An AP Story (Big Three Anchormen Leave Sense of Loss) makes this low-key claim: They were the men you could depend upon, the faces you'd see every night at dinnertime. In times of trouble, they were always there. Their words rang with authority. For a generation of television viewers, it was a role assumed by Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather. Not just anchormen, they were father figures, and their sudden absence as a regular presence after more than 20 years leaves an empty feeling.All very true. Oh, I'm sorry, I meant NOT true. As not true as it is overblown brown-nosing.
Even if we could say that these "anchors" were actual journalists instead of glorified fashion-models, why on earth do we consider them "authorities"?
Is it because I have spent my life around college professors and Rosh Yeshivas that I place the bar too high? Is it wrong to assume that an "authority" should have above average intelligence, education and good judgment?
Rather, Brokaw and Jennings do not appear/talk/act particularly intelligent.
All three are either un- or under-educated (Jennings never graduated High School or college; Brokaw had a low C average at the University of South Dakota, and Rather has a BA from Sam Houston State Teachers College).
And they don't display good judgment - Rather is a clown, Jennings a racist, and Brokaw isn't much of anything.
Don't forget, all three came into power during an world era where any White Christian Male with all his hair and teeth could rise to the top of every profession with no competition.
The fact that the United States considers these unqualified crackers "authorities" explains why journalism has been a colossal failure since the brief Vietnam era heroism.
Pathetic.
