What Makes A "Cronkite Moment"?

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Outside Voices

(CBS)

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. Greg Mitchell is the editor of Editor & Publisher and author of seven books on politics and history, including "The Campaign of the Century" and "Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady." Today, Mitchell takes a look at the media's comparison of Rep. John Murtha's call for a withdrawal from Iraq to CBS "Evening News" Anchor Walter Cronkite's February 1968 Vietnam epiphany.

When the hawkish Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) suddenly came out for a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq last month it caused many media commentators to just-as-hastily call it a possible "Cronkite Moment." I was one of them; in fact, I was probably the first, in a column at the Editor & Publisher Web site. What we all meant was: This shot across the bow of the Bush war policy from a well-respected mainstream figure might one day be seen as a "turning point" in setting the U.S. on a different path in an unpopular war, similar to what happened, allegedly, following CBS anchor Walter Cronkite's legendary and equally unexpected soul-baring on February 27, 1968.

In one typical instant reaction, on Nov. 19, Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Situation Room" told his colleague Bill Schneider:

"Bill, you'll remember what President Johnson said when he heard what Walter Cronkite had said at that point, after coming back from Vietnam. He said if he's lost Walter Cronkite, he's probably lost the country. And I suppose that some Republicans are saying now if they've lost John Murtha, a very moderate-conservative Democrat, a strong supporter of the military, they probably realize they've got some serious problems."

Indeed, many Republicans fired back at Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, causing current CBS anchor Bob Schieffer to observe, "Republicans accused him of wanting to cut and run, and all but challenged the patriotism of war critics."

Of course, this is not the first so-called "Cronkite Moment" since the original. Some even invoked Uncle Walter last summer after Cindy Sheehan, mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, galvanized antiwar protest. In any case, it's hard to guess what long-term effect the Murtha "Cronkite Moment" will have, but it did, for the first time, put pullout on the national agenda, provoked angry media and congressional debate, and forced the president to outline his own plan for withdrawal (i.e. "A Plan for Victory").

So it is possible that it will one day be seen as some kind of major or minor key "Cronkite Moment." But the analogy is strained. As many have pointed out, there is no mainstream figure quite like Cronkite today (even Johnny Carson is now gone). As CBS knows all too well, viewership of the nightly news on all networks has plunged and with hundreds of cable channels to choose from, no single media figure will ever come close to Cronkite's standing and influence. So, sorry Bob, Brian and whoever the hell is anchoring ABC right now.

But let me stop right here and raise the type of question that should always emerge at this point: Maybe this whole "Cronkite Moment" hype is overblown from its inception. Did the original moment really have the impact claimed for it, mainly by people too young to experience it at the time?

I happen to be old enough to have been involved in the Vietnam struggle as a potential draftee and (not coincidentally) your basic college protester. I can't say that I remember watching the Cronkite epiphany on that late-February 1968 evening, as I did not have easy access to a TV, or noticing any immediate upheaval. But I do recall the screaming front-page headlines, a few weeks earlier, about the American setbacks in the Tet offensive, which sparked Cronkite's trip to Vietnam, which in turn led to his broadcast "moment."

For those who have only heard about what he said, but never actually read it (no doubt that includes nearly all of you), here is a handy link to the transcript.

It climaxes with Cronkite declaring, "To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion." His equivalent of calling for a pullout was to propose negotiating seriously with the enemy, "not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. This is Walter Cronkite. Good night."

Perhaps this column will inspire someone out there to conduct in-depth study of the lasting impact of those few sentences (if it hasn't already been done). I know this: Those who claim that it created a seismic shift on the war overlook the fact that there was much opposition to the conflict already. In fact, the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy was about to drive President Lyndon Johnson into retirement.

In the meantime, I've done a quick and dirty search of Gallup poll results, producing some interesting hints.

They show that the percentage of those who felt the U.S. made a mistake in sending troops to Vietnam jumped from 41% to 47% in October 1967, four months before Cronkite's moment. That climbed a bit to 49% in a poll completed just before his TV talk in February. It then dipped one point in the next poll (early April), then shot up to 53% in August. But in April 1970, the number stood at 51% -- only two points higher than the last pre-Cronkite epiphany poll.

