"Cronkite"

[onairb]

Yes- I recall that Howard K. Smith was conservative on some issues. IIRC - he took a lot of heat from liberals for supporting the Vietnam War.

Smith's son served in Vietnam for a while, Smith tempered his criticism of the war, and he and Nixon had a somewhat friendlier relationship during that time-Nixon granted Smith a lengthy interview which took up much of at least one evening newscast, and possibly a prime-time special, as well.
Once Vietnam wound down, and Watergate heated up, however, they were no longer buddies.

 

[Fenway1912]

40 years ago was the horrible story of the Munich Olympics. Because they were the Olympic broadcaster ABC alone had the story.

Walter after the broadcast sent a telegram to Jim McKay.

“Dear Jim, today you honored yourself, your network and your industry.”

You don't get any classier than that.

 

[TVWorldwide]

Here's what Barbara Matusow has to say about Howard K. Smith's politics in her 1983 book The Evening Stars: The Making of the Network News Anchor:

"Smith, who had a reputation as a fiery liberal in his early days in broadcasting, had become quite conservative, especially on the subject of the Vietnam War. He editorialized so frequently on behalf of Nixon's policies that ABC acquired a new nickname: 'The Administration Broadcasting Company.'"

[...]

"When [Vice President Spiro] Agnew blasted the press in his 1969 Des Moines speech, accusing it of negativism, elitism, and an Eastern bias, Smith and [his ABC co-anchor Frank] Reynolds came down on opposite sides of the fence. Smith, almost alone among newsmen, agreed with Agnew that the press was biased and vindictive, and that it was constantly emphasizing the negative. Reynolds hammered away at the dangers of muzzling the press, winning a Peabody Award for one of his commentaries."

 

[ixnay]

Back to topic: The new biography, Cronkite. I had my library's copy out but was so busy I only got up to when Cronkite replaced Edwards by the time it was due, then couldn't renew because it was reserved (no surprise there). But it's an excellent read so far. I'll probably wait until it reappears on the shelf.

ixnay

 

[Mitchell H]

Back to topic: The new biography, Cronkite. I had my library's copy out but was so busy I only got up to when Cronkite replaced Edwards by the time it was due, then couldn't renew because it was reserved (no surprise there). But it's an excellent read so far. I'll probably wait until it reappears on the shelf.

ixnay

I'll hit both topics at once. First, Howard K. Smith - I referenced earlier the TV Guide with a profile of him. That story is up here, with some interesting quotes: http://www.itsabouttv.com/2012/07/this-week-in-tv-guide-july-26-1975.html

On the Cronkite bio, I'm agnostic because I haven't it, but here is (probably) a countervailing opinion by Conrad Black: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309626/cronkite-syndrome-conrad-black

I include the last article not for ideological reasons, but simply as a discussion point. Not trying to make any political statements, or start any arguments!

Mitchell

 

[landtuna]

I have not read the book but did read Conrad Black's opinion and don't agree with much of what he wrote.

Like many others he opines Cronkite as having stated that the Vietnam War was not winnable but that is not what Cronkite said. He said that he didn't think a military victory was possible - that it would be settled diplomatically.

He also said that George Washington sought the presidency which is also incorrect. Washington, after multiple attempts to dissuade his supporters, finally accepted because he knew strong leadership was essential to the new nation and, at that time, he was it.

He goes on to trash Cronkite for "not knowing what he was broadcasting" and specifically cites his role as host of "You Were There", an excellent anthology series. Cronkite was the announcer/host of that program, not a researcher, not a writer. I would not expect him to be completely knowledgeable of all the events he hosted any more than know the complete background of "20th Century" which was, in my opinion, one of the best short reviews of WWII which he also hosted.

I am not a Cronkite worshiper but I do not see a great deal of accuracy in Conrad's book.

 

[bpatrick]

Don't forget, though, that Cronkite was a war correspondent for the
old United Press (later United Press International) and could have gone
to work for CBS then; Edward R. Murrow approached him but UP offered
him a raise to stay on. Peter Jennings once made an indirect reference to
Cronkite's wartime reporting experience when, talking about his first go-round
as ABC's anchor, he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if a story came up
about World War II Cronkite could get something together fairly quickly while he,
Jennings, would have to research it.

I think it somehow fitting that in 1964 CBS did a special, "D-Day Plus 20,"
with Dwight Eisenhower returning to the beaches at Normandy. Who
accompanied him? Cronkite.

And who was more of a student of the space program than Cronkite? While
I personally preferred Jules Bergman on ABC, the public obviously favored Cronkite;
his combination of knowledge and enthusiasm (remember his "go, baby, go" when
Apollo 11 lifted off) touched the right nerve, especially when the nation didn't have
a whole lot to be proud of (Vietnam, racial unrest, student unrest, assassinations).

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Although Walter Cronkite turned down an offer to join CBS News during World War II, didn't he become a stringer for CBS during the last months of the European portion of the war while remaining a full-timne correspondent at the old United Press??

