Speaker I think whatever transition there was in his views of Vietnam pretty much reflected the way the nation moved its feelings about that war, except perhaps a little more quickly. And while his case because he’s so perceptive, man. And I think when he when he came out to Vietnam, which I believe was the first time in 1965, and I was there and he was he was a kind of Pentagon VIP. And they did this with a lot of the of the anchor man.

Speaker And an important Colin and that sort of person and including some novelists like John Steinbeck, who there was this regular travelling troupe of very important people that the military was showing off to and attempting to put a very positive spin on the war. And one of the ways they did it was they flew them in every airplane, every helicopter, every let him shoot off every gun. I think Bob Walter went on a strafing raid in 65. And so there was a lot of you know, all the hardware was shown off to these guys. And and I guess a rather brainwashes too strong a word of a fairly unsubtle, unsubtle attempt to brainwash them into being supportive of the war. Oh, well, he has been around the block a few times. And I think on the one hand, he he enjoyed the, you know, getting this very high level look at the war at the same time. He had a reporter’s skeptical eyes. And I remember near the end of that trip, we were having a drink and I said, Walter, I’d like to fix up a couple of other interviews for you tomorrow with another of my generals.

Speaker But they’re all very, very, extremely active serving officers in the field. And one particular friend of mine who was in Special Forces. I reached him and asked him if he could come into Saigon just for a couple of hours. And I told him why. He said, yes, but it’s got to be in secret because he did not want to be seen talking in that sort of semi private way with with Cronkite was Cronkite was such a visible man. So I remember I I rented a room in the Continental Hotel, which was across the road from our bureau, which was in the Caravelle. And this fellow, who was then a pretty seasoned special forces captain in about 20 minutes, disabused Walter of every thing that the Pentagon hotshots had been trying to brainwash him, quote unquote, brainwashed him. So I’m one who is very open. I mean, he didn’t immediately seize on the fellow in and believe me, but he was a savvy guy. And I think. I think possibly. When he got back and reflected on the entire trip was when he started to have serious doubts about the value of this enterprise. And as you know, Walter was not, you know, so is not a soapbox stream at all. He did just these things. He continued to maintain the, quote unquote, objectivity that we all claim we are ruled by and pretty much dead. But then, as you know, I’m sure after Tet, he felt it was time to speak up, which. Yes.

Speaker Were you surprised when when Walter actually in his news report did come out and became very outspoken? Well, he was he was subtle, but the fact that he made that kind of mistake, I was not surprised by Walter’s views this week.

Speaker We discussed it in Vietnam. We discussed it on trips home that I made. So I was not surprised by his views. I was I was not surprised by his courage in making that statement.

Speaker At the same time, when you when you so carefully tread line for most of your professional life, it’s a major step to cross that line. And he and he very courageously, I believe, crossed the line. He didn’t open the floodgates of putting opinion into the evening news. It was a one time thing. And he just felt.

Speaker Then he had to speak up.

Speaker Now tell me a little bit about how you and Cronkite worked. You were out in the field reporting. How how did you work out the communication? Did you tell him? Were you just reporting every day or how did that.

Speaker I was reporting every day. Every day that I could report in the field was very difficult in Vietnam. But you didn’t report to Walter. You reported two to the two or three people who were responsible for the nuts and bolts of the news broadcast. And on something like Vietnam, which had become a routine story after by the end of sixty five, I guess you wouldn’t report to Walter Reed operation.

Speaker You went on every year or every bit of new information that you were able to to squeeze out of the heart of the officers in Vietnam. You reported to to the executive producer of the Evening News and some of the line producers of the evening news. Not to Walter. Now, when you buy, however, I should say that when we used to play, they used to bring us home for the zeren broadcasts that we used to do. And in that period, Walter, quite a squeeze. In terms of wanting to know everything. And I think, as I say, I think he was very quickly, very quickly started to turn. You know, he was a World War Two combat reporter. You know, the last good war, as they call it. And I think it was a major step for someone like him to report critically while Americans are dying. It was difficult for us to those who would not believe it. But I think it was extremely difficult for guys who Walter’s generation who covered World War Two.

Speaker Just one I really have a sense of just how your Kaminey report was. It was really one of the turning points in the news broadcasting stories because you showed Americans who were doing, you know, not being. Everyone has this image that American soldiers are wonderful Americans. And all of a sudden to see Americans involved in atrocities. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what you saw in Vietnam and were you shocked by what you saw, some of the things that you saw that really? Because I think people don’t get that sense.

