Walter Cronkite dead at 92
It is utterly fitting that two of the men responsible in great measure for losing the war in Vietnam died within weeks of each other. Robert McNamara, who died on July 6, was a man I loathed and despised with all my heart. He was the direct cause of the unnecessary deaths of so many American service men and women in Vietnam because of his cowardly and mendacious advice for the prosecution of that war. (Par for the course for Democrats.)
The other, Walter Cronkite, died today.
Although he will be lionized by the self-serving state-run media, let there be no doubt that his reporting -- and remember that there were no alternatives other than two networks and newspapers back then -- was key to our defeat in Vietnam.
I have nothing further to add.
George Moneo, ladies and gentleman, missing the point as usual.
I don't have a special love for Cronkite: I don't revere people I don't know, and I was seven when he retired in 1981. Moreover, reporters aren't particularly worthy subjects of adoration. But putting aside the tired arguments about whether Vietnam was worth fighting, Cronkite's editorial after the Tet Offensive (which, you will surely remind me, was a catastrophe for the NVA) was exactly what happens when you don't have, in your words, "state-run media." After years of lies from the Johnson administration, a reporter said "Bullshit."
As I tell my young journalism students, that's what you do: challenge your government, because as taxpayers we deserve to know how it spends our money. Surely you and the other posters on this site, as Obama critics, realize the value of challenging your president when he lies.
Finally, you betray, and not for the first time, a weird fascination with -- and a belief in -- the journalistic cliches you claim to despise. The famous, probably apocryphal account of Johnson's I've-lost-middle-America moment after the CBS broadcast was behind the curve, not ahead of it: public opinion had already turned against the war in 1967, and would accelerate beyond the point at which Cronkite's welcome-to-the-party moment became relevant.
George,
I share your same feelings regarding these two characters.
Regarding Cronkite I have to hand it over to George W. Bush.
The MSM tried to pull a Cronkite on him on Iraq and it failed miserably.
Alfred,
As Ronald Wilson Reagan once said, the Vietnam War was a noble cause and I believe that he was right. Remember that the war started because North Vietnam decided to take over the South, (this point is missed by the majority of people when they discuss the war).
I also say that it was a noble cause betrayed by Robert McNamara, Lyndon Johnson and Walter Cronkite (among many others) and way too many mistakes and tactical errors were made that lead to our defeat.
We could have won that war but, the first four years were critical in that regard and those were the years that McNamara and Johnson squandered with their stupid policies.
Plus they did not worked on establishing a strong, democratic South Vietnamese government that could be respected and supported by its people.
By the time Richard Nixon took office he was dealing with an almost impossible, damaged goods situation. Even thought I think that Henry Kissinger finally nailed the coffin at up the Paris accords when he did not demand the total removal of North Vietnamese forces and Vietcong from the South and a complete cessation of hostilities plus the recognition of South Vietnam’s government from the North in return for American withdrawal.
The fact that we involved South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the war and later abandoned them it cost the life of millions in those countries plus 57,000 plus American servicemen.
You see if the same criteria had been used in Iraq (and the MSM tried desperately to make another Vietnam out of Iraq) today Iraq would be in the hands of terrorist fanatics threatening the whole region.
Yes there has been plenty of mistakes in handling the Iraqi War but at least the country has not fallen in enemy hands (as it happened in South East Asia) and is slowly building a democracy that it never had.
McNamara was a pendejo ...
but I sort of liked Cronkite from a personal standpoint. Compared to the many talking head fools the media has today, he is a lost art.
" After years of lies from the Johnson administration, a reporter said "Bullshit."
I wonder who from the MSM will have to balls to call Obama’s bullshit as he continues sinking this country in an even deeper hole and George W. Bush can no longer be blamed for it.
Oops, my mistake, just realized that the MSM is in the tank for Obama, this scenario will never happen.
Wishful and naïve thinking on my part.
