BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Cronkite, the way he wasn’t

8 comments on Cronkite, the way he wasn’t

Cronkite, the way he wasn’t
: I just spoke with a trusted friend who attended the talk by Walter Cronkite that got quoted widely this week, with Cronkite lashing into George Bush for “arrogance” and saying that he had deep fears for the future as being “very, very dark.”

My friend — who once respected Cronkite — said he’s downright wiffy now.

He was asked who he respected who was alive today and he listed nothing but the long dead (e.g., Willy Brandt).

He droned on so long that people just started leaving.

Cronkite has turned into a hectoring old crone lately (even lecturing Stuttering John on Howard Stern).

I fear he bought his own publicity from LBJ, who said that he knew he had lost the country when he lost Cronkite. Walter: Johnson was speaking of you as a symbol, not a man; you were the chair you sat in and you don’t sit there anymore. And when you sat there, your great skill was reading out loud.

8 responses to “Cronkite, the way he wasn’t”

  1. Balbulican Avatar
    Balbulican

    I read this posting, and I parse it down to a series of contemptuous words selected to diminish Cronkite…”wiffy”, “droned”, “hectoring old crone”…but nothing of substance, no discussion of what he actually said. Just set of insults to a journalist who had the temerity to disagree with you.
    I guess that’s what’s great about blogging, as opposed to practicing journalism…bias becomes substance.

  2. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Bubs: As I say below: Why don’t you get your own blog? You clearly have plenty of opinions.

  3. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Furthermore… I spent many years as a TV critic and thought that Cronkite was an overblown blowhard who believed his own PR. Now I also think he is losing is (which, if he did it in private, would be his issue but since he charges money to do it in public and has opinions he treats as gospel, that makes him fair game, a public figure). I can give you many more examples of the wiffy, stupid things he said that night but it’s not worth the typing calories.

  4. Balbulican Avatar
    Balbulican

    “…can give you many more examples of the wiffy, stupid things he said that night”.
    To be honest, I was never a Cronkite fan: I thought, like most anchors, he was an over-rated talking head who probably wouldn’t be able to handle a story in the field to save his life.
    That’s wasn’t my point.
    Read the quote above. You could give me many “more” examples? You haven’t given me any examples. What you said in the original post was that Cronkite disagrees with your view of the war and the President. That’s enough to trigger what someone aptly referred to elsewhere in here as “vitriol”. And that’s fine: it’s your site.
    But the assumption here, and in blogs of every political stripe, is that a blogger’s biases constitute an editorial framework within which nothing must be proven. Some of the assumptions that seem to underlie most of the discussion on this site are, in my opinion, highly dubious, and should be made explicit and discussed. But by and large, they aren’t. It’s simply a given that:
    – to object to the war is to support Saddam Hussein, to hate Israel
    – protestors are fools, futile, and risible
    – the current Iraqi regime is complicit in the events of 9/11
    – Hollywood is a hotbed of anti American subversion
    …and so on.
    Therein lies the weakness of blogs. They tend to attract those who share the views of the blogger, and create a self-validating community of correspondents who congratulate each other on their acuity and reinforce each others’ prejudices.
    That’s why I don’t have a blog (well, that plus laziness): and that’s why I prefer to hang out on those where I feel a Loyal Opposition voice is needed.
    Hope you don’t mind?

  5. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    In all candor, Bub, I have received email from other readers sighing at your verbosity. I also think it is more honest to stand behind your own opinions if you have this many of them with your own blog — and name! And I think some of your arguments are full of … well, nothing (see the discussion below about the welcome for our troops). Then again, I have quoted you. It’s all about the quality of the conversation. I believe in having conversations here; you will note that I have comments on while many, many bloggers don’t. So I welcome discussion and especially welcome intelligent and provocative yet civil and friendly discussion. Let’s make sure we keep it to that.

  6. Balbulican Avatar
    Balbulican

    Fair enough. I don’t understand Blog culture very well, and I sincerely did think it was about diversity of views. Sorry. I won’t bug you folks again. It’s been illuminating.

  7. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Balbulican: Don’t go away and certainly don’t go away angry. But you did ask. And you’re right, blogs do have a culture and it’s different from discussion forums (with which I’m also very familiar on my day job). A discussion forum is more like a night at the bar. A blog is more like a house in a neighborhood; you have to face these same people the next morning. We absolutely welcome open discussion (and I just hate those who don’t) but it tends to be a little more, what, genteel — like the neighborhood open-house cocktail party. Would you like a Manhattan?

  8. Balbulican Avatar
    Balbulican

    I understand the distinction. You are absolutely right, I was in full Forum mode, and am frankly too new to this culture to grasp the distinction. I shall try to conduct my self with more decorum, and sincere thanks for the civility of your explanation.
    A bit early for a Manhattan, mais si vous avez, peut-