One. When the news of a famous person passing is announced, and a brief retrospective is offered showing career high points, isn't 20 minutes or so of coverage sufficient? Must we hear for hours (and in some cases days) about this passing? Does it make one callous and coldhearted if they say enough is enough after half an hour?
Two. The most BS commentary I heard last night was from Sam Donaldson, who offered that Cronkite was an anchor of a different time, reporting the facts and engendering the trust of America. Donaldson's take was that now the news is different and that newsmen and women offer opinions with their news. (Quite an astute observation there Sam). But what was interesting is he seemed to ascribe that merely to the era and not at all to a lack of journalistic standards.
Do we even want another anchor that we can trust in a way that our parents trusted Cronkite?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Of course we would want an anchor that we trusted. But we would want an anchor who had earned that trust by assiduously reporting an unbiased representation of the facts as they occurred. I.e. They report, we decide.
"Does it make one callous and coldhearted if they say enough is enough after half an hour?"
No, Sally, it merely means one has a life...and a functioning brain.
Post a Comment