The following is a transcript of Walter Cronkite's keynote address at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism's Forum on Media Ownership. The speech was delivered on February 6, 2007.

I am delighted to be here today to talk to you about media ownership. And I do want to focus on that last word —ownership. I am aware of the frustration with the media in this country. And frankly, I share some of that frustration. But even as we come together today for some critical thinking about the news business, let’s please be very careful about where we lay blame.

From my perspective, the major problem these days is not with individual journalists – or the standards of the profession. The young people I see entering the field of journalism today are no less intelligent or dedicated than in my generation. They are indeed quite brave to be entering a profession with far less job security and far greater economic uncertainty than the one I knew. They do so, I believe, out of a deep sense of commitment to public service. No -- the major problem I see today has to do with unrealistic expectations that consolidated corporate ownership puts on working journalists.

My generation of journalists knew we would have to work hard. We knew that our job was to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often did not want exposed. And we anticipated that the resources we would need to do our difficult jobs would be given to us. For the most part, we were right.

Today, I do not believe most journalists have that luxury. Instead, they are saddled with inflated profit expectations from Wall Street. They face round after round of job cuts -- and cost cuts -- that require them to do ever more with ever less. In this “Information Age,” and the very complicated world in which we live, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever. It’s not just the journalists’ jobs at risk here — it’s American democracy – it is freedom’s future.

In recalling my early days as a journalist, I am acutely aware of the effect some of these changes in the media business have had on the quality of news reporting today.

My first job was with the Houston Press -- and our competitor was the Houston Chronicle. We each put out several editions a day. Each time the Chronicle put out a new edition, a copy boy ran eight blocks to its loading dock to bring back a copy -- literally hot -- or at least warm -- off the press. My editor would then spread it out on his desk to compare what they’d written with what I’d written. I can still hear him holler out: “Cronkite! The Chronicle spells this guy’s name S-m-Y-t-h. We’ve got S-m-i-t-h. Which is it?” Or: “The Chronicle says it was 1412 Westheimer -- we say it was 1414. Who’s right?”

That kind of check on our work several times a day sure made us better reporters! But how many towns have that kind of newspaper competition any more? Most towns today have only one newspaper. And the result is just what you’d expect. The accuracy in news reporting isn’t the same anymore.

No matter how devoted editors may be, (and most of them are), they don’t have that competition by which to monitor the accuracy of their reporters. Nor do readers have the means by which to judge the accuracy of what they read in the single newspaper in their towns. Now that’s not the sort of calculation that a publisher makes when deciding to fold a newspaper -- or to sell to a big chain. But it has a big effect on the quality of the news business and how well journalists do their job.

As for radio, where I got my start; and TV, where I spent most of my career, things have gotten even worse. There isn’t much news on radio anymore, except for the few bright spots like National Public Radio.

And, you may be surprised to learn that I have never felt that TV news was a genuine substitute for a good newspaper. The number of words spoken in a half-hour TV broadcast barely equals those contained on two-thirds of a page in a standard newspaper!

Of course, with the right resources, TV news could raise the floor of knowledge -- and the viewers’ understanding of the world. But news of that sort is expensive to gather and report -- and the news budgets that we’ve got today just aren’t up to the task.

Furthermore, TV Network news cannot possibly do an adequate job of covering this nation, let alone a very complicated world – in a half-hour broadcast. In real time – with ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ and commercials, that leaves our news people only 17 or 18 minutes of hard news time. It is woefully inadequate! What we are left with is a sound-bite culture that turns political campaigns into political theater. And the media business has been a willing accomplice in this deterioration.

Now, with all this doom and gloom, you may ask: What can be done to improve the state of the news business? Conferences like these are a very good start. All of you who have important roles to play -- business people, journalists, policymakers – have gathered here to exchange and contribute ideas on how to create a better future for news.

Business people need to understand that ownership of a news company involves special, civic responsibilities. Consolidation and cost-cutting may be good for the bottom line in the short term, -- but it isn’t necessarily good for the country or the health of the news business in the long-term.

To my mind, what best would serve the country and the free press, is to encourage ownership by entities that are dedicated to public service: -- Companies that invest for the long haul and will serve their communities rather than just ever-greater profits.

America is a powerful and prosperous nation. We certainly should insist upon -- and can afford to sustain -- a media system of which we can be proud.

I would very much like to thank our esteemed panelists for their time and commitment to these issues -- and to all of you in the audience for coming here today.

Special thanks, also, to the Columbia School of Journalism for hosting this event -- and for inviting me to introduce this critical discussion.

[top]