Progressive Ideology

[kramerica.inc]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

That's what made that exception so impactful.

Literally, the exception that proved the rule.

And then news-like TV got off the ground in the 80s and grew in the 90s. The physical newspapers died in the early 00s. Newspapers moved online and just wanted click bait. So spicy columns and the flashiest headlines got the grease. The loudest, not most intelligent, commentators dominated.

News reporting and facts then became muddled with blogs and columns, and opinions and commentary, and analysis. Often times without clarity or understanding by the general public of what they were reading. People liked going to NYT, WaPo Baltimore Sun, CNN Fox, etc. and finding columns and analysis that espoused what they believed. Echo chambers grew. And here we are today at Fanlax with people shouting at others because they don't like to have their echo-chamber dampened.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

That's what made that exception so impactful.

Literally, the exception that proved the rule.

https://www.hoover.org/research/brief-h ... media-bias

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/283149/

[old salt]

Would be hard to do since I'm 42, that would be really dumb. But let's pretend your correct, it's been happening in my lifetime, well over 30yrs now. So you can cry ageism and play the role of victim, maybe pretend I'm part of the deep state out to get you, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument (and Cradle) is so stale as to be irrelevant and pointless. No matter how many times you cry as victim that I'm being ageist, which is of course a joke.

MSNBC hasn't been straight news in 20+ years. Give me a break on that. At a min the day Olbermann joined (2003) if not far sooner. So lets live in the present day world for once maybe?

You said 1968. Check out the "talent" on MSNBC (thru 2007) & CNN (thru 2003).
Lots of conservatives who migrated to FNC. Much of their programming was based on informative, balanced L-R debate.
Once FNC started beating them in ratings, CNN & MSNBC tacked leftward to retain & build that portion of their audience.
The balance gradually faded as all 3 became echo chambers.
I really enjoyed MSNBC when they had Imus & he'd interview their newsies & opinionators.
It was all good fun then. As social media grew to dominate, the toxicity of anonymous keyboard warriors took over, making conflict & anger the product. ...Brian Williams is still my favorite breaking news guy. With Trump's departure, he's slowly regaining his sanity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %80%932007
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... 80%932003)

[cradleandshoot]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there. What would you expect him to do, sugarcoat it? Your are to young of a pup to understand what Walter Cronkites opinion of the quagmire the US government had gotten itself into. You should know this stuff and understand why Cronkite did what he did. You of all people should respect that. It took honesty and big brass balls for Cronkite to make that report. Would you have felt better if he had reported the John Wayne version that our boys were dying for some sort of BS patriotic reason? They were sent to fight a war that they were never meant to win. That is exactly what Walter Cronkite told the American people.

[Farfromgeneva]

Point it this idea newscasters never did anything editorially died in 1968, not that there was wholesale change overnight. You understand the difference don't you?

Bill O'Reilly started in the 90s. I can clearly recall the last twenty years of news being colored (by competition) and you're ignoring the oligopoly that existed when News could make money just reporting and most information was unavailable. That's a key difference you don't seem to take into consideration.

My point is even if we're talking +/- 20yrs and Olbermann is a flamethrower and has always been, only emboldended by his ratings to get deeper in the hole, so 2003 is at a min a starting point and so these discussions are a day late and a dollar short. And of course ignore all the changes in the world that forced news to change. You say it's only because they were beat in the ratings but can't prove that, just an opinion whereas I'd submit that technology, the flow of information and pace of transmission, flattening of the world, end of the cold war and the expansion of cable made this inevitable on both sides, but if you didn't see it coming that's a you problem not a media or society problem.

[Farfromgeneva]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there.

Ever heard of Lara Logan (super hottie, was destroyed being in the middle of the revolutions in MENA, Egypt specifically I think if I recall correctly)? Main reason I watched 60 minutes for about 5 years. Cronkite isn't the last journalist to be in the middle of it. This is just wishful thinking about the good old days.

[Farfromgeneva]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

That's what made that exception so impactful.

Literally, the exception that proved the rule.

And then news-like TV got off the ground in the 80s and grew in the 90s. The physical newspapers died in the early 00s. Newspapers moved online and just wanted click bait. So spicy columns and the flashiest headlines got the grease. The loudest, not most intelligent, commentators dominated.

News reporting and facts then became muddled with blogs and columns, and opinions and commentary, and analysis. Often times without clarity or understanding by the general public of what they were reading. People liked going to NYT, WaPo Baltimore Sun, CNN Fox, etc. and finding columns and analysis that espoused what they believed. Echo chambers grew. And here we are today at Fanlax with people shouting at others because they don't like to have their echo-chamber dampened.

Right well over 20+ years of this. OS is trying to act like it only started happening with Obama basically. This train was heading this way between the internet and the expansion of cable more than a generation ago.

Are you including yourself in the echo chamber camp? I can recall a lot of 2-3 guys piling on top of your homeboy Peter Brown often while that clown was running around here. You were in there regularly backing up your crew.

[old salt]

Echo chambers grew. And here we are today at Fanlax with people shouting at others because they don't like to have their echo-chamber dampened.

