Murrow skewed his reports like all the others. His job was to stimulate sympathy for the British during the blitz. Roosevelt knew he had little support to enter the war and was attempting to push, not lead, his constituents to a "pro-British" stance. The Japanese started a war with us, carefully avoiding inciting the British. Hitler, for reasons unfathomable, decide to go with the Japanese and declared war against America negating the need for Roosevelt's slower approach. Poor old Adolph sure did a lot to insure he wouldn't be successful, thank goodness.
The Second Amendment simply forces the government to suck it up and let the people what they wish about the people in power. Lincoln chose to ignore that particular amendment when it suited his agenda.
Murrow, Cronkite, et al had/have their agendas and they are established by those who write the monthly checks.
Murrow was not broadcasting the news in an unbiased manner (word choices, inflection/emotion,facial expressions). He broadcast as his employer dictated. If he hadn't he wouldn't have remained employed.
In the past, editorials were led by a disclaimer. Now days, it's tough to tell a news report from an editorial comment.
Believe it or not, John Sterart was considered hard news by many semi-sentient college students. And, many viewers unquestioningly watch programs on so-called news channels and do not differentiate between the news and the editorial shows. The lines are blurred guys but, surely not that much.
And, remember, one person's truth is probably another person's falsity. It's all in what you want to believe. The news that fits your perspective is "spot on!' The other stuff is "bu****it." With only a couple of caveats, the media is Constitutionally protected to write/broadcast what they wish with regards to governance and the people who govern. No other country I'm aware of provides that protection to its citizens.
