Speaker I don’t have the slightest idea. I was courts are not simply to be chosen at one point to be the anchor on television news.

Speaker The previous anchor had been doing, I thought, quite a good job as most people did. He was quite good, but they decided that they wanted me to be doing it instead. I think that he was a little gentler. Perhaps I was a little more positive in my approach to things. And I think that that’s what appealed to them. I believe, although I never asked them why I was so pleased to get the job. I didn’t want to endanger it by suggestion that I didn’t know why I had it.

Speaker Now, were you the successor to Myrdal?

Speaker No, not as successful tomorrow in any way. Morrow was his own man, and we were there together for many, many years after World War Two when he came home and I had come home and he he had his own niche that I was not endangering in any way or encroaching in any way that was more moral with moral. I was what there was a crime guider.

Speaker That’s great. But did you feel that CBS was trying to get rid of. Kim, in the sense that he was getting into too much trouble. Was there a feeling at some point that morale was.

Speaker No, I don’t think that was the case at all. The. Certainly he was daring and doing things in television and on CBS that very few people could have gotten away with. But he was so good at it and so precise with it. I told the story, as it should be told, in his own inevitable way, went deep into this story further than most of his compatriots would do, including me. He was just his own man.

Speaker You liked him?

Speaker I liked him very much. Yes, I did like him. I’m sorry that we didn’t get along better with a little problem I had in England with him when I had first accepted and then then turned around 24 hours later and refused his offer of a job with CBS. He never quite forgave me with that. I don’t blame.

Speaker I don’t think many people refused him what he asked for.

Speaker I don’t think so either.

Speaker For going from print to television, Fred Friendly called it this thousand point pencil. Not a very flattering portrayal.

Speaker What did you make of it at the beginning? What did he make out? Did you make of television at the beginning?

Speaker Well, I wasn’t critical of television at the beginning at all. I I accepted it for what it was and was overjoyed to be a part of it.

Speaker I did not did not criticize the field at all at the beginning. Maybe later on I began to have some feelings that it could be improved, which I think anybody would have thought. But it wasn’t a critical in the way that Fred Friendly was.

Speaker But you yourself started off in the print business. Writing articles. Why did you feel somewhat that television was sort of inferior to you?

Speaker Well, in the sense of the amount of time we had to do the stories we were doing at that time. When we when television got in to the longer documentary form, we began to do a better job than we were doing with the daily broadcast in which we were trying to tell the whole state of the world.

Speaker Every evening in a very few minutes, compared to a documentary or a half hour hour, we were at that time and perhaps still are today, not giving the news enough time in its daily form. We should give it more now and we should have then.

Speaker One thing that I really loved in your book that you wrote, you wrote about, as you said in television news, there are three categories of biggest stories. But that live in our memories, there are those major events, usually catastrophes. That we all covered, in which we shared our experiences, wars or quotes, etc., then there are those stories we developed ourselves and proved to have some importance and rarer stories. We initiated but developed a historic life of its own. I thought those three categories. I wondered if you could talk about those three categories and talk about JFK, the assassination, the Watergate and then the Sa’adat. If you could. Could you tell us those three categories and talk about what your experience was in those three areas?

Speaker I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to ask you, I guess, to repeat that, or at least part of what I did. I never was able to understand the three one you mentioned in your book.

Speaker You said there are three categories of the biggest stories. One is there are those major events, usually catastrophes that we covered. And, for example, like the JFK assassination. Can you talk about how to break it down so you don’t have to do all of it, but can you talk about that as as an event that you’ve had to cover and your experience in covering that event?

Speaker Well, the the event, of course, in every case, the event is its own story, so it depends on what the event is and the exact manner in which the news came to us and was relayed from our news desk through the anchor man or whoever was performing that job.

Speaker The that that was all patterned after the need for this story.

Speaker Each story was different in its own form. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, I could recite for you the details of how that developed and how it was covered. The others would their story would be somewhat different. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, that story was one that was broke up on the news organizations as a total, the unexpected event. There was no preparation for it whatsoever at all. The we had to find our way in the story as the story developed that day.

Speaker The first thing we knew about it was the when shots rang out in the Dealey Plaza in Dallas when they did. That information was transferred to us in the news rooms to be broadcast by the correspondents who were writing actually in a press car following the president’s car, or they heard the gunshots themselves. They then realized that the motorcade speed it up, turned away from this planned route and instead went toward the hospital. And indeed, they were able to determine that the car was going to the hospital. They did not see for themselves very clearly what had happened in the president’s car. He was knocked over, of course, and in the back seat of the car, and they were not allowed to, but it wasn’t too clear to them what actually had happened themselves.

Speaker But they got on the radio right away. A couple of them had radios in their car, in the car, and they were able to relay what had happened as far as they knew at that time. Then as the day went on, why, of course, things began to straighten out. We began to get more details of our first details or when they were in the president’s car, arrived at the air at the hospital. And immediately we got news from one of the interns who helped take him into the hospital.

Speaker As to the seriousness of his wound, we we knew then that he probably was not going to survive, that he had been hit in the head and was unquestionably really what we all knew then, not likely to survive. And then there’s the doctors came out, the interns came out and others came out of the hospital. They gave us some details of his wounds. And we’ve reported that, of course. And with the same time, we began to pick up the story of the of the assassin being caught and captured. And we were getting some of the details of what had happened in that regard. So these these things kept building during the day. And this story built itself as we got more facts at the news at the desk. I was working. I was the anchor man. I was there for the beginning. Of course, from the very first statements came out, the bulletins on the press service wires. And from there, I was there all day for another seven or eight hours on air. And with each development, the news services or our correspondents reported details at the hospital, the seriousness of the president’s wounds, how his wife. Reacting and then the story of the assassin himself, his capture and who he was and what it was like, those those things just kept piling one upon one during the day as we put the story together. By the time we were toward the late afternoon, we were doing a pretty comprehensive story of the assassination. By that time, it was an assassination of the president of the United States.

Speaker But you were on the air for like three days straight.

Speaker I mean, you just kept going in in a sense, it was like kind of the whole country was watching. It was like a shared experience. And it was this. Did you have any sense I mean, were you so sort of involved in the story? Did you have a sense of what a shared experience this was for the whole country and even for the world?

Speaker I don’t think so, really. If I probably had a time to sit back, I might have understood, understood with some degree of accuracy as to what the broadcast meant to the people around the world.

Speaker But I don’t think I consciously thought of that. I was. I was thinking of making the story complete at all times and to reviewing this story. For those who had not heard it from the beginning, clearing up some of the unknown factors that we only came to later. And then we repeat some of this story.

