"Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite has urged U.S. news anchors to call for an end to the war in Iraq."

Regardless of one's opinion on the Iraqi War, to what extent is it within the purview of news readers to make foreign policy?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/01/16/cronkite-war.html
******************************************************
01-16-06, 04:41 PM
sid1114
well, first of all he's no longer a newsreader. Second, he's not "making" policy. As a citizen, he has a right to speak. As a public figure, what he says gets noticed. At least he has a history of decades of being "America's most trusted newsman." Whatever that means. He's done stories in depth and of great substance over his career. He has, many would say, a reputation for character and seriousness. As opposed, say, to Bill O' Reilly.

01-16-06, 04:45 PM
DorianGreyed
I have some reservations about a new reader giving a personal opinion during a newscast, but, as Cronkite stated, " It's not unprofessional to voice an opinion if viewers are clearly told it is opinion." Another factor is that this is Walter Cronkite speaking. The article pointed out that Cronkite was known as "the most trusted man in America" when he announced, after going to Vietnam, that the war was unwinnable. His opinion was a major factor in LBJ's decision not to run for re-election. For tens of millions of people, Cronkite was the man who told us what was going on. I don't think any news personality since him has garnered the praise and respect that he did, and I can only think of one before him that did, and that man, Edward R. Murrow, also spoke out when he saw a terrible wrong.

Having said all that, Cronkite doesn't mean much to the average American today. Most of today's Americans don't remember Cronkite as THE News source, and, unfortunately, most Americans chose their news by selecting the newscast that agrees with their own political views rather than looking at things such as depth and objectivity. We don't have a Walter Cronkite or an Edward R. Murrow today.

I don't see Cronkite as trying "to make foreign policy" as much as voicing the opinion of a man who has seen a great deal more of the effects of our foreign policy than those who make it have seen. No national news person today has the gravitas to accomplish what Murrow and Cronkite did. Murrow and Cronkite changed people's minds. No one today has that ability. With what we have on TV today, maybe it is better that news readers remain news readers.

01-16-06, 04:47 PM
juanruiz

quote:
well, first of all he's no longer a newsreader. Second, he's not "making" policy. As a citizen, he has a right to speak.

I am aware of that. I was referring to current news readers. The ambiguity was my bad. Sorry.

01-16-06, 07:24 PM
honilov
I'm sure Cronkite is not the only one calling for an end to the war but it's just that he's getting the publicity.

I don't think his opinion is worth a hill of beans so far as really ending the war. It is definitely not making foreign policy.

01-16-06, 08:52 PM
RoverRoad
I only have a problem with news anchors giving their personal opinions when I disagree with them. Big Grin That's when I change the channel. On the other hand, Television companies are private entities and should be allowed to broadcast anything they want and say anything they want. Even if they want to broadcast porno at 6:00 in the afternoon they should be allowed to. The power of the remote control goes a long way.

On the other hand, people have to be real morons to form their opinions based on what a news anchor tells them. People that can be so easily swayed have no idea what's going on in the world anyway.

The television networks today are all owned by fat Republicans who give money to the Republican party. There's no way that any anchor today can be as free to express their opinion as Cronkite was. They may get away with it in a commentary segment, but never on a general news cast.

01-17-06, 03:09 PM
sid1114

quote:
my bad. Sorry.

Bad? Hardly. The war is bad (having accomplished the opposite of its intent, so far). Your comments are always worthy of respect.

01-17-06, 04:16 PM
Dwight
Walter Cronkite was always very careful (in my opinion) to present the news in an unbiased way. As the news editor, he certainly had a lot to say about what was shown on the broadcast, but from years of watching his various programs, he did earn my trust.

While I agree that it would be foolish to base one's beliefs solely on what Walter Cronkite says, I will give his statements careful consideration.

By the way, I recommend his book "A Reporter's Life". It is very interesting.

Dwight

01-17-06, 04:58 PM
juanruiz
Perhaps I should clarify the gist of my original post. I have no problem with Uncle Walter saying whatever he wants to. I do not believe that news anchors, however, should be sharing their opinion, even if clearly marked "Editorial." As purveyors of the news, they are stuck to some extent with sacrificing their free speech so that their news at least appears to be non-partisan.

01-17-06, 05:21 PM
DorianGreyed
Just to clarify another point - When Walter spoke out against the war in Vietnam, that was the only time that he displayed any political leanings, and, given what he saw, it is arguable that even that counted. Most of the United States had no idea that he was a Liberal until long after he retired.


I understand what you mean, JR, and for the most part, I agree. Cronkite and Murrow were able to get away with what they did because they were, well, Cronkite and Murrow. Unfortunately, their actions did set a precedent, to a degree. As I said in my first post, no one today has the respect from all sides that they did, but that hasn't seemed to matter.

01-17-06, 05:29 PM
Professor

quote:
[from jr's original post:] "Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite has urged U.S. news anchors to call for an end to the war in Iraq."

What does "call for" mean? I'm guessing he means for them to be vocal, to speak out against certain foreign policies, if that's how they feel, especially if there's a consensus of strong feeling among them. I don't think Cronkite expects anybody to get Condoleeza on the phone right away.

Public policy can be changed by an active minority influencing the passive majority until public pressure brings about the change [I'm making this up as I go. Smile ]. In this case the "minority" are the news anchors, and Cronkite is asking them to do what they do best: talk into a camera to millions of people. Their powers are considerable.

I'm not sure what effect this might have on the networks' news ratings or the anchors' popularities. But surely Walter Cronkite knew before opening his mouth. Networks, local affiliates, and indies all used to have editorial / opinion / commentary segments periodically in their news broadcasts, often by the station manager. What happened?

As an ethical journalist Cronkite was above reproach. As an ex-journalist and still-celebrity he can criticize the prevailing government, the media can cover it as news, and the First Amendment shines. Where's the problem?

Besides, movie stars and ex-presidents speak out on current policies all the time. (In fact, right about now, President Cronkite sounds pretty good to me! Smile )

01-17-06, 05:45 PM
juanruiz
DG and I, along with Frank and perhaps a few others here probably are the only ones who remember when CBS News was really PC (Pre-Cronkite Wink ) Likewise, we likely remember Murrow's "See It Now" series, famous for the McCarthy exposé, but also (ironically) for the show on tobacco and cancer, migrant workers, and a whole host of other topics. But that was a very different CBS news bureau (Sevareid, Schorr, and a host of others).

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll reiterate that Cronkite's calling on news anchors to make a political statement about Iraq, places the appearance of their own objectivity on the chopping block.

01-17-06, 08:37 PM
Kelleygirl
I am also in your age category, Juan. Cronkite was always an honest and respectable reporter. Just maybe if some of the younger folks go to the movies to see "Good Night and Good Luck", they will get a favor for what is being discussed here. I think that it's an important film.

01-17-06, 08:42 PM
juanruiz
The ironic thing is that today, Murrow, Cronkite, Sevareid, Chancellor, Huntley, none of those guys could get an anchor position. Not good-looking enough. That is why in my first post I called them all news readers, instead of journalists.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,