One of my favorite reporters and interviewers, Mike Wallace, has died. He helped make the CBS program 60 Minutes one of the most popular for decades.
Here is a link that might be useful: Mike Wallace obit
:( I loved him! I didn't realize how old he was!
RIP. He was one of the good reporters of the time when balanced and only verifiable info was worth reporting.
He will be missed. I also am shocked that he was 93.
He was the consummate reporter and interviewer. People cringed when they saw him walk up. Wonderful journalist. I thought about him the other day when I was watching 60 minutes. I knew he had to be pretty old as long as he was in the business. He was still on the show way into his 80's. I wonder what he thought of his son's career. Polar opposites. They don't make them like Mike and Edward R Morrow any more , that's for sure.
His son is the Alfred E. Newman of the news business; even looks a bit like the caricature.
"What me worry!"
The old reporters really aren't being replaced by anyone even nearing the same calibre. What we get now are "personalities".
Fom something called HubPages...
"Today, the era of objective news casting is dead. Gone are the days of Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite who were amazingly admired and respected by the American public for the objective way they delivered the news. Today, we have Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Glen Beck and everyone at CNN who not only fail to deliver the news objectively, but openly state what agenda they are pushing. The corporate news today no longer delivers the facts to allow the public to decide on their own right and wrong, but instead tries to persuade the public to one agenda or the other."
"Newscasters today are too opinionated and biased. Why is this? It is not just because they choose to be this way. It is because the American Public is no longer patient enough to listen through the days events and come to their own conclusion. It is too bad, back then Americans trusted the source of their news as being objective facts. Today, Americans question the newscasters' bias and tend to just look away. With everyone screaming, nobody wants to listen."
Here is a link that might be useful: We report, you decide. Hah
RIP Mike Wallace.
I don't mind Rachel Maddow's opinions and bias.
Rachel Maddow does not claim to be a journalist and when trying to do journalism seems tickled pink for the opportunity. Talking heads are not hired for the journalistic prowess. People have forgotten or are convinced the real journalism must be some sort of scam -- the agendas and biases of the reporters have yet to be exposed. Some of the best journalism and reporting have arisen from strong biases and opinions and senses of morality in exposing the sins of the powerful and corrupt.
Everyone's scuttling like cockroaches... is one line I always associate with Wallace, it must be from a 60 minutes interview from 20 years ago.
An "old school" reporter/journalist who will be sorely missed.
Amen to that. RIP, Mike.
When journalism involved integrity, not entertainment for the "toothpicks" :0
Always liked Mike and respected him. Don't like Chis or respect him.
60 minutes was one of my favorites.
Mike Wallace was a good ole guy. I liked him.
I think I'll always associate him in my memory with the long ago time when he was interviewing Ahmadinejad in Iran. I don't remember the exact context, but Mike was trying to prod and coax Ahmadinejad into answering one of Mike's questions with a line like, "C'mon, Ahmadinejad, be brave and..."
Ahmadinejad got this incredulous look on his face and, with a grin, this man who has likely stared death down countless times asked Mike Wallace, "You want to tell me to be brave."
Stuck with me for some reason.
"The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous," Wallace said in the piece. "He is not interested or capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life, his love life, consists of a series of one-chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits.
Ahhh..... If we all should be so lucky.
When were the gay protests against police brutality and other official indignities?
I don't think I will ever understand what drives people to be deliberately unkind and hurtful to people they don't even know. Maybe it's because they don't know them. None the less it is sad.
Chase, you must be sad a LOT.
This Forum is often peppered with posters lobbing "unkind and hurtful" words at people they don't know. :(
Elvis, while insults and barbs are regularly. tossed from all sides, rarely do I see a deliberately personally hurtful comment.
rarely do I see a deliberately personally hurtful comment
True. Two have had their children insulted.
It was a fight to have a black-listed Pete Seeger appear on national television in that year.
From the article: "I should have known better," he [Mike Wallace] said in 1992.
Wallace also lamented that the report relied, in part, on Charles Socarides, a psychiatrist who felt homosexuality was a mental illness. "That is -- God help us -- what our understanding was of the homosexual lifestyle a mere 25 years ago," Wallace said in a 1996 interview. "Because nobody was out of the closet and because that's what we heard from doctors, that's what Socarides told us -- it was a matter of shame."
Not true. The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis were founded in the 1950s. Harry Hay could have been interviewed but somehow I doubt that a prime-time corporate network show would have aired anything to do with him in 1967. An appearance by straight Pete Seeger was causing enough problems; imagine the uproar for an outspoken radical gay man.
Somebody want to help me out and tell me what Chase and Nancy are talking about?
Your post, then Chase said how sad it was that a person could be so hurtful (Wallace re homos), then I said: "What?!" (basically, I mean look at this group), then Chase said: "No, not us!" Then Nancy rambled a bit (confusing to me), that's about it.
That'a how it looks to me, anyway. You asked ;)
I most certainly did not say no not us! I said that I have seldom seen that type of personally hurtful comment.
...but you know that....
I'm not going to get bogged down with semantics here, Chase; anyone who can read knows what you did and didn't post. I phrased the conversation in my own words; sorry about that. For the record, if this is important to you: No, you did not say "No, not us." So you meant that you rarely notice that sort of behavior on this Forum--okey dokey then.
Whatever you say, Chase. You would naturally pay closer attention to that if the hurtful comments were directed at you in a personal way. You tend to be relatively mild mannered, thus incurring no wrath from the more excitable posters. This is my opinion based upon my observations, and I stand by it.
Chase, I know what you meant, and I'm sure most of the other regulars do as well. More recent arrivals have not spent enough time here to recognize the truth in your comments.
"You tend to be relatively mild mannered, thus incurring no wrath from the more excitable posters. This is my opinion based upon my observations, and I stand by it."
Now that is really funny...stick around!
oooopssss, elvis is in deep doodoo now
Well, if that's true, I'll just go roll around in the veggie garden... ;)
Not until you are first composted
You didn't specify how old it was. If it was leaching out next to the chicken coop all winter, spread out, it might do...doo.
"Chase, I know what you meant, and I'm sure most of the other regulars do as well."
Marshall-Old-wise-one, are you a regular?
Would you tell me how to break the secret code?
I think all of us generally liked and respected Mike Wallace.
Gays have had it difficult and will always have it difficult. That's not going to change. But, to see that Mike Wallace, well-respected and loved Mike Wallace, could have said that sort of thing on TV 45 years ago makes me think that, relatively speaking, the gay community has made some progress in acceptance in these past 45 years.
RIP, Mike. You're still a good man in my eyes.
(This message has a secret meaning that only the regulars will know. Shh....)