Who was more important to this country over the last 30 years, Walter Cronkite or Michael Jackson?

[aaaaaa5a]

I actually think there is an argument both ways. It's rare I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm just curious as to what the people on this message board think about the question.


I'm leaning towards Cronkite. Am I wrong?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Cronkite shortened a war. nt

[Canuckistanian]

37. That he did

And presidents once despaired of getting a negative review from Cronkite.

We'll never see THAT again.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. The last thirty years?

Cronkite retired in 1981 - twenty-eight years ago. So, during that time, Michael Jackson got more press.

Was MJ important to this country?

Not at all, in my opinion.

Cronkite's legacy precedes 1979, all the way back to WWII. Cronkite showed us history as it was being made.

He was, after all, ninety-two years old, bless him forever..................................

[begin_within]

8. Cronkite retired in 1981

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. A typo, now fixed, thank you -

but if you do the math, you'll see that it's .................. oh, never mind................

[begin_within]

33. Your point is still valid

[The Straight Story]

3. Both important in their repective fields (nt)

[fortyfeetunder]

9. +1 N/T

[magellan]

49. +2

Dayum, the stupid is annoying sometimes....

[sandnsea]

4. Cronkite is 92

Death expected. That does make a difference.

And if Oprah died tomorrow, or Katie Couric, who do you think would get the most attention?

[TexasObserver]

5. "Important" involves a value judgment. Therefore, Cronkite was more important.

Because the other guy wasn't important at all, except as a pop figure with serious emotional and other problems.

[aaaaaa5a]

7. Good point! Who had a bigger impact on society?

That might be a better way to phrase the question.

[TexasObserver]

20. Society is certainly more representative of the other guy, not Cronkite.

The phoniness that Jackson represents, the obsession with looks, with clothes, with appearing cool whether one has any real skills or not, the applauding celebrity for its own sake - all more a part of the culture than anything Cronkite created or added.

Cronkite represents ideals. Jackson represents shallow needs for personal recognition.

[misanthrope]

40. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!...

...In the previous weeks, I've expressed the same sentiments about Jackson, a belief that first began to germinate within me at the height of his "moonwalking" days, but people have willingly thrown away so much objectivity, it fell on deaf or defensive ears.

[shadowknows69]

6. Oh my aching ass. That's who.

[JVS]

10. Jackson. Cronkite was retired for all but 2 of the last 30 years.

He could have died in 1980 without there being much of a difference.

[CakeGrrl]

11. At the end of the day, you only need be "important" to family and friends

and MJ, I believe, had that.

If people don't like someone, they'll vote the other guy, but really, it's an apples-oranges comparison to me.

Walter Cronkite brought the news of the world to our living rooms.

I get enjoyment from the music and dance that Michael Jackson produced. He's on my iPod and isn't going anywhere.

But specifically over the last 30 years? Cronkite was on the brink of retirment, Jackson was still active in his biz.

Basically, I think the question doesn't make much sense; they were too different.

[omega minimo]

12. Bullshit.

[MoonRiver]

14. delete

[Solomon]

15. What the fuck!?

[Wetzelbill]

16. you can't really compare them for a few different reasons

Cronkite retired 28 years ago, and Jackson came to the height of his prominence soon after. Cronkite's career was finished for the bulk of that time, while Jackson was in his prime during that same era.

And they were giants in two different fields. Both equally impactful. Jackson's impact on culture as a young black man maybe sets him apart a little bit because he represented a minority group and rose from socioeconomic turmoil to became the biggest star in the world, however, I am not sure if that makes him necessarily better or not. They were two different people, in two different fields, both legends and giants.

[FrenchieCat]

17. The only decade Cronkite and Jackson had in common where the 70s....

and at that time Jackson was a teenager, and Cronkite was already an established icon.

I don't think you can compare those two in the matter in which you are trying.

Cronkite was the man you saw on your television everynight informing us on the daily
news occurences-

Jackson was a dancing and signing star who one only saw if one chose to.

[rosesaylavee]

18. Unrecommend

What a stupid question.

[MichiganVote]

19. Flamebait. And pretty stale and useless flamebait.

[aaaaaa5a]

38. I disagree. I think it is a legit question.

Who is more impactive to our society, legendary journalists known for hard core news. Or a legendary pop icon known for ruling the entertainment world?




Do we live in a world today more influenced by Walter Cronkite or Michael Jackson? That's not a flame-bait issue at all.

