Liberal Media- NBC's Brian Williams is NOW under fire

[Edgetho]

^^ Good point, I left out argumentum ad populum, the old "Everybody Knows" fallacy.

Very "in".

Left out ad hom too, but that's a given by now.

Idiot douchebag. I was the one that introduced the study of Logic Fallacies into this Message Board.

Now, like the douche you are, you claim them as your own?

You're pathetic

 

[Pogo]

And that I understand, fully. The problem is breaches were being reported as early as 9am Monday, and Nagin himself, even reported on pumps that were not holding up by noon that day. Yet, just hours after Katrina passed, he said a bullet had been dodged. With the geographical concerns there, he should have known better than to immediately claim a bullet had been dodged.

Here is a map of the flooding in New Orleans. Note that where the Ritz Carlton sits it js depicted as between .2-.7 feet deep. Further northwest down Canal St. it got much deeper. Did he see a body in front of the Ritz? I would hazard a guess not, but he could have essily seen one further west. I do not know what the truth is,but he even embellished his correction of the story about Iraq. That is enough to make anyone question him, in my opinion.

by the way, I was also listening to wwl as they were streamed online. It was horrendous listening to some of the call ins. What I think added to making the situation worse was when Nagin reported "we dodged a bullet", when in fact there were already some officials noting there appeared to be some breaching going on. People let their guard down.

I see threads about different topics have been merged as if they're the same thing too.

Neither topic is about "media" anyway, 'liberal' or otherwise. They're about Brian Williams. Now if his commentary had been part of a newscast, "Media" might apply. But they weren't. I pointed that out days ago. I guess we're creating another myth. Always wondrous to watch a live birth...

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

moron

Speak of the devil, and the Composition Fallacy appears. I told ya it was "in".

Here's what's apparently involved here:
My understanding is we have two different topics here, both involving misrepresentation, whether deliberate or negligent. In the first case (chronologically), Brian Williams had claimed to be in a situation he was not in (helicopter taking fire?). And he's admitted to it so the discrepancy is not in question. And that's a credibility problem. I don't have a dog in that race but that's what I gather went on.

In the second case a paper called the Advocate, which as Roadrunner pointed out is in Baton Rouge, not New Orleans, piled on to the first case with some advocacy journalism suggesting Williams' story of seeing a body float by in the Quarter must have also been faked on the basis that "the Quarter didn't flood". Now I do have a dog in that race because it's about Katrina, and I already know better -- so do a lot of other Katrinites, which is why the Advocate had to admit that their own pretense was bullshit. As I also documented here copiously in photos. And that's a problem too; they had to walk that story back, and did within hours. Those who posted the original story keep ignoring the walkback.

So you've got Brian Williams misrepresenting his experience in a helicopter, and then you've got an attention-whore paper misrepresenting Katrina. Both of them got called on it and had to walk back.

Now here's the difference between summa y'all and me:
I'm not sitting here claiming Brian Williams' apology was wrong and that he really WAS on a helicopter taking fire. Because that would be creating a myth that can't be supported.

Get my drift?


Doublethink isn't coming. It's already here.

I don't know at what point Nagin said that but there was a point -- between the storm's passing and the levees breaking -- where you could have said (and those that stayed did say) "we dodged a bullet". The storm didn't hit directly. You should have seen what it did around Waveland Mississippi where it did hit. Obliterated.

Here is a map of the flooding in New Orleans. Note that where the Ritz Carlton sits it js depicted as between .2-.7 feet deep. Further northwest down Canal St. it got much deeper. Did he see a body in front of the Ritz? I would hazard a guess not, but he could have essily seen one further west. I do not know what the truth is,but he even embellished his correction of the story about Iraq. That is enough to make anyone question him, in my opinion.

by the way, I was also listening to wwl as they were streamed online. It was horrendous listening to some of the call ins. What I think added to making the situation worse was when Nagin reported "we dodged a bullet", when in fact there were already some officials noting there appeared to be some breaching going on. People let their guard down.

I see threads about different topics have been merged as if they're the same thing too.

Neither topic is about "media" anyway, 'liberal' or otherwise. They're about Brian Williams. Now if his commentary had been part of a newscast, "Media" might apply. But they weren't. I pointed that out days ago. I guess we're creating another myth. Always wondrous to watch a live birth...

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

moron

Speak of the devil, and the Composition Fallacy appears. I told ya it was "in".

