quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

I have to ask ---

Who's ass do you MSM (liberal media) deniers/haters think Fox News liars were kissing?

Another way to put it -- were they feeding you what you wanted?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...31a143b7364b22&ei=18

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8561bd1b6ada08&ei=69

Republicans fear being 'eaten' alive by the 'extremists and loons' they helped empower: columnist
Story by Alex Henderson • Yesterday 1:10 PM

quote:

Who's ass do you MSM (liberal media) deniers/haters think Fox News liars were kissing?

Another way to put it -- were they feeding you what you wanted?

That's not the point of the cartoon.

FoxNews is firmly in the "Mainstream Media" as well.

The point is, the "journalists" are all kissing one ass or another be it politicians, celebrities, athletes, scientists or anonymous sources...
Just look at who the official sponsors of these "news" programs - mostly pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer chief among them.

First, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, etc. are not real "journalists".

Follow the money and the ratings. Where did the money come from? Who were those who counted in the viewer ratings? Advertising money comes second, an effect of the ratings and the character of the audience.

Yes, Fox is within MSM which is why I distinguished the so-deemed liberal side of MSM in my previous post.

we share some views and differ too on this topic.

Just because I was there does not make me an expert, or more knowledgeable, but it does affect me.

I think Cronkite's call on it was something the majority public already suspected, or felt. There was evidence and lies.

The Cong was not wiped out. We kicked ass. We had no choice. We were swarmed.

I still don't understand why we got involved in the first place. IMO, in hindsight, whatever the reason, it was wrong.

At the time, in my youth, I had little worldview understanding. I was ignorant.

I just know that Nixon bombing Hanoi was wrong. It's no different to me than Putin bombing Kiev.

Also, I still don't understand how public opinion, whether swayed by Cronkite and such, could have affected a justified war engagement. But, if it did, that's a good thing. IMO.

I see very little parallel with Ukraine, except perhaps that the Cong and Ukrainians share a righteous cause.

These are very sad and disturbing events and history, IMO. I wish we could learn the hard core from them.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Don’t take my word for it… take the north Vietnamese on it.

Cronkite’s change was a bellwether event in the US.

The viet cong were essentially wiped out by Tet. The US forces, yourself included, won the day militarily.

I can agree that it was not a good war to get involved in… and that it had some very strong implications in our future wars.

Was Vietnam an existential threat to the US?

No.

Should we have been there?

Different question- but it certainly has its parallels with Ukraine. I do agree that Johnson got us involved in a hot war there for political reasons.

Nixon got us out, just like Biden. Get a minimally acceptable treaty and do nothing when it was violated. In Biden’s case, the minimal treaty was from Trump, but the execution of it and follow through are all on him.

To me the moral of both Vietnam and Afghanistan is that we need to be better at choosing what we get involved in. We left both because we decided we had enough, which if we would have recognized was a choice we were ok with, we could have had a lot fewer men and women killed over little to nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Cronkite was not the last one... he was the last one who people popularly believed it of.

He was singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet. He decided to color his reporting to pro insurgent reporting and the support for the war in mainstream circles plummeted.

What do you think it would have been like if we had someone telling us the war in Europe was lost because of the battle of the bulge?

I think that's BS. I wasn't here when Cronkite did that. I was in Viet Nam at the time, so I didn't get the memo.

"singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet"? Did he have that much influence?

What if he was right and assessed/called it all and trajectory correctly?

Butler. You make a claim about Cronkite's influence - cause and effect - outcome.

So what do you think about this in the same context?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1f6bb307ad468e&ei=47

Trump Issues Ominous Warning About 'Unprecedented Danger' to U.S.
Story by Thomas Kika • 3h ago

Its irresponsible for Trump to make vague accusations without stating his point, and more importantly articulate what different we should be doing.

That has been Trump's problem.

He is perfectly willing to state the elephant in the room and then claim he would do better without giving any specifics as to what his "better" would be.

If you can't see the impending issues with China and the ongoing mess in Ukraine and worry about WWIII, well, you are not paying attention.

As to Trump being able to lead anything, that ship sailed quite a while ago, and he has been burning that ship ever since.

My grandfathers both talked about the view of Vietnam before and after Cronkite's defeatism on the war. Cronkite was seen as supposedly a impartial source of news... and when he became a opinion that the war had been lost, many saw it as fact, not opinion. They were conditioned to see Walter Cronkite as a "fact" and when he gave an opinion, it was not discerned as such.

Frankly, even when I was supporting President Trump, I did not see him as a source of fact- he was always in campaign mode and I never did seem him switch to governing mode. He continued to indulge in hyperbole even in supposedly nonpolitical speeches.

So the relative roles of honesty and trustworthiness, Trump never betrayed the general public quite like Cronkite did.

For number of lies and lack of factual authority, yes Trump was way less truthful... but did you expect more from him? From your responses here from day one, you didn't. I did expect him to be better than he was, and he did betray my trust.

Cronkite was not a personal betrayal as I was in grade school when he retired. I never thought the way of him that my parents and grandparents did.

So, Cronkite had an outsized influence that he used improperly.

Trump currently does not have that outsized influence. I think the man is no longer a major force in GOP politics- just look at the last elections outcomes to show that lack of influence, and his stock has fallen since then.

With regards to your point, Trump is not having any real effect, which is different than Cronkite. Trump's intent is purely personal gain, which is different than Cronkite's intent was. (Cronkite's was the placing of his worldview ahead of his audience's)

So Cronkite was a less malignant force than Trump, but certainly a much more significant one.

My biggest concern re Cronkite was he decided to take the old school media (facts and let your readership make its decisions) to the new school which is help change society to where you think is better.

He was, in many respects, the final death knell of old school journalism in major American media. Since then we have switched to OpEd reporting and folks looking for echo chambers.

Has that been good for the country?

Well, Doc, that's interesting. And I appreciate your thoughtful reply - really.

Of course, I don't agree with the entirety of it, but so what? You say some profound things based in mostly reality and grasp thereof, IMO. (51% is mostly - right? )

I don't find it useful to pick your post apart, especially since there's is much to agree with and, after all, who am I to say.

One of the main things is that I think Trump is having real effect. Whether that's attributable to him and charisma specifically or whether it's the fodder base is debatable. All paths of fascism involve a leader like Trump and a willing base. Any trajectory in that direction should be noticed, acknowledged, and condemned.

Also, I don't think of Cronkite's shift as a betrayal. I think it was a compelling reality check, given ALL the factors known at the time. I think Cronkite was ONE unique individual who could know and assess such factors.

What that means to me is that the percentage of folks back then were influenced more by reality than they are today. That can't be proven.

Meanwhile, back to the grind:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c18568f88230f0&ei=18

‘They Lied to You!’ Fox News Rejects Ad Spotlighting Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham’s Texts From Dominion Lawsuit Per Report
Story by Ken Meyer • 9h ago

Here's something that looks at the past and the present.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbZOakTV99A

Joe Rogan | The Events That Shaped Hunter S. Thompson w/Timothy Denevi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XUo_vzTtw

Brooks and Capehart on Tucker Carlson's access to Jan. 6 video, war in Ukraine