It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Remember that media freedom is basically a good thing for the U.S., as is its adversarial relationship to government -- but not at any cost.
originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: FlyingFox
I took Walter Cronkite seriously. He was a legitimate newsman. He presented the news. Period.
N o p e .
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: LanceCorvette
Walter Cronkite is the voice of the owl at the Bohemian Grove.
Television was never what they told us it was
In the early history of TV, there is a single day’s television that will always be imprinted on popular memory: the Queen’s coronation, televised 60 years ago this week
But those millions of living-room television parties nearly didn’t happen at all. In 1952, a Coronation Commission, chaired by Prince Philip, had ruled that the Westminster Abbey ceremony would not be televised, the sole concession being to allow cameras west of the organ screen so that the processions could be seen.
For others, the organ screen defended precious tradition from the pernicious instincts of mass voyeurism. In this camp was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, who told reporters in 1952, “The world would have been a happier place if television had never been discovered.”
The news that the coronation would be fully televised increased the pressure to make television truly national, for at this time many on the country’s fringes and coastlines couldn’t receive it.
In our national folk memory, the coronation is usually seen as the moment when television was instantly transformed from a primitive, minority activity into a sophisticated mass medium. Last year, I even heard Chris Evans on The One Show suggesting to an interviewee that “the Queen saved television” – that without her coronation, the medium would never have taken off.