Here's what's apparently involved here:
My understanding is we have two different topics here, both involving misrepresentation, whether deliberate or negligent. In the first case (chronologically), Brian Williams had claimed to be in a situation he was not in (helicopter taking fire?). And he's admitted to it so the discrepancy is not in question. And that's a credibility problem. I don't have a dog in that race but that's what I gather went on.

In the second case a paper called the Advocate, which as Roadrunner pointed out is in Baton Rouge, not New Orleans, piled on to the first case with some advocacy journalism suggesting Williams' story of seeing a body float by in the Quarter must have also been faked on the basis that "the Quarter didn't flood". Now I do have a dog in that race because it's about Katrina, and I already know better -- so do a lot of other Katrinites, which is why the Advocate had to admit that their own pretense was bullshit. As I also documented here copiously in photos. And that's a problem too; they had to walk that story back, and did within hours. Those who posted the original story keep ignoring the walkback.

So you've got Brian Williams misrepresenting his experience in a helicopter, and then you've got an attention-whore paper misrepresenting Katrina. Both of them got called on it and had to walk back.

Now here's the difference between summa y'all and me:
I'm not sitting here claiming Brian Williams' apology was wrong and that he really WAS on a helicopter taking fire. Because that would be creating a myth that can't be supported.

Get my drift?


Doublethink isn't coming. It's already here.

I don't know at what point Nagin said that but there was a point -- between the storm's passing and the levees breaking -- where you could have said (and those that stayed did say) "we dodged a bullet". The storm didn't hit directly. You should have seen what it did around Waveland Mississippi where it did hit. Obliterated.

As far as the Ritz Carlton at 921 Canal Street I've already posted pics directly from there, several times. And the hotel itself was closed for flood repair for some fifteen months. Those people walking across Canal at Baronne St. in the first pic are captioned as "evacuating their French Quarter hotel". He doesn't specify which one but they're almost certainly coming from the RC. It's the only hotel in that direction.

The storm only hit on Monday at dawn, so I don't think there was much going on by 9am or the rest of that day. Minor flooding maybe.. What I remember is the proverbial shit hitting the fan in darkness, which would be Monday night. And that meant total darkness with all the power out everywhere. Even in October when we were let back in you took cover before sunset. Not so much for who might be out there but more because you absolutely couldn't see shit, and what you couldn't see was rubble in any kind of condition. I think that's why a lot of people (like my GF's neighbors above) were trapped -- there may have been water but it became an all-consuming onrush (i.e. a flash flood) in the dark of night. That's what I heard being reported live on the air in the wee hours on WWL.

Pic below of a pile of rubble being gathered at Beauregard Circle between Esplanade and NOMA (taken October '05)...

There were at least 1300 bodies recovered, with an unknown number not counted that were swept out to sea. And those corpses couldn't even be dealt with for several days because of the megaflood. So during the interim there were lots of them floating around. It wasn't played up a lot but one TV station (in Dallas) got taken to task by its audience for showing it. I haven't linked pictures here because they're too graphic but for those forewarned and interested -- here's a whole page of them -- note one caption mentions being near the French Market, which AvgGuyIA brought up earlier, as well as another on ... Canal Street.

 

[Edgetho]

 

[Pogo]

STILL more.... this is Bourbon Street, which is completely inside the French Quarter:

A woman crosses flooded Bourbon Street in the French Quarter August 31, 2005 in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Scott Morgan/Getty Images)
​

from here

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Brian Williams is now coming under "friendly" fire.

ZOMG!

This will put a dent in his career. He might have to get some other job at NBC for the duration of his newly minted 5 year contract.

 

[Pogo]

^^ Good point, I left out argumentum ad populum, the old "Everybody Knows" fallacy.

Very "in".

Left out ad hom too, but that's a given by now.

Idiot douchebag. I was the one that introduced the study of Logic Fallacies into this Message Board.

Now, like the douche you are, you claim them as your own?

You're pathetic

You may be an ancient Geek but I think that was introduced by the Platos and Aristotles.
So they're not "my own" either. I don't make the laws of Logic -- I just enforce 'em.
You may now resume your delusions of relevancy grandeur.

 

[depotoo]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

 

[Pogo]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.

And no part of anything Brian Williams has ever said about his work as a reporter has ANYTHING to do with his alleged "credibility."

 

[TooTall]

There is no 'liberal media,' the notion is ridiculous and unfounded.

Perhaps that is true on Mars. Here on this planet in the US all we have is liberal bedwetters in the media with a few exceptions.

