Charles Krauthammer has died

An excellent contributor to a plethora of media outlets, truly amazing individual, one of the most relevant commentators of our time. I will miss his insightful and meaningful narratives. RIP, Sir Krauthammer, you always had a strong grasp of the things that mattered.
 
Charles was a thoughtful and articulate man who, according to those who knew him, possessed the rare combination of a serious mind and a light heart.

The thing I respect him most for is his courage.... his courage to overcome a devastating injury that would crush the souls of many of us and the courage to change his mind....which is almost impossible for most of us.
 
He was like the opposite of Hunter S. Thompson (who I adored and was his last interview appointment before his suicide - it never happened) in a good way.
Wonderful and intelligent journalism is becoming harder and harder to come by. I tried, but got hamstrung in 2002 and it's probably for the best. This new, hostile environment is just suffocating on both sides of the fence anymore.

I cry for what the News has become. This planet needs more Krauthammers. Not necessarily people aligning with his beliefs, but the intellectualism, the professionalism and the honesty of him should be encouraged and cultivated.

Not a giant group of shock-jocks talking op-eds and trying to pull it off as real news. That's all it is anymore on every side.

Sigh...
 
Corso said:
....
I cry for what the News has become. This planet needs more Krauthammers. Not necessarily people aligning with his beliefs, but the intellectualism, the professionalism and the honesty of him should be encouraged and cultivated.

Not a giant group of shock-jocks talking op-eds and trying to pull it off as real news. That's all it is anymore on every side.

Sigh...
Click to expand...

I agree. What seems to have happened is that one network (named after an animal) became successful and therefore powerful by making editorial commentary on the news. The other networks copied them, but made little effort to make the distinction between the news and their editorial views. Now the lines are blurred everywhere.

Its sad to see the loss of objectivity by the media. Its even sadder to know that a great many people in our country can't discern the difference between the news and editorial or worse yet, aren't even interested in trying.
 
Silver Surfer said:
I agree. What seems to have happened is that one network (named after an animal) became successful and therefore powerful by making editorial commentary on the news. The other networks copied them, but made little effort to make the distinction between the news and their editorial views. Now the lines are blurred everywhere.

Its sad to see the loss of objectivity by the media. Its even sadder to know that a great many people in our country can't discern the difference between the news and editorial or worse yet, aren't even interested in trying.
Click to expand...
It started a long time ago with 60 Minutes.
It was the very first time networks actually viewed the News as something that made money. They started it. Innocently, or not.
 
Corso said:
It started a long time ago with 60 Minutes.
It was the very first time networks actually viewed the News as something that made money. They started it. Innocently, or not.
Click to expand...

I can see your point about monetizing the news, but that was a weekly special interest show. The 60 minutes crew was an ensemble, and I never got the sense that guys like Steve Crawford were the main draw. It was their stories.

To me, guys like O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity started to become well-known personalities that came on every night, and it seemed their viewers became more interested in them than their stories. That might be due to their frequency of appearance, it might also be due to the fact that their stories didn't change all that much. Once they started racking up the viewership, I think all the other cable companies took notice.

I'm concerned this thread will devolve into politics shortly, so I'm going to limit my statements from here on out.

In any case, I was always interested in Charles Krauthammer's opinion on politics and world affairs, and I'm saddened by his passing.
 
Silver Surfer said:
I can see your point about monetizing the news, but that was a weekly special interest show. The 60 minutes crew was an ensemble, and I never got the sense that guys like Steve Crawford were the main draw. It was their stories.

To me, guys like O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity started to become well-known personalities that came on every night, and it seemed their viewers became more interested in them than their stories. That might be due to their frequency of appearance, it might also be due to the fact that their stories didn't change all that much. Once they started racking up the viewership, I think all the other cable companies took notice.

I'm concerned this thread will devolve into politics shortly, so I'm going to limit my statements from here on out.

In any case, I was always interested in Charles Krauthammer's opinion on politics and world affairs, and I'm saddened by his passing.
Click to expand...
60 Minutes was the very first moment in TV history that news became profitable.
Local news from local stations were a service, not a money maker.

Trust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 4,838 (members: 237, guests: 4,601)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,613
Messages
13,822,114
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top