Who among us who watched 60 Minutes last night wasn’t moved by the tribute?

Cronkite was the newscaster of my high school years and beyond. It was his method of delivering just the facts that inspired you to find your own truth and develop your own opinion based on the facts he put out there.

Contrary to what some others may feel regarding Cronkite’s statement about the Vietnam War, I respected for the man for stating the obvious.

Cronkite was one of a kind and a strong credit to his industry. Stating the facts ALWAYS deserves admiration and respect.

It was Walter Cronkite’s voice that told us we had reached the end of our quest for victory in Viet Nam, and we shook our heads and believed him. It was Walter Cronkite’s voice that haltingly and deliberately announced the death of our young President, and we caught our breath and believed him. It was Walter Cronkite’s voice that talked us down to the surface of the moon, and we jumped to our feet in our living rooms and believed him.

No voice exists today in popular broadcasting that can garner the collective respect and trust that was felt for Walter Cronkite.

Times change, I know, but the "news" sorely needs a person of Walter Cronkite’s integrity and focus, a person to be believed. It’s a shame that the professional model of this great newscaster has been replaced, for the most part, by the sound bites of newshucksters who, seemingly, are more interested in their ratings and egos than in imparting the factual news of the day. 

I believe that it is important to be informed of what is happening in our nation and in the world we live in. I’m grateful that I lived during the decades that Walter Cronkite was the messenger. 

Walt displayed a great sense of humor! Another problem with TV news is that, although it’s a visual medium, the audio in a report should be able to stand alone, in most instances. In other words, if the audio isn’t good, the entire report may be bad.

TV reporters today are too reliant on video content, and don’t focus enough on quality writing and audio. The same phenomenon "killed" rock and roll. Bands that weren’t very good tried to shock TV audiences by looking and acting as weird as they could (men wearing lipstick, etc.). Older, more high-quality groups that focused more on musical quality were back-burnered, because they weren’t visual enough. So now, unless you’re one of the biggest rock bands in the world, none of your new music will make the airwaves - radio or TV. Yet your old hits will be played over and over ad nauseum on "classic rock radio".

Newscasts, particularly at the network level, all look so cookie-cutter now. Journalism has given way to sensationalism, for the most part. It’s all ratings-driven, and the public loses.

Well, S G, another problem with TV is that it’s too pre-formatted. By that I mean that reporters are told to compile 2-minute (or whatever) packages. The problem is, some stories don’t merit 2 minutes of coverage (or, they merit more). So, to fill time, reporters add a lot of fluff. Or, to conserve time, they delete a lot of important information.

For example, let’s say there’s a big industrial fire near a residential neighborhood. The TV stations will all blab about the obvious details, and interview eyewitnesses, the fire chief, etcetera. But rarely will they look into more impactful elements of the story. For instance, do they bother to do a follow-up inquiry with the Department of Environmental Quality as to whether the surrounding neighborhood’s groundwater might now be contaminated?

It’s the ability to see the story behind the story that separates the wheat from the chaff. And that usually requires time. But today’s competitive "journalism" world, getting the story first seems more important than getting it write (stet).

I greatly admired Walter Cronkite for his news reports but mostloy I waited for every New Years to see the Concert out of Vienna and Walter reporting on the history of the work, the artists and Vienna.

If memory serves me right, last one was with  Julie Andrews. I like her too but surely missed Walter.

Walter Cronkite had humor, a down-to-earth demeanor and great wisdom - pearls upon pearls… Great interview. 

The high regard in which many outside of the U.S. held Walter Cronkite has always amazed me. All of my European friends accepted him as a most remarkable and respected person. His reputation as a most trusted person followed him through France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and many other countries, not just in Europe. My many friends in those countries always just called him “Cronkite”. (never Walter Cronkite). Our regular after work café conversations were always laced with questions like, “Who said that? Cronkite? Well, okay then”. Or, “Well that’s what Cronkite said last night on the news”. Once the Cronkite identification was established to authenticate the subject at hand, very seldom did the arguments continue. His word was almost always the last word. The same goes here in Canada. We loved him. He had the most pleasant looks, the nicest voice, the most unpretentious mannerisms and the most honest eyes of anyone seen on TV. The Quebecers accepted him with almost jealous adoration. He was “KrunKite“, and they felt he looked like a Quebecer, so he belonged to them. If anyone questioned your statement, and you could convince your detractors that “KrunKte” said it, then , - “subject closed” - you win - period!

Bon soir la visite.