Cancel Culture Comes to Cronkite

The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
it would be interesting to know what Cronkite himself would think of all this shit. i recall him as mainly liberal but generally apolitical in terms of news. by that, i recall he didn't interject politics into his reporting. that of course has changed drastically in the last 4 years.


while i would not expect Cronkite to approve none too much of Trump as president i also think he would be appalled at the current state of his chosen profession. certainly the trend of "opinion as fact" and probably not the constant negativity in the press in an attempt to be influencers rather than reporters.


what the cancel culture warriors seem to not understand is that cancel culture will come for them and they themselves will be cancelled.


Cancel Culture Comes to Cronkite

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cancel-cu...103052586.html




Brian Anderson

,National Review September 12, 2020





Walter Cronkite said on receiving a global-governance award in 1999: “I am in a position to speak my mind. And that is what I propose to do.”


Today, those who attend the journalism school named after the famed broadcaster are not so lucky.


The spread of “cancel culture” in newsrooms — declaring people henceforth “canceled” from society owing to ideological disagreements — is nothing new. Look no further than the hysterical reaction to Senator Tom Cotton’s New York Times op-ed urging government to use its authorities under the Insurrection Act to “restore order to our streets” amid riots and looting. Newsroom activists flooded Twitter, objecting to its publication. The opinion editor was forced out. And the Times attached a note at the top of the op-ed (nearly 40 percent as long as the piece itself) apologizing for daring to publish the opinion of a sitting U.S. senator.


It was entertaining that Cotton’s tame commentary provoked such a disproportionate meltdown from those who consider themselves serious journalists. But that this scourge is seeping into local campus newsrooms is deeply worrisome — and seep it has.


The first sign of cancel culture bubbling up at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication involved Sonya Duhé, whom the university named dean this spring. Her tenure was cut short almost instantly after she published a tweet praying for “the good police officers who keep us safe.”


The protest-allied campus revolted against the incoming dean’s “racist” tweet and provoked a former student to accuse Duhé of committing “four years of microaggressions” against her. Other students would come forward to allege that she had made similar “microaggressive comments” to them.


It wasn’t one week before the Cronkite School revoked its offer and pledged to be more “inclusive” moving forward.


Things have only gotten worse — and, now that administrators have gotten used to the sweet taste of cancel culture, it appears that student journalists themselves are on the dinner plate.


When Cronkite News, the news division of Arizona PBS, published a poll following a May looting spree in Scottsdale, progressive students complained that the poll’s language was too friendly toward police officers — so Cronkite News folded to the pressure. It deleted the poll and apologized for causing “divisiveness”: “It was not our intention to downplay the actions of law enforcement.”


When a second young journalist published a Q&A with a former police officer in June, students complained that this exchange also was too friendly. Once again, Cronkite News folded to the pressure. It wiped the Q&A offline and replaced it with an apologetic note pledging to “better serve and represent our communities, especially the black community and other communities of color.”


The list goes on.


The most recent “cancel” target is Rae’Lee Klein, a young journalist at the Cronkite School’s Blaze Radio. After the police-involved shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wis., Klein, on her personal Twitter account, linked to a New York Post investigation and wrote: “Please read this article to get the background of Jacob Blake’s warrant. You’ll be quite disgusted.”


Progressive students were apoplectic. The board voted to remove her as station manager, threatened to resign if she did not, and released a statement from “Blaze Radio alumni” condemning her for trying to “dehumanize and insinuate blame on the victims of police violence.”


Luckily, Klein has refused to resign or succumb to this cancel culture flare-up, explaining on-air her decision to push back against “a situation where our opinions and our beliefs are held against us or [are] characteristic of our ability to lead.”


While she plants her feet, other young journalists at ASU understandably are reaching for the escape hatch. In August, two such undergraduates founded The Western Tribune, an “independent student journalism” website, as a home to “the oft unheard voices of our generation.” They won’t be the last.


These campus newsrooms are a means for tomorrow’s leaders to write down, or say out loud, the opinions they’ve been keeping in their minds and to see if those ideas stand up to the scrutiny of the real world. These young ideas rarely do — and the invaluable lesson that students glean from that realization will be lost forever if administrators cut them off at the knees by continuing to appease oversensitive cry-bullies whose antics threaten these vital sandboxes.


