none are close to being called "uncle" or "aunt" to the public, many other names but ....very poor examples.
Only the test of time will tell if any of them achieve anywhere near what Cronkite did.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Avenger on Jul 18, 2009 23:22:14 GMT -5
Cronkite was a reporter who turned into a pundit. I can give him his cred while he covered WW II but the way he heaped his opinion on America as a TV anchor was inexcusable.
Someone already did that. Dan Rather achieved "Cronkite" status decades ago and just like Walter, Dan readily inculcated a nation of soft-brained doofuses with his twisted liberal ideology.
At least to my knowledge, Cronkite never faked any documents.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 19, 2009 12:05:34 GMT -5
Reporters report, dear.
Cronkite spun the news to fit his personal agenda.
When facts come from a source, that's news. Walter gave the facts he wanted; omitted the ones he didn't; and fabricated the rest.
He is a very poor example of a reporter.
If you disagreed with his agenda, you would be as rabid in your disrespect as you are of the accurate reporters I mentioned.
Your selective acceptance of bias proves you have no idea what reporting actually is.
But thanks for tuning in!
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 20, 2009 0:34:09 GMT -5
There were two different Walters. The one before '65 was a darend good reporter. That walter also reported on the space program.
The other walter, the one post '65 except for the space program, pushed a left inspired agenda in his reporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Jul 20, 2009 0:49:21 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the "anchors" of the major networks also had some editorial input, albeit unofficial. Thus why being the anchor is such a big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 20, 2009 13:37:23 GMT -5
Crossride, you gotta go back and re-watch Broadcast News or Network. News broadcasters are chosen on their ability to draw viewers with their personality and on-screen presence. Some of them actually have critical analytical skills, but most of them excel at reading from prepared notes. Some of them remember what their job really is, and some of them (Cronkite, Rather, Couric, Olbermann) actually believe what they say. |
|