Speaker It was kind of like doing a different broadcast every half hour or forty five minutes.

Speaker We review it and carry it further than we had before. And that was what I was doing. I was at the desk continually recorded. We, of course, was switching to our correspondents in Dallas from time to time and correspondents elsewhere with reaction stories, stories from Washington as to, of course, very unfortunately fairly soon.

Speaker We were all watching the new president, the United States Vice President Johnson, as he boarded the plane, the president’s plane, with the widow. And they we saw them aboard as he took the oath of office. We saw her standing behind him with the blood splatter dress. And with that, the plane took off. And the next thing we saw was the landing in Washington and the new president and the widow going to the other to the White House. It was quite a quite a staged reporting.

Speaker In a sense, looking back on that time, was that really the one of the first times that the nation really gathered around together as a nation? Do you feel that there was a moment because it didn’t matter whether you were Democrat or Republican, was like everyone sort of experience this moment, that time looking back on it?

Speaker Yes. There was some realization during the actual event of the importance of it, quite obviously understood the importance of it, the tragedy. And, of course, the fact we would have a new president, United States quite unexpectedly. So we were doing quite a bit of reviewing of Lyndon Johnson’s career with our new president, who we really hadn’t thought of was a president before, perhaps since that episode, since we now realize and I’ve seen it happen. Vice president, take the oath of office and become the president. We probably think a little bit more about the vice presidency than we did then. We should certainly, because this is an example of what can happen. We’re not just electing a president. We are electing one who might very well be the most tragic circumstances.

Speaker Yes. Question. The question is, you said in your book, I can take a lot of credit for keeping the Watergate story alive. How so? Why did you think it was so important to keep it?

Speaker Well, how so? Was that the Watergate story had been running in the newspapers, particularly The Washington Post. Reporters had been doing this investigative job of Watergate.

Speaker And but it took months literally to uncover all of the aspects of the Watergate situation. The the break in at the Democratic headquarters office during the campaign by people, it turned out, who were under the direction of the president of the United States himself.

Speaker As a consequence, that was the Watergate story in a nutshell. The story developed over many weeks as those two very fine reporters at The Washington Post did their prime. The primary revelations and the sources that they got and found other news, people climbed onto the course as well. But they were the key reporters, the key investigators who did most of the uncovering of the Watergate story. But the story dragged on over months. I forget how many. But I think probably eight or nine months, at least, maybe more. It dragged on and the public began to lose interest. Actually, the new facts that were being dumped out to us in The Washington Post and some other papers were really almost repetitious.

Speaker We they added a little more here, a little more there. But the public got a little tired of it, quite tired of it. And as usual, stories that are one time had been on the front pages of most prominent. Plays the newspaper. Went back to the second page and back to the fifth page and back to the tenth page until they were practically back with the obituaries at the back of the newspaper.

Speaker And the public, this respect, this reflected the public’s tiresome miss over the developments. There weren’t that fixed. Exciting, exciting. Just a little bit added here. A little bit added there. As a consequence, the story was disappearing into the back pages, as I was saying. And we were coming up to an election. And obviously the White House was involved. By that time, we’d do that. But the people were forgetting it. And I felt that it was necessary that we remind them, for heaven’s sakes, of this important story that was going to have an influence on the coming election. Indeed. And they should be keeping that in mind. The room be reminded of it. And in so doing, I did we did a three day series on the whole background of Watergate, taking it from the beginning and reminding people on the evening news of this story that we’re still hanging fire, that nothing positive but act to have to done it. And I think that that was an important part of the Watergate story was that CBS three Evening News broadcasts restored the people’s concern about it.

Speaker Their interest in it and awaken them again.

Speaker And indeed, the owner of The Washington Post said in her own reporting that with or without CBS as renewal of the story, she believed that it was a dying story and that indeed the White House attack on them and The Washington Post might have been successful in closing down some of their television stations, was threatened from the White House at one time or another during the their their extended Ruth revelation of the White House’s infamy in carrying all of that Watergate story.

Speaker Do you feel that it’s partly from your investigation of Watergate back to the public, that in some ways that’s part of why Nixon finally resigned? Do you think that that was a factor in keeping that story alive? Finally, the.

Speaker Well, it certainly did.

Speaker Helping keep it alive at a particular time, but it I think without question, it would have still become a source of impeachment with the with the Congress considering impeachment and causing him, therefore, to resign rather than face impeachment.

Speaker Did your feelings about Nixon change from the time you first met him to this post Watergate situation? What were your feelings about Nixon?

Speaker Well, my my feelings weren’t very complimentary about Nixon.

Speaker They never were.

Speaker From the very beginning of his claims of leadership in the House on Affairs of and Affairs Committee, one, by trying to save the American movie title. My take that again.

Speaker Well, my my feelings of Nixon weren’t very great from the very time of his claim o important role in the investigation of the ad American Activities Committee.

Speaker He took a grand role in that publicly, but actually was not as important a figure to that operation on the Hill as you would think as he.

Speaker Let me take let me take that again. No, no.

Speaker Mr. Cronkite. You mean his investigation that.

Speaker Well, Nixon was involved.

Speaker Well, my my feelings about Nixon weren’t very great from the very time that he really entered the House of Representatives and thereafter took, Kirk claimed, a major role in the investigations of the House un-American Activities Committee in regard to. To that that time, of course, their search for communists in government. His role was never that great. But he claimed it and then thereafter built build on it.

Speaker As he got into the White House and was there as that committee continued its work. So I wasn’t a great fan of his.

Speaker I’ll tell you one thing, however, about him, I.

Speaker I was surprised when he was forced to quit the office under the possibility of being impeached instead of course, we know he resigned the office and left the White House.

Speaker He he showed afterwards, I thought, great courage. I was amazed that he he did not disappear entirely, but instead made some public speeches. He began writing very well, very thoroughly about world affairs and did a very good job in it. I think that showed some bravery that I didn’t realize. He had courage to face the people after being forced to resign.

Speaker He came back, as it were. And I I suddenly has some respect for the man that I had never had before.

Speaker Now, another story that you covered, which, in fact. Had an effect on American foreign policy, was your interview with On the War Sa’adat? When you went and spoke with him and then asked him when would he ever go and visit Israel? Can you tell me that story and how that story, in a way, got out of your hands? I mean, that you didn’t know this was going to affect foreign policy, but here’s a news story that actually had an effect. Can you talk about that?