If things continue as they do, soon there will be no conservatives left to cancel, and progressive journalists will only be left to cancel themselves like a scorpion stinging itself to death.


And that’s the way it will be.
eccieuser9500's Avatar
In terms of news, yes. In terms of opinion, yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M

Vietnam should have been canceled.
eccieuser9500's Avatar


while i would not expect Cronkite to approve none too much of Trump as president i also think he would be appalled at the current state of his chosen profession. certainly the trend of "opinion as fact" and probably not the constant negativity in the press in an attempt to be influencers rather than reporters.


what the cancel culture warriors seem to not understand is that cancel culture will come for them again and they themselves will be cancelled.



And that’s the way it will continue. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
FTFY

  • oeb11
  • 09-12-2020, 05:35 PM
Cronkite was correct - Vietnam war an abomination for both countries.

The domino theory ( 9500 dos not understand this -he/she/ it has already cancelled out history, math and science according to the racist marxist DPST Ideology) was completely flawed, and trying to prevent a people from fighting for their own countries' freedom from foreign (French) oppression - over long distances and oceans - in a milieu where friend or foe is impossible to discern - is a recipe for a military disaster - as was the LBJ /McNamara micromanagement of the war which contributed mightily to the disaster. .



JFK got America into the Vietnam war - and LBJ tried to 'win' it - a fruitless endeavor.

Both Democrats - and Nixon ended the American war in Vietnam (republican) .

history-9500- something you and your cancel culture abhor - and are condemned to repeat due to lessons unlearned.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
In terms of news, yes. In terms of opinion, yes.


Vietnam should have been canceled. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

that was not reporting, Cronkite was expressing his opinion. as i said, when reporting, Cronkite did not interject political angles into it.
  • oeb11
  • 09-12-2020, 05:45 PM
Cronkite was a true 'journalist' - who strove for truth and facts in his reporting.

and his opinions were always identified as such.


Let us set up a GoFundMe for history lessons for 9500- in russia

where a more accurate lesson will be obtained than possible in the Teachers Unions Education programs - which only serve their marxist ideology - and refuse to cover math, science, and history - in part because they are incompetent to do so.
winn dixie's Avatar
Cronkite was a true 'journalist' - who strove for truth and facts in his reporting.

and his opinions were always identified as such.


Let us set up a GoFundMe for history lessons for 9500- in russia

where a more accurate lesson will be obtained than possible in the Teachers Unions Education programs - which only serve their marxist ideology - and refuse to cover math,s cience, and history - in part because they are incompetent to do so. Originally Posted by oeb11
Truth!!

Cronkite was highly respected! He was Left of center. But he reported the news. He didnt make the news. He was a GOOD Man!
Grace Preston's Avatar
Cronkite was correct - Vietnam war an abomination for both countries.

The domino theory ( 9500 dos not understand this -he/she/ it has already cancelled out history, math and science according to the racist marxist DPST Ideology) was completely flawed, and trying to prevent a people from fighting for their own countries' freedom from foreign (French) oppression - over long distances and oceans - in a milieu where friend or foe is impossible to discern - is a recipe for a military disaster - as was the LBJ /McNamara micromanagement of the war which contributed mightily to the disaster. .



JFK got America into the Vietnam war - and LBJ tried to 'win' it - a fruitless endeavor.

Both Democrats - and Nixon ended the American war in Vietnam (republican) .

history-9500- something you and your cancel culture abhor - and are condemned to repeat due to lessons unlearned. Originally Posted by oeb11

Point of order-- our actual involvement in Vietnam began during Truman. Both Truman and Eisenhower began sending money, equipment, and in Eisenhower's case-- intelligence personnel and advisors. While Kennedy was the first to send actual troops-- its important to understand that it didn't begin in a vacuum. France began asking for our help when Wilson was in office-- and both Wilson and Roosevelt declined to get involved.



Our ultimate involvement was a fools errand.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
Point of order-- our actual involvement in Vietnam began during Truman. Both Truman and Eisenhower began sending money, equipment, and in Eisenhower's case-- intelligence personnel and advisors. While Kennedy was the first to send actual troops-- its important to understand that it didn't begin in a vacuum. France began asking for our help when Wilson was in office-- and both Wilson and Roosevelt declined to get involved.



