DonRocks Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 If you don't know about what's going on with Brian Williams yet, just search for his name on the internet. Could this news anchorman actually get away with a lie of this magnitude and still keep his job? It's on *Page B10* of today's New York Times! The Washington Post gets big credit in my eyes for putting it on Page A1 which is exactly where it should be. This "conflation of aircraft" is not some personal affair in his private life; it is directly relevant to his job as news anchor at NBC, and should be treated as such. I see it as an unrecoverable lie. Many of us have "inserted ourselves" at events to make for a better cocktail party story (it's a common psychological phenomenon), but not so many of us have continued the lie for 12 years on national TV, and have involved our nation's soldiers in the lie. Here he is on The David Letterman Show in 2013, where an astounded Letterman calls him a "war hero" because his helicopter was hit with an RPG (the problem being, that it wasn't). The stories go on, and on, and on: "NBC's Brian Williams Admits His Helicopter Took No Fire In Iraq" on npr.org "Brian Williams' Apology Is Under Fire" by Ann Oldenburg on usatoday.com "Brian Williams Recants Story About Being Shot Down In Iraq" by Eliana Dockterman on time.com "Can NBC News Have Any Credibility With Brian Williams As Its Face?" by David Zurawick on baltimoresun.com "Brian Williams Should Resign For 'Conflating'" by Clarice Feldman on americanthinker.com "Brian Williams Even Said 'I Thought I Was Going To Die' In Chopper Attack" by Evan McMurry on mediaite.com
Al Dente Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Brian has had a lot on his mind lately: Anna Lingus 3
lion Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I see it as an unrecoverable lie. Perhaps I've become jaded living in the DC area for so long, but I think Brian is on his way for running for political office. Just cleaning up any history that could be used against him in a future campaign.
DonRocks Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 Perhaps I've become jaded living in the DC area for so long, but I think Brian is on his way for running for political office. Just cleaning up any history that could be used against him in a future campaign. Now, it sounds less nefarious (small arms fire; not RPG): "Helicopter Pilot: 'Actually, Yes, Brian Williams' Chopper Did Take Fire in 2003'" by Caitlin MacNeal on talkingpointsmemo.com So why did he apologize so profusely and admit that it didn't happen? Now I think he's going to wiggle out of this - it will be portrayed as an "exaggeration," not a "fabrication." There were some very powerful, very crafy tacticians at work during the past 24 hours.
Tujague Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Then again, memory is wonky, especially under stressful situations. But if this doesn't bother me as much as some, it's probably because I give such little credence to network and cable news anymore, geared as they are toward shaping stories so as to gain maximum eyes and ears for as long as possible--and taking aim at those who don't cooperate in that goal--or focusing on fluff (Prince George's latest boo-boo). For me, Williams is less offensive on that level than many of his colleagues and peers, and his personal credibility is no worse than the entire enterprise in which he's engaged. 1
DonRocks Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 Then again, memory is wonky, especially under stressful situations. Less so when there's more than one person involved - there were numerous people who most likely pointed out his "conflation" over the past dozen years. I cannot believe Williams is going to get away with his self-serving lie, but he just might (at the expense of NBC News, I will add).
darkstar965 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Now, it sounds less nefarious (small arms fire; not RPG): "Helicopter Pilot: 'Actually, Yes, Brian Williams' Chopper Did Take Fire in 2003'" by Caitlin MacNeal on talkingpointsmemo.com So why did he apologize so profusely and admit that it didn't happen?... It's very plausible he didn't (and doesn't) really know or there was conflicting information at the time. Even more plausible if it was a flight (group) of helos with one taking some fire and another not. Lots of noise. Lots of chaos, wind and rotor noise and he was probably on headphones dialed into different frequencies (I.e, listening to the chatter of a lead chopper versus the one he was on) that could easily confuse a civilian. Then again, memory is wonky, especially under stressful situations. But if this doesn't bother me as much as some, it's probably because I give such little credence to network and cable news anymore, geared as they are toward shaping stories so as to gain maximum eyes and ears for as long as possible--and taking aim at those who don't cooperate in that goal--or focusing on fluff (Prince George's latest boo-boo). For me, Williams is less offensive on that level than many of his colleagues and peers, and his personal credibility is no worse than the entire enterprise in which he's engaged. Tend to agree with this. To me, calling for his termination or speculating his credibility is destroyed is overkill. I don't think this is a big deal and would give him a pass.
