Dan Abrams: Frank Rich Fails in Comparing Wikileaks to Pentagon Papers

FEATURE CLE: MEDIA AND THE COURTROOM

CLE Credit: 1.0 Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:25 p.m. - 2:25 p.m. Exhibit Hall I Northern Kentucky Convention Center Covington, Kentucky

A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS

The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority.

Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237

Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Presenter ...... i

Political Hypocrisy on Recess Appointments Is Predictable; Media Hypocrisy, Indefensible ...... 1

Casey Anthony Coverage: Less Dangerous than Political Reporting ...... 5

Elena Kagan: Way Too Boring for Scandal-Starved Media...... 7

The Unedited Truth: Why MSNBC Re-Airs 9/11 Coverage ...... 9

Dan Abrams: Frank Rich Fails in Comparing WikiLeaks to Pentagon Papers ...... 11

Cronkite Coverage that Might Make Cronkite Cringe ...... 13

THE PRESENTER

Dan Abrams ABC News New York, New York

DAN ABRAMS is an attorney, author, Legal Analyst for ABC News, and substitute anchor for Good Morning America. Born in Manhattan, his father is Floyd Abrams, the renowned First Amendment attorney. Dan Abrams was named Nightline anchor and Chief Legal Affairs anchor for ABC News in June 2013.

Before joining ABC News in 2011, he worked at NBC for fifteen years as a reporter for NBC's Nightly News, host on MSNBC, and Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News. From 2006 to late 2007, he served as General Manager of MSNBC, where he presided over a period of unprecedented growth, with ratings and profits each increasing well over 50 percent during his tenure. During that time, he was also a member of the NBC Universal President's Council.

Prior to joining NBC News, he worked as a reporter for Court TV where he became well known for his coverage of the OJ Simpson case. He covered most of the high profile trials of that decade including the International War Crimes Tribunal from The Netherlands, and the assisted-suicide trials of Dr. Jack Kevorkian from Michigan. His first job was working as an intern for the Manhattan Borough president.

Dan Abrams is probably best known for hosting the programs Verdict with Dan Abrams and The Abrams Report as well as his coverage of the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court battles (where he was one of the first reporters to correctly interpret the opinion).

He is the founder and former CEO of the Abrams Media Network, which includes eight popular websites: Mediaite, a media news website; Geekosystem, covering tech and geek culture; Styleite, which covers beauty and fashion; Sportsgrid, which follows sports and sports-related media; Gossip Cop, which monitors false reporting in the celebrity gossip industry; The Mary Sue, a site for female "geeks"; The Jane Dough, devoted to young women in business, media, and other fields; and The Braiser, focused on the personalities and lifestyles of world-renowned chefs. Together the Abrams Media Network serves close to 17 million unique visitors per month.

A graduate of Columbia University Law School, Abrams is a recognized writer. He has published articles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Yale Law and Policy Review, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast and Mediaite, among many others. He is also the legal columnist for Men's Health magazine.

In March 2011 Abrams published his first book, Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers and Just About Everything Else.

ii POLITICAL HYPOCRISY ON RECESS APPOINTMENTS IS PREDICTABLE; MEDIA HYPOCRISY, INDEFENSIBLE Dan Abrams 5:01 p.m., January 29, 2013

Last week the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ignited a new round of predictable, hypocritical mudslinging with a ruling which declared President Obama's "recess appointments" unconstitutional.

Recess appointments of top federal officials were envisioned by the Constitution, and Presidents since George Washington have used them, some more regularly than others. (Interestingly, President Washington appointed a judge as Chief Justice during a congressional recess in 1795; the Senate later rejected the nomination and the judge attempted suicide.)

Article Two Section Two of the Constitution reads: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." This exception was not created so Presidents could ignore the consent role of the Senate, but rather based on the practical realities of the Senate schedule. The legal question here: what does it mean to be "in recess"?

Knowing that Republicans in the Senate objected, President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three others to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate was not officially "in session." Republicans had attempted to thwart these sorts of appointments by ensuring the Senate was never technically in "recess" (as Democrats had done to President Bush) by holding "pro forma" sessions every few days where a handful of members, usually those who live nearby, meet for a few minutes or even seconds and bang a gavel or two.

