[kendo65]

Originally Posted by jimson8

The above statement is biased as it ascribes motives based on opinion, but the press as advocate began a long time prior to 1987..

The Reagan administration ending the requirement for balanced coverage is verifiable fact. The argument quoted is the reason given for implementing the change. "wealthy media owners should be able to have their organizations say what they damn well want" is my opinion of what it in effect meant.

Press advocacy did begin long ago. The question is whether it is necessarily a good thing and whether removing an obligation for balance is going to make the situation better or worse.

Originally Posted by jimson8

It wasn't Walter Cronkite's place to declare the Vietnam war unwinnable in 1968.

History now tells us that the Tet offensive was a rather large military defeat, rendering the Viet Cong southern insurgency, combat ineffective. What militarily could have been a turning point for victory became politically, a turning point for failure.

Few would now disagree that the venture was a huge mistake from the beginning, but Cronkite had a huge amount of influence on the public and wasn't really qualified to make such a statement.

On Cronkite - true, in that by my argument he was crossing the boundary. I would say that in his particular case it was very much presented as a 'comment' piece. Such was his authority that it carried a lot of influence (too much). I would say that the direction of travel in the intervening years has been such that the situation has got much worse now though.

Also, does 'history show' what you say it shows? Note that the question about that moment in the Vietnam war is definitely a Class 2 one - it's not absolute indisputable fact in the same (simple) way that number of legs on a chair is - i.e. people could disagree with your interpretation.

Originally Posted by jimson8

The press can and does agree on tables that have 4 legs, but the majority of "news" is more subjective.

Most of the 'interesting' stuff is anyway

The tables thing was just an easy example - main point was a lot of stuff is not just down to one's personal opinion which was where you seemed to be in your post.

Also, it can be difficult to know where exactly fact ends and opinion begins - and if your news media is distorting the situation from the very beginning it can be impossible.

----edit: rewritten for clarity and to expand some points