Convention coverage: Walter Cronkite is probably crying somewhere

It's supposed to be the other way around.

During a presidential campaign, the politicians are the ones who should be making the sweeping statements about the superiority of one political tradition over the other while the news analysts comment as objectively as possible, pointing out contradictions, changes in position and historical tendencies but keeping their own personal leanings out of it.

Instead we had a Democratic candidate who spoke of finding common ground between such opposing forces as those who support abortion rights and those who don't, while the political analysts offered commentary that was unapologetically self-referential and occasionally argumentatively partisan.

At MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews could barely speak they were so overcome with emotion after Sen. Barack Obama's speech; when they did it was strictly in tear-shaken superlatives. Meanwhile, over at Fox News, Brit Hume reluctantly acknowledged that the speech seemed to have played well with the delegates before turning it over to a panel of commentators who could barely sit still in their eagerness to tear it down. Fortune magazine's Nina Easton spat, practically incoherent in her derision of what she saw as the same-old, same-old, while Fred Barnes shrugged and admitted he liked the fireworks.

At CNN, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper seemed at times unable to contain the joy they felt at being themselves; the two acted more as high priests to the historic moment than journalists. Though it was at times difficult to tell what was going on, so distracting was the endless loop of "fun facts" that ran across the bottom of the screen, along with a day-to-day countdown. (Memo to CNN: The Democratic Convention is not like the hostage crisis, and we really can count to four.)
Somewhere Walter Cronkite quietly wept.

As the Democrats moved through a convention that was both undeniably historic and as rhetorically dramatic as these things can be, the various news stations seemed intent on keeping viewers less concerned with the future of the presidency than the future of American news coverage. While the Clinton/Obama split they kept trying to sell never materialized, the anchors at the cable news networks gave us plenty of infighting to watch.

At MSNBC, Olbermann, who has risen to stardom with his take-no-prisoners liberal approach, regularly dissed his colleagues, trying to bully Tom Brokaw into ratcheting up his positive but measured take on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech, and shutting down Matthews' observation that some female Clinton supporters felt ripped off. He also practically came to verbal blows with Joe Scarborough when he suggested that Sen. John McCain's poll numbers had improved. Scarborough then had his own temper tantrum, chewing out David Shuster when Shuster suggested that Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, had a party affiliation.

The on-air squabbles lit up the Internet for a few days and delighted Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, who on Thursday reported them with glee. But when he asked the two "media experts" he had brought on the show if Fox had shown similar problems, he quickly had to interrupt both when it was clear the answers would be in the affirmative. How else to explain the relentlessly negative analysis of virtually every speech by Fox News commentators -- Brit Hume's attempt to get Chris Matthews to put a more negative spin on his reporting of the Hillary Clinton speech and Karl Rove's bare-bones admiration of the Bill Clinton speech?

"But don't you think?" became the mantra of the anchors, which in most journalism classes is the very definition of a leading question. What these anchors and commentators seem to have forgotten in their haste to get down and dirty is that objectivity is not just some arbitrary honor code adopted by the profession in the olden days. Objectivity provides the fire power, the leverage that the news media once had.

If Cronkite had endlessly made his own political feelings known, his ultimate condemnation of the Vietnam War would not have carried the weight it ultimately did. As every parent knows, rage daily and the kids tune you out; remain calm and authoritative and your occasional anger, or tears, or calls to arms are much more effective.

Viewers may find some comfort in being able to flip around until they find the news commentator who is saying precisely what they are feeling, but news coverage and political analysis are not supposed to be  televised security blankets. Analysis is supposed to widen the conversation, make it richer and more provocative, not repetitive, predictable and, increasingly, just plain embarrassing.

-- Mary McNamara

(Photo courtesy Virginia Sherwood/MSNBC -- Keith Olbermann, right, and Chris Matthews, MSNBC's coverage of this year's party caucuses and primaries.)