Speaker Yes, I can. The one I was interested in Egyptian politics. I’d been there a few times and found it quite interesting. It was a it was a military group that ran the country for a long time.

Speaker Egypt, five generals and the least of them almost was Anwar Sadat, the one consider least strong, probably five generals. I’m sorry.

Speaker Ow! Ow! Ow!

Speaker Mr..

Speaker Egyptian politics and meeting and recognizing on Mars today, right?

Speaker I got through it, did I? What I said that Anwar Sadat was the let me take that again.

Speaker I was very much interested in Egyptian politics. But it was run by five generals, a military group. And they had thrown out the former monarch, of course.

Speaker And I found that a rather good story. And then the leaders, the leader whose name I’ve forgotten at the moment, Nasser Nasser.

Speaker Cherelle, let me take it again. The day the leader, Nasser, died and they had to pick another of the then existing four generals are the least likely one to be picked for is considered to be Nasser. Now, can I pick it up that point? The least likely it was thought among the politicians in Egypt to be picked among the surviving four generals was set up. He seems the least likely to be selected. But for some reason or other, they selected him.

Speaker My own theory later was that they thought he would not last very long and or give them time to sort out who over over are waiting for.

Speaker They they would like to turn to the presidency. The ad didn’t work out that way. So it turned out to be stronger than they thought. But at any rate, he had just been picked and nobody knew of him much about him and nobody was paying much attention to his new home or the government as if it were just a temporary thing anyway, which I’m sure is what they thought. But I thought we ought to know who he was. So.

Speaker You were going to say we got the first television interview.

Speaker So I decided we ought to know something about this man, even if he was in there temporarily and of course, it gave me a chance to go back to Egypt. So I did get this first television interview with him.

Speaker And this interview was at the president’s waterfront home or the Nile. Lovely place. And that’s where we did it, under the spreading back and freeze.

Speaker And I did this interview and I must say in the early stages of the interview, I was getting pretty bored. We were he was telling me about his hopes for a greater Egypt and so forth and going on and on about his hopes for Egypt. And I kind of shared the general political feeling that he wasn’t going to be in that job long enough to do it himself. And I was rather sleepy after an overnight flight to Egypt. And I was kind of nodding off, I think at one point, practically, when I heard him say, and I shall go to Israel and I, I couldn’t believe I heard it. I said, well, wait a minute, wait. What did you say again, sir? And he said. And I said, go to Israel. And I said, When are you going to Israel? I thought I finally had a story.

Speaker And he said, Just as soon as there is peace, as soon as they have left the Golan Heights, as soon as they returned our property to us, I shall go to Israel, which meant that there was no story at all because it was just a dream in his mind that this would be a time when he would be able to go to Israel.

Speaker So I was kind of dropping the subject in that regard. But I did think I would press him a little further and said, say, well. Were there any other circumstances you would go to Israel? I said, well, what what if you are invited to go go there by the Israeli government? He said, oh, why would it be glad to go, of course, in those circumstances? So I did have a little story out of the thing, not Bottrell World Break or exactly because the likelihood of Israel inviting him there was rather slim, I thought. But that was my that was a little nugget of a story I had. And I, I, I built my interview over that one subject. Well, it. Shortly thereafter, nothing happened right away. But shortly after that, there was a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians who were visiting the Middle East and they were spending a couple of days in Egypt, including a a being included in a session of the parliament and the president, Anwar Sadat, whose title was something else but the head of the government here, he addressed the the parliament that day.

Speaker And he said in his speech and he said, and I shall go to Israel.

Speaker Well, he didn’t amplify it very much. Just said it. I should go to Israel.

Speaker Well, the parliamentarians flew that very day to Israel for a visit there. And the first thing they said to the press was Sadat said he was going to go to Israel or the story here was breaking all over again. This was some weeks after my story, some time after it left. Now, the story’s going all over Europe that Sadat is going to visit Israel. Well, nobody said anything in Israel about it. So we we got on to our long distance phone and I did an interview with Saddam on the phone, expecting to him to say again what his terms were to go to Israel when there was peace. And I got him on the phone, on the television, and I said, and your conditions to go to Israel or when there is peace? And he said, well, no, no, no, I would go any time.

Speaker And I said now. And he said, of course I would go now. He said, all I need. I said, well, you need an invitation. He said, Well, I certainly would accept an invitation. I would go to Israel. Well, now I had to be even bigger story, but I had to get a hold of.

Speaker As of.

Speaker Who is a German? What Israeli was right?

Speaker No, it’s not me.

Speaker No, no, no. He was. Oh, for God’s sakes. All right, Meghan. Real knocking back. Margaret. Yeah. Megan. Yeah. I’ll pick her up. Yeah.

Speaker So. So am I. We we got Bagan ahead of Israel on on the energy, on the phone, an interview on air. And I said that he had said that he would come to Israel and beg and said he said that pretty surprised.

Speaker He said that. And I said yes. And he said, we’ll tell him to come. And I said, well, I think that’s vague. And he needs an invitation. Tell him he has an invitation. I said, well, I don’t think I’m the one to do that. I think you need to do that. He said, why can’t you do it?

Speaker And I said, Well, because I think it has to be official from you, President, your company, your country, and.

Speaker Okay. Would you tell him I said, well, will you invite him? Yes, I’ll invite him or invite him. And I said, well, how will you do that? He said, I’ll I’ll get the American ambassador do it.

Speaker And, you know, I had a thing in my mind that he said that I can’t believe in, I thought I heard.

Speaker And then I never could confirm it. It never showed up. I thought he said, we’ll have the American ambassador do it. They carry all our messages. He didn’t say that it was just in my mind. That’s what he should have said at that moment. At any rate, he said he would. He was extending the invitation. So I had that part of the story that evening on the evening news. We were able to say that the deal had been cut. In other words, Bagan had said when I first said he said he could come right now. He said, well, he said he could sure he can come. I said, well, he said he would come this week, which I had gotten out of it out of Sa’adat. And he said, oh, I, I can’t I can’t have him. This week.

Speaker I’m going to London to see McMellon. Foreign Minister then. And then he stopped himself.

Speaker He said, wait a minute, this is more important. This is more important. Tell him to come down on the call. And that all resulted, of course, in the trip just a few days later.

Speaker Within a couple of days, I was on a plane flying to to Cairo.

Speaker I made arrangements to fly with him, to go with him on his plane in Israel. I thought I had an exclusive on that. But it turned out that that that very able reporter from NBC.

