Posted 10:07 PM by Gene

HHHHHHWWWWWALTER CRRRRRRRRONKITE destroyed network TV news, first by helping lose us the Vietnam War; second by thus unleashing the slime Pat Buchanan and his talking parrot Spiro T. Agnew, who sicced their nattering nabobs of negativism on the TV hacks and killed the prime-time documentary; and third by paving the way for DAN BLATHER, who put the final nail in its coffin with his superscripts. It would be better to remember him for his child-like enthusiasm covering space flight, but that would be only part of the story.

Two other things about HHHHHHWWWWWALTER: We're sure he let forth with that "first-rough-draft-of-history" gag (attributed to Philip Graham), a convenient excuse for mistakes until people finally realized first rough drafts are all hacks can write; and his definition of "liberal" as one who cared for the oppressed, the sick, the poor, blablahblah, its very smarminess the mark of a man who knew what he was doing or was completely oblivious to it -- or perhaps both.

These next few days will see a more serious version of the plague of the late PROFIT CENTER, but let us remember: by mourning their hero the hacks are mourning their own deaths too.

P. S. at 10:48 p. m. THE MOST TRUSTED MAN IN AMERICA KLUMPH KLUMPH KLUMPH KLUMPH....

OR:

I had an interesting conversation about the issue of newspaper quality recently with a former top editor of a major paper, who left journalism a couple of years ago and has gained—as is often the case with former editors—some significant perspective by looking at the business from the outside. This editor suggested three standards of quality that newspapers need to measure themselves in today's environment, online and off:

1. Does the paper truly meet the needs of its community?
2. Is the paper truly willing to innovate to meet community desires and requirements for new products and coverage?
3. Is the paper's management and staff truly willing to fundamentally change what it's doing, at every level of its operation, to adapt to the new realities of the business (reduced revenue, increased competition, rapid technological change)—rather than sitting around pining for the good old days that aren't coming back?

Fair questions all—and important first steps to achieving a level of quality that maybe, just maybe, could provide the underpinning for asking online readers to pay for content. How did this former editor grade today's newspapers on these questions? I quote: "I think that for the majority of American newspapers today the answers to all three questions would be a resounding 'No.'"

And of TV news, NUF SAID. And it's FREE.