President Obama ignored what he viewed as the sham sessions and made the appointments anyway under the assumption that these sessions were not legally enforceable. The court in Noel Canning v. NLRB disagreed, unanimously ruling that "an interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement." Many Democrats blasted the opinion, while most Republicans celebrated it as a limitation on President Obama's future ability to install controversial nominees.

All to be expected.

The reality, of course, is that no matter what one thinks of Presidential recess appointments, these days they are often a clear and unambiguous effort to circumvent the Constitutional requirement of Senate approval. From John Bolton and William H. Pryor, Jr. under President Bush to Richard F. Griffin, Jr. and Richard Cordray under President Obama, the appointments were made while the Senate was on a break (officially or not is the subject of dispute), and as a result of the controversy surrounding the candidates, not on some urgent need to move forward with the appointment. It is clearly being used as a Constitutional end run.

1 Partisans bicker over who was worse: President Bush used them more often and with higher level positions, Democrats say, while Republicans argue President Obama took it to a new level by making these appointments while the Senate remained officially in "session." Still others debate whether President Obama has been hypocritical based on his response to President Bush appointing Bolton.

As a practical matter, of course, the use of recess appointments to avoid the necessity of seeking Senate confirmation is always more than a bit mischievous. While it is true that all recess appointments are not created equal – some far more radical than others, the fundamental purpose behind the controversial ones remains the same: to avoid allowing the Senate to weigh in. So one would hope that while the politicians repeat the hackneyed defenses or attacks, the best in the media would call it what it is in all these cases: a ruse. Alas, this case demonstrates that even our most venerable institutions like The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are too often as politicized as the public officials they cover – and mock.

The Wall Street Journal regularly supported President Bush's right to use the recess appointments in 2005, saying: "Mr. Bush now faces crocodile shouts of outrage for having bypassed the Senate, but the appointment is an entirely appropriate use of his constitutional authority to staff the government."

Yet when President Obama utilized it, they coined it Contempt for Congress, writing: "Eager to pick a fight with Congress as part of his re-election campaign, Mr. Obama did the Constitutional equivalent of sticking a thumb in its eye and hitting below the belt. He installed Richard Cordray as the first chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and named three new members to the National Labor Relations Board. He did so even though the Senate was in pro forma session after the new Congress convened this week."

But even the Journal editors offer a hint that they don't quite buy the legal distinction of the "Pro Forma" Senate: "Some lawyers we respect argue that a pro forma session isn't a real Congressional session, and that's certainly worth debating."

Later, they present the true nature of their objection which isn't legal, but purely political:

"As Ohio Attorney General, Mr. Cordray was tight with the tort bar and launched a barrage of national lawsuits worthy of Eliot Spitzer. His new job might be a nice populist springboard for running for Ohio Governor, should he choose to do so. Look for Mr. Cordray to announce new and controversial rules or enforcement actions, oh, say, around Labor Day."

They continued, "These appointments are brazen enough that they have the smell of a deliberate, and politically motivated, provocation… (U)nder this Administration, the supposedly nonpartisan NLRB has become a partisan arm of Big Labor, and that will probably continue this election year."

At least the Journal admitted they had previously supported recess appointments and rest their distinction on a legal technicality that they agree is "worth debating." The New York Times makes no such reference or acknowledgment and, consequently, engage in what is even more clearly rank hypocrisy.

2 In 2006, their editorial page argued: "It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses. Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments – a constitutional gimmick…"

What was gimmick for President Bush, according to the Times, is cheer-worthy under President Obama. On January 4, the editorial page argued, "Nearly six months after it opened its doors, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finally has a director, after President Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray… Mr. Obama also appointed three new and qualified members to the National Labor Relations Board… Announcing the appointments, Mr. Obama also asserted a welcome new credo: 'When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.' Hear. Hear."

The Times' effort at distinguishing Democrats using precisely the same technique is even more tortured:

"Although Democrats also used "pro forma" sessions for this purpose under President George W. Bush, Republicans have blocked Mr. Obama's appointments at a far higher rate, and they have gone much further by trying to shut down executive agencies through use of the filibuster."

