State of America: A Tribute to Walter Cronkite and a Lament for Journalism

The famous American newscaster Walter Cronkite died a few days ago, but the obituaries in the British newspapers were few and far between. (This is hardly surprising: when Richard Dimbleby died in the 1960s, I doubt that his obituary appeared in any American newspaper.) However, The Observer did highlighted Cronkite’s famous broadcast from Vietnam at the end of the Tet offensive. This may have been a military victory for the Americans, but it was reported by Cronkite as a political defeat as it became clear to him that the war was unwinnable. While he was criticised for coming off the fence of neutrality, the American public trusted a mere journalist far more than their politicians. Essentially, Cronkite had no trouble telling truth to power.

One is tempted to conclude that the lights are going out on old-style American journalism. We shan’t see the likes of Edward Murrow and Cronkite again. Current American television anchors pay attention to their looks and insist on standing, with machismo, to deliver the news, but they seem to care little for the depth and content of what they are saying. Form has beaten substance.

I have had the very good fortune to have met some old-fashioned American journalists. To a man (and woman), they have been truth seekers, good analysts, and fair-minded reporters, always putting both sides of the story. With your indulgence, I will write briefly about two of them, one a household name, the other a true visionary.

Former Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee is a force of nature, even now. I have not spoken with him for a year or so but, were I to do so, that familiar growl would dominate the conversation. Whilst Watergate played a very significant part in Bradlee’s professional life, it was not the pinnacle for Ben. He is proudest of The Post’s position as a national newspaper, not the local rag he took over.

Bradlee takes the view that all American newspapers are local but some, such as The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, transcend the bounds to be read nationally and worldwide. He is also fierce that such a position cannot be reached without fair and balanced reporting. When The Post’s stories on Watergate are analysed, interestingly, Nixon does not become the eminence gris until almost the final act, mainly out of the fairness accorded to him by Bradlee's paper.

When I last talked with Elmer Lower, it was shortly after his 92nd birthday. He has the most enviable quality that, despite his advanced years, his mind has the clarity of Big Ben. Elmer came from St. Joseph, Missouri, in anyone's view a small town. He worked his way through the newspaper business as a reporter, becoming a pioneer network television executive whose career included working for CBS News, NBC News, and ABC News, where as president, he hired the likes of Peter Jennings, Sam Donaldson, and Ted Koppel. Lower’s major claim to fame, not heralded by him but by others, was to conceive of and negotiate the terms of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon presidential debates.

Both Bradlee and Lower have the qualities which I have most admired in American journalists. They fight their corners fairly and accept there is more than one side to an argument. They seek the truth but not at all costs. And, above all, they are entertaining in a way it is hard to represent. The first time I met Elmer Lower, I taped our conversations, four hours' worth. I was given the most remarkable history lesson.

I would like to think that Messrs Bradlee and Lower will continue to fight causes in this world for many years to come but this is not realistic. Sadly, and all too soon, they will join the likes of Cronkite and Murrow. What I would give to be at that heavenly dinner table? At the same time, world-famous newspapers such as The Boston Globe have recently closed their doors as the relentless reduction of printed media outlets continues in the name of progress and business efficiency.

Above all else, what makes the old journalists stand out for me is their championing of First Amendment rights. They don’t believe in the aberrations, such as allowing speech to be equated with money. They believe in a free press, standing up to and challenging government and proprietors alike. Is the current crop of journalists able take on this baton? Oh, for the triumph of hope.

Perhaps the diet of dreariness served to the American reader in the name of entertainment is temporary. However, my frequent visits to America and my reading of local newspapers from Florida to Oregon and Vermont to Colorado tell me that superficiality, shock-jockery, and the lauding of minor celebrity, at the expense of real news, is the future.

Comments

[Amy]

Today's media... a pent up rant:
It's rare to find a story that doesn't rely to some degree on "sources who wish to remain anonymous." Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for citing unnamed sources, such as the reports from Iran, but usually there's no justifiable excuse & verification is inadequate. The sources just don't want to be accountable for what they say. As for the "journalists", are they lazy? Does the rush to be first trump verification? Or is it now the norm, & people have forgotten it ever was otherwise?

Bradley must cringe at the current incarnation of WaPo. It's become, well, unbalanced

[Josh Mull]

Oh, give me a break.

I'm all for taking pot shots at the Cable media (yeah! screw standing! huh?) but please leave journalism out of it. It's tragic that you can only name two "old fashioned" journalists, but I could list you dozens of web reporters/new media/citizen journalists who are "truth seekers, good analysts, and fair-minded reporters, always putting both sides of the story." We could start with the entire staff of TheUptake, TPM Media, Global Voices, that's about a hundred right there. Heck even Enduring America, the blog(!!!) where you published this, is light years ahead of any foreign policy analysis you'll find on TV or in print.

Sure, you can't turn on the boob tube and instantly have 1 white guy at a desk telling you what you need to think anymore, but is that really a bad thing? Who's fault is it that the common mediums of journalism - print, television, radio - were turned over to mindless profiteers anyways? I suspect your buddies Bradlee and Lower might have an answer.

You can choose to lament the state of journalism all you want. Most of us, however, are celebrating it.