Cronkite's legacy vs Michael Jackson's in the media: I was right

[AzNick]

Here are my original posts, and the "debate" (if you can call insulting debating):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=210x28442

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6092661&mesg_id=6092661

I was even more right than I thought. Then I said that in two days, it will not be a news item any longer.

Actually it was the next day that barely a word about Cronkite's life, career and legacy could be heard in the media.

In comparison, they "milked" MJ's death just as shamelessly as they milked his life, when they added to the misery of who I think was a broken man and a huge waste of talent.

Again: Cronkite was a lot less popular nowadays than MJ was, but Cronkite was part of our history. Sad fact is that Americans do not study history and care more about Jon & Kate than about our current crises.

I appreciate the need for pop culture to help disconnect from reality and ease the pains, and understand that MJ's moonwalk and Neil Armstrong's are symbols of equal importance in Americana, but the panem et circenses approach (the dumbing down of the news, not born yesterday) of our news people is a total capitulation from their original goal, which has always been to inform.

I know, I am a bit of an idealist. Their goal is to sell paper (and now air time). Where did I think I was for a minute?

So, thanks for the insults, I truly appreciated the stupidity of some of the replies to my original post and for once I did not have to hit Free Republic for my dose of idiocracy.

[stray cat]

1. Cronkite died? I must have missed the nonstop coverage all weekend

[Captain Hilts]

2. How on earth can you compare the 'popularity' of a 95year old newscaster with a 50yr old rock star?

It's just not relevant.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Actually, the comparison is quite easy and relevant.

Michael is the story that won't go away, and Cronkite's story was buried before he was.

It says a lot about this country, actually.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. Of course it won't go away!

Cronkite was an old man expected to die. His death was sad, but far from shocking.

Michael Jackson was a worldwide celebrity who died at the age of 50 -- in a suspicious and shocking way.

I am sick and tired of people here at DU acting as if all death should be treated as equal by the media.

I have news for you, if Pres. Clinton suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack today, it'd dominate the news.

However, if the same were to happen to either Pres. Carter or Pres. George H.W. Bush, the story wouldn't be nearly as big.

Would that say a lot about the country, too?

[Captain Hilts]

25. Exactly. Cronkite's kids are in their 60s. He was revered in his lifetime. Respected. He's OLD.

Exactly - Bubba would get wallpaper coverage, GHWBush would not because Bubba is younger. It's that simple.

[Sultana]

26. PREACH!

:headbang:

[Politicub]

3. Big media gives the people what they want

not what they need to see. That's why you have yahoos like Chuck Todd disparaging the torture investigations. He's smart enough to know that the policies and personalities of the Bush admin should be investigated, but he would rather play to the right's desire to sweep everything under the rug.

[PatSeg]

18. What bothered me

is most of the people I talked to did not want to hear about Michael Jackson nonstop for days. There were other important news stories at the time and they were brushed aside. I have no problem with covering the death of a famous person, but I really wanted to know what was going on in Iran, which was a huge story in the days before Michael Jackson died. I came to DU to find out about the energy bill in congress.

I turned the TV off, as did a lot of people.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Here's the problem with Media conglomerates reporting on the life of Cronkite....

Cronkite couldn't stand them, and it is possible that the feeling was mutual. He felt that Journalism in the current era was non-existent. He felt that pretty Boy news reading was not news.

Cronkite was once was asked if he felt that he was a great man. He responded that no, he wasn't...because a great man makes a difference, and looking at journalism today, he felt that he had made none, because all that he believed and practiced in reference to journalism was not being practiced today.

In addition, he clearly stated many times that media conglomerates would be dangerous to this country, that running the news was not for amateurs but for those with the experience to delicately handle such an important facet of democracy.

So, one could see where they, the pretty boy newsreaders would have a problem honoring someone who hated everything they stand for.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Nice analysis.

:thumbsup:

[dysfunctional press]

5. get a grip.

"Cronkite was part of our history"

he was a tv anchorman and newsreader.
he had PLENTY of respect and retrospectives between his retirement and his death. in the past few years, plenty of people probably assumed that he already was dead.

a relatively young man dies suddenly while his career is still going fairly well, or an old man lingers at death's door out of the public eye for a couple decades- and you're put off as to who gets more coverage? :crazy: :crazy:

[Buzz Clik]

8. Indeed. America loves a freak show.

[Duckhunter935]

9. more than a newsreader, I think he more of an icon

1935, after starting a series of newspaper reporting jobs covering news and sports.Retired February 14, 1980.

He became one of the top American reporters in World War II, covering battles in North Africa and Europe.<7> He was one of eight journalists selected by the United States Army Air Forces to fly bombing raids over Germany in a B-17 Flying Fortress.<12> He also landed in a glider with the 101st Airborne in Operation Market-Garden and covered the Battle of the Bulge. After the war, he covered the Nuremberg trials and served as the United Press main reporter in Moscow for two years.

On July 7, 1952, the term "anchor" was coined to describe Cronkite's role at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions

Upon return, on February 27 1968, Cronkite closed "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" with an editorial report<18>:

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite

[Zomby Woof]

13. Cronkite was indeed a part of our history

Back when there were only 3 networks, and the news coverage was limited to 30 to 60 minutes a day, in 1 or 2 broadcasts, a mere "anchorman" (which Cronkite helped create as a position) had a lot of influence, compared to today's infotainment-saturated, TMI culture of Tweet-induced soundbite narcissism. Not to mention the endless parade of shouting pundits and the boot-licking toadies from the Russert School of Brown Lipstick. Print, radio, and TV were the only 3 mediums which delivered the news, and it wasn't a 24/7 thing.

