Letters to the Editor
-
Strange standards, shooter242.
You're going ignore a fundamental discussion of race, in favor of determining that Generals are affiliated with the military?
When there's an actual 'discussion' about it, then we can talk.
You know, if you had the fairness to demand listed associations of EVERY guest, you might have something. But no. This is just another partisan piece of political posturing.
Considering there are no "guests" here, shooter? What do you think this is, a cable news show?
In any case, we're talking about a couple of potential (if not actual) war profiteers masquerading as 'impartial experts'. Established facts, not posturing and certainly not partisan.
-
You are asking too much of Williams...
...Brian Williams is a flag pin reporter & nothing more.
If you want the shit stirred off of flag pins, Brian Williams is your guy. He could go on for an hour about how lapel flag pins portend all things presidential.
But if you want a mature person who is a true patriot to do your reporting, please do not call Brian William's office. He's busy putting together his Peggy Noonan scrapbook.
-
Brian Williams story
Excellent work on this as it is fundamental to our confidence in what we read and hear about the Iraq war or anything else. It is difficult to imagine NBC hiring Bill Clinton to provide analysis on the Democratic campaign and then proclaim "party ties are not our interest". Presumably NBC would be willing to hire Osama bin Laden to provide commentary on the decline in security in Afghanistan.
Brian Williams' defense of his analysts is in effect a "trust me" argument while he simultaneously gives us reasons to distrust him. In his defense we need to acknowledge he is a news reader, not a journalist, but as he demands respect and credibility we have a legitimate expectation that he earn it. Respect is earned, not bestowed.
-
If Williams wants to be the American Leni Riefenstahl
in his uncritical war cheerleading and posturing and pretend denial about what's really going on here, then more power to him. But he should realize that unlike Riefenstahl, he's a talentless hack whose pathetic attempts to co-opt well-deserved mockery of him with phony self-mockery ring transparently false. Oh, he's got that whole corporate media look, voice and pose. He's talented enough at that whole "Let's pretend that we know what we're talking about" nonsense that many people mistake for journalistic talent and integrity. But that's basically all that he's got. Take it away and he's a talentless hack. And a despicably dishonest one at that who is inarguably complicit in the selling and promotion of an illegal and immoral war that has killed hundreds of thousands. And yet he continues to pretend otherwise. How does someone like that sleep at night? Perhaps Rush Limbaugh recommended a good painkiller-prescribing doctor.
At least he'll always have NASCAR.
-
Brian Williams' blog....
had some pretty stinging criticism in the comments section, one after the other after the other. He couldn't ignore it or wiggle away, so gave his half-assed response.
Don't be surprised if the blog - or at least the comments section - is shut down by those who give Williams his marching orders.
The people being criticized are, after all, the same historically-linked military brass that firebombed Tokyo, dropped the atom bombs, fueled Joe McCarthy, almost started World War III with Krushchev, engineered Vietnam, etc. etc. etc. These aren't people who are used to entertaining opposing viewpoints. Why put up with all these pesty critics when you don't have to?
-
What laws were broken?
Excellent article... despite Brian Williams' superficial coolness, I'd imagine that weasel is starting to get a bit nervous. With his credibility cracking like an eggshell, his viewship will decline. If his audience goes in the tank will he have to take a pay cut? The horror. I'm sure the Heritage Foundation, or the Federalist Society will hire him to do PR.
I have a question though. Exactly what laws may the Pentagon or the news media have broken here by employing conflicted analysts, presented as unbiased, independent sources? Is there an actual law against this? It seems it might be contrary to policy, but as we've seen over the last 8 years, policy is highly malleable to the ends the military-industrial war machine seeks.
It clearly seems to be a massive fraud put over on the American Taxpayer, but good luck getting Taxpayer Standing to challenge it anywhere in the U.S., after 8 years of a Bush-appointed judiciary. Maybe somewhere in the 9th Circuit.
I could see them sending Nino Scalia to personally slit the throat of any 9th Circuit Judge denying the gov'ts motion to dismiss.
-
It would appear that Mr. Greenwald...
set a lawyerly trap for Mr. Williams into which Brian fell face first. Nicely played Glenn.
-
taking aim
Just had an exchange with an LA Times reporter about his use of a retired military general officer, with all the prerequisite conflicts of interest, as his source of authority for the justification of the appointment of Odierno as commander in Iraq. His defense ultimately came down to the fact that since his source wasn't named explicitly in the NYT article, nothing was wrong.
Did it bother him that the United States Government was running a propaganda campaign directed at him? No. Doesn't bother Williams either. Media stars are too smart to be taken in, right? Right.
-
'Tis Entertainment, not news
that Williams, NBC, standard media, and, often, the Bush administration is providing. Why should Willams feel like something is wrong? His business is entertainment, and he provided that.
See, in the 21st century there is no longer an intent to provide news (whatever that is). The purpose of media is to sell advertising and entertain hoi polloi. If all you so-called critics would simply realize that, and build your criticism on that basis rather than on your rather demotic political imprecautions about "truth" then your criticisms might have some validity.
-
The Donahue angle at MSNBC
Another piece of context for some of the quotes used by GG in his piece, (many dating from 2003): In February of 2003, Phil Donahue's MSNBC news show--clearly liberal, and one of the few outlets for truly diverse views on the war, was cancelled. While MSNBC claimed "poor ratings" (see first link), the show was actually the highest rated show on the network (see second link).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/donahue.ap/index.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004
As I mentioned previously, I think this may go a bit above Williams' pay-grade.