Tujague Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Or, to go out farther, I don't understand why this is somehow more offensive than the ways in which the mainstream media was either co-opted into or willingly participated in promoting the wars of the past 14 years (or longer). Focusing on one man's misrepresentations of his own peril seems like small potatoes to the misrepresentations of the threats to the US from Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries that the networks pummeled us with constantly. If you want to go after Brian Williams for something, go after him for that, but he shouldn't be a scapegoat for a larger journalistic sin. That's not to defend his actions, but to place them within a broader context of the mainstream media competing for attention, particularly in an age of celebrity journalism, at the expense of the public good. (And, yes, even despite his prevarications, props to all journalists who venture into war zones, which too often has been at the cost of their lives, regardless of motivation.) 1
DonRocks Posted February 6, 2015 Author Posted February 6, 2015 It's very plausible he didn't (and doesn't) really know or there was conflicting information at the time. Even more plausible if it was a flight (group) of helos with one taking some fire and another not. Lots of noise. Lots of chaos, wind and rotor noise and he was probably on headphones dialed into different frequencies (I.e, listening to the chatter of a lead chopper versus the one he was on) that could easily confuse a civilian. Tend to agree with this. To me, calling for his termination or speculating his credibility is destroyed is overkill. I don't think this is a big deal and would give him a pass. I'm of the general mindset to cut people breaks, but he's had twelve years, and many witnesses present to corroborate, or debunk, his story - which he only fabricated more deeply as the years went by. If you were in a helicopter hit by an RPG, and were a reporter covering the Iraqi war, would you at least ask what happened? Brian Williams does not get a pass from me on this one. That said, I'm going to move this thread into the History forum, and let it play out on more appropriate sources of media. Or, to go out farther, I don't understand why this is somehow more offensive than the ways in which the mainstream media was either co-opted into or willingly participated in promoting the wars of the past 14 years (or longer). Focusing on one man's misrepresentations of his own peril seems like small potatoes to the misrepresentations of the threats to the US from Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries that the networks pummeled us with constantly. If you want to go after Brian Williams for something, go after him for that, but he shouldn't be a scapegoat for a larger journalistic sin. That's not to defend his actions, but to place them within a broader context of the mainstream media competing for attention, particularly in an age of celebrity journalism, at the expense of the public good. (And, yes, even despite his prevarications, props to all journalists who venture into war zones, which too often has been at the cost of their lives, regardless of motivation.) Now we're getting political - I have absolutely no idea what Brian Williams' politics are, and don't care. Your more interesting point of "the mainstream media competing for attention" is, in my view, relevant to the story. Some may think this was a political post on my part; it was nothing of the sort. It's one of the Big Three news anchors committing what I see to be a massive fraud for personal gain. Let me also emphasize, once again, that I respect any and all political and religious views that are thoughtful, based on kindness, and whose goal is the advancement of a better life for mankind.