Speaker I will say I was shocked because I had covered the French colonial war Algeria sample. So there’s nothing I saw in Vietnam that I hadn’t seen before or occasionally worse, much worse.

Speaker At the same time, even a cynical reporter to some extent believes the propaganda about the importance of the role in Vietnam. And what I saw what what shocked me in a certain sense was how the pronouncements were coming out of Washington. The White House and the Pentagon and the military assistance command in Vietnam, how those pronouncements did not square with the tactics on the ground, the tactics on the ground, mainly being something called search and destroy. So if you’re trying to use the most tired phrase of our century, trying to win the hearts and minds, you don’t do it by searching and destroying. You certainly don’t do it by destroying and search and destroy was the prime mission of the ground troops in Vietnam. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. So you had this. This. Almost absurd. All wars are absurd to one extent or another. There’s this magnificently absurd situation to say we’re here to win your hearts and minds and burn down your house.

Speaker So it’s it’s it’s the the you know, the phrase that sums up war as catch 22.

Speaker And that’s was that was the catch 22 of Vietnam.

Speaker And you could see some version or another of that practically any day of the week in any Hamlet or city of Vietnam during that war. So, you know, you go in. It was more than one commanding officer who has told reporters told me, told Peter Arnett, who won a Pulitzer for his reporting to Vietnam. We had to destroy the village to save it. And there were you know, we had to destroy Vietnam and we still couldn’t save it.

Speaker What when Cronkite’s Cronkite said that when he first went to Vietnam, he didn’t like the cynicism of the younger correspondents, especially the way they mark the five o’clock follies. I wonder if you could. Then he came to agree with the cynicism of the younger reporters.

Speaker Well, what if you could talk a little bit about this five o’clock follies? What was that all about?

Speaker The five five o’clock follies was the daily briefing by something called MACV, the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, and a briefing officer, usually lieutenant colonel. From the military side and some representative from the civilian side, from USA Today or from the embassy, generally, someone from the embassy, someone working for Barrys orthey in or indeed very wealthy and himself would give those those briefings. And the reason people became cynical about them was because most of the reporters here, the most the good reporters spent a good time, a good part of their time out in the field. And the Five O’clock Follies was a series of pronouncements about the sort of series of Potemkin villages that they would describe of how well the war is going, how, you know, either how the war is going because 4000 prisoners were taken that week or or the body count of the enemy had was rising. Oh, battles one occasionally battles that never took place that we won. I remember one vivid one. I remember one of the pronouncements quite vividly. And they talked about a very large battle that had taken place in the delta. And I asked what were the units involved? This was Vietnamese units, Soviet Army shooters and Vietcong and supported by American advisers. And I asked for the coordinates, which we all had our own military maps, and they gave me the coordinates. And I said, when did the battle take place? And they said yesterday afternoon. That entire area that they claim the ballot taking place was under water. So there was a certain, shall we say, excessive imagination used by the briefers. And also there was a constant attempt to suppress bad news. The briefings all lied about, for example, aircraft losses. I remember I did a story about the aircraft losses and the North Vietnamese, who, of course, claimed massive American losses. And I worked out a formula that if you have the North Vietnam Army’s claim and doubled the American claim, you came to the right answer. For example, when they did not regard losses, if a plane crashed in South Vietnam or in the ocean, it wasn’t visited, lost to enemy fire, even though. I think I think I you know, you asked about the cynicism. I think part of the cynicism was largely based on on the misinformation and disinformation and the plain lies that we were told.

Speaker Now, in terms of censorship, you’re pretty free to go wherever you want to go.

Speaker There was no censorship. You could go anywhere you wanted to go that you could get to.

Speaker And very often in most of the time, you could get there courtesy of the U.S. military. Hitch a ride in a helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft. You could take your life in your hands and try and drive to places as well. Could be very risky. Nothing as risky as this is Iraq, by the way. But very risky. And so there was no censorship.

Speaker Absolute access everywhere.

Speaker The only rule was we couldn’t report troop movements until those troops had been engaged, engaged in battle.

Speaker Now, LBJ apparently didn’t protest the editorial that Cronkite made that stalemate his view, although he pressed tested plenty before and most notably to protest your report from the village of Kennedy and other hard hitting, ably assisted by Mr. Moyers. Why did those rile LBJ so much? Did he really? Did he expect to intimidate the press into not reporting what was going on in Vietnam?