 

[bpatrick]

He was, and he did occasional radio broadcasts as well. He got
CBS's attention for good in 1950, when he was anchoring the local
news on WTOP (now WUSA), the CBS affiliate in Washington, and
impressed them with his ability to explain what was happening in Korea.
He really came into his own at the '52 conventions, at which time the
term "anchorman" was coined to fit him.

 

[TVWorldwide]

I known I'm reviving an old thread, but here's an interesting review of Douglas Brinkley's book on Cronkite by an academic who's writing his own history of television news:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-most-trusted-man-in-america

Charles Ponce de Leon provides interesting insight on something largely missing in Brinkley's book: the FCC regulation that helped serious, no-frills broadcast journalism to reach such heights during the Cronkite era, and the (perhaps inevitable?) deregulation that has led to a marked decline in the quality of TV news since the 1980s.

 

[JeffM]

Some posters on the conservative mb freerepublic.com think Cronkite was a political hack, too. Type their names on freerepublic.com's search engine and you'll see threads that waste little time degenerating into calling Walter names like "Crankcase" or "Aunt Walter" or "Krankheit" (the German word for sick, although Cronkite was IIRC Dutch on his dad's side). Some "FReepers" will call Rather and Couric names like "Blather" and "Colic". Some FReepers will blame Cronkite's "stalemate" comment for losing 'Nam. Some FReepers call Walter a Commie.

Big surprise. Where there's conservazoids there's cheap snark. Like expecting a duck to quack.

 

[FredLeonard]

He was, and he did occasional radio broadcasts as well. He got
CBS's attention for good in 1950, when he was anchoring the local
news on WTOP (now WUSA), the CBS affiliate in Washington, and
impressed them with his ability to explain what was happening in Korea.
He really came into his own at the '52 conventions, at which time the
term "anchorman" was coined to fit him.

The term "anchorman" was already in use before Cronkite. It came originally from tug of wag games but was originally applied to the leading member on a panel show. An example at the time was Lawrence E. Spivak on Meet The Press. He later became host/moderator but originally was lead panelist.

 

[bpatrick]

I think the term "anchorman" might have applied to the last runner to have the baton in a relay race as well. The term "anchorman" as the person who holds it all together during the evening news or a special event was applied to Cronkite and became part of the language in that particular context.

 

[JeffM]

I recently (and accidentally!) found this video clip made from an early-60's novelty record released on a mail-order right-wing label. One thing you gotta say about these guys, they're con-sistent! Here's the link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BbfjCQ9Qxo

 

[FredLeonard]

I think the term "anchorman" might have applied to the last runner to have the baton in a relay race as well. The term "anchorman" as the person who holds it all together during the evening news or a special event was applied to Cronkite and became part of the language in that particular context.

Just one of the ways in which Don Hewitt corrupted TV news. Now, some high school kid who reads wire copy on a small market station wants to call himself an "anchorman." In Canada they are "hosts" (as in: "Peter Mansbridge is host of the National"). They are also hosts on NPR. In Britain they are "presenters." Both are more accurate descriptors. CBS even tried to sell the lie that in some European countries TelePrompTer readers are called Cronkiters (they are not and never have been).

CBS excelled at PR to the extent that most people today think everybody was watching Cronkite when Kennedy was shot. No, they were watching Chet and David. NBC dominated the evening news ratings and special event coverage to the end of the 60s. Cronkite became a dominant factor after Chet Huntley retired.

 

[JeffM]

If Don Hewitt "corrupted" TV news, it wasn't by applying the term "anchorman" to Walter Cronkite. Time was TV networks (and stations) did entertainment shows for money and ratings; news and documentaries for image value or prestige. (In the old radio days, many newscasters and commentators were carried by the networks on a "sustaining" basis; if a sponsor bought in, fine, but the news went on anyway.) But when Hewitt's 60 MINUTES became an unexpected hit, the networks realized that news could be a source of ratings and profits; and the race was on to come up with "something like it" or "something hotter." This led to the whole tabloid-magazine phenomenon and a lot of the TV junk-news today. Serious or long-form reporting has been left to PBS ("let George do it.")

A few years ago I read of a journalism professor who obtained some copies of Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley newscasts and showed them to his class to get their reactions. The general opinion was that technically, they looked like crap (static camera work, scratchy 16mm footage, slide-projected graphics, etc.) but content-wise, they were light years ahead of today's TV news. In other words, the packaging has become more important than what's inside.

 

[onairb]

Just one of the ways in which Don Hewitt corrupted TV news. Now, some high school kid who reads wire copy on a small market station wants to call himself an "anchorman." In Canada they are "hosts" (as in: "Peter Mansbridge is host of the National"). They are also hosts on NPR. In Britain they are "presenters." Both are more accurate descriptors. CBS even tried to sell the lie that in some European countries TelePrompTer readers are called Cronkiters (they are not and never have been).

CBS excelled at PR to the extent that most people today think everybody was watching Cronkite when Kennedy was shot. No, they were watching Chet and David. NBC dominated the evening news ratings and special event coverage to the end of the 60s. Cronkite became a dominant factor after Chet Huntley retired.