Our ultimate involvement was a fools errand. Originally Posted by Grace Preston
quite right. the French could no longer prop up it's colonies including Vietnam. so they were looking for someone to bail them out and the US did. the French foolishly got themselves mired into a war in Vietnam in the 1950's while still struggling to rebuild after WWII. they should have just let it go like Britain did with their colonies after WWII


it's worth noting that when the US did get involved it was the height of the cold war and there was a certain obligation to oppose the ambitions of Communism (ecky9.5's head is exploding now) that drove a lot of so-called US imperialism.


the US's initial intention was to help the South Vietnamese Army defeat the communists led by Ho Chi Minh and of course backed by communist China. without China's backing i think the French could have prevailed. the US once fully involved could easily have prevailed, if we wanted to but to what end? give it all back to the French so they could eventually get bogged down in another attempt to keep their imperialist ambitions alive? take it over as a US territory? again what for? what would it have gained the US even with the cold war angle?


Vietnam was not a war the US couldn't win, it was a war we didn't want to win
  • oeb11
  • 09-12-2020, 08:41 PM
TWK - 9500's had is 'splody' - LOL
He/she /it does love marx, engles., Lenin, Stalin, mao, Kim, and maduro!!!
Needs to go live in Venezuela and get a dose of reality.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
quite right. the French could no longer prop up it's colonies including Vietnam. so they were looking for someone to bail them out and the US did. the French foolishly got themselves mired into a war in Vietnam in the 1950's while still struggling to rebuild after WWII. they should have just let it go like Britain did with their colonies after WWII


it's worth noting that when the US did get involved it was the height of the cold war and there was a certain obligation to oppose the ambitions of Communism (ecky9.5's head is exploding now) that drove a lot of so-called US imperialism.


the US's initial intention was to help the South Vietnamese Army defeat the communists led by Ho Chi Minh and of course backed by communist China. without China's backing i think the French could have prevailed. the US once fully involved could easily have prevailed, if we wanted to but to what end? give it all back to the French so they could eventually get bogged down in another attempt to keep their imperialist ambitions alive? take it over as a US territory? again what for? what would it have gained the US even with the cold war angle?


Vietnam was not a war the US couldn't win, it was a war we didn't want to win Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the war was winnable. too many red tape and red lines were involved in making the war unwinnable.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
the war was winnable. too many red tape and red lines were involved in making the war unwinnable. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

red tape and red lines had nothing to do with it. we had nothing to gain.
Grace Preston's Avatar
TWK - 9500's had is 'splody' - LOL
He/she /it does love marx, engles., Lenin, Stalin, mao, Kim, and maduro!!!
Needs to go live in Venezuela and get a dose of reality. Originally Posted by oeb11



Its important to remember-- since you like to bring it up so often-- that Venezuela didn't start in a vacuum either. We had a big ol hand in that nightmare as well. They are the prime example of how bad things can get-- not due to socialism-- but due to the entire economy being attached to one thing-- oil. They are the poster child for the importance of economic diversification. Socialism in Venezuela was born out of the austerity measures that left people starving and homeless prior to the election of Chavez (look up the Caracazo Protest-- fascinating stuff). Venezuela had literally married their economy to their oil-- which also means their very survival lies on the oil market. Even prior to Socialism getting a hold of them.. they had some serious economic issues because of it.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
red tape and red lines had nothing to do with it. we had nothing to gain. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I've read Vietnam veterans comments about ROE and how they couldn't do shit.


there was one exception a pilot in an A6 bomber broke ROE and redlines and destroyed a missile battery manned by chinese techs. (Flight of the Intruder)


politicians didn't want to win it. same thing with Afghanistan.
And that's the way it is

I miss hearing those words every night.

Much like "Good night and good luck" and "Good night Chet. Good night David." Cronkite's sign off line was simple, classic and reassuring.

Anchors back then usually reported the news without the bias or slant you get on a daily basis from today's reporters. It would take something they considered to be of extreme importance to cause them to inject their opinion. Like Edward R Murrow taking on Joe McCarthy or Cronkite questioning our continued involvement in Vietnam.

To paraphrase what LBJ said at that time -- I've lost Cronkite. That means I also just lost middle America.

Can you ever imagine someone making a statement like that regarding someone like Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh?

I can't even tell you what the sign off line is for any news show since the most trusted man in America last uttered his words on March 6, 1981.