Bingo !

[Farfromgeneva]

Do you think you are immune to this?

[kramerica.inc]

Echo chambers grew. And here we are today at Fanlax with people shouting at others because they don't like to have their echo-chamber dampened.

Bingo !

And we've even devolved so much that we have people who are so insecure about having their notions/opinions challenged that they act like internet tough guys.

[Farfromgeneva]

Nice. Even after I was accused of lying by you which got me uptight, you can't let it go. Good for you. Pathetic attempt to drag someone out by verbally assaulting them and then playing a victim and pretending to have zero responsibilty. Sounds about right. Consistent at least.

Note: Look at the two man game being played now by little victims who are crying about an echo chamber...

[old salt]

OS is trying to act like it only started happening with Obama basically.

Wrong. I never planted a time flag. I just said the Cronkite in '68 was not a sea change. That was the exception which proved the rule.
The times I listed were based on the wiki histories I linked,

[cradleandshoot]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there.

Ever heard of Lara Logan (super hottie, was destroyed being in the middle of the revolutions in MENA, Egypt specifically I think if I recall correctly)? Main reason I watched 60 minutes for about 5 years. Cronkite isn't the last journalist to be in the middle of it. This is just wishful thinking about the good old days.

It was not wishful thinking. This was just way before your time on earth to understand the importance of what Cronkite reported. Up to that time the American people were being fed the happy, happy, joy, joy story of how we were winning in Vietnam. Walter had the audacity to tell the American people that there would be no victory in Vietnam. My close friend and crew chief on a huey spent 13 months from 1966 to 1967 getting his ass shot at everyday flying in grunts and flying what was left of them back to base. You know what the worst part of the job was? Every effing day he would take the hose and wash the blood out of the slick and get ready to do it all again the next day. He never had a drug or a drink all the time he was over there. After he came home it was a very rare occurrence when he was not drunk or stoned. He never said so to me but when Cronkite said we would never win in Vietnam, guys like my friend Roger had came to that conclusion a long time ago. Roger passed away in 2011. I went to his funeral. A bunch of soldiers that had fought with him over there came from across the country to honor him and remember him. They all knew way back in 1966 they were involved in a lost cause. Walter Cronkite only reported on what they had already known.

[Farfromgeneva]

So we're still talking a solid 20yrs no? This isn't new. Cradle brings it up like there isn't a whole generation plus that has lived with this type of media and have no sense of 1970s or 1960s media. That argument sounds out of touch. That was my point. Cronkite is considered seminal in that it started to change how news bahaved and most the rest of it came through changes in our economy and technology, not just some ratings play, that is a secondary effect of the business and technological changes, not the other way around.

Last time I recall reasonable discussion in media, mid late 80s. By the time Sam Donaldson had taken over this week from David Brinkley it was over and that was early 2000s. If one hasn't adjusted themselves to this reality by now then it's a lost cause.

[kramerica.inc]

Nice. Even after I was accused of lying by you which got me uptight, you can't let it go. Good for you. Pathetic attempt to drag someone out by verbally assaulting them and then playing a victim and pretending to have zero responsibilty. Sounds about right. Consistent at least.

Note: Look at the two man game being played now by little victims who are crying about an echo chamber...

I didn't accuse you of lying. You really, truly, fully, believe you know it all.
As George Costanza says, "It's not a lie, IF you believe it!"
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Chalk it up as just a "healthy self image."
Calling someone out on bs isn't verbal assault. Did you play college sports? Controlling emotion in the heat of the battle is a good thing.

[Farfromgeneva]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there.

Ever heard of Lara Logan (super hottie, was destroyed being in the middle of the revolutions in MENA, Egypt specifically I think if I recall correctly)? Main reason I watched 60 minutes for about 5 years. Cronkite isn't the last journalist to be in the middle of it. This is just wishful thinking about the good old days.

It was not wishful thinking. This was just way before your time on earth to understand the importance of what Cronkite reported. Up to that time the American people were being fed the happy, happy, joy, joy story of how we were winning in Vietnam. Walter had the audacity to tell the American people that there would be no victory in Vietnam. My close friend and crew chief on a huey spent 13 months from 1966 to 1967 getting his ass shot at everyday flying in grunts and flying what was left of them back to base. You know what the worst part of the job was? Every effing day he would take the hose and wash the blood out of the slick and get ready to do it all again the next day. He never had a drug or a drink all the time he was over there. After he came home it was a very rare occurrence when he was not drunk or stoned. He never said so to me but when Cronkite said we would never win in Vietnam, guys like my friend Roger had came to that conclusion a long time ago. Roger passed away in 2011. I went to his funeral. A bunch of soldiers that had fought with him over there came from across the country to honor him and remember him. They all knew way back in 1966 they were involved in a lost cause. Walter Cronkite only reported on what they had already known.

Internet. This couldn't have happened in the last 25 years due to technology, no matter what news media is like today. Information was sourced differently back then. That's not some choice made by media power brokers or the anchors themselves.

