The general sense - usually voiced as veiled criticism - is that Cronkite didn't come out against the war until the rest of the country had. In fact, Cronkite never saw his role to come out "against" anything - but to report what he saw or learned. What he saw and learned on a trip to the country in 1967 was inescapable, and he said as much in this famous commentary, which aired outside the confines of "Evening News."

Was he an early "booster" in private? That's what some critics have said, but there's evidence to the contrary as well. Here's an early interview with JFK, a couple of months before his death. On the jump, historian Douglas Brinkley says Cronkite was against the war long before his '68 declaration.

My question: Could any single anchor, critic, or news organization have changed the course of this tragic history?

Brinkley on the Vietnam question...

Watch CBS Videos Online

Here's a clip that didn't make the tributes: Johnny's own particularly fond farewell to Cronkite, on the eve of his last broadcast for the "CBS Evening News" in 1981. Take a look...unforgettable...one legend does another legend...

As mentioned this morning, I wanted to give the few readers who happened by today - the eve of Cronkite's funeral tomorrow - a quick flavor for his style, work, approach and (above all) professionalism. Here's the April 4 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. assassination broadcast, notable for a few things.

First, Cronkite is - as always - straight ahead, matter if fact, and completely unemotional, which pretty much characterized his style the day of JFK's murder.

Second, he reads from a paper, eschewing a TelePrompter for reasons I can't begin to explain. I believe the TelePrompter had been invented by 1968 (and in fact, originated in the 1950s) though may not have been in widespread use. Or perhaps it's possible Cronkite saw the device as a frivolity, or (worse) something that would inject artifice into a broadcast where no artifice was welcome.

He did embrace it, eventually, and I've posted his opening of the 1979 broadcast on the Three Mile Island disaster. In the space of a decade, Cronkite's style had morphed from a just-the-facts to a just-the-facts with a little more oomph and rhythm.

Third, and - oh yes - there's this observation too, from Andrew Tyndall, w ho did a content analysis of Cronkite's broadcasts from '68 (he wrote this up a decade later). Says Andrew, a respected news content analyst: "To a modern sensibility, the television news of Cronkite's time seems ponderous, unidimensional, monotonously male--almost unwatchable. To a modern ear, accustomed to the noisy skepticism of the White House press corps, icons of television journalism, such as Marvin Kalb, sound timid and uncritical."

As you watch the MLK open, it's helpful to realize that perhaps as many as 30 million people were watching. For many of those, this may have been the first they had heard...

object width="425" height="344">

And the TMI broadcast...

Here's what I love about the Internet: You can watch Jay Leno's set get built, to the accompaniment of crickets.

I mean, when else in the history of communications could you have watched Jay Leno's set get built?

Go right here, right now for something that will both excite and stupefy at the same time. (Is that guy wandering by Jay? or the do-nut delivery man?) I think there are quite literally some bugs with this though: I get a sound effect on my machine which sounds suspiciously like deranged crickets.

Meanwhile, NBC launched Jay's new site today. There's much to explore. Go now before the crickets attack...

Meanwhile, here's Jay...

Remember "Cronkite Remembers?" It was sort of the TV companion to Cronkite's Knopf bio, and aired on Discovery. Well...TDC is re-airing this Sunday. The details: "...features the esteemed veteran journalist Walter Cronkite as he takes a retrospective look at events in world history, primarily in the 20th century. He gives a personal account of the last seven decades, mixing film, still pictures, videotape, music, artifacts, and anecdotes. Eight episodes are the Early Years, World War 2, The Cold War, Television and Politics, Vietnam and Civil Rights,
Man on the Moon, The Seventies, Summing Up." Starts at 11 a.m.

Alec B on Jimmy F last night.

You missed?

Click away...

And more more more....

