A "Cronkite Moment?"

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Mega-Media Trends

There have been three significant developments this week having to do with the media and the Iraq war: Doug Vogt and Bob Woodruff's injuries, a second tape from Jill Carroll's captors featuring the kidnapped journalist, and Christiane Amanpour's comments on Larry King. I'm going to assume you know about the first two. As for the third, Amanpour said "[t]he war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster" and called Iraq a "black hole." That prompted Fishbowl DC's Garrett Graff to repeat his claim that "[t]his week is looking more and more like a 'Cronkite moment.'"

A Cronkite moment is, according to one definition, "when a mainstream media or political figure raises questions about a war or a policy that may produce a dramatic shift in public opinion." It's worth pausing for a moment to ask whether such a moment is even possible. Alessandra Stanley doesn't think so. She argues that "[n]obody in this era of what Ted Koppel, the former 'Nightline' host, describes dismissively as 'boutique journalism' has the kind of mass audience and unconditional trust Walter Cronkite held when he shook the nation by declaring the Vietnam War unwinnable." In December, Editor & Publisher editor Greg Mitchell questioned here on Public Eye whether the notion of a Cronkite moment was overblown from its inception.

People have identified other Iraq Cronkite moments in the past – John Murtha's recent comments concerning withdrawing troops spring to mind. Graff argues that this might be the real thing, however – "The [moment] where, despite all the big and little moments and grand statements like the 'Plan for Victory' and tomorrow night's State of the Union address, the American people lost hope in the war. This serious attack on Woodruff's and Vogt's convoy is similar to one that happens hundreds of times a week in Iraq, but it rarely makes the wall-to-wall coverage that yesterday's attack garnered--and it will likely change how every American news organization covers the war."

That possibility has Rush Limbaugh and other war supporters fuming. Here's Rush:

The idea that this makes it real. This is a news organization which participated in the happy count-up to a thousand soldier deaths, 1,500 soldier deaths, 2,000 soldier deaths, that didn't make it real. This makes it real, Bob Woodruff and the ABC cameraman being hurt. This makes it real. The soldiers, ah, that's what they do, they're props, you know, when they die, we can add up the numbers and we can hope to influence policy with this. But, oh, wait a minute, this is real, this is finally real. Our men and women in uniform get hurt every day over there defending freedom. It's been real to all of us since it began. I guess it's a new aspect of journalism. "Well, what we report on, you know, it doesn't really happen until it happens to us, then it's real."

Rush is, I think, being a bit unfair, or at least hyperbolic, as is his way – no one could plausibly claim the press didn't treat the war as "real" until this week. As I discussed yesterday, there are a number of reasons the press has covered the Woodruff injury as they have. But there is some truth in his comments. The question now is whether coverage of the war will in any way change as a result of this "moment," and, more importantly, to what degree the public will follow.

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

12 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

See all 12 Comments


by sanfelz February 1, 2006 7:17 PM EST: Certainly not the "reporters" that the Bush administration pays with taxpayer money to promote failing policies and incompetence.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller February 1, 2006 7:11 PM EST: "There is some truth" to Rush's comments that the press doesn't care about our dying soldiers? Yeah, real "voice of the Democratic party", Mailpro. Sounds more like kowtowing wimps to me. "You're right, Rush, we do hate our soldiers! A bit hyperbolic, but so nice of you to point that out without engaging in the hate speech of the left! (Poor Deborah Howell). Thank you, Rush, May I please have another?"; Reply to this comment


by mailpro56 February 1, 2006 5:48 PM EST: First Christine Amanpour...now Michael Ware from Time Magazine. He calls Bush's speech the 'Big Lie'. Are reporters now the voice of the Democrat Party?; Reply to this comment


by memekiller February 1, 2006 4:23 PM EST: I don't think the media is changing minds on Iraq so much as playing catch up. The public is way ahead of them on this. Here's the flip-side of the coin Limbaugh brings up: If Woodruff hadn't been injured, would he be covering the "good things" going on in Iraq that the "liberal media" won't show you? This is a reminder that reality ought to be respected, even if it doesn't please those in power. It takes having one of your own injured to realize that truth has consequences, and that candy-coating the war isn't doing the public a service. Prettying up the facts on the ground won't change the facts on the ground - no amount of water carrying is going to make Iraq a smashing success and great place to be. You go there, you're likely to get injured or killed. That's reality, and it ought to be reported.; Reply to this comment


by sylny February 1, 2006 3:32 PM EST: Oprah is the Walter Cronkite of our time. Imagine what would happen if she told her TV audience: "We are losing our country and our values. This is not about partisan politics-about whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. This is about corruption, cronyism and gross incompetence. George W. Bush is the worst president in my lifetime. He has flouted the constitution, lied us into a war that cost thousands of lives, weakened our military, undermined our scientific experts, threatened our fiscal solvency, and undercut efforts to stop global warming. As a nation we can do much, much better." Picture Karl Rove and company muttering to themselves: "If we've lost Oprah, is it possible we could lose the nation?" (In the 1960s, after Cronkite advocated on his CBS News program that American troops leave Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly said: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the nation."); Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 February 1, 2006 11:30 AM EST: Bush never made it past the airport on Thanksgiving - remember. He tossed the troops a rubber turkey, someone said "boo", and then "cut and ran back to Laura", like he did on 9-11, when he landed in DC, found out the Pentagon had been hit, had the plane turn around on the runway and take him into hiding, all the while clutching "My Pet Goat." Then Chaney took over because Bush was catatonic. The 9-11 commission documented that the supposed cell phone contact between Bush and Chaney was implausible, because he was dowm in a bunker out of range, but the White House kept that little tidbit out of the report. Bush is fighting this war the same way he fought the Vietnam war - stateside, as a yellow army deserter.; Reply to this comment


by mailpro56 January 31, 2006 10:44 PM EST: Christine Amanpour is in the mold of every 'left wing' Bush hater who walks around with a puss on their face because he is in office. FYI: Bush was in Baghdad in Nov 2003.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 January 31, 2006 10:23 PM EST: Christine Amanpour, in the mold of Colleen Rowley and so many other heroic women in the past five years who have courageously spoken up, while the Great White alpha males of the world's good old boy's network have been conspicuously and obeisantly taciturn, has a hundredfold the moxie and courage of a swaggering, petulant, yellow George Bush, who incidentally, as yet to get up the nerve to step foot in Baghdad, while even Hillary Clinton has faced the enemy on the ground there. And Bush, is supposed to be the comander-in-chief? I'm sure mailpro 56 has a splendid history of derring-do in combat situations. We'd love to hear about it.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 January 31, 2006 10:01 PM EST: Whether Cronkite was the cause of a momentous shift in public opinion or just the one who spoke up about what was already on most people's minds at the point when it became socialy acceptable is an unanswerable question, but like Murtha's liberating comments, it was surely a nation's catharsis that gave permission, and ligitimacy, for everyone else to speak their mind. Had Murtha kept quiet, the Pentagon, Bush, Blair and the rest of the war mongers would not be openly talking about a rapid drawdown in US troops for this year and next. It was Murtha's genuineness and sincerity that swept America off its feet. Swiftboating him is a waste of time, and I know that he could give a *$%@ about a couple of silly purple hearts.; Reply to this comment


by mailpro56 January 31, 2006 9:55 PM EST: Amanpours job is not to comment and editorialize. As for being lame alphaa10 ..."c'est la vie".......dilettante...get over yourself.; Reply to this comment