darkstar965 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Don, three thoughts in response: 1. "Taking fire" or "being under fire" doesn't necessarily equate to "getting hit" by a SAM, shoulder-fired missile, RPG or small arms fire. An aircraft "taking fire" has different ways to evade such fire and a passenger (especially a civilian) might not even know it happened or be confused for many reasons. That said, I think he did say "we were hit" in at least one interview but given all the time that passed and the reality that small arms fire might not even jolt an aircraft dependent on speed and shot location, still think it plausible he didn't know or mixed up the events honestly. 2. Why has this only become a big story 12 years after the fact if it was so clearly a fabrication all that time? 3. This shouldn't be political but the fiercest criticism is coming more from one political side than another if you consider the sources, content and tone of the various critiques. Bottom line, and of course just my view, it should be a non-story. Some in the media have called this a "huge slap in the face of veterans" and, to best vett that, good to ask some veterans. Some will agree and some will disagree. Of that you can be sure. ... (And, yes, even despite his prevarications, props to all journalists who venture into war zones, which too often has been at the cost of their lives, regardless of motivation.) Biggest of agrees with the part excerpted above. The memorial wall at the Newseum is every bit as sobering as some of the war memorials in DC. Brian Williams aside, journalists in war zones who report on all facets of war deserve much more respect and admiration than they tend to get.
Tujague Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Now we're getting political (we actually already got political in Post #2 and #3 - I have absolutely no idea what Brian Williams' politics are, and don't care). Your more interesting point of "the mainstream media competing for attention" is, in my view, relevant to the story. My aim wasn't to make this political, but more to note how the media shapes our politics--it's all pretty much inseparable, in my view. The competition for attention shapes political perceptions by giving particular emphasis or perspective on any certain story, whether or not it is inherently political. Simply entering a war zone in a politically disputed conflict, any journalist is going to, on some level, shape political opinion. How we perceive or understand our wars is in large part due to the journalistic coverage. So, Brian Williams talking about being under enemy fire, true or not, is probably going to do more to persuade many of the righteousness of a cause rather than to give people pause about its possible follies. It's not just self-aggrandizing, it undergirds a perspective that the media has some competitive stake in perpetuating. The issue isn't Brian Williams's or anyone's personal politics; it's what grabs the ratings, so the bigger issue it seems, is cynicism. And yes, I expressed my political views, but that didn't really change my larger point. I suspect that Williams got caught in the contemporary talk-show trap of being compelled to appear on Letterman, Leno, Fallon, et al., and to tell a "good story," egged on by whatever host is interviewing him, in order to boost ratings and promote the news division. It was dumb, but he wasn't necessarily alone in this. The talk shows need the audiences as much as the news shows, and audiences suspend credulity in the name of being entertained, which we mistake with being informed. 1
DonRocks Posted February 6, 2015 Author Posted February 6, 2015 2. Why has this only become a big story 12 years after the fact if it was so clearly a fabrication all that time? Erik Wemple, whose job it is to look into things like this, has asked the same question. My aim wasn't to make this political, but more to note how the media shapes our politics--it's all pretty much inseparable, in my view. Whatever you write is perfectly fine - it's my job to moderate and organize. As someone whose hands are squeaky clean, and who admits my mistakes at the earliest possible opportunity, with full disclosure of facts and apologies to people I may have wronged, I am probably harder on transgressions such as this than others might be. "Tom Brokaw Wants Brian Williams Fired" by Emily Smith and Kenneth Garger on pagesix.com
darkstar965 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Erik Wemple, whose job it is to look into things like this, has asked the same question. Wemple's investigative focus seems purely on NBC. And that's probably because it seems this all exploded when NBC News posted the story to its Facebook page where it was challenged by one of the helicopter crew members and then picked up by every media outlet. I'm not sure but think the first time Williams said/"recalled" this publicly may have been 2013, ten years after the alleged events? According to WaPo, the last utterance pre-2013 by Williams on this was: The episode dates to a report by Williams on March 26, 2003. During the prime-time "Dateline NBC," he recounted the dangers faced by U.S. helicopters. But in that broadcast, he noted that the helicopter that was hit was not the one he was aboard. Over footage of a damaged Chinook, he said. "That hole was made by a rocket- grenade, or RPG. It punched cleanly through the skin of the ship, but amazingly it didn't detonate. . . . We learned [the helicopter] was shot at by some of those waving civilians.
