General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion about Nixon and Watergate
Was there an equivalent of faux snooze back in the day, tv or print? Did it seem to take so long because news didn't travel at the speed of light?
RDANGELO
(3,433 posts)People have speculated that if there was, he might not have been impeached or removed from office. Roger Ailes was thinking about it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)CBS, NBC and ABC. We got most of our news from Walter Cronkite and the Huntley-Brinkley show and from daily newspapers (Woodward and Bernstein at the Washington Post were responsible for most of the original investigative reporting). Of course there was nothing even remotely like the Internet or Twitter. But the Watergate scandal, start to finish, didn't take as long as one might expect, considering how complicated it was (the "follow the money" part was quite complex - CREEP was seriously into money-laundering through Mexico). Start to finish, it took about two years, but the fun didn't really begin until the Saturday Night Massacre in October of 1973. Nixon was out the following August.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)Was National Review, and its circulation was tiny compared to mainstream publications and the audience of the networks.
Things were much different then. Walter Cronkite, who topped polls as the most trusted person in the country, said that if he was doing his job right no one would know if he voted for the most liberal or the most conservative candidates.
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)I remember reading it, can't believe it was 2.5 years ago!
elleng
(130,895 posts)book_worm
(15,951 posts)real journalism. We had real reporters when we had just the three major networks.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)spanone
(135,830 posts)The Fairness Doctrine was alive and well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
cutroot
(875 posts)Anyone that was against the war was considered to be anti-american, even by many Democrats. Even myself as I had been conditioned as well. I first detected the cracks in their logic in 1968. The news took great pains to depict the anti-war protesters as dirty hippies even though most of us weren't. We grew our hair long as a sign of unity. None of the networks supported the anti-war movement until the bitter end.
The common thread that they used to justify their war was that if we let the north Vietnamese take Saigon, the domino effect would have China controlling all of Asia forever. I later learned that Vietnam is a major exporter of oil. That is what the conservatives of the day had decided that we should sacrifice our lives for.
It did seem to take forever.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)It is #32 in the world in oil production. Basically nothing compared to the major oil producers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
babylonsister
(171,059 posts)were preaching the party/government line in a way, and patriotism rocked.
I grew up with Cronkite/Huntley/Brinkley but was young.
cutroot
(875 posts)was the Smothers Brothers, Rocky and Bullwinkle (nixon hated them) and a few late night comedians. There was Playboy and a few other counter-culture print mediums like Rolling Stone that started beating the peace drum.
crickets
(25,969 posts)madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Same thing on the radio. Newsprint while biased kept opinion and news separate to an extent.
Things take time to work judicial system. Once that happens and people start testifying things start moving.