Speaker No, I don’t think he. I don’t think he he thought he could intimidate the press. I think he thought he could intimidate publishers and the network and the network proprietors. However.

Speaker And what’s interesting are you you asked whether LBJ be is if you listen to the LBJ tapes and realize how much he agonized.

Speaker Over this war, the personal anguish of the man about this war, I think.

Speaker I think his anger at the press or anger about a report like the cabinet report really was just added to the anguish and added to his personal frustration. His. This this war with cheat, you know, you talk about Cronkite turning on the war, how about LBJ turning on the war?

Speaker Can you talk a little bit about that?

Speaker I don’t know. I mean I mean, I’m only I know this reading the history in the cities to the to the Johnson tapes, so.

Speaker When Johnson was alleged to have said, if we’ve lost Walter, we’ve lost. America.

Speaker I think that what Johnson really was saying was we are all coming to our senses.

Speaker You think in a way, then, that the part sort of reaffirmed a little bit his own thinking?

Speaker I don’t know if it’s as clear cut as that. I think it’s a very, very complicated emotions going on in the camp. The head of a compliment. Complicated emotions going on in the head of a complicated man.

Speaker But a man who who, if you listen to those tapes, was devastated. Well, loss of a single young man’s life, as crude as Lyndon Johnson could apparently be. Sometimes I think he was just being ripped apart emotionally by this war.

Speaker Now, I’d like to just go look at some political conventions. I’m interested in just seeing what your perspective is, is how political conventions changed from 1952 when you got really a sense of the process. And then, you know, what happened after television became sort of like the everyone was watching television now. I mean, 52 was really the first time you could watch the conventions on television. How did you see that? Do you think that it changed the political process, that television changed the political process?

Speaker Yes, I think I think obviously, of course, television changed the political process because all campaigns now are all about television. You have in mind the conventions, never mind the process of choosing a candidate once chosen. He has his strategy, his purpose, his money are all directed at one thing, which is television. So it’s not surprising if that is the case, that that the conventions become packaged broadcast for television. And and what politics and politicians don’t like surprises, so they make sure there are no surprises at the political conventions. By, in effect, making the conventions virtually irrelevant. They really were important before whatever late 50s.

Speaker Can you talk a little bit about the 1968 Chicago convention and what happened there in terms of the press?

Speaker Well, I was wasn’t I was overseas in London. I was in London and Africa.

Speaker I wasn’t in Vietnam, actually, too.

Speaker What about you were here for the hostage crisis? Yes.

Speaker And I wondered if you could talk a little bit about the hostage crisis and how the television reporting of that crisis affected Carter’s.

Speaker I mean, do you think that it affected Carter’s? Demise in some ways.

Speaker Obviously, the the hostage.

Speaker Obviously, what happened in Iran. The fact is Jimmy Carter’s political future more than the hostages was the was the dreadful attempt to free the hostages. I think it was much more than the hostage taking. Was the was this completely fouled up attempt to free them? And I. I think it just.

Speaker Added to the frustration of the entire country. You know, that we can we get anything right? I think had the attempt to rescue the hostages been fulfilled to the extent even if there were great losses of both hostages and troops, I think there would have been something noble about the effort.

Speaker The fact that it ended with an accident. It just became such an embarrassment.

Speaker What do you think that to a certain degree of pressure? I mean, you have the news broadcasts were saying this is the 20th day, this is every day with this constant reminder. How many days do you think that there was that the media, in a sense, put a lot of pressure on the administration to actually try to do something to save hostages? Then, of course.

Speaker Look, we do what we do and we will. We don’t do it under some direction, I think. I think when the entire embassy is taken hostage, it’s an important story every day that they are hostages. Just as I don’t think the coverage of the war in Iraq is that we’re doing enough or that whatever good news who is or whatever bad news is, it only becomes a story when there’s a bit of shoot them up. So you’re asking the wrong person, not a question of keeping the pressure on for some political. It is keeping the pressure on covering a more important story where a lot of people are getting killed every day.

Speaker Now, Cronkite, what they set out, began bringing Sadat together. He’s credited somewhat for this interview that he did. It’s about time to sort of take him on and say, all right, you’ve mentioned many times he would go.

Speaker And I mean, given all that, do you think that that’s a case where the news actually was able to affect you in a sense, some kind of diplomacy?