They did it worse! The Times may be right about that, but how does that change the underlying appropriateness of the maneuver? We almost expect political leaders to switch positions when convenient, but the best in media (in theory) are supposed to be holding them accountable, not holding their water.

We often hear about the divisive and partisan nature of cable news, but it seems our most hallowed news organizations are no better at placing principle over politics.

4 CASEY ANTHONY COVERAGE: LESS DANGEROUS THAN POLITICAL REPORTING Dan Abrams 12:27 p.m., July 11, 2011

I am rarely accurate with prognostications or predictions but I am feeling pretty confident about two things: 1) there will be another high-profile trial in the not too distant future, like Casey Anthony's, that will capture the attention of the nation and the media; and 2) it will be followed by the hand-wringing and utter despair about the future of media that trail every high profile case. In fact, there is no surer way to be the belle of your media critic's ball than to blast the Casey Anthony media coverage. From hackneyed assertions that "it's not journalism," to characterizations of it as "merchandising in tragedy," to the populist position that it's "just entertainment," the Anthony coverage, like so many trials before it, serves as the ultimate media scapegoat.

Despite the fact that I covered the story as much as almost anyone (well no, since I do not work for HLN), I'm not going to defend the amount of coverage, nor claim that the future of the Republic somehow rests on the shoulders of the trial of a twenty-something year-old accused and now acquitted, child killer. Yes, high profile trials can be riveting and I believe they do lead to a better understanding of our third branch of government, but there's no question they are covered at the expense of far more important issues like the economy, Libya, the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, etc.

No, this case, and the spectacle trials before it, are the sorts of stories many are too sheepish to admit they are closely following, much less actively covering. HLN saw huge ratings increases, but they won't be seeing any industry accolades for that coverage. In fact, HLN and star host Nancy Grace have now become piñatas for "real" (a.k.a capital J) journalists, and those attempting to ingratiate themselves with the folks who take the proverbial bat to trial coverage.

As for Nancy Grace, she and I went head to head for almost six weeks every morning on Good Morning America. I agreed with her some of the time, and disagreed with her at least as often. Did I think her reference to Casey Anthony as "tot mom" was silly? Sure. But Nancy was honest about her position on the case and while she can be over the top, her take was based in the facts as she saw them. That transparency allows viewers to decide if they believe she is responding like a mother or a "monster."

But there is a far bigger problem here. Many of the most outspoken critics (amateur and professional) of the Anthony coverage are the very same people who relish intensive political coverage. They spend hours upon hours on discussion and analysis of who is up or down – who is running or who is not, and who made the most egregious gaffe that day. Yet the horse-race political coverage and gotcha moments that define most of today's political coverage are not just equally insignificant as news events, they are far more insidious.

When the political media spends days upon days covering and analyzing President Obama's birth certificate, Sarah Palin's reference to Paul Revere, wall to wall coverage of Donald Trump's fake Presidential run (I'll even exclude Weiner coverage for now), and every other misstep, poor choice of words, and invented scandal, they are not just

5 wasting precious media time, they are also forcing our political leaders to define candidacies based on largely irrelevant media moments. Even though Casey Anthony did not receive the sort of justice most believe she deserved, at least the public walked away with some understanding of why the system works the way it does. Can we say the same for the public's takeaway from intensive coverage of political gaffes? I can explain the legal concept of reasonable doubt but it's harder to explain unreasonable doubts about political leaders that result from often inane media coverage.

Don't get me wrong, this site traffics in these gotcha moments along with the best of them. Mediaite covers the media so what they cover is what is covered here. As Mediaite's Tommy Christopher once said, blaming Mediaite for covering these stories is like "criticiz(ing) the ground for being wet because it's raining."

But I also have not seen editors here take a self-righteous position about the perils of the Casey Anthony coverage. For many media critics it's just naked hypocrisy to laud political shows that cover politics (and little to no policy), and then take the stage front and center to lead the anti-media Anthony crusade. Many of them would, I am sure, claim that they do criticize the media's political coverage as well. But it just never seems to have that same frantic tone as do their critiques of more innocuous high profile trials.

In the end, the media does cater to the desires of its audience. After all, most media is a business and the news media in particular must balance that ratings tug with the need to stay focused on the stories that should matter. The Casey Anthony coverage is an easy target but the journalistic stone throwers should have far more important targets to hit.