Another question from Gallup yielded a more dramatic result. Asked in early 1968 if they viewed themselves as hawks or doves, the number of hawks dropped from 58% in February (pre-Cronkite Moment) to 41% in April. Proof at last! But hold on. In the same period, those who said they "approved" LBJ's handling of the war jumped from 32% to 42%.

So perhaps Cronkite's effect on Main Street has been wildly overstated -- but that doesn't mean he didn't cause tremors in newsrooms, in the military, in the White House and on Capitol Hill. Perhaps someday, the same will be said of Rep. Jack Murtha's "Cronkite Moment."

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

4 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by neuro-con December 24, 2005 3:28 AM EST: This article takes a very limited view by focusing exclusively on Cronkite's moment. If you are truly interested in the role of the press (not just Cronkite) in the mis-reporting of the Tet Offensive, I would commend to you the following book: Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, 2 vols. (by Peter Braestrup; Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1977). Good summaries can be found here: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/nov-dec/bishop.html and here: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/hayward-tet.html#7r For a military overview of Tet, see: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/vietnam/tet.htm Many of us on the right have felt that the MSM has been having an ongoing "Cronkite moment" for the last 2.5 years in Iraq, by focusing primarily on US casualties to the exclusion of a broader and more informed military analysis. Because most reporters are so unfamiliar with military history and practice, they usually miss the forest for the trees in reporting on military affairs. And because their general bias is forged in the Vietnam/Cronkite template, their bias generally serves to recapitulate that moment, regardless of the actual "facts on the ground".; Reply to this comment


by fiddleminger December 23, 2005 7:36 PM EST: Cronkite moment. They ain't makin' many of those these days, seein' as how Cronkites are pretty few and far between -- a notion that's especially germane what with CBS shopping around for a new anchor. And we all know whose name is most frequently floated for that spot, right? Just this morning on the Today Show Katie Couric had Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Pat Buchanan on. The discussion turns to Bush's illegal wiretaps whereupon Pat (erroneously) states that it takes 72 hours to get a warrant from the FISA court. What does The Erstwhile Next Cronkite do? Sits there, grins, and gushes "You know I could talk with both of you about it for an hour..." She didn't have the slightest idea about a key point of operation of the FISA court that's been discussed ad nauseum over the last week. (Begging the question as to why Buchanan didn't either, but he's been known to 'stretch' the truth to make a point now and then.) She simply didn't know. Anything. Look at the clip for yourself. Which brings us back to Lyndon Johnson and the Cronkite moment. Can you, in your wildest dreams, imagine the likes of Johnson saying "If I've lost Couric, I've lost middle America"? I can't imagine it either, and if CBS is smart they won't even suggest that anyone have to.; Reply to this comment


by kybuckeye3 December 23, 2005 6:32 PM EST: Murtha's relationship to the Pentagon was more for the "pork" he could bring to western Pennsylvania rather than being a hawk. Remember, he called for the premature exit from Somalia which lead to Blackhawk down and the death of soldiers and mistreatment of their remains. He even bragged that Clinton listened to him. Murtha was on of the persons giving a reason Osama to say in 1998 that if we make it bloody enough the US will turn tail and run.; Reply to this comment


by atyndall-2009 December 23, 2005 1:40 PM EST: To generalize from the Cronkite example, it helps us understand precisely where the influence of the Mainstream Media rests. Its power is to formalize attitudes that already exist rather than to formulate them. Thus, we can paraphrase Johnson's reaction something like this: "If the groundswell of popular disaffection with the war has reached such a critical mass that someone as mainstream as Cronkite does not think he is stepping out of line to articulate it, then the jig is up." Think of Cronkite as offering an imprimatur rather an initiative. Similarly, the significance of Murtha was that he was known to be so close to the uniformed brass at the Pentagon that he was, in effect, ratifying the sentiments of career senior military, who were prohibited from engaging in policy debates publicly. So Murtha articulated in public, in the political sphere, the private policy debate that was already well-rehearsed in the corridors of the Pentagon.; Reply to this comment