Comments

[John J]

This article is right on the money, especially by pointing out that the strength of journalists should be in their objective presentations of facts. Unfortunately, too many "journalists" in TV, radio and print are based solely on justifying their positions, and not looking for truth, clarity or depth, in their reporting. Unfortunately, most of the "analysis" that we have seen in this campaign is focused on the horse race, not on facts, positions, logic or the opinions that really matter, the diverse group of people known as the American public.

It wasn't mentioned in the article, but CSPAN was a great way to watch the DNC. In fact, if you missed some of the speeches, instead of being subjected to the unending blather from the left and the right, CSPAN just replayed the original sources.

[Big Shaker]

Sadly, network heads equate "objective" with "boring." They don't want reasoned, fair-minded commentary from their anchors and hosts and commentators, they want in-your-face opinionated sparring and aggressive partisanship, because viewers are more susceptible to having their attention and emotions hijacked by a shouting match than by a dignified journalist like Cronkite.

I can't stomach campaign and election coverage anymore - the endless and pointless bloviating (as O'Reilly would put it), the scorekeeping, the aimless armchair strategizing. . . Come to think of it, I can't stand TV news of any kind at any time of the year. Don't even get me started about the embarrassment that is local news.

[milquetoast]

Mary Mary Mary Mary McNamara! You, like liberal columnists before you, need the reality check. I know that's hard to come by for you these days, but it is your kind that represent the death of journalism in this country- and Cronkite crys for YOU. When you are liberal, you tend to view MSNBC, NBC, CNN, CBS and the like, as mainstream baseline, and FOX as rogue and biased. That's why you didn't recognize Brit Hume waxing approvingly over O'Bama's speech. Matter of fact, the panel I saw that evening on FOX, (I don't waste my time with the others) was all over O'Bama in a positive way. After about a few round table comments on how the speech was 'smart' 'perfect' 'inspiring, it was then time to deliver on reality; That it was a great speech delivered wonderfully, and that was about it! No answers on how to acount for all those big government programs. I'm sure the 'shivers' were running up Matthew's legs again, as well as Cooper's and Olberman's! Sick. You call that objective? I did notice the liberal L. A. Times has a blurb online on its title page about "The politics of fashion: Michelle O'Bama!" "Hillary fashion photos!" Crap! Right next to the real story of the day and how she has to swim through your 'cynical' liberal mindset ...."Palin puts drilling above environment" "McCain rolls the dice" "The perils of Palin" You treated her like a joke right there on your online's front page, relegating her to just another side topic while her choice literally lit up the country, knocked O'Bama's speech on it's now almost irrelevant a s s, and revealed the liberal paradigm for what it is: a study in hipocracy! Palin is also an inspirational choice, not just for conservatives but for women as well. Would love to see Biden attack her for her international inexperience when she has more domestic executive experience than Biden himself! Add O'Bama and Hillary on that list too.Tear her apart and we'll see who the hipocrite is at the end of the day in November! O'Bama camp? Frustrated!

[Annt]

I recommend that all viewers change the channel to your local PBS station. I watched their coverage for both the DNC and RNC. They have both sides represented and the commentators and reporters are respectful and objective when interviewing either side. Plus, I love the presidential historians.

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL PBS STATION, for the best and most informative, unbiased election coverage.

[Anne Watman]

I just did a search on "Walter Cronkite and Democratic Convention," hoping to get some additional information on what actually happened and what was reported. So, while this didn't happen to me personally, I'm still wondering about it. My father worked in downtown Chicago during the convention and he said that he was able to see quite a bit of what was going on between the rioters and the police. To this day my father is upset about the way Mr. Cronkite reported the riots because he never mentioned (apparently) what was being done by the rioters to the police. I won't give details, but let's just say it was pretty darn disgusting and I cannot think of anyone who, no matter how much training, would be able to just stand there and take it. I'm just wondering why this is never mentioned and why, in all his objectivity, Walter Cronkite didn't report it?