It can't happen soon enough.

[Cap'n Billy]

The "finishing off" of the MSM, that is. It is appalling what passes for news reporting these days, and the Van Jones case is just the latest one in point. It hasn't always been that way. I discovered the "Robert McNeil" report on PBS around the early '70's when it was a half-hour program with Jim Lehrer as an occasional correspondent, and I was delighted to have found a news program that concentrated on reporting news in a clear and concise fashion without all the fluff 'n stuff that the MSM of the day was including in their programming. Now, of course, in addition they've become blatantly biased toward the left. In those days, although there probably was some bias, it wasn't apparent to me, and it was a valuable addition to the printed news sources I was using at that time. Now, of course, PBS is one of the worst of the biased networks, although they're a poor second to MSNBC. Unfortunately, for my morning news I can't deal with the same fluff 'n stuff I see on Fox for very long, but still tune in briefly to find out what's going on. I do find the Fox web site and the WSJ valuable for hard news, though.

I remember when Lehrer came aboard and they changed it to McNeil-Lehrer, and not too long after that it went to an hour. The joke at the time was that, "I thought it already lasted an hour" (because it was supposedly so dull).

IMO, the MSM is practicing treason on a daily basis, and the sooner they collapse the better. I try to avoid watching them as much as possible, and anytime one of my friends or associates mentions anything that he / she has seen or heard on one of those outlets my regard for such person decreases a little bit.

[tim.ned@gmail.com]

Could not agree more Cap'n Billy. I am of the age where I can remember news being reported without political affiliation or bias. Today you and I can see the change but young people have nothing to compare against. I finally had it with our local Minneapolis Star and Tribune newspaper and cancelled it in 2006 after 30 years.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

I'm not quite so sure.

I think bias has pretty much always been with us, to one extent or another. I do think that newsmen of yesteryear were much better at either sublimating it so that they could report just the facts, or, even more likely, they were just more adept at hiding their bias. Couple that with a public that wasn't as informed about nor attuned to bias and you had a recipe for very subtle influence of public opinion.

Walter Cronkite is almost universally hailed as a role model for unbiased journalism and a straight-shooter to his audience. It was only after he'd retired that we found out that Walter's politics were much closer to McGovern Or, if you like, Obama) than to Reagan. Walter 'came out of the (ideological) closet as a full-fledged Liberal. In hindsight, perhaps we should have known it all along.

By all accounts, the Tet Offensive was an absolute military disaster for the Viet Cong, who were able neitehr to defeat the combined South Vietnamese/US military or to sufficiently sway public opinion- in Vietnam at least- to their side. Losses by the NVA were atrocious.

But good old Uncle Walter didn't see it that way:

WALTER CRONKITE'S "WE ARE MIRED IN STALEMATE" BROADCAST, FEBRUARY 27, 1968

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

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.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

source: https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Cronkite_1968.html

Does this remind you of another (but remarkably similarly-minded) media and another war, both of someone more recent vintage?

The only difference is that the media managed, in large part, to cause us to lose in Vietnam; they have not managed to do so in Iraq or in Afghanistan....yet.

THAT is the true legacy of Walter Cronkite.

[Mucasplug]

Thank God For Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levigne and the rest of the media who have not traded their souls to Satin. MSNBC needs to be pillaged.

[Guided By Voices]

I am one of those individuals who until recently discussed and swayed/convinced, at least attempted to sway/convince, those relatives, friends, and acquaintances as well as complete strangers from time-to-time, how liberally slanted the media was. I tried to convince folks to use their brain and dig for facts and have been very successful with those around me. However, it has gotten to the point with the P2/D2 Media (Print Propaganda/Digital Deception Media) they are complicit in total mis-statements, half-truths, and fabrication(s). So now I am completely involved. My country will not be stolen with me sitting back and allowing it to happen.

In the KC Star, Political section, you must go their daily in order to either 1) set the record straight, or 2) at least make available to those on-line significant stories (Van Jones, 9/12 march in D.C., etc.) or the Star WILL NOT report or, in most cases, even mention them. Yael T. Abouhalkah, a political columnist for the Star, just yesterday berated an on-line user who had dropped his paper subscription. He pointed out that every time you click your mouse it benefits the Star and if the paper was such a rag why help it at all. I pointed out to Mr, Abouhalkah that , although not speaking for any other individual, I do it simply to police my paper because it has become apparent to all reasonable thinking people the editors and columnists can't or won't do it their selves. The Star is completely in the tank for ... what? A promised bail out, the bright shinning "socialist" city on the hill, ... what?

It is a truly disgusting state.