[MichiganVote]

54. You are playing people. Had the question you posed in your final line been asked,

I would still consider it pointless and suspicious of attempting to incite the ire of posters. But at least that query as posed has some discussion merit. Instead, this OP is nothing more than Entertainment Tonight which DU ain't.

And for the record...the jury is hardly in on whether MJ "ruled" the entertainment world. Whereas, the jury has long held that Walter Cronkite did set the standard for TV journalism in his day and no one has come close to the esteem that Americans have had for a newsman before or since.

Its called history. If you didn't live it, you know nuttin'.

[aaaaaa5a]

64. Well...

After reading the first part of your post I thought your only concern here was to take part in a thread you considered pointless. Which by itself means perhaps you have other personal issues... but I will leave that alone. Maybe you just have a lot of time to kill?





However, the second part of your post answered the question perfectly. In your view, Walter Cronkite is the more influential figure because of the standards he set in Journalism----THAT WAS A TOPICAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION!

See, you did understand the thread. And you participated. I thank you for your response. It was very insightful.



Why couldn't you simply give your viewpoint on the topic at hand in the first place? You are not one of those posters who tries to look cool to other ANONYMOUS posters by criticizing still other ANONYMOUS posters for no reason, are you?

[MichiganVote]

72. Yes Mother, whatever you say.

[aaaaaa5a]

75. I'm glad we have had this "teaching moment."

Now don't forget to wash your hands before dinner!O8)

[scheming daemons]

21. Actually, Cronkite was important more than 30 years ago... the past 30? Not so much...

Most of it he was retired.

[MichiganVote]

28. Walter Cronkite will always be important to this country's history.

[scheming daemons]

30. Absolutely... but that's not what the OP asked...

[MichiganVote]

32. The OP is merely asking for a fight song among members. Useless drivel.

[upi402]

22. What's better to eat, broccoli or candy?

meh

[donheld]

25. Would you like a life with all broccoli and no candy?

[misanthrope]

41. I don't eat candy but love broccoli, so that's easy**nm

**

[donheld]

55. God what a dull life, no sweets at all?

[misanthrope]

58. You didn't say "sweets," you said "candy"...

...I indeed eat sweet potatoes, fruit and other sweets. I just don't go for candy unless it's an occasional mint after coffee or dinner.

[donheld]

62. upi said candy

Most adults don't eat a lot of candy. We get our sweets other ways. I don't think you're being honest.

[misanthrope]

63. Sorry, I was only going by...

...what was stated.

[donheld]

23. Do we have to put one against another?

[donheld]

24. Also unrecommend

[misanthrope]

42. It's not a comment on Jackson but on society and media**nm

**

[donheld]

46. It's really comparing apples to oranges.

[aaaaaa5a]

68. Why not?

Who is more influential, the great reporter? Or the great entertainer? I think it's a legit topic.

[izquierdista]

26. Who knows, but it shows a tiny, tiny mind

Is there any reason to compare them except that they died within a month of each other? Was there any reason to compare Princess Di with Mother Teresa? Is there any reason to compare Turtle Wax with the Dalai Lama?

[misanthrope]

44. Considering you have an iconic personality as your avatar...

...one might think you would understand the much larger point being made here.

[aaaaaa5a]

66. I think the comparison is legit

because most people would agree that Walter Cronkite is among the greatest journalists in our history


And most people would agree that Michael Jackson is among the greatest entertainers in our history.



Therefore in that they both died within weeks of each other, I don't think it's non-topical, on a political/social issues message board, to ask the question... who was more influential to our society? The great entertainer? Or the great reporter?




I love this board to death. But there are some posters here that seem to be personally offended at every topic and remark posted!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aaaaaa5a]

36. Thank you for your contribution.

I have never understood posters who dislike a thread topic, but rather than just ignore it, or move on to something that interests them.... they instead stop by just long enough to call an ANONYMOUS PERSON a name.


Are you that easily offended? Does the thread title bother you that much?

[donheld]

43. Some threads you not only disagree, but want to tell the person

how you feel about it.

[aaaaaa5a]

65. There is nothing wrong with that! That is what a public forum is for. NT

[Kaleva]

29. Both important in their seperate fields

Murrows and Cronkite are probably considered the top two broadcast journalists and one cannot disagree with the statement that MJ was one of the elite entertainers in the past few decades.

