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."

I don't mind Rachel Maddow's opinions and bias.

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.

Hay

Ahhh..... If we all should be so lucky.

Hay

When were the gay protests against police brutality and other official indignities?

This Forum is often peppered with posters lobbing "unkind and hurtful" words at people they don't know. :(

Right?

True. Two have had their children insulted.

1967

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.

Hay

That'a how it looks to me, anyway. You asked ;)

...but you know that....

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.

Moving on...

Now that is really funny...stick around!

Marshall-Old-wise-one, are you a regular?

Would you tell me how to break the secret code?

Thanks.

Hay

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....)

Hay