Alfredo Soto, ladies and gentlemen, being an asshole as usual. And, forgive the redundancy, he's a journalist, too!
Good point(s) George. We live in some kind of bizarro world where these two are lionized, and the great damage they did is glossed over.
No, Soto, it is a state run media NOW because the state is in the hands of the enemies of our constitution and freedom everywhere.
In the 60's the fourth estate was where it still is today hating all things American and proud of it. The difference is that however much I may disagree with Johnson on so many things, I believe he loved this country and its institutions. So when Cronkite et al opposed his efforts in Viet Nam, it wasn't because the efforts were incompetent, but because they wanted to see the U.S. in a humiliating defeat.
It may surprise you to know, since you were seven when Cronkite retired, that most of this country was NOT against the V.N. war. Those who opposed it were the anarchic and the noisiest and, supported by this left wing press, got most of the attention. Most in this country hated communism at the time and understood why we were there and were angry at the way it was being reported.
It was no accident that Nixon won even though he was not particularly well liked by many.
George, you're spot-on.
Soto; it was 'state-run' media back then as well. The Democrats screwed up the war (their hearts weren't into it, as always) and their own media turned on them. Because in the end, the 'state-run media' mirrors its handlers, the Democratic Party, which is viscerally anti-war and only engages in them half-heartedly, to gain votes and not because they're willing to sacrifice in order to defend this nation.
The media tried the "bullshit" tactic on President Bush. It failed because Bush was principled and cared about this country's future security, stuck to his guns and brought us success. However, the tactic worked against our populace and that's why we have this Obamanation of a government. What Al Qaeda was unable to do under Bush, your 'state-run media' will accomplish under Obama - destroy this nation.
I'm sure you have that tingly sensation running up and down your leg - pathetic!
Mambi,
Not to nitpick, but I don't believe it was a state run media then. The Dem party was not as anti American or anti capitalist or pro communist as the current Dem party.
So when the msm, which had much greater influence then, attacked the war, it was not as an arm of this country. It may have been an arm of the other side. If it was a state run media in the 60's and 70's, it was not the stae of the U.S.A, it was the state of the USSR.
No less a personage than North Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp has stated unambiguously that America's anti-war stance, fueled by Fifth Column Quisling Communists, were of more assistance to the North than arms. Cronkite declared Tet a defeat when in actuality, as Soto stated above, it was a disaster for the North. A big push after Tet would have ended the war in our favor. I blame Cronkite and the press for that.
Honey; the left-wing dominated DEM Party you see today had its beginnings as far back as the '30s when many of FDRs folks were enamored of the Soviet 'experiment'. It fully morphed in the '60s, which is why you had a guy like McGovern as their candidate. I think JFK and LBJ reflect the morphing that was taking place. When it came to foreign policy they'd talk a tough game, but then apply themselves half-heartedly and make a mess of everything - I give you Cuba and the Bay of Pigs. Foreign policy-wise they were already risk-averse in applying power.
On the other side, the media has been liberal dominated since before the '60s, if I'm not mistaken. So, in the '60s, a liberal-dominated media existed along with a left-ward moving DEM Party. Bottom-line is that they are soul mates today, and they were soul mates then. They had a lovers quarrel over the war they screwed up, but in essence were in agreement over other foreign and domestic policies = state-run media. In fact, watch what happens if Afghanistan turns sour for Obama...although, being the full-blooded leftist that he is (unlike JFK or LBJ), he may pull us out rather than stick it out.
I think we agree on the following; the media and the DEM Party have been hurting this country for years.
Another good point George. The NV have reiterated that since their victory. The media and the maggots that constantly protested in their favor against the war. And don't think that hasn't been lost on our current enemies.
I won't shed a tear for Mr. Cronkite, but I will not lay blame for the failure of Vietnam at his feet. The fact that our political class caused the needless loss over 55,000 lives and contributed the fall of Cambodia to Pol Pot's murderous regime begs the question why? Warn water ports for the Soviets? Falling Dominoes?