6 ELENA KAGAN: WAY TOO BORING FOR SCANDAL-STARVED MEDIA Dan Abrams 2:14 p.m., May 12, 2010

It must have been a virtual scream on newsroom/blogger computer screens around the nation. The moment it became clear that President Obama would be nominating Elena Kagan, editors simultaneously posing the same and obvious question: What do we really know about her? Of course, it is a far more loaded question than it seems. Yes, her background as a New York-born Harvard Law grad and Dean who was most recently Solicitor General of the United States is of interest. Oh, and she spent two years at Oxford, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah… but they want to know what we really KNOW about her. What is the dirt? What are her most controversial comments, articles, positions? Does she hate our country?

Was she ever a late term abortion provider? Did she once compare Speaker Nancy Pelosi to David Duke?

After all, her comments and writings on the really important issues like the First Amendment, Executive Power and the Commerce Clause are, well… kinda nuanced. She may want cameras in the Supreme Court? Whatever. She opposed the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and consequently tried to keep recruiters off campus? A good start – but far more controversial just a few years ago. Come on, they don't quite need the pubic hair on a Coke can, but the media is looking for at least a “Wise Latina” meme to obsess over for a few weeks.

Alas, thus far no dice. These specks of spongy legal dirt do not exactly offer fleshy and easily understandable outrage that serves as the media's lifeblood. Even questions about her sexuality have, fortunately, been relegated to those analyzing how the media should cover it and not as a substantive issue that would impact her nomination.

It seems this controversy vacuum is now leading to overt frustration expressed on both sides of the media political aisle. From Glenn Greenwald to Glenn Beck, Ezra Klein to Erick Erickson, columnists, bloggers and pundits are now bemoaning the dearth of ahem, controversy. Don't be fooled by those suggesting a limited paper trail should somehow serve as a disqualifying factor. It's not and, of course, shouldn't be – it's just the only sword many partisans seeking a legal road map from her could muster thus far.

Always trying to appear objective, the mainstream media has its own brand of bias: an institutional one towards controversy. They are looking to dig up a topic du jour and it's hard work keeping the archaeological effort going. For them, it's not about defeating or supporting the nomination as much as it is about adding spice to the chili. They seek to find some controversy, often tangential, that opponents of the nomination will then pounce upon as proof of the nominee's unfitness for the job while exclaiming that the 'people have a right to know'. It is a sometimes dysfunctional but certainly symbiotic relationship.

There's no question she is tougher to peg than many. With seemingly conservative views on executive power, for example, and more liberal ones on discrimination based on sexual orientation, partisans on both sides are on edge. What about her views on

7 Roe v. Wade? The Second Amendment? On the scope of the Commerce Clause which may determine the constitutionality of President Obama's Health Care legislation? It's fair enough to want to know (and Kagan herself has mocked non-responsive nominees in the past), but let's not be too shocked if we can't find out until she's on the Bench. Many of our most celebrated justices, Brennan and Frankfurter, Stevens and even John Marshall himself, turned out differently than just about anyone expected. It'sjust not that horrifying to nominate a true legal scholar who might actually evaluate cases individually and even surprise us.

Look, I am certainly not one to thumb my nose at those looking to cover salacious stories. After all, I have spent much of my career covering the O.J. Simpsons, Michael Jacksons and Scott Petersons of the world.

I relish a good-layered scandal. But one might hope that for the mainstream media, in particular, covering a Supreme Court nomination would be different, more substantive, more nuanced, and less frustrated at the fact that sometimes a seemingly boring candidate might be just what the President ordered.

8 THE UNEDITED TRUTH: WHY MSNBC RE-AIRS 9/11 COVERAGE Dan Abrams, 8:12 pm, September 10th, 2011

Isn't it ghastly? Will we be accused of capitalizing on the nation's grief? Is it still too soon?

Those were just some of the questions we faced when deciding whether to replay NBC's 9/11 coverage when I was General Manager of MSNBC back in 2006. As I watched MSNBC air that coverage for a sixth year today, many of those same questions remain.

