RSSObama challenges Internet disinformation during Cronkite tribute
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 9, 2009, 5:24 PM
During a public memorial event in tribute to the life and career of the late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, who passed away in July, President Obama spoke in an almost candid fashion about the evolution of news media in the age of the Internet. Specifically, he wondered aloud -- and with surprisingly stark honesty that might have even raised Cronkite's celebrated bushy eyebrows -- about whether the legendary news anchor would be able to perform the same job, in the same manner -- managing editor of a globally respected news service -- with the challenges posed by the nature of today's media.
"He was excited about all the stories that a high-tech world of journalism would be able to tell," the President said, "and all the newly emerging means with which to tell it. Naturally, we find ourselves wondering how he would have covered the monumental stories of our time. In an era where the news that City Hall is on fire can sweep around the world at the speed of the Internet, would he still have called to double-check? Would he have been able to cut through the murky noise of the blogs and the tweets and the sound bites, to shine the bright light on substance? Could he still offer the perspective that we value? Would he have been able to remain a singular figure in an age of dwindling attention spans and omnipresent media?
"Somehow we know that the answer is yes," Mr. Obama continued. "The simple values Walter Cronkite set out in pursuit of -- to seek the truth, to keep us honest, to explore our world the best he could -- they are as vital today as they ever were."
The President's not-so-rhetorical questions followed an historical anecdote about the man Mr. Obama admitted to never having gotten to know personally. In that anecdote, upon his return from a wartime stint for the UP, Cronkite briefly held a job at a radio news department in Kansas City. As the story goes, he held up a report about a fire at City Hall, which failed to go out on the air on time. The holdup was during the fact-checking process, during which he learned that the fire was in a waste paper basket and that there were no injuries. Having lost an opportunity to do a story about a "raging blaze," fact or fiction, Cronkite's program manager fired him on the spot. For which he and the rest of us are forever grateful.
Watch CBS Videos Online
In a comment earlier in his speech that had less to do with Cronkite specifically, and that was clearly directed toward the many journalists in the crowd, the President compared the Cronkite standard of journalism to that practiced in the nation's newsrooms today -- "a standard of honesty and integrity and responsibility to which so many of you have committed your careers," he said. "It's a standard that's a little bit harder to find today. We know that this is a difficult time for journalism. Even as appetites for news and information grow, newsrooms are closing. Despite the big stories of our era, serious journalists find themselves all too often without a beat. Just as the news cycle has shrunk, so has the bottom line."
hmmm Cronkite was once fired for not reporting a trashbin fire at the local city hall as a "..raging blaze.."-- interesting paradox to today: as Obama, the "newsroom manager", goes about stating that the US healthcare system is a "raging blaze" of disrepair, and his "fix" (HR3200) is his "newsflash" he is trying to force on the "readers" (citizens), the few "reporters" (reps in Congress with integrity) in his "newsroom" (Congress) who are in effect saying "...whoa, we shouldn't "publish" (pass) something we haven't fact-checked (= actually read) yet....", I'm wondering, who needs to be "fired" here-- the "reporters with integrity", or the "newsroom manager"(POTUS)?
Score: -1
|Obama should be the last one to talk about integrity. His team of hacks are experts at spreading disinformation. I certainly don't want Obama or anyone else dictating the standards. I'm perfectly capable of identifying the facts.
Score: -4
|While the internet deserves criticism for easily permitting dissemination of misinformation let's not forget how effective the revocation of the fairness doctrine and media ownership deregulations have been at politicizing and polarizing the news.
Score: -3
|...and censoring the news (fairness doctrine) would help how?
Sorry, I hate the local news and cable news channels just as much as most folks, but telling *anyone* they *can't* air their views, regardless of the reasoning, is absolute crap no matter how you look at it.
Score: 2
|I once heard somebody say that the whole point of the 5th Amendment and the concept of freedom of speech and press, designed to specifically and explicitly protect the speech and expression of ideas which I might find to be patently offensive.
I'm not sure about all the UK, but in England courts are permitted to exercise prior restraint against newspapers and other periodicals and can order a paper not to print an article or else suffer the legal consequences.
Nobody (certainly not I) are making a case for that; but I think what people are looking for is just a little integrity along with the free speech - as naive as that may sound.
Oh well.
Score: 0
|Umm...I meant the FIRST Amendment.
Of course I realize the 5th Amendment gives me the right to keep my mouth shut and not make a fool out of myself ;)
BTW...I see we can't edit or posts once the clock has run down. Too bad.
Score: -1
|That's not my understanding of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC's old (and now defunct) effort to balance viewpoints aired on the public airwaves by certifying that opposing viewpoints get equal time. Of course, that applied to the "public airwaves," which the FCC had the right to regulate (even if the methodology was crude); Web sites are all private services, and the Internet is not a public pipeline. Still, the main point behind the Doctrine was not to tell anyone to stand down, but to make sure anyone who disagreed got equal treatment.
I would argue it's not the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine at all that has polarized news services, but rather the fact that the axis around which news revolves is s***ing away from the public airwaves and toward private media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all private companies -- people pay to see their shoutfests. Supposedly their online efforts are subsidized through their cable subsidies, but even this week you're seeing word that CNN.com is making cutbacks, and may only stream a few hours per day starting next month.
Deregulation applied to the ownership of media that was either through public channels (TV, radio) or that was protected by public law (newspaper). Cable and Internet are private media through private channels -- they're not de-regulated so much as they're not regulated to begin with. Now, on the surface, that's a good idea -- I don't want any agency balancing the amount of time Betanews devotes to SQL Server against Oracle, for instance. On the other hand, there are times when I'd truly like to propose an Internet equivalent of the Seal of Good Practice -- remember the old National Association of Broadcasters code of conduct?
-SF "We Now Conclude Our Broadcast Day..." 3
Score: 1
|First intelligent thing I have heard from that guy in quite a while.
Too bad the whole truth is that real journalism with integrity and unbiased respect is nearly extinct. (Not to mention spelling and correct grammar, those are long gone.)
Damn shame, I will miss it.
Score: 6
|Truth and Honesty is nothing you want Obama... Your a socialist...
Score: -3
|What does socialism have to do with truth and honesty?
Score: -1
|He says he's not a socialist when his policies and associations are obviously socialist.
That's dishonest.
Score: 0
|Roads, firefighters, police, domestic violence shelters, Medicare and public education are all socialist programs. I'm sure you have benefited from at least one of these or do you fly your private jet to work every day. Oh wait, the FAA is a social program too.
Score: 1
|All but Medicare and Public education are public safety issues and for the most part are the state's (not federal government's) provision. I suppose roads fall under transportation/infrastructure, but are again mostly state provisions.
Amazingly, the two that do *not* fall under such, are the one's I am vehemently against. Go figure...
Score: 0
|Sad state of affairs when someone shouted 'Lie' during a joint session of Congress.
Idiots on the right. Morons on the left.
Score: 0
|Good for Obama.
Score: 1
|