Speaker Barbara, Barbara Walters. I’ll do that again.

Speaker That very able reporter from CBS, Barbara Walters, also arranged to get on the plane. I didn’t know that was gonna happen. I was very disappointed. I was boarding the plane in Cairo with Sudan when a little private plane came or landed on the field and she hopped out of and ran across the field like a football player going into the play, holding, holding her hand up. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait for me. And and so don’t turn into that. Well, she is coming with us as well. And I was not nearly as happy as I’d been a few minutes before, but I did share the trip further away with her.

Speaker And we had a great trip so that when I asked Sadat, he said I could go any time, I could go this way. And I said, I ask guys, could you go this week? Being a reporter, trying to nail it down. He said, sure, I could go this week. And I told that to begging and begging. I said he said he could come this week and beg and said he said he could come this week. I’m really shocked. And I said this week. Yes, sir. And he said, well, I can’t see him this week. I’ve got an appointment with the prime minister, Calahan.

Speaker And in London one. Forget that. Forget that it’s more important that he come here. And that was where it happened.

Speaker Now, let’s pick up what you were going to say. I had just made that comment that it was with Barbara Walters and you running after the story where she jumped on the plane.

Speaker I was a little bit like you P versus the. All right. I’m gonna add a little something about something that happened.

Speaker All right. What’s her name again? Barbara Walters. There are days when I’m brighter than this. I think that they are right.

Speaker Where do I want to pick it up?

Speaker Pick up where you said, oh, I have one thing to have you said because I had said it’s like you just pick it up.

Speaker My response to saying it was like the u p o p is like the two of you, you know, you want me to pick it up a.

Speaker I got one day that. Yeah, well, I’ve got one thing glad about that story.

Speaker I had arranged with the Sudan that he would let me fly with him into Israel, which would be a great part of the story, I thought. And indeed he agreed.

Speaker And I was boarding the plane with him in Cairo when suddenly a little small passenger plane lands on the airport, comes nearly over to that where the president is and out jumps Barbara Walters. My gosh. You know, here I thought I had an exclusive. And here’s Barbara Walters, great reporter. And she herself had thought of that and chartered a plane from Cyprus to get there and try to get on the plane with set up.

Speaker Was a lot like her, a great deal. He kept asking me every time I would talk to him, he’d say, and now is Barbara, as if something was going on between Barbara and me other than a intense rivalry because she’s such a good reporter.

Speaker I’m proud to be a rival of hers. But at any rate, this occasion, the plane lands. I’m getting aboard now to sit in the front seat with the Sa’adat and hear crown Barbara Walters, my my really professional enemy. And she is running across the field. He’s holding her hand up like a football player coming in on the play. And she’s a wait, wait, wait, wait, wait for me. Sad says, oh, Barbara’s here. Happy. Apparently, I was. Couldn’t have been unhappier. And she indeed was invited, of course, to get into the plane. And she did. The only thing was I had already cut the front seat with with the prime minister and I held on to it. I didn’t offer my seat at all. And we flew together into a great story.

Speaker There is also another wonderful story, again, where the news is unpredictable, where you were about to close and the evening. And you got a call on the air from Tom Johnson announcing.

Speaker Right. LBJ had passed away. And you basically fought saying keep the cameras rolling. Tell us that story.

Speaker Paul.

Speaker The.

Speaker It wait about this. Tom Johnson on Lyndon Johnson, yeah. Lyndon Johnson’s death, right.

Speaker All right. OK. OK. Right. Just tell us the story that you were on the air. Yeah, it happened, right.

Speaker How do you how should we get into this? What?

Speaker Well, another situation where, you know.

Speaker In some ways, the news is happening outside of being on the air.

Speaker All right.

Speaker There are always surprises. Somewhere along the line, not every day, but certainly an accumulation of days in the weeks or months. There are always surprises. Getting on the air and staying on there.

Speaker One, for instance, which happened. Right. That deadline as we’re just about to get off the air.

Speaker And that was when the I was on the air just finishing up the evening news that day, the half hour when when suddenly I am handed a telephone by my editor, who is off camera normally.

Speaker And this was the most extraordinary situation. I couldn’t imagine what he he just handed me the phone and nodded, like, pick it up.

Speaker And I picked it up and said, yeah, I said hello. And it was said, this is Tom Johnson, who is Lyndon Johnson’s one of his major assistance in retirement. Of course, at that time he was living in Texas. But this was Tom Johnson, who was an assistant at his. And Tom was saying, Walter, you ought to know that the president, as they called him, was actually Tom was actually Johnson because he said Johnson had just died. That was on his ranch. And I said he said, you can use it. And I said, thank you and hung up the phone.

Speaker And what turned on that had been on the air.

Speaker And I turned to the television and said, Tom Johnson, his aide had just advised us that former President Lyndon Johnson died on his ranch just a few moments ago. And I had quite a scoop on that one. I was very pleased, actually. We almost almost missed it because he kept calling. Tom Johnson called. And at one, the show was on the air. The secretary to the show was in another room. All right. Off the this studio in a glass for birth. And she was getting these calls. And Tom Johnson said, I’ve got to talk to him now. Even if he’s on the air and she’s kept saying he’s on the air, he can’t be interrupted. And finally, she had the wisdom to put him on to the editor who had a desk right behind me, not on the air. And of course, when he got the information, he he interrupted to that degree. So he had quite a scoop that day, thanks to Tom’s persistence in getting hold of me.

Speaker That’s great. Now, you know, I think people don’t really understand how in those days you were writing copy just before you went on the air and how you were revising and you had you had a sense of the timing.

Speaker You had to sort of your your fading get it out.

Speaker To me, I was saying that I don’t think people understand how you did the news in those days, the sense that you have to keep the timing going. You were rewriting copy. You were adjusting to events that were happening. Just kind of spontaneous news reporting. I think it’s not what you get today. And I wondered if you could maybe tell us a little bit about what that process was like and how you handle that pressure.

Speaker Well, I think that sort of thing still happens today. He’s done so smoothly, perhaps made smoother perhaps than we did then a few years ago. But certainly they’re interrupting an hour or not. Not saying they’re interrupting, but change the copy for the the anchor man or whoever is on the air and they can change that copy. And he or she is good enough to simply meld in whatever the new copy is so that you don’t really know that there is a lot of panic in a word in the NEWSROOM. Getting that on the air.

