Cronkite

So the drudgereport.com says "Cronkite: Dan should have stepped down long time ago."

I feel sorry for people who get all their news from Matt. That's just a flat out lie. Go to the source people!

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's going to be hard to find anybody who is going to be as much liked and appreciated and does such a job as Bob Schieffer. I think he's one of the great television journalists of our time. And he was a good journalist when he came to television from Fort Worth [Texas].

He is, to my mind, the man who, quite frankly -- although Dan did a fine job -- I would like to have seen him there a long time ago. He would have given the others a real run for their money.

BLITZER: Better than Dan Rather would have done? Because he was perennially in third place in the ratings behind Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

CRONKITE: Well, that's certainly true. And it's quite a tribute to him that he -- that CBS held on to him so long under those circumstances. It surprised quite a few people at CBS and elsewhere that, without being able to pull up the ratings beyond third in a three-man field, that they tolerated his being there for so long.

BLITZER: So, you would have been happier if Bob Schieffer would have replaced Dan Rather a while ago?

CRONKITE: I would have thought so, certainly -- if not Bob, someone else.

...later...

BLITZER: Do you sense right now that being the anchor of a major broadcast network is the same as it was when you were the chief anchor at CBS News? In other words, has the situation changed now given the Internet, cable news, all the various ways that people are getting their information?

CRONKITE: Yes, Wolf. It's turned -- it's over on its head. It is vastly different.

When I was there, we -- the three traditional networks, NBC, ABC and CBS -- we shared 100 percent, practically, of the audience. There were just maybe 98 percent or 99 percent of the audience, we had every night. That other half a percentage or 1 percent were the few independent stations in the country. We had no other competition.

Today, of course, we've got all of these other channels that are competing. And, actually, the traditional networks are sharing down around 50 percent of the audience, which is still remarkably high, considering all of the excellent competition they have with such networks as yours.

Maybe it's just me, but why do I feel like Cronkite is making it sound like a bad thing that 3 people no longer control what news everyone in the country sees?

...finally...

BLITZER: What would you do if you had your way? What would you advise all the broadcast news organizations to do right now?

CRONKITE: Give news a little more time and don't request that they also, in their news time, entertain. We're not entertainers. We're journalists. And we need more time to do our job well.

I think he took a shot at Fox News. But even if he didn't, he certainly took a shot at the Daily Show. Funny too because I feel like i can watch 20 minutes of the Daily Show and know more of what's going on in the world than if I watch an hour of Larry King. So I guess you can come to two conclusions: A) Cronkite is wrong --entertainment and news DO go together, or B) the news media is so bad that they actually make Comedy Central's Daily Show look good.

My money is on A).