Here's was/is Meredith's "Today" interview, which is a substantially abbreviated version, I gather, of the forthcoming one on "AGT:"

Dave Matthews Band on "Late Show with Dave," 'twas just announced. Check 'em out July 27 and Friday, July 31. Per "LS:" "On the broadcasts, the band will perform songs from their latest hit release, Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King. Additionally, Dave Matthews will sit down for an interview with Letterman on Monday, July 27, the night of the band's first performance that week."

Ah, "Melrose Place." On the air again, this fall, but what will the freshened up old tart look like?

Do not ask, but watch: The CW sent these new promos out, and here they are...

Been a lot written and posted over the last few days, though what I will do here is dig just a little bit deeper and (if and where possible) go back to the United Press days too. But mostly, let's just stick to TV here, and go to some of the landmark events that Cronkite covered.

If you are too young to remember the guy, and he hasn't been on TV as an employed anchorman for nearly 30 years, than I'm hoping you might find some of this of interest. Not to be trite, my friends, but it was a profoundly different time and place. TV news was still nascent, while the major news force in the U.S. remained print, though the eclipse had begun in earnest on Nov. 22, 1963.

You'll look at Cronkite and maybe wonder, "eh, what's the big deal? He was doing his job." Yup, he was, but he did it with a rock-solid professional absent any emotional or political baggage. This was - you should also realize - the man most people were looking to for their news.

So let's step back. The first is the well-thumbed look at the JFK coverage. I post this extended version because it negates that old saw that Walter wiped away tears when he reported the news of the death. In fact, he notes the death via unofficial sources at least two or three times in this report. No emotion. Just the facts as he knew them.

On the jump: The first clip is interesting because this is the first instance CBS broke in at 1:40 with news of the shots fired, at about 1:40 p.m. Cronkite's reporting from a radio booth somewhere in the Graybar building because the TV camera needed to warm up. I've also got Eddie Barker's first reports. Eddie was a CBS stringer, and Cronkite cites his reporting...

And Barker's reporting...

Good Lord, out a week and a few days and all heck breaks loose on the "AI" front.

Paula Abdul hires a new agent who calls up the Los Angeles Times to say, "sadly, it does not appear Paula will be back next season..."

Or words to that effect. "Sadly" was definitely used, and presumably the agent had a straight face when he said this.

So, gang. Let's break this down, in the easiest way possible. Via the trusty question and answer format.

Is Paula really "gone?"

No, or highly unlikely. Agents - I learned from "Entourage" - have been known to either stretch the truth, or disfigure it so completely as to be beyond recognizable. Also, weasel words were employed - "does not appear." This phrase could be inserted into just about any statement you could think of, and it would be equally meaningless. Sadly, it does not appear the moon is made of green cheese. Sadly, it does not appear the Jets will win the Super Bowl next year. Sadly, it does not appear Simon Cowell will stop wearing t-shirts.

Why is Paula, poor Paula, unhappy?

Because the network/Dr. Evil/19 Entertainment already sealed Ryan Seacrest's deal for $15 million a year. They probably did that because Paula wanted $20 mill - so says Radar - and figured they could at least set the bar with RyCrest. But that feisty old girl wasn't going to be dissuaded from her $20 mill payday; she fired the old agent, hired the new one, who called up the LATimes, and said that sadly, Paula's feeling were hurt.

Why is Fox, 19 Entertainment, Dr. Evil, et al, throwing all this money around?

Because they are afraid. They are afraid that the formula that's kept this thing going is fraying at the seams. They are afraid that viewers now realize the whole voting process is a fraud. They are afraid because teens wouldn't be caught dead watching "Idol" any more. They are afraid because only old people - "old" meaning the over 30 crowd - seem to actually still care. They are afraid because they know the best singer didn't win this season. They are afraid because they know Simon is gonna go soon, and there's nothing they can do about it. They are afraid because they know there is absolutely no way in heaven or in hell that an aging franchise can be restored to its former luster. They are afraid because their bag of tricks is rapidly depleting. So what do fearful producers and suppliers do? They throw money at what they believe are the "sure bets" - the stuff that represents continuity, or presumed viewer interest, or what they think is the rock-solid part of the formula that should be kept intact.