It wasn't an easy call. After retrieving the tapes and watching the first four hours from that morning, beginning with the "reports" of a plane crash, it was clear the coverage from the morning was beyond mesmerizing. Seeing the events unfold in real time on television forces us to relive those emotions and feelings moment by moment. In the initial minutes we retain a glimmer of hope that maybe – just maybe – it isn't quite as bad as it seems. As time passes, however, those shooting pains re-emerge as each terrifying detail of the morning unfolds, ultimately leading to the conclusion that it is that bad, and worse. The NBC anchor and reporting team handled it as well as anyone could have hoped. They were careful, methodical, at times overtly saddened but always calm.

I knew people would watch the replay, but when dealing with 9/11 we all knew the decision could not and would not be one based on ratings. The question had to be, is it the right thing to do?

Some have called it gruesome or ghoulish, even referring to it as "death porn." Maybe so, but it also really happened. New York City is spending well over a half billion dollars to create a memorial to ensure we never forget that day. What better way to assure that happens, than by watching the event, as it happened for most, on television? It's powerful and disturbing because it's so real. Simply put, there is no way to sanitize that day, and to do so would be a disservice.

That does not mean the country was ready for the replay in the first couple of years after 9/11. The difference? In 2003, for example, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were getting underway, 9/11 was still effectively news, not history. At what point does that definition change? It's tough to say. In 2006, 9/11 was not being covered or discussed nearly as often and it had just started to feel it was fading into the background for many.

No one was forced to watch MSNBC coverage. I watched it for the fourth year in a row. Many others will have chosen to change the channel. But in a world where cable news is often consumed with internecine and sometimes invented squabbles, seeing one of the most important moments in American history as it aired, in real time, seems to be exactly what cable news can and should do best.

Ed. Note – This post was first published two years ago, September 11th, 2009. We have decided to republish in commemoration of the tenth year anniversary of the September 11th attacks and in the wake of the media's decision this year to dedicate even more time to looking back at 9/11 (including MSNBC once again re-airing NBC News' coverage of the event itself).

10 DAN ABRAMS: FRANK RICH FAILS IN COMPARING WIKILEAKS TO PENTAGON PAPERS Dan Abrams, 2:55 pm, August 1st, 2010

Frank Rich is frustrated. He is clearly annoyed that the Wikileaks release of almost 92,000 pages of documents related to the war in Afghanistan has not become more of a rallying cry to end that military effort. Or more specifically, he is seeking to reassure those hoping it will ultimately have that impact, to be patient.

In today's New York Times, he writes: "As the president conducts his scheduled reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling 'the long view.'" But of course, what Rich really means is that it's maddening to him that this disclosure of information is not having that sweeping effect. "Last week the left and right reached a rare consensus. The war logs are no Pentagon Papers," Rich wrote ruefully. So there began Rich's effort to equate two very different leaks of information about two wholly different wars.

It is a nice narrative and an interesting read, but when Rich leaps on the rhetorical springboard here, the dive becomes somewhat disastrous. About Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971), Rich writes: "What Ellsberg's leak did do was ratify the downward trend-line of the war's narrative. The WikiLeaks legacy may echo that. We may look back at the war logs as a herald of the end of America's engagement in Afghanistan just as the Pentagon Papers are now a milestone in our slo-mo exit from Vietnam." This hardly veiled effort by Rich to piggyback on Ellsberg's widely lauded efforts fall flat after even a cursory examination of the two situations.

The Pentagon Papers were drafted in response to a request from the Secretary of Defense seeking definitive conclusions about the war he was overseeing. The Vietnamese conflict was dragging on and Secretary Robert S. McNamara wanted answers to the most fundamental of questions: how did we get here and why are we there at all? The answers, provided in the form of the Pentagon Papers, demonstrated that five administrations had at best shaded the truth, and at worst completely obscured it. The Wikileaks documents, on the other hand, were military documents written by those in the field describing primarily military assessments and sometimes embarrassing setbacks that both the Bush and Obama administrations had not made public. They provide specifics as to certain failures, what can be best characterized as anecdotes. The Pentagon Papers, on the contrary, offered a historically rooted response to the ultimate question: Should we be there at all?