Speaker But there is it is the panic is well controlled, but it can get very exciting when you’re on the air. You all of that work work the same way. I believe the day, certainly hours. I can tell you about what I know. I’m sure the other is the same. We use we use a teleprompter. The teleprompter is fed. Then the what goes on it, of course, by the news department. Those those who are putting together the evening news. And that includes the on air anchor and several writers in the studio. I’m sure that the others are, as ours was at CBS. And those writers are working under the supervision of an editorial director and the anchor mine. The amount that the anchor man played or woman plays in putting the whole broadcast together probably is different with each of the networks. I can only report definitely on CBS what happens. And they’re the anchor man is a wasn’t my time and I think continue to be after I left was the managing editor. I had asked for that title myself when I became the anchor person because I was insistent that I would be the editor of the program if I was going to be the person responsible and the person that people thought was the editor.

Speaker I was going to be the editor and I was going to be the most important of the editorial. People in the studio putting the story. The evening news together. Wait a minute.

Speaker No, that’s what I was trying.

Speaker Of course, the copy that was actually used in the broadcast, which was transferred to the teleprompter, was prepared by a great number of people of the pier, the people, the news pieces that had correspondents in them from other ports around the world.

Speaker Those reporters prepared their own copy, of course.

Speaker And in the studio, the copy that was not provided by others of our reporters out in the field was prepared at the desk by the the anchor man and a staff of three or four writers. We they were rewriting the material from the press services and from some of our own information from people who were not going to be on there themselves. That was carried out. Those stories were assigned by the day to the writers. I wrote many of those stories myself, stories that I was particularly interested in. I wrote for myself than the other writers did. The stories to fill out a day’s report. They were excellent writers. I edited their copy, but for the most part, it went as they wrote it. And all of that was meshed together then on the air, on the teleprompter. And the anchor man, me when I was there, read it off the teleprompter. We frequently I’m sure that my those who follow me on the job did as I did frequently or not frequently, but occasionally ad libbed a story. If a story came in very late and we didn’t have time to actually write it up on the. Teleprinter, they they would pass it to me, to the desk, and I’d get just the highlight or what it was, and I would adlib the story if I knew the background. What I did was that if not, I’d give it the headline and say, we’ll have more for that later. And while, though, while I was doing other broi other things, somebody in the news department there at the desk would rewrite the piece and slip it to me and I’d read it off a copy adlibbing as much as I could to make it appear that I knew the story.

Speaker As managing editor, there were times when you said you threw pencils around the room and curse violence. Lee after we went off the air. I had high expectations of myself and of everyone else. Did you hear that? No, not very well. You said in your book there were times when I threw pencils around the room and pursed violently worried about that.

Speaker That’s ga ga aboard. Can you feel all right?

Speaker There were times this is in your book. There were times when I threw pencils around the room and cursed violently after we were off the air. I had high expectations of myself and everyone that’s garbled.

Speaker I I’m hearing some of the words and not the other. I mean, it’s not by hearing this, I think coming from here.

Speaker Maybe I’m putting it too close to my mouth. Is that better? Better sounding now?

Speaker I think. So let’s try to close to my mouth. OK.

Speaker Now, it’s a quote that you had in your book, which I thought was very interesting. You said that I threw pencils around the room and cursed violently, garbled.

Speaker Do you could. Can we just.

Speaker So I wanted just to get the the story that this was your idea to have the newsroom as the setting for your reports and that in the sense that allowed you to really gain access to immediate stories, that it was very much part of that whole ambience. OK. We have speed.

Speaker I was rather proud of the fact that when I came to this CBS Evening News. Oh, we sure to check.

Speaker We did change the whole newsroom approach to the broadcast itself that we put. I wanted to put the newsroom on camera, although obviously they’d be featuring the the the commentator himself.

Speaker There would be a background there to show that there was a news room in action. And indeed, they accepted that idea. And I think it was the first one in network news and may have been the first of the country. I’m not sure.

Speaker I’m not a I’m certainly not sure even with the networks. But at least as far as CBS, we had a newsroom for the first time. We had the four writers at desks around me. I sat in the center of a round desk and all of them work on a camera from time to time. Not all that. All the time at all. That would have been quite disconcerting. Most of the time I was on there alone. But occasionally the camera would come back and you would see that this was a newsroom, particularly when we had a breaking story.

Speaker Then you actually saw the editor pass copy to me and my taking the copy and read it around living from it. So we saw the newsroom in action. It worked very well. And I, I think that was very widely copied, apparently.

Speaker There’s a wonderful quote in your book which said that you said as managing editor, there were times when I threw pencils around the room and cussed violently after we were off the air. I had high expectations of myself and of everyone else. Tell me about those expectations. So did you.

Speaker Have you always so been about it so?

Speaker Well, I, I have a very short fuse, I’m afraid. And when people do not perform, as I thought they should, including myself, including myself, sometimes I got so mad over a piece of copy I’d written myself. That wasn’t accurate or complete. I would throw a pencil and that was kind of dangerous. I must say. There are other people in the target range. Fortunately, I never put out any eyes that I know of or did any other serious damage. I was proud of my temper and others were very happy with it either.

Speaker In my working family, I was embarrassed sometimes when I called people. I never called the names, except maybe stupid, but I would have to apologize later. Take it back. It always did. I felt sorry that I had shown that I didn’t have much tolerance for mistakes.

Speaker Certainly. Isn’t that what I was asking you about, the craft of journalism? Setting a standard is where you get if you have a high standard, then you do get good work from other people.

Speaker Well, that’s true. And certainly I think that there are many editors who have had short fuses, many of them to the media or thought of as devil’s editors because they were not very tolerant of mistakes.

Speaker I had the worst mistake I read. My life was on my cub days.

Speaker They used to press and I was called up, I, I was doing assigned to do the Daily Bank reports in the paper. And that was just a one liner to liner at the bottom of the front page.

Speaker And it said that that bank reports today in Houston were two million seven hundred thirty two thousand or something. I put that in the paper every day. I had that job I had to call the exchange.

Speaker And yet these numbers, one day the editor called our crime guide to the newsroom. And that was the worst thing you could hear. It better get up here to my desk. And I was terrified. I was still fairly new. And he came when I got to his desk and he said, you made a mistake with the bank reports yesterday. You made a mistake. And they said that that is not tolerable around here. You made a mistake. And I said, oh, my goodness. What? What was a mistake? He said, well, it was thirty two million seven hundred fifty two thousand two hundred seventy three and twenty seven cents.

Speaker And you had thirty seven cents.

Speaker And I said, yes, sir. And I didn’t dare say anything else. And I walked back to my desk and the other reporters or even at that time, were all sympathetic.