Speaker Yes, I think so. I think you can. You can overrated, too. I think it would have happened. I think everyone would agree that that would have happened anyway. Wasn’t the the oh shucks manner of a cover of an American anchorman that brought peace between those two countries? I think it was well on the way. I think what was interesting, though, that was that. They both either had enough confidence in Walter that he was doing this purely for the simple ends of good journalism and that he is a good man to do this with. In other words, I think there was a lot of trust by both men in this guy and this man who somehow represented, I guess, more than any other journalist ever, the best side of this country to an awful lot of people, not just in this country, overseas. Certainly, he is an even handed man, man of the people in every every way. And I think there was that kind of trust. We’ll never have that again. By the way, I can’t see that happening.

Speaker Why do you think that is?

Speaker I think partly with David’s respect, Walter, who was superb at the job. There’s no question there’s so many of them now and.

Speaker And I think that that kind of power of television, because it is so pervasive, has in in a way diminished because it’s so pervasive, it was so something awfully gee whiz about it. Even by the time Walter did the Big and Sadad interviews.

Speaker Well, it does seem like in that period where you only have three networks, ABC really wasn’t a competition, it was NBC and CBS. Were you very conscious of that competition between NBC? I mean, did you all sort of I mean, it’s a little bit like the wire service competition between the UPI and the AP.

Speaker Oh, the competition was pretty intense in Vietnam and all the major stories that I worked on and others have worked on.

Speaker And in Vietnam, where I say this not self aggrandizement, because the whole bureau was very, very strong with their access in Vietnam on a fairly regular basis. And. And they had about three times as many people covering the war as we did. We were pleased to say CBS, NBC and CBS plus 20 on almost every story.

Speaker And I think in a way, the fact that we were pretty lean operation really worked to our advantage on that story. But the competition was very, very intense.

Speaker Now, now to go to Watershed’s, ask about Walter Cronkite. In a sense, again, we’re out on the Web to make the two specials on the Watergate. And I just wondered what your feelings were about about that those reports and the impact that it had on the rest of the Watergate in terms of the news broadcasts of the hearings and finally, Nixon’s resignation.

Speaker I think I think the hearings really were much more powerful than any. With respect to the reporters, I think that was such an extraordinary, just searing series of broadcast live broadcasts of the hearings that I think it was one one situation in which you didn’t want to have the filter of everything because there weather was so much rich material in the hearing. And you know the story as a story. Of course, everybody was whipped by The Washington Post.

Speaker There’s no question that that wasn’t a particular victory for poor television.

Speaker I don’t think that’s a story. I think pretty much it was a newspaper story.

Speaker But was it the first time that that network. I mean, that the networks actually showed a whole hearing.

Speaker I mean, now you see C-SPAN and you see, oh, Keefe over here is way back. Were pretty. Was shown the early days, 50s. Yes. And McCarthy broadcasts those hearings.

Speaker But made the Watergate so such a great story mean because people don’t know the history anymore.

Speaker That’s what made it a great story. What a great story it was that almost every department of government was compromised by that story. Beyond me. I mean, as the story sort of unwound, the IRS, the White House, I mean, come on. It was just a great story. And you couldn’t invent a story as good as that one. You know, something that comes in on police radios a two bit break, it ends up pretty effectively. You down a government. Pretty good story.

Speaker Now, 1978, the White House made a concerted effort to go after television. Agnew. And you gave a speech in which you referred to the nattering nabobs of negativism. The administration talked about how media elite have just a few people was determining what what’s in the news. And they particularly went after CBS News and Cronkite. Can you tell me why?

Speaker What year was the nattering nabobs speech? It was it was said by Spiro Agnew, but it was written by Bill Safire in 1970 night. I was still in London then because we got the backwash of it. And as I recall, that Walter did a wonderful Pete, especially after that speech, responding to the criticism. I think quite elegantly, as I recall, it wasn’t in your face. He was just very, very thoughtful. And, you know, back in the days when CBS did that kind of thing, when we we didn’t know what the phrase is, when we had a deeper and broader sense of public responsibility, as well as a deeper sense of pride about this news division. I guess I’m not trying to make comments about people running this network today. We live in a different economic world. Is it a different corporate world as well? But the fact that we had the time to do that, I mean, we didn’t get those hours back in those days. Without a lot of kicking and screaming. But the fact is we got them. And I mean, if you look at the number of of a half hour an hour specials and documentaries we did during the Vietnam War years and how few we have done during the Iraqi war years. I think you get a different you get a sense of of the different climate that we live in, the different corporate climate, different economic climate.