When the president of the United States, in 1968, saw Cronkite declare Vietnam unwinnable, he knew it was over, for his presidency, and for any chance of keeping the public bamboozled. If that isn't being a part of history, for a mere "anchorman and news reader", then nothing is.

For decades, Cronkite was consistently hailed in polls as the "most trusted man in America." Not merely in television, or journalism, or any other narrow category, but in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, on ALL levels. Now THAT'S influence, and THAT'S being a part of our history that even a deranged self-loathing pederast could never hope to attain. Okay, I grant you, Wacko Jacko sold more CD's than Cronkite, and it is true that Cronkite never hibernated in an oxygen tank, had his nose deflated, set his hair on fire while whoring for Pepsi, or slept with 8 year old boys when he was a grown man, but yeah, he was a part of our history. Not WJ. Unless the parts of history include foisting upon the masses slickly produced mediocre R&B, and encouraging the mindset that album sales equal quality music.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. You said it perfectly. Anyone who disagrees with you is one of those Russert Brown lipstick buy-ins

who think mediocrity is excellence, excellence is elitist scumbaggery, and infortainment is high literature.

Given the choice between a perfectly grilled ribeye with a shallot and wine sauce, a glass of fine wine perfectly matched to it, a beautiful and flavorful medley of vegetables and belgian chocolate torte with 100 year old cognac - or a 96 ounce half-assed cooked sirloin at a shitty steakhouse with an all-you-can-eat potato buffet filled with toppings that are mostly industrial chemicals, America will take the 96-ouncer 9,000,000 out of 9,000,001 times because, fer God's sake man, it's A 96 OUNCE STEAK!!!

Quality? Who fucking needs it. They'd rather a plate piled high with shit than a plate of edible goodness, because they think the height of the pile is the only criterion that matters.

[havocmom]

24. yep

:thumbsup:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. No, he was a reporter -

a journalist who actually went out into the field to get the story. A working man in the mold of Edward R. Murrow and the other greats.

Your line - "he was a tv anchorman and a newsreader" - bespeaks your ignorance. You clearly don't know anything about Cronkite, yet your feel competent to bleat an uninformed opinion.

To compare Cronkite's contributions to a washed-up pop star is laughable. Comparing gold to gold plate.............................

[dflprincess]

28. I look at it this way -

Because he was a reporter & a journalist, Cronkite would not have approved if they'd given his death 24/7 coverage.

Did you see 60 Minutes tonight - the whole hour was a wonderful tribute to him.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

29. Wasn't that a wonderful show?

I think Cronkite would have approved of the amount of coverage his passing inspired, yes. It was tasteful and just right. No hysteria, just a grateful celebration and remembrance of an extraordinary man. We shall not see his like again in our lives.

It was the first time in many years that I sat and watched a TV show, with nothing else to do. Just sit and watch. Just as we used to watch Walter Cronkite's news in the evening...................................

[customerserviceguy]

10. Let's face it

About the time Cronkite retired, MJ was just getting started on his solo career. I doubt most people under the age of 30-35 really know much about Cronkite.

And Cronkite was a normal man, not some freakish sideshow that exists to fill up tabloid pages.

[malletgirl02]

11. Exactly

The difference was that unlike Cronkite Michael Jackson was controversial. I think pretty much everyone respected Cronkite. I think it boils down to the media loves controversy.

[Swede Atlanta]

14. So sad.....

Cronkite who was truly a pioneer in broadcasting and whose profession brought meaning to the nation will be forgotten in hours after his passing. MJ's story will be drug out (no pun intended) for years for what? He was a talented entertainer and singer but that's it. Nothing more.

It is a sad commentary on our society.

[Political Heretic]

15. While an easy, simplistic comparison to make, its actually invalid.

There are too many differences between the two persons to compare them. Two examples:

- Michael Jackson was a modern celebrity. Cronkite was not. Not modern and not a celebrity, he was 92 and out of the limelight for literally a generation.
- Michael Jackson's death was sudden and unexpected, with some mysterious questions around it. Cronkite's was not. At 92, many were surprised he was still alive.

A better, more fair comparison would be to compare coverage of Tim Russert's death with coverage of Cronkite's passing. That would be interesting, in fact I recently read an article about it.

Finally, you're wrong about it being "the next day." The next day ever cable news network had extensive coverage of his passing, C-Span was running old interviews of Cronkite, the history channel had a program about cronkite and the news. Today the sunday shows all discussed Cronkite.

For a 92 year old non-celebrity, that people 30 and younger don't even remember, that's not exactly nothing.

[ZombieHorde]

16. MJ wa an entertainer.

Besides a general feeling of safety, nothing is more important in the U.S. than entertainment.

[sandyj999]

17. And That's The Way It Is. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. It's because the media are afraid to mention him too much because of shame.

They know that if they publicize Cronkite too much, everyone might be re-awakened to what the news media are supposed to be doing and begin to hold them accountable and expect them to have standards again.

That's why Brittney's uncloaked vagina makes the news, but Pulitzer prize winners and Nobel winners and science award winners get a few column inches in the D section of the newspapers, and nothing on TV or radio.

That, and too many people are too goddamn stupid.

[MadBadger]

22. He died late Friday Night. Do we need to explain to you how the news cycle works?

[donheld]

.

[undeterred]

23. "I was even more right than I thought."

Good for you.

[ContinentalOp]

27. 50 years from now, people will remember MJ. Cronkite? Not so much. -nt-

[inna]

30. why were those two threads locked??

:crazy:

[earth mom]

31. Yep-The media milked MJs death for all it was worth.

:thumbsdown:

Is there any doubt anymore that they are all a bunch of greedy disgusting bastards?!