Speaker Oh, boy. Kid, you’re really in trouble now. You are really in trouble. And it was my first job.

Speaker I thought I was fired. And they said I said, do you think I’ll be fired? They said, well, you could be over this. This is serious. And I said to one of them was particularly helpful to me or my dad.

Speaker I said, you know, this was 32 million or something like that. The mistake was three cents. He said, well, darn right.

Speaker Whether that’s a kind of a mistake could get you in real trouble. I can tell you that as well as a newspaper.

Speaker And I will out. He’s a kid. Don’t you know what is. Those those reports are, you know, the bank clearances for that day. They said no, kid. Come on. You’re smarter than that, aren’t you? Put those or do the bank reports.

Speaker He said that the the what they call the part of the numbers, the numbers.

Speaker We all know the numbers are pay it off here. The numbers are paid off in use and on the basis of that number. And he said, I want to tell you that the guys who run the numbers aren’t going to forgive you for making a mistake. You could have fixed those numbers, as a matter of fact.

Speaker Have you got anybody at a company in your home? The night was terrified, of course, but it showed good accuracy.

Speaker AIDS in a newspaper, even if it’s on the daily lottery, which is which is illegal.

Speaker That’s a great. Histories of television begin with the growing power of television news and political conventions in the 1950s. These events transformed the event. They covered. They transformed the way we all understood political. Were you aware at the time that you weren’t just reporting anymore, that you were actually changing the course of how things were being reported? I mean, history.

Speaker Well, no, I wasn’t aware a little that first broadcast, the first the first coverage. Television coverage of political intervention.

Speaker That that would include all of us. And we were learning what the effect was as the effect took took its toll of the previous way. We did. Political conventions. Indeed, the political conventions were run, not just how we reported them. We made such a change that it it it altered the entire form or the political conventions, the conventions that we first did, the 19.

Speaker Sixty eight.

Speaker It was the right to do to you. Forty. Forty eight. Fifty two.

Speaker Fifty to fifty to fifty two, fifty two. I’ll pick that up again. Let me get some.

Speaker Fifty two is the first. What do you tell of us? Fifty two was the first time. That’s right.

Speaker We’re here to pick that up at the beginning, Tucker.

Speaker All right. The first of the convention to be covered by by television was 1952. And that was practically the last year that the American political conventions, whereas they had been practically since the pioneer days.

Speaker They were altered completely to fit television and that what they were trying to do was make the conventions look more well, more serious.

Speaker If you want to put it that way, I think that they had period before because the 1952 convention was the last convention that in which all of the shouting and yelling took all on the floor.

Speaker There was no decorum in the convention at all. You can hardly hear from the speakers stand in the hall itself. There was so much noise, shouting denials of statements being made by others on the hall.

Speaker And it was decorum, absolutely forgotten, did disappeared.

Speaker Now, then the political parties decided both on the Democrats and the Republicans decided after that year that they wanted their conventions to look like they were more formal, like the people were more intelligent, perhaps even intelligent, and didn’t seem to show on the early or ward days. So they they changed all the rules of the convention so that there was no informal speaking. Nobody was permitted to speak or shout from the floor. There were no demonstrations from the floor previously. Every once in a while, a state delegation objected to something being set on the floor where he got up and prayed around with their banners announcing what they believe should be the facts.

Speaker This would happen. They were shouting and yelling and that that they got rid of the candidate. Conventions were much more civil. But unfortunately, they lost all of their true meaning because everything that was planned for the convention speeches were done and were done, a practice that is in silence, not silence. Let me take that again.

Speaker What they were the.

Speaker In order to avoid any of these shouts and screams on the floor, each of the delegations, when they were to make a speech of some kind, had to announce it, a prototype to meet the chairman of the meeting. And they were recognized with the understanding that there was to be no extraneous talk on the whole.

Speaker I all this was all right to get their business done, but it wasn’t the open business that had been done before. For instance, even the platform committee report was done at the open to the convention. They debated the platforms right on the floor. That never happened again. Those platform committee met privately and group drew up the platform and then it was presented to the assembled convention to vote. Aye or nay. And they always voted a course.

Speaker It must have been very exciting. The 52 year convention, because you really could see the damage to the democratic process happening right in front of you. Absolutely. And I guess. Nowadays, you just have no sense of that process. And what do you have any thoughts about the importance of this kind of letting the people see that process?

Speaker Well, I definitely do think that seeing that the program developed on the floor, the the platform afforded on the floor. Yes, that is that is democracy at its is not always very civilized, but it is open for the public to understand.

Speaker I would think that they could improve that system today if the platform committee met in the open just yet, perhaps on a different hall and brought forth the platform that then would be presented to the entire body, that would be at least open up the debate as to how they reach that platform. So the public could understand it much better than democracy would be served much better.

Speaker It also wasn’t in that environment. You really focused on issues as opposed to just sort of the.

Speaker Oh, yes. Including the debate and the platform committee. Still, it can be quite cantankerous at times, but it now now goes to the convention where the public can see it in its completed form and or there may be some debate on the floor, but very little that has been taken place in a closed meeting.

Speaker You write that Theodore White’s book on the making of the president. 1960 changed political reporting from substance to technique. Because other reporters wanted to emulate what success? But didn’t television do that to.

Speaker What was the question again?

Speaker You write that Theodore White’s book, The Making of the President, changed political reporting from substance to technique. Because other reporters wanted to emulate what success? But didn’t you feel that television did that to.

Speaker Well, yes, indeed, indeed it did.

Speaker Yes, we of course, we had our not just the anchor person, but we had several reporters on the floor. They were getting in interviews with the delegates as the as the stories developed.

Speaker Were supposed to stay quiet while debate was continuing, but we didn’t or our reporters and other reporters working the floor would move around the floor to the delegations where action was taking place and actually cover that part of the action so we could emphasize what the story was, what was really happening. It was little, sometimes hard to understand it, just with what went on the floor. So our reporters on on the floor themselves were able to to clarify and amplify the interview, the principals involved. They therefore improved the democratic process actually by being on the floor of the conventions.

Speaker And the conventions today do have some semblance of the action that we had before on the floor, but only a semblance because the parties themselves are disciplined.

Speaker And they they want the public to believe that they don’t have any shouting differences, but agree on everything at all times.