Speaker This weekend when I was watching one of the commentaries this Sunday, yesterday, someone said this has become a business. And I was wondering whether in those years with Cronkite, was it a business or was it something else?

Speaker Well, I guess it bothered me. Anything that goes on the air for for for profit network is a business. But the people who worked in the news division never it started as a business. I mean, I Fred Friendly brought me back in nineteen nineteen sixty. Five, six, six. I was covering the Battle of the Rhine Valley. And Fred decided that they wanted to put a special on that Friday night. And I got a plane on Wednesday. Literally in fatigues and flew to New York. And we put that thing together. Half hour broadcast of the Battle of the Drag Valley. And we had a cut we’ve had in the studio.

Speaker This was about an hour or maybe even less 45 minutes before broadcast. And we were over by two minutes, minute and a half.

Speaker And Fred was up in terms of throw out the commercials. Can you imagine you imagine that now we’re in the Mirror era at CBS News, just barely did, but I worked with all of the Murrow Boys. I worked with Alex Kendrick in London, I Charles Collingwood, who was in a way, my mentor, David Schoenborn, was there in Paris. Winston predated Rome. Sevareid was there doing the commentary. So there were still the glory years, at least, at least to me, they seemed like. Oh, yes. And I cannot tell you the sense of having arrived. Or the senso. My God, the poor little me. When I was asked to join CBS News with overseas with all of those guys. And that was something. And. I think it was a rather special moment in the history of journalism in this country that probably will never be repeated, I don’t know.

Speaker Do you feel like Cronkite continued that tradition in that tradition?

Speaker Well, Cronkite was never a Murrow boy, but he had perhaps some of the Murrow boys did resented him a little bit. There was a little bit in the sense that he was a wire service guy and that when Walter to this day is a wire service guy. And I think that’s one of his great strengths. But I saw I think there was a little tension among those guys who all thought many of them thought themselves as sort of journalists, diplomats, if you like. And Walter was more of a street reporter, but he showed and he was as good as any of them and perhaps not as well tailored. In those days, but certainly as good as any of them as reporters. And and the fact is, though, when it came down to it, it was an extraordinary. Band confessed Band of brothers, no sisters at all. They’re a pretty remarkable bunch of reporters. Those guys, I mean, they were the opposite of the what the parody of that of the television anchor man or television reporter who is sort of clotheshorse dummy. These were thoughtful men, really. And in many ways, I was joking when I said diplomat reporters, but somebody like the London bureau chief for the Paris bureau chief for the Rome bureau chief, in a sense, was also touch of America’s ambassador in those places and certainly more visible than they had last known to more people, probably than the ambassadors. And they did a remarkably good job. All of those guys, I think journalism that would stand up with some of the best journalism written journalism all the time. You look at a guy like Bill Shizuo did some of the best, both written journalism and broadcast journalism.

Speaker What about the. About the difference between the Cronkite era?

Speaker Rather, you see a transition transformation.

Speaker Well, there certainly was a transformation in. The ownership of television news that CBS Evening News had maintained during the Cronkite. Yeah, I think it was and and. I just think Walter had the kind of presence. That was very difficult for anyone to match. And to this day, when people think of CBS News, the first name that comes to mind is Walter Cronkite. Even though people probably who bore. Well, he was guilty. The news there is something about their identity is something which I think makes it very difficult for anyone who follows him.

Speaker Did you feel that Cronkite left? You wanted to leave?

Speaker I mean, you can’t. I don’t know. I do not know the machinations of that. However, I think. I think Walter. At the time sort of relish the idea of stepping aside for a bit. I don’t think he realized. How rough it would be for him to not be engaged or I think he thought he would be more engaged than he actually was. Course, it wasn’t. Wasn’t at all. I remember having a drink with him at one of the endless parties, parties that were celebrating Walter. He stepped out and I said to him, I guess this was right after it. I said, why are you doing this? And he said, well, you know, I just think it’d be nice to step aside to what thoughtful stuff. And I think Walter really thought he would be called in as the very much engaged reporter emeritus. And he wasn’t. He was totally ignored, in fact, which cut out completely. And I think if if he had realized that that would be the policy really, that he might have done a little bit more kicking and screaming.

Speaker Now, what about right after he left office? I mean, over the years, it’s become more and more outspoken about various things.

Speaker Tell me a little bit about what he would say.

Speaker How do you mean? Did he continue? I mean, he didn’t say stop recording.