aaronsinger Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Now, it sounds less nefarious (small arms fire; not RPG): "Helicopter Pilot: 'Actually, Yes, Brian Williams' Chopper Did Take Fire in 2003'" by Caitlin MacNeal on talkingpointsmemo.com So why did he apologize so profusely and admit that it didn't happen? Now I think he's going to wiggle out of this - it will be portrayed as an "exaggeration," not a "fabrication." There were some very powerful, very crafy tacticians at work during the past 24 hours. The pilot above has sinced walked back his defense of Williams: "CNN Backtracks On Report Supporting Brian Williams" by Erik Wemple on washingtonpost.com New Orleans paper has questions of some of his claims about Katrina: "NBC News Anchor Brian Williams' Comments About Dead Bodies, Hurricane Katrina, Starting To Gain Attention, Draw Scrutiny" by John Simerman on theneworleansadvocate.com Here's a timeline of how his story has changed over the years: "How Brian Williams' Iraq Story Changed" by Tom Kludt and Brian Stelter on money.cnn.com I understand that memory can be unreliable, especially in recalling traumatic events. But Wiliams took notes on what happened at the time, and he had crew surrounding him. A conversation at a dinner party is also a far cry from a journalists reporting on an event, no matter if it happened recently or 12 years in the past. The nightly news has a large staff and a lack of fact-checking in repeating a lie, no matter how fungible memory can be, is no excuse.
DaveO Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 If you aren't aware this topic has become highly political and subsequently highly charged on the web with the typical accusations in various web, FB, and in twitter flaming attacks. If you want to keep the forum non political I'd simply drop it.
darkstar965 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 If you aren't aware this topic has become highly political and subsequently highly charged on the web with the typical accusations in various web, FB, and in twitter flaming attacks. If you want to keep the forum non political I'd simply drop it. My last post on this since I think the site is supposed to be (?) non political? --------------------- So, have both learned more and thought a bit more about this in the last few days. And, have changed my mind some as a result. Still not overly animated about what Williams did. Life's too short for that and think it different than if he had a) lied about some heroic action he took or a ) misrepresented his resume credentials to get a job or c) impugned servicemembers or service generally and stuff like that. But, I now agree he clearly lied badly and chronically. To me, it just reflects very poorly on him, his insecurity, arrogance or whatever. I don't ever watch him but assume he is a good anchor in many ways so easy for me to just defer to NBC on the issue of whether he should be terminated. That's a pure business decision for them I'm sure. They'll make a determination soon as to whether the negative publicity becomes too much a liability for them. I just don't have a strong view on it morally or ethically. The thing I would still disagree with--and this is a personal view of course--is the idea that his lies are some huge affront to servicemembers and vets. Don't see that at all. What he did is sad; pitiful even. But, my gosh, service members were spit upon after Vietnam and roundly criticized as warmongers and worse up to and including the current day. Some perpetrators have fabricated their own military or war credentials. Those are the bigger "affronts" imho. All said, just not worth the stress, energy and time to sweat the stuff you can't control anyway.