Yes Giap played his cards right and the incompetent Westmoreland played a bad hand, but I ask why were we there? Soviets where right across the Florida straights and not much was done about that so why did the send 500,000 men half way around the globe to fight over some 3rd world shit hole?
News will always be slanted one way or another (FOX,CNN etc) because of dependance on sources and commercial sponsors, just use common sense to filter out the BS, whether its an Obama love fest or a W Pep Rally.
Only a rightwing nutjob like you, Moneo, would claim that Cronkite should be held responsible for losing the Vietnam war.
It wasn't North Vietnam's mobilization of their people, or their rationing of food to control the masses, or the failed US airstrikes over North Vietnam or the psychological warfare that the North Vietname employed. Nope. It was the reporter from Missouri who is 50% responsible for the loss of this war.
Sure it is. And I suppose I drive a Lexus, huh?
Wow Ric, nice job of defending your friends, the totalitarian, communists of North Vietnam. You seem more disturbed by the fact that we've downplayed their 'glorious' contribution to destroying freedom than by our laying considerable blame at the feet of a liberal media.
You are one sick mother-f..ker! A perfect personification of why our nation is going to shit. Spoiled ingrate who deserves to be suffering with the rest of those living in your 'worker paradises' like Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. E.S.A.D
In your defense, RicBuc, you were only a child.
And too bad you still seem to be one.
You still don't know how to read.
I never said Cronkite was "50% responsible" for Vietnam. Only a moron with a penchant for sophistry would take what I wrote and glean that one nugget. Dolt.
I remember how Walter Cronkite would open his evening CBS News program saying: "Today, [X amount] Americans died in Vietnam." When there were no casualties, he would still open his broadcast saying "Today, no Americans died in Vietnam." This went on month after month, year after year, wearing down the spirit of the American people. Cronkite was obsessed with keeping a daily tab of American casualties, which is why some people despised him. No other journalist since then has done that. How would the Obama Administration react if Katie Couric opened her news program daily saying "Today, [X amount] of Americans died in Iraq and Afghanistan"?
I was reading Khushchev's Memoirs and in it he stated that in the 1950s, the Vietnamese Communists had lost the war, even though they had recently won the battle of Dien Bien Phu against the French (gee, what a surprise, the French giving up). To their astonishment, the French agreed to leave Indochina. And to their even greater astonishment, they agreed in Geneva to cede a greater amount of territory to the Communists than they had ever expected to ever get. I am personally convinced, even though I did not take a direct part in the Vietnam War, that a similar outcome came of the Tet offensive: it was a catastrophic loss for the Communists, but the American media at the time united in saying that it was the American forces which had lost the war (not the battle). I remember vividly that the three networks were blatantly pro-Communist at that time (there was no Internet and talk radio was also in the future), not just towards the war, but also towards the terrorist organizations like the SDS, the Yippies, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen. However, in all fairness (and I could be mistaken!) I do not remember Cronkite being part of it, although he also was not a part of any anti-Communist sentiment being aired.
I only hope that the networks now don't have a two-week coverage of Cronkite and what a magnificent genius he was, like they did with the pedophile Michael Jackson.
Forget that hope. it is starting already. How convenient of Cronkite to put off dying until after the slew of other celebrities passed.
Now he's got the news cycle all to himself and Obama can slip health care's passage under the radar.
Cronkite was at least a useful idiot. If he wasn't overtly part of the anti American crowd, he didn't do a whole lot to stop their noise.
How would the Obama Administration react if Katie Couric opened her news program daily saying "Today, [X amount] of Americans died in Iraq and Afghanistan"?
Yes! How I wish this was true! That's what a responsible media is supposed to do: keep track of how the federal and state government spends our dollars in war and peace. I would WELCOME this, no hesitation. I don't give a damn who's president.
