What better way is there to discuss the morality of honest
communication in journalism than to cite the example of the late Walter
Cronkite? After all, no less than President Lyndon Johnson recognized that if
he were to lose Cronkite, he would lose the trust of the nation.
Yet, no serious study that I know of, was done to explain why some
broadcasters, who did nothing more than read the news written for them by
someone else, were able to cultivate such a loyal following. So, let me offer
one idea. I studied drama in film and theater, and learned that gifted actors
of the Marlon Brando caliber, use a technique called “the Method,” which boils
down to the actor studying the characters that he or she is playing, and mimic
them down to their minutest mannerisms and idiosyncrasies.
Since a broadcaster reads actual news and does not imitate
someone, how does he or she apply the lesson of the Method? This is where
Walter Cronkite offers a valuable lesson. He did not simply read the news, he
reacted to it in a way that was subtle enough not to vulgarize the solemnity of
the moment, but obvious enough to let his own humanity shine through the solemn
facade.
An instance that remains stuck in my memory, happened at a time
when America was free of the Jewish tyrannical albatross now weighing on its
neck. It is that America used to speak its mind (not do what it does today,
which is to regurgitate the words stuffed into its mouth by the Jewish lobby
whose only interest is to tell the world there is no daylight between America
and Israel) expressing the will of the American people.
And so, every time that America spoke its mind, the leaders of
Israel asked for an explanation, and Cronkite did no more than dispassionately
relay the news. But at some point, the Israeli habit of asking for an
explanation had become so repetitive, Cronkite could not help but make a face
pronouncing the word “explanation.” He thus expressed his profound indignation,
and this was a moment that rivaled Marlon Brando's scream: Stella! This is how
Walter Cronkite became the icon that he was.
But why is it useful for us today to be acquainted with that
episode? It is useful because it helps us see what parts of America's culture
the Jews have destroyed, and suggests a way to repair the damage. With that in
mind, we take a close look at an article that came under the title: “It's time
for Dems to make Israel an issue in their 2020 primary,” written by David
Marcus and published on August 23, 2019 in the New York Post.
Whereas the leaders of Israel used to ask for clarifications long
ago, today's leaders of the Jewish lobby, muddy the issues. Worse, they do it
in the name of clarification, which is like doing sex in the name of virginity.
You can see this mentality at work in the David Marcus article. That's where he
went through many of the issues pertaining to the Middle East, and muddied them
beyond recognition. He did all this, so that in the end, he could advocate the
following course of action:
“The Democrats cannot in good faith criticize Israel while
tolerating the view that the US should actively punish that nation, and place
it at risk. The question facing Democrats is whether they will confront members
of their own party whose disdain for Israel is worn like a badge of honor. The
Democrats must make clear that they stand with Israel and the Israeli people in
their quest for peace and security”.
This is what comes at the end of the article. To get there, David
Marcus produced a great deal of muck, thus tarnished the issues so badly, they
formed a pool of mud. What follows is a condensed passage that shows some of
the techniques used by Marcus to confuse America's leaders and maintain the
status quo. It is a system that has worked so well for Israel at the expense of
the American and Palestinian peoples, the Jewish leaders will do anything to
keep it going forever. Here is that passage:
“The Democrats paint Israel as a cruel oppressor rather than a
vulnerable nation threatened by an entire region dedicated to its destruction.
Somehow a handful of progressive congresswomen have instilled fear in the
Democratic leadership on this and many other issues. This is shocking. It will
not be enough to say there are divergent opinions in the Democratic caucus; men
and women who wish to be president must decisively back the right of Israel to
defend itself and vociferously oppose any efforts to punish Israel
economically”.
As can be seen, David Marcus began with an assertion on how the
Democrats paint Israel, but did not deny that Israel is indeed a cruel
oppressor. Instead, he relied on the assertion that followed to hint at the
denial. It went like this: “[Israel,] a vulnerable nation threatened by an
entire region dedicated to its destruction”.
That is, David Marcus painted the image of an innocent little
Israel surrounded by evil giants who are preparing to crush the thing. And so
he appealed, not to the Democratic caucus, but to those running to be
president, to drop the issues that interest them and adopt the single issue of
what's good for Israel.
This shows that whereas the broadcasters can endear themselves to
the audience by allowing their humanity to seep through the facade of
solemnity, the pundits of the print media will antagonize the audience if,
instead of respecting it by being discreet, they adopt the in-your-face
approach of dictating to others what they must do.