I thought I read that the two 'big' events that pushed Cronkite's ratings past Huntley-Brinkley were the 1968 Democratic convention mess in Chicago, and the Apollo 11 coverage in '69, near the end of Huntley's career.

 

[FredLeonard]

I thought I read that the two 'big' events that pushed Cronkite's ratings past Huntley-Brinkley were the 1968 Democratic convention mess in Chicago, and the Apollo 11 coverage in '69, near the end of Huntley's career.

It was more of a gradual shift. Huntley-Brinkley did not participate in space coverage and most special events coverage through much of the 60s. Frank McGee was the lead person for that. Huntley-Brinkley did the nightly news, conventions and election nights. Reason: Texaco sponsored the "Texaco Huntley-Brinkley Report" and special events coverage, including space missions, were sponsored by Gulf. Sponsor conflict. When Texaco dropped out of the nightly news, Huntley-Brinkley started to be used in space mission coverage. But their dry, laconic, somewhat cynical style which worked well for commenting on politicians did not work so well for the rah-rah fervor of space missions (compared to Walter's style adapted from his days doing recreated play by play sports).

But the final nail was when Chet Huntley "retired" (actually due to a terminal illness, although this was not disclosed at the time).

Probably the strongest principal commentators for political coverage were, ironically enough, on ABC. First John Daly. Later Howard K. Smith and Edward P. Morgan. But back then, ABC never got the audience. Cronkite was never strong on politics, largely because he was more turned on by "action" stories (wars, space shots, disasters) and also because he was a very weak interviewer. One interesting point in Brinkley's biography of Cronkite: Walter's hero/role model as a young man was Lowell Thomas, who made his name traveling and following the action. Not the more thoughtful and cerebral radio commentators like H.B. Kaltenborn. Even Murrow, with his radio coverage of World War II from London, emulated Thomas (although Ed never found his own T.E. Lawrence).

 

[TVWorldwide]

If Don Hewitt "corrupted" TV news, it wasn't by applying the term "anchorman" to Walter Cronkite. Time was TV networks (and stations) did entertainment shows for money and ratings; news and documentaries for image value or prestige. (In the old radio days, many newscasters and commentators were carried by the networks on a "sustaining" basis; if a sponsor bought in, fine, but the news went on anyway.) But when Hewitt's 60 MINUTES became an unexpected hit, the networks realized that news could be a source of ratings and profits; and the race was on to come up with "something like it" or "something hotter." This led to the whole tabloid-magazine phenomenon and a lot of the TV junk-news today. Serious or long-form reporting has been left to PBS ("let George do it.")

A few years ago I read of a journalism professor who obtained some copies of Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley newscasts and showed them to his class to get their reactions. The general opinion was that technically, they looked like crap (static camera work, scratchy 16mm footage, slide-projected graphics, etc.) but content-wise, they were light years ahead of today's TV news. In other words, the packaging has become more important than what's inside.

For those interested in the decline of American TV News, I would highly recommend Setven Barnett's The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism: Just Light and wires in a Box? (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011). The book's primary focus is on British broadcast journalism, but it includes comparisons to the situation in the U.S. throughout. In this thought-provoking and occasionally polemical volume, Barnett analyzes the structural reasons why American TV journalism went from a much-admired model to a cautionary example of what effects an excessive commercialization of broadcast news can have.

It was more of a gradual shift. Huntley-Brinkley did not participate in space coverage and most special events coverage through much of the 60s. Frank McGee was the lead person for that. Huntley-Brinkley did the nightly news, conventions and election nights. Reason: Texaco sponsored the "Texaco Huntley-Brinkley Report" and special events coverage, including space missions, were sponsored by Gulf. Sponsor conflict. When Texaco dropped out of the nightly news, Huntley-Brinkley started to be used in space mission coverage. But their dry, laconic, somewhat cynical style which worked well for commenting on politicians did not work so well for the rah-rah fervor of space missions (compared to Walter's style adapted from his days doing recreated play by play sports).

According to Barbara Matusow's history of the network anchors, The Evening Stars (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983), the changing mood of the country also had an effect on Cronkite's ascendancy: As the situation of Vietnam was getting more difficult and political tensions at home were on the rise, people began to prefer Cronkite's folksy and reassuring delivery over Huntley's -- and especially Brinkley's -- detached, subtly cynical style.

 

[BD Sullivan]

Huntley's "terminal illness" (listed as lung cancer) must have been manageable, since he lived another 3 1/2 years after his departure from NBC. The stated reason for leaving was that he wanted to develop the Big Sky ski resort in his native Montana. The resort opened a few months before his death.

As noted, CBS always made the Cronkite announcement of JFK's death available to media sources, so much so that it the image became ingrained in people's heads. NBC's announcement was awkward, in contrast, with Frank McGee getting the news over the phone from Robert McNeill at Parkland Hospital. CBS was showing a network show (As the World Turns) at the time of the first bulletin, while NBC designated that time to affiliates.