"That's what a responsible media is supposed to do" (Soto)
What does unnecessarily reporting death counts have to do with 'tracking how federal dollars are spent' - nothing! It is conscious manipulation of the public in order to undermine a policy you don't agree with, and has nothing to do with being 'responsible'. In fact, it is irresponsible when you consider these wars were fought to provide long-term security for this nation after 9/11.
It speaks to your incredibly liberal bias masquerading as 'responsible journalism' - BULLSHIT! No wonder our universities are horribly failing this nation. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
The press did it with Iraq, too. Remember the "3,000 dead" milestone? Please, go fool someone who's gullible, Alfredo.
Alfredo Soto,
Yes, you would welcome this reporting of the dead no matter who is president. It gives you no credit when you show such "non partisanship". Because you seem to enjoy anything that puts this country in the wrong.
Elsewhere I said that I am so sick of this "everyone is entitled to his opinion" business absent morality or facts.
What I always hated about LeCarre was his equivalence of the CIA and the KGB in his novels. There was no moral center, no sense of one was defending freedom and the other subverting it.
If the US news media did what you want in WWII, Hitler and the rest of the Axis would have won.
If you are what passes for a teacher of journalism, then woe is us. I have no problem with an active investigative press. But I always have the hope that the journalists operate from a love of this singularly magnificent country, the greatest country in the world. The part of the exile community that writes in this post shows a deep love of this country and freedom lovers everywhere.
Nowhere do I get the sense from your posts that you operate from that assumption.
Mambi, thank you for your note here of 9:29 A.M. I am always learning new things on Babalu.
Cato, I would be interested to know. Which side are you on about Honduras? Do you think, as Obama does, that we should support the current banished president who is allied with Chavez and Castro, or do you side with those who threw him out?
Alfred,
You have pinpointed the problem with today's media, and your argument, perfectly and in a nutshell:
That's what a responsible media is supposed to do: keep track of how the federal and state government spends our dollars in war and peace.
There are so many things wrong with this statement I could be here all day.
First and foremost, a responsible media isnt an accounting firm. A responsible media is supposed to report the truth. A responsible media isnt a supposed to be a solely a government watchdog or lapdog, nor is it supposed to be the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. The job description is quite simple: look, record and report. That's it.
Its not the media's job to change the world or make a difference. Nor was the media elected by anyone to make choices about what is right or wrong or better or worse for the people they "serve." Look, record and report. That's it.
Moreover, the wars mentioned in this thread have not been about dollars, nor should their cost be measured as such. There are young Americans on the other side of the world right now risking their LIVES, sacrificing their all for what most sane and leveled headed people - without the slanted influence of slanted, unelected media - would consider a just cause: the deliverance of a people from tyranny and oppression. Freedom.
The probelms we have around the world and here at home right now have not only been caused by politicians. The media bears just as much blame and just as much responsibility for it all because they havent really done their job correctly since the days of Cronkite. It is not the medias job to shape public opinion, nor is it, again, their job to be the deciders of what is right and what is wrong. Their job is to, again, look, record and report. Give us ALL sides of the story, unbiased and truthfully, and let WE the people you serve make the decisions through our elected representatives and our votes.
99% of the journalism students Ihave spoken to have told me they wanted to become journalists to "make a difference."
And I have told them that's fine and honorable, IF that making of a difference is a byproduct and not a goal. If something good comes of a truthful, accurate, unbiased news report, then great. But if that difference comes from the whitewashing or tayloring of a news report - regardless of good intentions - as a means to an end, then that person is neither a journalist or reporter, but an activist.
One need only look at who sits in the White House and why to confirm that today's media is not only devoid of ethical standards, but wouldnt know the meaning of "journalistic integrity" if the definition was looped on their teleprompters.
Val, thank you. You state so well what I have been thinking.
Well said Val!
Honey; you are a treasure and a pleasure. I love reading your comments. Keep up the great work!