DonRocks Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 If you aren't aware this topic has become highly political and subsequently highly charged on the web with the typical accusations in various web, FB, and in twitter flaming attacks. If you want to keep the forum non political I'd simply drop it. [Going forward, I want to politely ask folks to stop publicly advising me on how to run the website. This is an important story about a network anchorman potentially committing fraud which is newsworthy and historical. If any posts here become overtly political, religiously controversial, or personally insulting, I will moderate them on a post-by-post basis just as I have been doing for nearly ten years.] My last post on this since I think the site is supposed to be (?) non political? Discussing politics factually (especially in this forum) as being part of news, current events, or history is perfectly fine - encouraged, even; when it devolves into "we vs. them" arguing, or petty squabbling, or name calling, then it's not acceptable. If this isn't clear, then as a guideline, ask yourself before you post: 'Is this going to anger a substantial percentage of the readers?' If the answer is yes, then it shouldn't be posted (assume, for the purposes of this question, that our readership is 50-50 which is probably not correct, but please just assume it anyway for my own long-term sanity ). Politics is an important, undeniable part of history, and can be very easily discussed in a factual, non-partisan way by reasonable, thoughtful people. For those incapable of doing so (these are generally people who cannot acknowledge that multiple, legitimate viewpoints exist on nearly every single issue, and wrongly assume that everyone does (or should) agree with their opinion (which is the "one-and-only way" of looking at something)), it's best to steer clear. 1
Tujague Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 So, have both learned more and thought a bit more about this in the last few days. And, have changed my mind some as a result. Still not overly animated about what Williams did. Life's too short for that and think it different than if he had a) lied about some heroic action he took or misrepresented his resume credentials to get a job or c) impugned servicemembers or service generally and stuff like that. But, I now agree he clearly lied badly and chronically. To me, it just reflects very poorly on him, his insecurity, arrogance or whatever. I don't ever watch him but assume he is a good anchor in many ways so easy for me to just defer to NBC on the issue of whether he should be terminated. That's a pure business decision for them I'm sure. They'll make a determination soon as to whether the negative publicity becomes too much a liability for them. I just don't have a strong view on it morally or ethically. The thing I would still disagree with--and this is a personal view of course--is the idea that his lies are some huge affront to servicemembers and vets. Don't see that at all. What he did is sad; pitiful even. But, my gosh, service members were spit upon after Vietnam and roundly criticized as warmongers and worse up to and including the current day. Some perpetrators have fabricated their own military or war credentials. Those are the bigger "affronts" imho. All said, just not worth the stress, energy and time to sweat the stuff you can't control anyway. I agree with this, particularly since there is also now evidence that Williams exaggerated his experiences in New Orleans as well. But I don't see Williams's sin as skewing the news in a way that ideologically skewed cable news organizations do day in, day out, which I think does do damage to the body politic, regardless of which side they tend toward. Even more, I regard Williams as sort of an anachronism in today's media world--the days of the network news anchor being the most "trusted man in America" are passing quickly, and his network competitors have hardly his public profile. I see him as the last of a breed in a business that is either dying or morphing rapidly into something else. Yes, there will be others, like Lester Holt, Scott Pelley, etc., who play that role. But the credibility of news organizations is no longer built around this "great man" concept. Millennials, by and large, don't pay attention to the news in the way that preceding generations did, or, at least, consume it in the same way. His future depends in large part on the degree to which NBC thinks it can not just find a replacement (Holt), but move into a wholly other way of doing its news business that is can draw in new audiences rather than just struggle to retain the old, many of whom, like myself, are moving away as well.
LauraB Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Breaking news: Brian Williams is "taking a few days off." Lester Holt will substitute. Sounds like the beginning of the end for Brian.
aaronsinger Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Brokaw sounds furious. He'd take over if he wasn't battling cancer (and if he was younger). Holt will get the job that he was close to getting when Brokaw retired."Tom Brokaw On Brian Williams: 'His Future Is Up To Brian And NBC News'" by Mark Joyella on adweek.com Breaking news: Brian Williams is "taking a few days off." Lester Holt will substitute. Sounds like the beginning of the end for Brian. Yeah, he's done. They'll negotiate some sort of severance.
