Agree w you Elk, PS Audio staff and Paul are class acts…. they do what they must do to stay in business , thats life, but cheap shots directly reflects on the character of the poster…my posts of course are an exception…. ; )
Not sure what is laughable here. The awards made in his name do not detract nor add to his contributions to society. They are merely what some panel felt were deserving recipients. Some on that list are, in my mind, exemplary.
But that’s beside the point. Mr. Cronkite could be trusted to deliver facts and news, and not to make facts and the news himself. Today, anyone with an iPhone and an internet account calls themselves a journalist and the “news” they share is best left in the one-holer it came from.
10 Likes
Talk about a contentious topic all of a sudden, especially in the filtering post! Ugh.
2 Likes
Nice response @Palouse ! Way to show how to redirect back to the intent of the thread.
3 Likes
Cronkite was a true journalist, appearing to be balanced and unbiased. The folks getting the Cronkite award nowadays are anything but. As mentioned previously, someone else brought up Cronkite, not me, my view is just my view….
1 Like
I grew up with Walter Cronkite delivering the news with a steady hand and a calm, authoritative presence that inspired trust. He wasn’t just reporting events; he was helping the country make sense of them with clarity and restraint. Sadly, I’m not aware of anyone on television today who comes close to that level of credibility, gravitas, and quiet reassurance.
2 Likes
On more thing… The most significant statement I ever heard Walter Cronkite say was, “Our job is to report the news, not to make it.” That simple statement captured his entire approach to journalism—facts first, opinions set aside, and a deep respect for the audience. It was a reminder that the role of the press is to inform, not to influence, and that trust is earned by restraint, accuracy, and integrity.
1 Like
Good to recall that back in Walter’s day there were only 4 networks (including PBS) and each was heavily regulated by the FCC and the law. Opinions were not news, any station reporting falsely or violating that policy risked loss of their license. Further, all four networks were required to spend X amount of time delivering the news as a public service requirement (kind of like BBC is now).
What required them to do this?
The fact they used the public airwaves (controlled by the FCC), which meant they were held to account by the Fairness Doctrine (1949). Broadcasters had to cover important public issues and present opposing viewpoints—and be factual—and they were always in jeopardy of losing their licenses if they violated that trust.
That system began to unravel with the rise of cable TV, which didn’t use public airwaves and therefore wasn’t bound by the same rules. The real end came in 1987, when Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine, arguing it was no longer necessary and might even chill free speech. Congress tried to restore it. Reagan vetoed the effort. And just like that, the guardrails came off—permanently.
So, if you want to blame someone, blame Ronald Regan and cable TV.
6 Likes
…and the FCC.
1 Like
The major broadcasters had an “opinion/policy pundit” who was equally authoritative, trustworthy and respectful. CBS, for example, had Eric Sevareid.
4 Likes
Paul, you beat me to the punch on that response. All that you iterated was the precursor to the devolution of civility of public discourse in every sphere of interaction. After 1987, public officials and journalists both began to gradually throw off the limits to what they’d say to attract listeners, viewers and voters. The last ten years have accelerated that process to depths unimaginable when I was young.
3 Likes
And throw in LBJ who systematically went about establishing dominance of the airways. You don’t dominate an industry for money (that you do by diversification) you do it for control.
Interesting discussion and stretching the limits of what this forum finds acceptable. I don’t object to it and agree with a lot of what has been said. Personally, I probably over filter to make sure I am clear and inoffensive. Not always good at it which I discover when someone reads my post and takes the intent somewhere I did not intend. To me the internet has introduced a disassociation between us that I have trouble with at times. Some posters (on all sites, not just this one) have difficulty communicating and it can be very hard to understand their intent. Is their comment intended as a light elbow to the ribs (just kidding!) or a kick in the groin (I meant that!)? For that reason, and being an introvert, I never signed up for any social media sites, with the exception of this one and AudioGon (which I rarely visit now, can you guess why?). Of late I’ve even been staying away from here, more because I’ve been distracted but still … (I completely missed the “Forum is wonky” thread, over 400 posts in a month, until a few days ago)
IMO, as a direct result of social media I’ve noticed that the younger the people you meet face to face the harder time they have interacting. I’ve noticed this when out walking the local neighborhood, many young folks won’t even make eye contact. Further, there are two 30 something couples close by, one next door and another across the street. Neither one is friendly, almost never even look up to see me, oh wait it’s because they’re always on their phone. Sigh …
7 Likes
NPR reported on a study showing the younger one is the less social. This is one explanation for the lack of membership service organizations such as the Elks. Many churches are closing as well.
This is consistent with my observations as a church musician. Congregations are getting grayer and fewer in number.
And there are less Elks then there should be. 
4 Likes
Excellent, thoughtful post.
2 Likes
In my area, traditional churches are experiencing significant declines in attendance, while non-denominational churches are seeing substantial growth. Civic clubs are also facing a drop in new membership.
I sat next to @pmotz in the PS Audio room at Axpona 2023 when we were both auditioning the FR20’s. He’s an ok dude.
3 Likes
Interpersonal communication through the Web, therefore in a written format, is severly limiting. Communication used to be governed by what was called the 7-38-55 rule (7% words, 38% tone, 55% body language).
It’s no wonder that those born and raised where one of (if not the) primary forms of communication are not face-to-face or voice-to-voice are perceived to be socially lacking at least by the older population.
3 Likes
Thanks for sharing that post Paul! More and more I’m distancing myself from social media for that reason. Nowadays I ask myself: Would I react if I hear that conversation between strangers in a pub? Generally my answer to that question is “no “…
On the other hand I really like the PSaudio forums. I try to write my posts as if talking to my friends. Even though I’m quite new on these forums and my system is very humble, I always feel welcome and respected 
8 Likes
I just completed an interview from a regional Public Broadcasting service. One of the questions dealt with what can be done to make news reporting (not just theirs, but in general) more believable and respected.
My answer was don’t be the first to report the news, be the first to report it accurately and completely.
Back when I was still working, I taught classes on conservation/land use planning. One module was a futuring exercise, where small teams of students had to imagine and describe a future that had certain changes from today. One team had the task of describing how a future without cell phones, the internet, and such would function. One young kid was aghast, holding up her pink phone and saying, “But how will we comminicate?” The other 3 members of her group smiled and one said, “Like we are doing now–face-to-face.”
All is not lost, I hope!
7 Likes