Where'd you get from my quote that I said journalists "make a difference"? A journalist, as you correctly said, must "look, record, and report." Which also means taking public figures to task. If Mayor John Smith says, "I've saved this county $20 million in tax revenue," a good journalist records that statement, but also would say directly afterwards, "According to figures released from non-partisan county auditors, Smith saved $8 million."
Journalists are NOT stenographers. What is and is not real journalism is not that complicated. The government makes a claim. The role of the journalist is not to repeat it or merely report that the government claims it, but instead, to investigate it with skepticism to determine whether it is true, and then report if it isn't. That's what some of you do on this site day in and out with Cuba, Obama, and Congress. That's JOURNALISM. This makes Mambi's following statement nonsensical:
What does unnecessarily reporting death counts have to do with 'tracking how federal dollars are spent' - nothing! It is conscious manipulation of the public in order to undermine a policy you don't agree with, and has nothing to do with being 'responsible'. In fact, it is irresponsible when you consider these wars were fought to provide long-term security for this nation after 9/11.
If an American president, no matter how noble his intentions, commits men and women to combat, it's the job of media to, yes, record his statements justifying the use of force. It also means reporting how many soldiers die and how much of our tax dollars are spent. That's non-partisanship. Reporting the deaths of soldiers shows the public that there's a real war in which real casualties happen. I just don't understand why you don't want to know these things.
And I have told them that's fine and honorable, IF that making of a difference is a byproduct and not a goal. If something good comes of a truthful, accurate, unbiased news report, then great. But if that difference comes from the whitewashing or tailoring of a news report - regardless of good intentions - as a means to an end, then that person is neither a journalist or reporter, but an activist.
Agreed, part of which means keeping track of how the federal and state government spends our dollars in war and peace.
Moreover, the wars mentioned in this thread have not been about dollars, nor should their cost be measured as such. There are young Americans on the other side of the world right now risking their LIVES, sacrificing their all for what most sane and leveled headed people - without the slanted influence of slanted, unelected media - would consider a just cause: the deliverance of a people from tyranny and oppression. Freedom.
If you think wars are explicitly about freedom and delivering people from tyranny, go back to school. You just contradicted everything worthwhile you said about journalism. Your statement basically says, "If President Obama claims that a war is about the deliverance of a people from tyranny and oppression, then it must be so." Bullshit.
Soto; the only nonsensical one is you and your intellectually depleted arguments. You're telling me that people aren't aware that soldiers die in a war? So you have to remind them every day? Geez...
You're so entrenched in your political bias you can't see straight. I can't believe you're a 'college professor', on the other hand, I think that's the norm for those institutions nowadays - pathetic!
Okay, Mr. Soto. I will ask you, not in your role as journalism teacher or journalist, but as a free man, what side do you come down on in the Honduras situation? See my question to Cato. Are you indifferent or do you have an opinion about this? Do you mind telling me?
Mambi,
Thank you. I have asked Val, Ziva and Mr. Fontova, if it is okay for me to be so bold with my opinions and comments here when I am not a Cuban.
I was really glad to see what you had to say about what I write here.
In how many pieces will Mambi's head explode when I tell him that I voted for Ros-Lehtinen and didn't vote for Obama in November?
Okay, Mr. Soto. I will ask you, not in your role as journalism teacher or journalist, but as a free man, what side do you come down on in the Honduras situation?
I really haven't followed the story very closely, but from the news reports I've read it's obvious that Zelaya had to step down, even if the constitutional means by which the military did so probably seems strange to Americans.
Alfred,
A journalist, as you correctly said, must "look, record, and report." Which also means taking public figures to task. If Mayor John Smith says, "I've saved this county $20 million in tax revenue," a good journalist records that statement, but also would say directly afterwards, "According to figures released from non-partisan county auditors, Smith saved $8 million."
Who takes the journalist to task?
Journalists are NOT stenographers. What is and is not real journalism is not that complicated. The government makes a claim. The role of the journalist is not to repeat it or merely report that the government claims it, but instead, to investigate it with skepticism to determine whether it is true, and then report if it isn't.