Is it good to be fearful?

No, it's bad to be fearful. Big bucks of this magnitude given to the judges is something, I suspect, akin to an early death rattle. Whenever a show - any show you can name or think of - begins to cave in to exorbitant salary demands, then this is what might be called a "last resort" strategy. Let me put it this way - in three years time, you aren't going to treble RyCrest's salary again, are you? He would then be making $45 mill per year - on a show where the ratings had continued to decline and in an industry (television) where advertising dollars had continued to be drained to new media, and where viewership continued to fragment. All Fox/Dr.Evil/19 Entertainment is doing is buying time, and a very brief window of time at that.

So, will Paula get her dough?

Of course, though I'm guessing close to 15 or a slight increase over RyCrest to assuage her ego. SiCo wants her back because he doesn't want to see this franchise - which he has a considerable financial stake in - crash and burn just as he negotiates his own new deal with Fox, which will almost certainly include new projects and maybe even "The X Factor."
But consider this: They can't give Paula TOO much of a hike over RyCrest or Randy, because if they did, those two would be furious and demand that their contracts be re-negotiated. In other words, Fox et al are tied to about $135 million in judge/host commitments over the next three years whether they like it or not - and that doesn't begin to include SiCo.
You can now see how great hits contain the seeds of their own demise...

Oh, would "AI" crash without Paula?

As fond as I am of the dear girl - as fond as I am of all of them, including RyCrest - no. Life would go on. It might accelerate the inevitable decline and fall though. And after reading this far into this post, you now know what the inevitable is. But the chemistry of this foursome works (Kara simply does not) and if you had your druthers...

What should Fox et al do?

Ah, that's fodder for another post...

Here's a "highlight:"

KING: Where is -- where is Michael's body?

JACKSON: I don't know. You'd have to ask somebody that knows. I don't know. All I know is that...

KING: You're the father.

JACKSON: I was at the memorial and where they took him from there, I have to find out. I'll let you know later, Larry.

KING: OK. But as the father, one would think you would have the most imminent right to know.

JACKSON: I do have that right. But I'm not talking about that right now.

[Question not asked by LK last night: Do you know ANYTHING Joe?]

Back, gang, to sober news: The death of an old and cherished acquaintance.

Sorry for this late post, but due to circumstances beyond my immediate control - I have been away and the good people at Newsday.com are undertaking a major overhaul that should result in a beautiful and substantially enriched site but requires key adjustments in blogging - I am just now getting to Cronkite's death in this space.

What more to be said about Cronkite that has not been said already? (If you care to read, I've posted my appreciation for the Sunday paper on the jump.) Possibly just a personal aside. I've known Cronkite as a TV beat reporter for a little over twenty years, and first met him at a TV conference in Cannes back in '88 (or was it '87? Cronkite would chide me if I got the date wrong.) We shared a few bottles of wine under a warm Riviera sun, and basking in the glow of a seasonably warm day and Cronkite's perfect recall of years gone by and old stories both famous and obscure, I fancied I had died and gone to some sort of wonderfully unexpected heaven for reporters. This was Walter Cronkite sitting before me - not a TV icon but a figure of human dimension who affected little to no regard for his illustrious past.

We maintained a friendly relationship for years - though never as source-to-reporter (Walter really had no idea what was going on inside CBS after he left, in part because he didn't want to know and in part because the new power structure, controlled by Dan Rather, made sure he was kept out of the loop.)

In fact, Walter was - many believe - the key source for some reporters during the big boardroom brawls of the mid-80s, when Ted Turner tried to take over CBS, then Larry Tisch fooled the board into letting him control the company. (Cronkite was a board member.) Tisch was a disaster, gutted CBS News, and earned the enmity of Walter. That last bit is pure supposition - I never heard Cronkite say a negative word about Tisch, but I'm reasonably certain Tisch came to despise the great Cronkite.