[youthathletics]

It was not wishful thinking. This was just way before your time on earth to understand the importance of what Cronkite reported. Up to that time the American people were being fed the happy, happy, joy, joy story of how we were winning in Vietnam. Walter had the audacity to tell the American people that there would be no victory in Vietnam. My close friend and crew chief on a huey spent 13 months from 1966 to 1967 getting his ass shot at everyday flying in grunts and flying what was left of them back to base. You know what the worst part of the job was? Every effing day he would take the hose and wash the blood out of the slick and get ready to do it all again the next day. He never had a drug or a drink all the time he was over there. After he came home it was a very rare occurrence when he was not drunk or stoned. He never said so to me but when Cronkite said we would never win in Vietnam, guys like my friend Roger had came to that conclusion a long time ago. Roger passed away in 2011. I went to his funeral. A bunch of soldiers that had fought with him over there came from across the country to honor him and remember him. They all knew way back in 1966 they were involved in a lost cause. Walter Cronkite only reported on what they had already known.

Thank you, again, for your service, cradle.

Not sure If you have ever seen this clip, but I can picture you in this role around here, you just need to clean it up around these parts.

[cradleandshoot]

Back up the bus there a Fan. I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the evening news while my dad napped while reading the evening paper sports section. We had Walter Cronkite a Fan. When you watched Cronkite read the news he NEVER editorialized what he was reading to America.

Disagree completely.

To wit, the most famous of his reports.....is he "just reporting" here? I sure as heck don't think so.....this is----full on----Cronkite's opinion of the war.

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there.

Ever heard of Lara Logan (super hottie, was destroyed being in the middle of the revolutions in MENA, Egypt specifically I think if I recall correctly)? Main reason I watched 60 minutes for about 5 years. Cronkite isn't the last journalist to be in the middle of it. This is just wishful thinking about the good old days.

It was not wishful thinking. This was just way before your time on earth to understand the importance of what Cronkite reported. Up to that time the American people were being fed the happy, happy, joy, joy story of how we were winning in Vietnam. Walter had the audacity to tell the American people that there would be no victory in Vietnam. My close friend and crew chief on a huey spent 13 months from 1966 to 1967 getting his ass shot at everyday flying in grunts and flying what was left of them back to base. You know what the worst part of the job was? Every effing day he would take the hose and wash the blood out of the slick and get ready to do it all again the next day. He never had a drug or a drink all the time he was over there. After he came home it was a very rare occurrence when he was not drunk or stoned. He never said so to me but when Cronkite said we would never win in Vietnam, guys like my friend Roger had came to that conclusion a long time ago. Roger passed away in 2011. I went to his funeral. A bunch of soldiers that had fought with him over there came from across the country to honor him and remember him. They all knew way back in 1966 they were involved in a lost cause. Walter Cronkite only reported on what they had already known.

This is a non pertinent point but it matters to me. Roger always wore this bullet fragment on a dog tag chain around his neck. Out of curiosity I asked him about it one day. They were flying away from a hot LZ where they had just dropped off some grunts. The VC on the ground shot the hell out of their slick. The co-pilot was killed and the pilot was shot in the thigh and had blood spurting everywhere. He stopped the bleeding and had enough instruction as a crew chief to bring the slick back to base. The WO requested to see him in the medical tent after surgery. The WO had punched his ticket home but gave Roger the bullet fragment they dug out of his leg. I asked him why the hell he wore it around his neck. Rogers answer was exactly what I would have expected... Because it meant something to the WO and he had presented it to him. As far as I know, I'm the only person Roger ever told about story behind that bullet necklace. I told his widow about it at his funeral. She said it was the only thing he ever saved from his 13 months in Vietnam. He was buried with it around his neck.

[cradleandshoot]

So we're still talking a solid 20yrs no? This isn't new. Cradle brings it up like there isn't a whole generation plus that has lived with this type of media and have no sense of 1970s or 1960s media. That argument sounds out of touch. That was my point. Cronkite is considered seminal in that it started to change how news bahaved and most the rest of it came through changes in our economy and technology, not just some ratings play, that is a secondary effect of the business and technological changes, not the other way around.

Last time I recall reasonable discussion in media, mid late 80s. By the time Sam Donaldson had taken over this week from David Brinkley it was over and that was early 2000s. If one hasn't adjusted themselves to this reality by now then it's a lost cause.

Cronkite said it at a very historical and pivotal point in our history. Cronkite burst the bubble that the Johnson administration had created that we were kicking ass in Vietnam and taking names. I don't know if you fully comprehend what a shock it was for all of America to hear we would never win in Vietnam. Until that point in time America had never lost a war. Americans were collectively punched in the gut and never recovered from it.

[Farfromgeneva]

Because you were living with a tiny fraction of the available information that exists today, and has for multiple decades now. I appreciate it in the context of the audience being filled with hubris and totally in the dark about reality. We don't have the same environment today and it's not a very new construct is my point. It's like saying, "man I wish news was like back in the day when I have very little idea what's going on inside or outside my country unless I get it from one of maybe five places". Would you trade more civilized news that's more (selective and what others want the public to know) "fact" delivery exclusively if you had to go back to the environment of the 1960s?