Who takes the journalist to task?
If an American president, no matter how noble his intentions, commits men and women to combat, it's the job of media to, yes, record his statements justifying the use of force. It also means reporting how many soldiers die and how much of our tax dollars are spent. That's non-partisanship. Reporting the deaths of soldiers shows the public that there's a real war in which real casualties happen. I just don't understand why you don't want to know these things.
Is it also the media's job to publish classified information that may be a direct cause of the death of military personnel?
We all know war is hell and that brave men and women die in war. And I dont think anyone here is insisting that either the costs of the war or the casualties not be reported. But just like Cronkite started his newscasts with, for example: "Up to date, US casualties in the war in vietnam are 10,000," he could have also included, on balance "Today, US forces saved 10,000 South Vietnamese from NVA butchering." That would be both sides of the story, no? And good "journalist" (It's almost hilarious in this day and age to see those two words stringed together like that) would report exactly that. One would think, following todays reporting, that Iraq is all death, all the time. But, lives are saved, infrastructure is built and rebuilt. Hospitals, schools, are erected and begun. But you dont hear about that in the news ever, especially every day.
But good news doesnt sell newspapers or tv advertising, does it? So, again, who oversees the journalist? Who takes them to task?
My whole point is that journalists - as proven by your responses here - think they are some kind of caped crusaders, morally superior, with the ability to make decisions for the world as their super power, because you all take on the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT (unless of course, its your candidate that won and sits at the White House), all under the pretext of ensuring that the big bad government answer to its people. But, WHO DO JOURNALISTS ANSWER TO?
Who did durante answer to? Who did herbert Matthews answer to? Who does the New York Times answer to? CNN? FOX News?
And why is it that "journalists" accept responses and data from certain governments as gospel, for example, Cuba and any "official" data, and forward same information almost verbatin to their "audience", while parsing word after word after word on whether, for example, the Vice Presidential Candidate of a political party is, in fact, the mother of a baby with Downs Syndrome?
From your answers here, all journalists need to do to be "good" is watchdog the US government. And we dumbass non-journalists types should just STFU, and take our "news report pills" like good patients because you all know better than we do about EVERYTHING.
Your comments reek of a moral and ethical superiority which A) DO NOT EXIST IN THIS DAY AND AGE and B) NO ONE GAVE YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Today, most people trust their media outlets about as much as they trust the big bad government. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about "journalism" and "journalists".
Who takes the journalist to task?
We do. It's our job as citizens to find out all we can about our elected officials. I read the NYT, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and various liberal and conservative blos every morning. We draw our conclusions based on what we read. It's tedious and time-consuming, but that's the rub.
Journalists are not superior beings. They make grievous mistakes all the time. Walter Lippmann, Herbert Matthews, Judith Miller, among many, many others are all examples of reporters beguiled by the powerful. After their disastrous attempts to report just one side, it's no wonder the public doesn't trust them. That's why the Internet is the greatest thing to happen to journalism in the last fifty years: there are so many people who parse statements and government documents than were available when you and me were kids.
Val,
It is also interesting to note that luxury hotels in Iraq are booked solid for years to come by tourists who can't wait to get there. How many in the msm have printed that?
Bernard Lewis said it used to be said that "no news is good news". Now it is "good news is no news."
But, Soto, that's just the point. Journalists do think that they are superior beings. They are arrogant and they think that they are impartial and full of integrity simply because they took 40 hours of journalism in college. There are thousands of leftist journalists out there who believe that they are impartial while at the same time spiking any story that contradicts their dogma or criticizes any of their sacred cows. Look at the recent media orgy over Michael Jackson. Not one touched the pedophilia angle at any length.
George -
Thank you for making an easily missed point. In 1968, we had no internet and little talk radio. We had three tv networks from which to cull the truth. Cronkite knew that and abused his responsibility by swaying many.