dcandohio Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 My family and friends in New Orleans lived through Katrina. It is well-documented that the French Quarter area was dry, and anyone talking about bodies floating by was either hugely mistaken about where they were, or lying. It was devaststing to the people of the city that as bad as the reality was, lots of media were reporting untruths to portray it as even worse. Whether Brian Williams (or any reporter) was given an inaccurate account and told to report it, or whether he embellished because he needed a story, he misrepresented what really happened. And that's a fail as a "respected" journalist. I am tired of talking heads doing the "untruth, apologize, lay low, lather, rinse, repeat" sequence. Anything goes as long as there's a sincere apology after, once the truth is revealed. We've come to expect it, which is sad. 1
darkstar965 Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 My family and friends in New Orleans lived through Katrina. It is well-documented that the French Quarter area was dry, and anyone talking about bodies floating by was either hugely mistaken about where they were, or lying. It was devaststing to the people of the city that as bad as the reality was, lots of media were reporting untruths to portray it as even worse. Whether Brian Williams (or any reporter) was given an inaccurate account and told to report it, or whether he embellished because he needed a story, he misrepresented what really happened. And that's a fail as a "respected" journalist. I am tired of talking heads doing the "untruth, apologize, lay low, lather, rinse, repeat" sequence. Anything goes as long as there's a sincere apology after, once the truth is revealed. We've come to expect it, which is sad. Full agree here. Clear now that Williams not only embellished but showed ethics clearly at odds with any reasonable standards for journalists who exist to bring truth to the masses respectfully, honestly and thoughtfully. To your point, we as a society overlook and excuse much more now than years ago. But, sometimes we can be heartened that bad judgment can have real consequences. This appears to be one of those times.
aaronsinger Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 What the internal investigation at NBC, headed by investigative journalist Richard Esposito, will look like:"How Can A Colleague Investigate Brian Williams?" by Jill Eisler on cjr.org
dcs Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 Listen to Season 3, Episode 3 (A Polite Word for Liar (Memory Part 1)) and Episode 4 (Free Brian Williams) of Malcolm Gladwell's podcast Revisionist History and see if it does not completely change your mind about the Brian Williams saga. Episode 3 is 40 minutes and Episode 4 is 37 minutes. I am sure you could squeeze it in sometime. I might suggest that if you ever held a strong opinion on this matter you owe it to yourself to do so. I just might.....
sheldman Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 2 hours ago, dcs said: Listen to Season 3, Episode 3 (A Polite Word for Liar (Memory Part 1)) Don't want to get too off-topic but I listened to that first one and found it infuriating because Gladwell ends up making these bold pronouncements about human nature (like "how we remember stories about ourselves is not a reflection of our character at all") based on a story that didn't really justify any such thing - for one thing, it was not at all clear to me, from any evidence given, that Weitz was ever actually promoting a version of the story that was inconsistent with Adler's. But Gladwell does love bold pronouncements.
sheldman Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 55 minutes ago, sheldman said: Don't want to get too off-topic but I listened to that first one and found it infuriating because Gladwell ends up making these bold pronouncements about human nature (like "how we remember stories about ourselves is not a reflection of our character at all") Have now listened to the second and it is that pronouncement that I paraphrased above - which is not supported by ANY evidence cited - which is Gladwell's big ultimate point. Brian Williams (correctly, is my hunch) ends up in the second episode explaining this memory incorrectness on his part by attributing it in part to his own ego, self-aggrandizement - and it is important to Gladwell (for some unexplained reason) just to declare that this is ridiculous self-flagellation. So yes, it is probably true that Brian Williams wasn't lying: he had actually and subjectively fooled himself into believing that he was at the center of an awesome story that made him look cool. But I was struck by how the bold pronouncement that stuck out to me in the first episode - as being gratuitous and unsupported - ends up being the gratuitous and unsupported point of the second episode. Or maybe I just hate podcasts 1
DonRocks Posted June 26, 2018 Author Posted June 26, 2018 As I'm sure most people know, it's a very, very common phenomenon to ascribe events - often heard decades ago in school - to oneself. Why this is, I'm not sure, but people do it all the time, and I've even done it myself when I was a child, with impossibly unimportant things - I guess it makes people feel like they're a more-central part of the (often apocryphal) story they're telling. I suspect there's a term for this behavioral anomaly, but I'm not sure what it is - calling it "malicious" isn't right, saying "someone believes their own bullshit," while accurate, isn't quite right either. truthorfiction.com is a funny website. 2
Steve R. Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 Interesting. I remember having almost this exact conversation with you just before we launched this food board. 😇
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now