Speaker And they try to they actually almost achieve that on the floor. But the debates are going on in private rooms off the floor, not available to television, so that we’re getting a false picture about all of the political and the political conventions. The ability of the parties to do agree on the major issues without any serious differences. That’s just not the case. The party conventions today are really not really seriously worth covering. To my boys and to the mind of a lot of other officials in television each year. The debate is getting tighter about just not covering those conventions at all. There we go live for a full week of prepared speeches. Harvey, it is worth the time on the air.

Speaker Well, I don’t know for sure what she meant by it. I’d like to think that she was referring to the fact that I was competitive in action when we were doing the job. I had competitors that I wanted to beat the story, either get it, get it quicker or get it more completely than they had with some information they didn’t know. I was always seeking to win that battle. Ambitious.

Speaker She might have been referring to the fact that I I hope she was referring to the fact that I wasn’t I wasn’t doing on decline or even on press. Let me take that again.

Speaker You say that she because you don’t know who she is, because I’m going to have my question.

Speaker Oh, I see. All right. Oh, you won’t. All right.

Speaker Well, I’d like to think that that being competitive is one thing that that is that is the desire and effort to a better job than your competitor, either in more information or more exclusive information or perhaps better writing, whatever their equivalents are, whereas ambitions might suggest playing, playing a little dirty, perhaps just to get get the better of the other fuddle, either in daily competition or in the long haul in career development.

Speaker You said. It’s it’s interesting that the one Fred Friendly came out to tell you that. They thought you weren’t going to be reporting on the convention.

Speaker You seem to have been so solid in yourself that it seems like you were very calm and. If any. In some ways, I think it’s sort of like a Zen play, you sort of just were calm and waited to see what happened as opposed to screaming and calling lawyers and getting all hyped up about it. Tell me a little bit about that quality about yourself. You just sort of feel. I mean, what’s that about?

Speaker Well, I don’t know, I don’t really analyze those qualities about myself, so but some not so sure that the distinction of each of them is accurate. Actually, I’d have to, I think, assess them on the basis of each issue as it comes along in regard to that particular episode of the shock of being told by Fred Friendly that I was being taken off for the coverage of the conventions, which was a highlight of every four years, and sounded like really very serious, put down perhaps a permanent one on my career.

Speaker I just had great difficulty accepting and believe in it, but I had to. Was there my reaction to it was that there’s nothing I can do about it. I’m not. I wasn’t going to fight for the job by going over his head. I don’t think I would have been much good anyway. He was at CBS News at the time and I don’t know that my going to the president of the network wouldn’t have done any good at all. And I doubt it because he had been given that job and they would, I’m sure, of back doing well. So I was left hanging. I lost one of the top jobs in television. I didn’t know what they might have planned for my doing ABC News. Maybe that was coming next and he was going to fire me from that. Maybe I’d be out of work entirely. But there wasn’t any do I was going to go higher. I think that’s ridiculous.

Speaker Besides, I didn’t have a contract and such such need to be worth fighting at any rate. That was.

Speaker That would my acceptance of it. I was very bitterly disappointed. And there was one little episode that I might to report on to you that I said that I was going to the convention anyway.

Speaker The convention was in Atlantic City that year, and I told the company that I was going to originate the news from the convention as I would have been expected to do if I’d been doing the anchor job as well.

Speaker So I was at the hotel, too, and preparing to go to the first session without me.

Speaker When I found myself in the toilet in the net and the elevator leaving the hotel with the president of NBC News and he said he was sorry, I didn’t understand why CBS was making a mistake. He was very kind. And I said, I think we just finished coming down the elevator. I saw the crowd of news people and delegates just about to go walk down the 67 blocks to the convention hall. And I had this idea. I said, listen, why don’t we go walk through the this all this mass of people will be interested in my fate. And you, the president of NBC News, be talking to me earnestly, as if we may have something afoot. And it’s a great idea. A great idea. He played the part perfectly, got very serious. And here we’re going through this lobby filled with delegates and news people and news executives. And he’s talking to me. And I was, you know.

Speaker I’d like to.

Speaker And we’re doing this through the. And everybody starts, just stops for what they’re doing. And you can see him turning right to the other. Do you think clearly we left the impression that I was moving over to NBC and we walked down all six blocks doing this with other people seen as an earnest conversation. We went into the hall together. And what we did do is people surrounded me. Are you going? NBC agreed.

Speaker And here came the CBS head of the producer. And he came running to be.

Speaker And he said, what’s this about? You’re going to see the room. Rumors spread instantly. And made my happy hour. Morning. I must say. But it did have a little play that day. The news of the convention.

Speaker That’s great. That’s a wonderful story.

Speaker I want to go to the 1950s, eat fruit. Sorry, 1953 flood in the Netherlands.

Speaker That’s when you first discovered the power of TV. And I wondered if you could talk about briefly about that story and and what have what you recognize.

Speaker Well, in 1953, the Dutch had a terrible, terrible flood there. As we know, below water level anyway, and the loss was very great and I’m very sympathetic, sympathetic to the Dutch, having worked there like the Dutch immensely.

Speaker As a matter of fact, of Dutch family.

Speaker And so I thought that might be a good idea if we could go on the air and tell people that they could they should give things to the Dutch clothing that particularly clothing, food and so forth.

Speaker And we would have just, of course, have some place to draw them to distribute it.

Speaker And I called my friends at American Airlines and said, if you would agree with this plan, we would tell people they could take their goods to their nearest American Airlines office.

Speaker And it was an open just leave it outside. And American Airlines is going to arrange to fly it to Amsterdam. The problem was that it turned out that they didn’t have enough aircraft for all the stuff that was collected around the United States and that the public relations guy there with whom I dealt call me the next day and said, what in the world have you done to us? People can’t even get into our offices to do book flights, for heaven’s sake. We got so much stuff piled all over America. And then they said, but but we’re we’re working on it.

Speaker And he came back and an hour or two later and said, I’ve got the the organization of oh oh oh.

Speaker Of what kind of shipping off of road shipping primarily.

Speaker I’ve got that organization. And they promised that they will take their empty trucks and dump the material. And we’re going to dump to the waterfront in Brooklyn and we are going to ship from there. All that’s how much stuff we’ve got.

Speaker And it’s going to be shipped to the Netherlands.

Speaker So that was that was a great idea. We had we had we had started the thing by my calling the one of the popular Arthur Godfrey show.

Speaker We’ll get started again.

Speaker I had we had started this whole thing by my calling Arthur Godfrey show to Arthur Godfrey.