Speaker Well, he did. He did some reporting. But I think I think he also felt free to really express his his opinions is where he stood politically. I remember I mean, it’s fairly early on after where Walter came out and said, you know, I am a liberal and I am proud to be a liberal. Well, just at a time when the Republicans had were successfully making a dirty word. So, I mean, that’s who he is and he is.

Speaker And I think the word itself has been so misused. I don’t think that people who who say the word liberal with a sneer have any idea what liberalism is. But that’s another story.

Speaker But he has it as an anchor person when he was reporting, does he do you think that he maintained a fairly balanced as much as one can be balanced position?

Speaker I think he absolutely maintained a balanced budget. Yes, I do. I mean, the only story, I suppose you could say may he might be fairly standard. He may be fairly accused of showing some bias. Was this the NASSA story? Was the space story. And I think Walter. Walter fell in love with space. There’s no question. And I think I think certainly obviously NASA loved it. And I think it was probably a pretty good thing for the country, too, I think, Walter. To some degree, I have not as much as the astronauts really inspired a lot of young people about that end of science. And I think it’s. I think you should be proud of that. Really? As far as allowing his political bias to slip into the broadcast? I don’t think so. I think in terms of his reporting, particularly in that role as anchor man, he was pretty straight down the middle.

Speaker The one great thing about Cronkite. I’ll tell you, as as a guy who was working out of the field, I always felt that my best my most strong support, that my back was being covered by the guy sitting in that anchor chair, wouldn’t Walter. It was there. And if he if he likes something. You did. You heard about. And if he didn’t like some. You also heard about. You heard about it from him and the pretty direct way. And I think as a reporter, I never mind the importance of the anchorman and how television news is changing and all that.

Speaker The fact is, as a reporter, it hit was you went about your work with great confidence and you went about your work with determination to do the best you could.

Speaker Because of him, because of the guy sitting in that chair, the guy was presenting the news. And whenever I mean, in my experience, whenever I came back as his first guy, I heard from this guy. And always, as you know, I mean, the other side of Cronkite, which may not be that a pattern. How he loves to have fun. He loves nothing more than a party, as you know. And you always heard from our if Walter was passing through London or wherever he was. You know, it was just wonderful having that kind of confidence, if you like, in the system that you were working for.

Speaker Great. Well, this is really fantastic.

Speaker I just want to just make sure I think that’s pretty much.

Speaker The only thing you mentioned, the space recording, I just wondered if you could talk to us a little bit about the space on space. One story is the Hall of Power campaign. When we lost, we lost. I wondered if you have any to give people an idea, you know? So in those days, people actually watch television to listen to the space. Today, you know, things are happening and no one cares about time.

Speaker It really brought the country together. I mean, just I think people don’t have a sense of the competition with the USSR. So bit about the importance of the space race and where it said so much, the space race.

Speaker I think what Walter did. Are you running on this? Well, what he did was show almost adolescent enthusiasm for the nuts and bolts of machinery and the genius that went into that space program, and that’s what turned him on. You know, also, you got to remember, Walter Rubs puts guys competitively. So he loves speed. He loves gadgets, as you know. And and so to work as a reporter for Walter in a period of of extraordinary adventure, pioneering of exploration, he just became totally infused with precisely the same kind of enthusiasm that those astronauts. Maybe even a little more head and became, as they say, NASA’s best friend certainly had the astronauts best friend. And he is still to this day, by the way, still taken by all that. And I think that was just out of luck. It was a wonderful thing with NASA. And I think it was a wonderful thing for science, too, by the way.

Speaker And do you remember the Apollo 13 report on the Apollo 13? Do you remember the time? And were you. I mean, you may have been doing something else.

Speaker I was in this country, but I think it was on the road when it happened, probably. That was, what, year 19? Well, it was it was 19. But that was we live in a situation.

Speaker That’s my last question is where do you think Cronkite fits in the journalistic history? What do you think she’ll be remembered for most?

Speaker I think he’ll what Cronkite will be remembered for most. I think it is really the last. Of the. Of the great individual anchor man. And I think also the other. Let me let me just back up. I think what he will be remembered most for probably was the stand he took in Vietnam after Tet. I think certainly for his contributions to space, but pretty much maybe it’ll seem like an artifact of another civilization where one man had the kind of trust one man on television had, the kind of trust that he had. It’s the way people talk. I think people will talk about him in regard to television is the way they will be the whether they talk about FDR. Got to politics in this country about the president’s actions. In that sense, so it’ll be a almost quaint.

Speaker All right. Thank you so much.