Sure, both were about wars, and both revealed information that administrations did not want made public. But it's obvious why both sides of the political spectrum have, in Rich's words, reached a "rare consensus." Because, unless one is seeking to use this leak as a sword to end all American military involvement in Afghanistan, as Rich clearly is, the comparison fails. Think about comparing a dossier of private emails to a researched essay. While they are ostensibly both written documents, they hold very different reasons for being and play very different roles in the communication of ideas.

This, of course, does not change the reality that serious questions must be asked about our ongoing effort in Afghanistan. The disclosures expose military setbacks and

11 additional problems with Pakistan, in particular. As troubling as that is, it does not change the fact that, unlike the Vietnam War, there is no question about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place. Every major political figure of both parties has long agreed that military action had to be taken in Afghanistan after 9/11 as the Taliban continued to protect those directly responsible for the attacks on the United States. Nothing similar can be said of the war in Vietnam.

Does that mean that nine years later we must continue this level of military involvement there? Of course not. The extent of our military commitment is a separate and distinct question but it is disingenuous to appear almost baffled about why we are there at all. And even more so to then compare it to a war that was, at best, an effort to thwart a highly theoretical threat as opposed to one that was a direct retaliation for acts of aggression against the U.S.

In fact, seen purely through the prism of the leaks themselves, this one is far more perilous. While these Wikileaks documents were deemed "secret" as opposed to "top secret," the Pentagon Papers were an already three year-old historical review when leaked. The Wikileaks documents are from just last year and it now publically names names. Taliban leaders have already threatened to retaliate against those Afghans mentioned in the documents who helped the U.S. effort. Furthermore, in 1971, The New York Times and Washington Post took great care when publishing the Pentagon Papers to work with the administration to retract particularly sensitive information that could threaten national security. While the Times appears to have done so this time around as well, the full documents are now readily available on the web.

Rich wrote that it was time to "inject a little reality into the garbling of Vietnam-era history," but in the process he conflates two dissimilar leaks about two even more dissimilar wars and himself ends up garbling the very reality he sought to illuminate.

12 CRONKITE COVERAGE THAT MIGHT MAKE CRONKITE CRINGE Dan Abrams, 12:32 pm, July 18th, 2009

It's hard to believe that Walter Cronkite has not been a staple on the air for over twenty- eight years. Through all that time, he has achieved something few in this age of information overload could do when removed from the spotlight for so long. He remained the standard bearer, the person so many journalists wished they could be. His name is not just synonymous with industry greatness, but with an industry that no longer exists. And so many believe his passing represents more than the end of a television news icon, but the end of iconic news television.

For anyone in the news business, just the name "Cronkite" conjures up images of a bygone era when journalists covered, and could at times impact, the most important stories of the day, rather than the most "compelling" or salacious. Redford and Hoffman's All The President's Men was the big screen image of journalists rather than Will Ferrell's Anchorman.

Even if that memory has been glorified a bit, it's for that reason that every major journalist is now vying to be part of the Cronkite coverage (including, I suppose, this one). No question [sic] so many grew up watching Cronkite's masterful work over the years – from war zones to the White House. And those who knew him well have offered moving tributes to Cronkite the man. But showing one's respect for Walter Cronkite also means paying homage to what the Cronkite name has come to represent – a time when it would have been unthinkable to cover Michael Jackson's death day after day. When the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would still be front and center rather than the vicissitudes of the hottest reality show. As some in media speak wistfully about the Cronkite days, they are also making decisions that would make Cronkite cringe. To watch a rerun of a Cronkite news program today is to see something more akin to a current PBS broadcast than much of what appears on network news.

Actions speak louder than words. Even in reporting on his death many journalists have violated one of Cronkite's basic tenets: report the news don't become it. How many times this weekend have we heard top journalists memorializing Cronkite with sentences beginning with the word I. "I met Cronkite in. . ." or "I remember seeing him. . ."

Let's be honest, the Cronkite era passed long before his death. Financial pressures, the demand of ratings, the changing tastes of the American public all led to new decisions in newsrooms about what to cover and how. Having reported on many of the most notorious trials of the past two decades (including that of Michael Jackson) I have no claim to Cronkiteian journalistic purity.

The same applies, however, to some of my colleagues now attempting to tether themselves to Cronkite's legacy. I am confident Cronkite would have frowned on that too.