As for Cronkite, his mainstream buds and the shrill relentless leftist subversives, many of whom are enjoying their zenith of power today - is this the lefties' 'Top of the World, Ma! moment? - we can place trust in the fine words of General Giap: "Whenever we found ourselves losing, we could always rely upon our friends in the American Peace Movement and their accomplices in the press...", as G. Gordon Liddy has loyally reminded listeners for years.
Paul Vincent Zecchino
Manasoviet Key, Florida
19 July, 2009
You know, it's kinda frustrating to smack someone up side the head with a clue by four and then have said person use the word "beguiled" in a response.
Beguiled?
Dude.
If that's your idea of a two by four, I'm not the one who's beguiled.
Only a froo-froo, secret panty-wearing, pseudo-intellectual would use the word "beguiled" in a sentence...
Ha. You've nailed me exactly.
I thought so...
Politics aside, I have a problem with journalists, at least American journalists (I'm not acquainted with other nationalities), which is: they're so stupid! I have seen journalists interviewing a politician asking him questions. The politician, when he comes to a hard question, will talk for five minutes straight without really answering the quesion, whereupon he jornalist will go on to the next question, regardless of what the politician said! Another instance is when someone is interviewed and makes a statement of fact and the journalist does not challenge, or question it. Three examples: (1) at one point, feminists suddenly claimed that men became violent and abusive towards women during times of the Superbowl and this was widely reported, copied, repeated, parroted for weeks and none of the journalists even checked the statistics or even asked the psychoic feminists where they got that information. (2) Different people, at different times, have claimed that one out of every three, or four, or six, or ten children have been sexually molested by their father. Not one journalist ever questioned these bizarre statistics. (3) When the Columbine massacre took place, you had a large number of people lining up before the cameras to claim that the reason the massacre took place was because (choose one): it took place on Hitler's birthday, it was caused by video games, it was caused by bullying in school, it was caused by lack of gun control, it was caused by lack of parental supervision, it was caused by violence on TV (or movies), it was caused by Dungeons & Dragons, it was caused by . . . whatever. Not one journalist asked these whackos how they came to that conclusion, where was their data. Are journalists really that stupid or just plain lazy?
The New York Times, in my opinion, can serve as a representative of the state of journalism, at least in this country. The New York Times, in my opinion, is blatantly biased and not even remotely credible as even tolerably objective or trustworthy. That's all I really need to know about American journalism. Until that situation changes dramatically for the better (assuming it ever does), my extreme skepticism (and often contempt) regarding the media will remain unchanged. Arguments to the contrary by anyone who's part of, or connected with, the media/journalism system are exceedingly unlikely to persuade me. The offenses have been far too many for far too long. I don't want assurances or nice-sounding rhetoric; I want journalistic PRACTICE to prove to me that it is what it should be. What I see all around me, pervasively and consistently, is just the opposite. And no, I don't care about journalistic intentions; I care about OUTCOMES.
Actually, we don't need to bring the NYT into this, however much it illustrates what's wrong with American journalism. All one needs to do is look at how the MSM covers Cuba, and how it's done so for decades (and that includes the ostensible experts on the subject, the Miami media). It's not just questionable or dubious; it's a screaming, disgusting scandal. If that's true with Cuba coverage, why on earth should I, or anybody, trust the media's coverage of ANYTHING, particularly anything with a significant ideological component? After a revolting spectacle such as the fairly recent NBC "week in Cuba," which was a bullshit fest, asking me to trust the MSM is beyond ludicroous. And don't even get me started on the likes of Lucia Newman and Anita Snow. It's despicable.
Basically, if even just half, even just one third of what Bernard Goldberg documented in his book Bias is true, the MSM is SERIOUSLY compromised. So what was the MSM's response to the book? EXACTLY what was to be expected. In other words, don't bother talking to me about journalistic integrity. Either prove it, day in and day out, consistently, in PRACTICE, or don't waste your breath.