Speaker People say that we’re collecting this material and to take it to the American Airlines offices. When I called the the Godfrey show, I got a guy on the phone who was a writer. And this fellow was on the phone as writer and he just barged right in. Do what? And what do you got? What am I supposed to do here? And I said, well, the idea is, Godfrey, that you’re going to put a piece on the Godfrey show announcing that American Airlines is collecting all of this material. You’re going to be shipped to the Netherlands. And he said, that’s all. And I said, well, that’s basically it. However, one of the one of the hundred and first airborne generals is going to make a little play as well because they ordered first airborne and landed in the Netherlands. And he’s he’s agreed to ask the people to make these donations. So he took all this down. And then I said, what is your name? He said, My my name. My name is. I can’t think of a name even right now. You know who it is. And he really, of course, my God, my best friend. Well, anyway, I figured, well, you know, so. So at the end of this little conversation, which was very brief, I said, what is your name? And he said, My name’s Andy Rooney.

Speaker I said, not Andy Rooney, not Miami Media. We had the war together. And he said, Yeah, that’s me. Who are you again? Was it Walter Cronkite? He said, Oh, yeah, you’re doing that thing in Washington now. And I said, Yeah, that’s that’s right. I thought, well, that’s great. Then we’ve got to get together again. So that got us together again. And we’ve been together as buddies ever since. Very dear buddies. He’s a great artist, of course. And what he does, a great admirer of his. So anyway, I. I found my friend again, even though we had to ship this stuff by sea. It turned out we got so much that the sea people couldn’t take at all.

Speaker And the Dutch, one of those terrible stories of Tappan’s in modern day news, the was the left wing Dutch, and they had quite a heavy left wing move.

Speaker But the country at that time, they they and their newspapers said that we Dutch can’t even have our own tragedy without the American butting in. Which got them the Dutch government to saying we don’t really need all this stuff, which was very really not quite true. But at any rate, we end up not signing much of it to the Netherlands. Most distributed to the needy in America, which helped them quite a bit. But it wasn’t the intention originally.

Speaker And what did you learn from that experience? You discover.

Speaker Well, Howard Stern, for one thing, that is not a good idea to butt in other people’s business. We should let the Dutch guests have their tragedy without are trying to be of help. That’s that’s not quite quite the lesson, quite obviously. That’s not the lesson, really. But it was a shocker.

Speaker And and it does say something that you probably should not offer aid until you clear it with those who are going to use it, but not be too eager to to be the Good Samaritan.

Speaker Now, just before we end, I just because we’re gonna go see Andy, I just wondered if you could tell me the first time you met him. What were the circumstances when you met Andy Rooney?

Speaker Well, we were both war correspondents. He was a very young one.

Speaker I’m sorry, could you just say, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. We were talking about this for.

Speaker What did you use that line? We were talking about and you’re.

Speaker No, no, no.

Speaker And he was such a dear friend, I’d met him during the war and admired and worked during the war. He was one of the youngest correspondents in the war.

Speaker He was a younger soldier in the Army and applied for writing for the Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper. And they send him overseas almost instantly. And he was there from the beginning of the American in the war, America and the war. And I met him there in the streets of London as we were covering stories together. And we became very dear friends. I saw him in awe and all during the war, not too often.

Speaker He was with with ground troops almost continually. And I spent a lot of time with the air troops. But we met on occasion and always with a lot of goodwill together, I think. And we have been very dear friends as civilians back in the country.

Speaker This is truly the last question. I’m just very interested in this in your autobiography. Here you are, someone who is the classic American success story. You came from a middle class family. You have you have your celebrity. You have all this success and wealth that America has, you know, looks up to. And yet in that last chapter of your autobiography, you said that you didn’t think you made a difference because the standards you tried to create were so quickly wiped out by those who followed. I wanted to ask you, do you feel somehow that even though you have achieved all of this success and wealth in terms of what American thinks is important? Why do you feel like you? Why did you make this statement in your book?

Speaker Well, I was. I don’t know, maybe I was being too modest. As I look back. That’s not quite true. I, I, I simply felt that that the impact should have been more perhaps impressive with journalism. The journalists themselves and the teacher journalism that had been a success. All right.

Speaker But I didn’t really see where it was written in the books anywhere, that this is a model of how journalism should work in any form, either directly and journalism itself or even in covering the news that I covered. Did I go deeply enough into some of the story politically, particularly political stories, that perhaps I should have worked harder on interpreting the meaning of things rather than simply the existence of them?

Speaker But you all I mean, you know, I mean and that group of journalists, you all had a vision for what you thought news could be.

Speaker Did you feel you feel like somehow that that it didn’t. It didn’t quite come out the way you had hoped? Did you all have a vision? And that vision didn’t really happen.

Speaker Well, yes, but that’s suggesting that division or should be admitting that division perhaps was basically unreachable.

Speaker Let me take that back. I really don’t want to make that statement anyway. OK.

Speaker I guess what I what I should ask him instead lead the question. But what was the vision that you had in those early years of television and news, news, television? What was the vision and the ambition that you all had? And where do you think it sort of come out at this point?

Speaker Well, I think that perhaps our ambition was perhaps a little great.

Speaker I think each of us thought that that television news would would really perhaps change the nature of man, that we would elevate the whole news process in this pictorial fashion that had been handed to us. And I’ve I think we’ve done a very good job.

Speaker I think that by successors have done a quite good job and certainly had my contemporaries did. But not not to the degree that we might have hoped that that we would educate as well as report.

Speaker Education is not really our job. But I think some of us assumed that it would be. And we learned as the newspaper people, as well as broadcasters as well as television broadcasters. We we all are brought to the realization, I think, from time to time that our medium is not an educational one in itself. It educates clearly, but it cannot be. The educational source for four are running public for our youth. We can’t do that job. That is a teacher’s job, a professor job. What we can do is lay the facts in front of people for the interpretation that we will do in some cases, but not complete as a educational A to Z.

Speaker I’m going to stop here. I think we should stop. But there’s a great.

Walter Cronkite Interview #3
Interview Date:
American Archive of Public Broadcasting GUID:
cpb-aacip-504-ht2g737r8c, cpb-aacip-504-ff3kw5846d, cpb-aacip-504-x05x63bx4x
"Walter Cronkite Interview #3 , Walter Cronkite: Witness to History" American Masters Digital Archive (WNET). February 14, 2006 ,
(1 , 1). Walter Cronkite Interview #3 , Walter Cronkite: Witness to History [Video]. American Masters Digital Archive (WNET).
"Walter Cronkite Interview #3 , Walter Cronkite: Witness to History" American Masters Digital Archive (WNET). February 14, 2006 . Accessed February 3, 2023


PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.