But I digress. I wrote stories about Cronkite. Reviewed his occasional specials. Reviewed his book, too and - if my recollection is correct on this matter - encouraged him to write it. (I wasn't the only one - everyone told Walter to just write the damn book for Knopf but everyone suspected he was having too much fun in retirement to subject himself to the torture or suspected he was afraid he wouldn't come off sufficiently distinguished in the accounting of his own life; whatever the reason, the book was finally written.)

I learned many things about Cronkite over the years.

He loved Manhattans (that's a drink, BTW).

He loved people, especially young people.

He was generous with his stories and his time.

He loved car racing (and did race, to CBS's great chagrin) and boats, and sailing, and CBS, and CBS News, and his cherished colleagues there, and Martha's Vineyard, and his children, and his wife Betsy - who was truly the power behind Cronkite - and New York, and good wine, and good food, and his fame, and science, and NASA, and the country, and Democrats (Republicans less so). He loved to be recognized on the streets, and he was everywhere.

Mostly, he just loved life. I think that was Cronkite's great and not so-well hidden secret - that life is a great and joyous adventure, and best to live it as if it were the most thrilling movie you had ever seen, except for the extremely wonderful fact that you were actually the STAR of it.

Walter - I guess he wouldn't mind if I just called him "Walter" now - was a wonderful human being. I miss him already and always will.

(Getty)

Walter Cronkite was yoked to a terrible burden, or he joked that he was. Even years after he left "The CBS Evening News," polls would continue to insist that he was "the most trusted man in America," to which the most trusted man would scoff: "Polls! They must not have polled my wife."

He trotted the old line out almost reflexively whenever the "trust" subject came up, but secretly he was pleased, of course. Who, after all, was trusted in public life following the '60s or the '70s? Yet those decades - of war and assassination and Watergate and so much else - were also Cronkite's decades.

What, then, was his secret?

Besides an almost ruthless professionalism - dedicated to the simple and obvious proposition that there are at least two sides to every story and that as top anchorman you should damn well make sure you get the facts exactly right when you report those - he was lucky.

Cronkite flourished at a time when there were two major networks - 21/2 for those wishing to count long-anemic ABC. Every weeknight, many millions of Americans sat down in their living rooms, turned on their TVs at 7 sharp and watched Walter Cronkite. It's estimated he had 20 million viewers per night in his heyday, or more than double today's leader, "NBC Nightly News," which has about 8.1 million viewers. Also take into account that there were 35 percent fewer Americans then - about 225 million in 1979, compared to about 306 million now.

When Cronkite closed by saying, "That's the way it is," few if any quibbled with the assessment. That must have been the way it was. Walter said so.

When he told them that a president had been shot, or a civil rights leader slain, they wept. When he told them a man had stepped on the moon, they were elated. When he told them - during a prime-time special outside the confines of "Evening News," which he refused to taint with his own musings - that the Vietnam War had become a terrible and tragic burden, he was telling most viewers something they probably already knew. But the fact that Cronkite said so had suddenly made the burden even worse. Not coincidentally, Lyndon Baines Johnson declined to run for a second term shortly afterward.

Cronkite was lucky because he arrived at a precise place and time when there were just three networks and most people did seem reasonably content to get most of their news from just one - CBS. He was lucky because he lived through such tumultuous times, lucky that he had the skills and resourcefulness to report momentous events without drama or histrionics.

He was lucky, too, to become a household name. There were other first-rank anchormen, too (David Brinkley), but Cronkite was the anchorman, as if he were some sort of exemplar that was permanently retired when he decided to retire. In a way, it was. There were other great late-night entertainers besides Johnny Carson or other great TV comediennes besides Lucille Ball, too, but for the three decades or so that they were around, it was sometimes hard to say exactly who those others were.

But mostly we were the lucky ones. He represented something that no longer exists - the hegemony of the networks and the all-knowing and all-seeing anchor.

How lucky, then, were we that the man who held such power happened to be Walter Cronkite?