[Avalux]

31. Cronkite retired in 1981. I don't think a comparison can be made. n/t

[blondeatlast]

34. Meh. nt

[1]

35. walter couldn't dance for shit. michael never broke any news story. how do you judge???

[aaaaaa5a]

45. Easy.

The question is who had a bigger impact on society.


For instance, Jackie Robinson was a baseball player. He could run, catch, throw and hit a baseball. He didn't break any news stories. He was not a politician. But he was incredibly influential to how our society is formed today.


On the other hand, like it or not, Bill Oreilly and FOX news have been incredibly influential in terms of how we get our information. They have led the charge where now opinionated news shows and partisan journalism is common. There would be no Rachel Maddow show, KO or Ed Schultz without FOX.


Bill Oreilly and Jackie Robinson are two different people in two very different arenas. But they have both shaped the society we live in.

(By the way I am in no way saying Bill Oreilly is close to Jackie Robinson, but you see the point)



That's how the Michael Jackson/Walter Cronkite comparison is relevant.

[1]

48. oh. i get it now. walter never got his number retired, so jackie had more impact. right? wrong?

[aaaaaa5a]

52. There is no right or wrong answer... it's just an opinion. It's what you think.

I don't think you get it.

[1]

57. ok. i think i get it now. i vote jackie. because i like baseball.

so...

1. jackie (because i like baseball)
2. walter (because i like news)
3. michael (because i hate bill)
4. bill (boo)

[Rowdyboy]

39. Cronkite meant more in my world, mainly because we bonded over our love of the space program...

He was 45, I was 6 but we shared an excitement over the next twenty years as the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft took us to the moon and back. Walter and I shared that. Michael Jackson was primarily an irritant to me at that time. He is best represented by his first hit "1-2-3!" a crappy, grating piece of shit that my local radio played nonstop for two or three years.

I vote Cronkite.

[Catherine Vincent]

50. Are you Dyslexic in the ears?

It was ABC! LOL!

[Rowdyboy]

61. Thats probably the kindest thing you could say for me right now!

I've had far too many mental distractions tonight. It was "ABC" not "1-2-3" wasn't it.

Let this be an example to you! That "ear dyslexia" is caused by nearly 40 years of consistent, dedicated serious marijuana abuse. I would retreat in humiliation but I'm a victim of "S.C.A.B.B.S."(Self-centered American baby boomer syndrome") so I have no shame.

[Ex Lurker]

47. Jackson deserved a two minute clip on the nightly news

the day he died. For Cronkite, a five minute clip would have been sufficient. Neither deserved the Wall To Wall coverage they've gotten, and I like to think Uncle Walter wouldn't have stood for it if he'd been in charge. Tonight our local TV news on the CBS affiliate consisted almost entirely of Walter Cronkite, for Pete's sake. This after CBS had already broken into their prime time programming for a "breaking" announcement.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ex Lurker]

60. hardly, but have the best day ever n/t

[donheld]

56. Go back to lurking

[Ex Lurker]

59. thanks for the kind thoughts, and do carry on with your celebrity worship n/t

[old mark]

53. Jackson made a lot more money, so in the eyes of this society

he was King.


markO8)

[KharmaTrain]

67. Cronkite Was A Friend To The Family...

...in my world, Jackson will be best remembered as a cute kid who sang to a rat. There is no comparison in my life. For years, Uncle Walter came into my family's living room and kitchen reporting what was happening in the world. He didn't do moonwalks or sell billions of albums, he was a constant; there every evening as well as when there was any major event. When I think of the most important moments of the 60's & 70's, Walter's voice is there...and always will be.

I relate Jacko to Elvis...definitely not a Cronkite. There's no one in the corporate media who compares. He was living history from 1940-2009...and the last of Murrow's boys, men who transformed broadcast news into real journalism and then defined the new television industry until the corporates came along and ruined it.

[proteus_lives]

69. No question

Cronkite-Most trusted man in America, shifted the course of Vietnam war, Moon Landing, death of JFK. Honorable man in a profession where it is difficult to keep your honor.

vs.

A singing pedophile.

Mr. Cronkite in his easiest victory.

[FormerOstrich]

70. r u kidding?

do you jest? IMHO...CRONKITE!!!

Michael who?

[Vinca]

71. Cronkite was retired for most of the last 30 years.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

73. MJ, of course. Walter could only report on moon walks ...

Michael Jackson could actually do moon walks.

:hi:

[firedupdem]

74. Really bright comparison. n/t

:eyes: