The year is 1963. It’s November. At 1:40 PM ET, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite comes on the air. “In Dallas, Texas, three shots were fired at President Kennedy’s motorcade in downtown Dallas. The first reports say that President Kennedy has been seriously wounded by this shooting.” Rapidly, everyone in America descends upon the closest television set to tune in.
In the article from which this quote is taken, MG Siegler, one of the more level-headed bloggers at TechCrunch, attempts to make the point that Twitter is now the new Walter Cronkite.
I disagree. It turns out that I was one of the millions who watched Walter Cronkite make the various announcements about President Kennedy in November 1963. If you weren't there, you can't imagine how moving it was, even for a youngster like me (I was a freshman in high school, and school had been let out because of the reports of Kennedy's shooting).
Would Twitter have had the same impact as Cronkite back then? No, and it doesn't today either. In those days, news was actually news, not a production that lasted 24 hours a day, mixing in dribble with serious facts. The evening national news last 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes. That's because it covered what was worth reporting, and did not have the fluff to value ration of 98% that the current media, and especially Twitter, has. When Walter Cronkite showed up on your TV screen in the middle of the day, it meant something significant had happened.
Today Twitter does serve as a news outlet for many, but that's because they are sickly glued to Twitter as many of their waking hours as they can be, sucking in information and bullshit at an incredible rate, and sometimes catching a news story in the stream.
I appreciate the technology we have now. But, let's not try to make it more than it is.
Comments [0]