 

[Roadrunner]

That's why you had to cut out all the inconvenient content from the post you quoted, right?

Not to worry. I put it back. I'm accurate that way.
Later loser.

"accurate"? you're maggie's drawers freak....you post crap few bother to refute because nothing changes and it's wasted effort. I just pinned the tail on your donkey ass....you'll ignore it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And calling ME a "loser" is just icing on the cake. Maybe you should give "pogo rocks" a few minutes over on LF now....you're probably being laughed at on a half a dozen other boards too.

I'm not the one who thinks a New Jerseyan is a "canuck" am I?

OK then.

Anybody can get their metrosexual newsboys mixed up.
OK then!

 

[Pogo]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.

And no part of anything Brian Williams has ever said about his work as a reporter has ANYTHING to do with his alleged "credibility."

No idea what that means. But I'll use it as a segue anyway.

As I noted waaaaay back in this thread, Brian Williams isn't a "reporter" or "journalist", regardless what he or his employer or his competitors call it. These aren't "reporters"-- they're actors. Their job is to look pretty, look credible, and deliver the script in a clear cadence in perfect sync with the broadcast clock. The actual journalists, we never even get to see them. They're the workers, not the Queen.

The TV news talking head no more represents the work of reporting than the CEO of EnormoCorp represents the piecework his 11-year old Vietnamese girl does making his clothes products. You can see that as soon as he takes the screen -- he's in a SUIT. Why is he wearing a suit? You don't need a suit to tell a story...

This is exactly why: because they're not selling "news"; they're selling illusion. That is after all what TV is entirely made of: illusion. And part of that illusion -- a BIG part -- is credibility, the second element mentioned above. That's why Brian Williams is a liability for NBC right now-- not because he made up or embellished some anecdotes (those are after all not part of the news) but because his illusion of credibility is in question. And when you're selling illusion, that means money.

CLEARLY the issue here isn't ethical journalism. These stories after all didn't come from journalism but from personal anecdotes, one or both of which was self-inflated. The issue is illusion. If the issue was actual ethics in journalism, I wouldn't be the only one taking the Advocate to task for trying to sell the bullshit that "the French Quarter never flooded". That actually IS falsifying the news. Where's the outrage?

Not important. Because it's all about illusion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There is no 'liberal media,' the notion is ridiculous and unfounded.

^

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Brian Williams is now coming under "friendly" fire.

ZOMG!

This will put a dent in his career. He might have to get some other job at NBC for the duration of his newly minted 5 year contract.

It really doesn't matter how accurate, if at all, the lying stories about Brian William have been as long as it demonstrates how much of a liar he is.

What is important is that we got an Obama nut-sucking liberal off television. Hopefully for good.

 

[Katzndogz]

Between Brian Williams and the global warming hoax liberal lies might be the beginning of their undoing.

This is on top of the Dan Rather lies and the NBC lies about George Zimmerman.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.

And no part of anything Brian Williams has ever said about his work as a reporter has ANYTHING to do with his alleged "credibility."

No idea what that means. But I'll use it as a segue anyway.

As I noted waaaaay back in this thread, Brian Williams isn't a "reporter" or "journalist", regardless what he or his employer or his competitors call it. These aren't "reporters"-- they're actors. Their job is to look pretty, look credible, and deliver the script in a clear cadence in perfect sync with the broadcast clock. The actual journalists, we never even get to see them. They're the workers, not the Queen.

The TV news talking head no more represents the work of reporting than the CEO of EnormoCorp represents the piecework his 11-year old Vietnamese girl does making his clothes products. You can see that as soon as he takes the screen -- he's in a SUIT. Why is he wearing a suit? You don't need a suit to tell a story...

This is exactly why: because they're not selling "news"; they're selling illusion. That is after all what TV is entirely made of: illusion. And part of that illusion -- a BIG part -- is credibility, the second element mentioned above. That's why Brian Williams is a liability for NBC right now-- not because he made up or embellished some anecdotes (those are after all not part of the news) but because his illusion of credibility is in question. And when you're selling illusion, that means money.

CLEARLY the issue here isn't ethical journalism. These stories after all didn't come from journalism but from personal anecdotes, one or both of which was self-inflated. The issue is illusion. If the issue was actual ethics in journalism, I wouldn't be the only one taking the Advocate to task for trying to sell the bullshit that "the French Quarter never flooded". That actually IS falsifying the news. Where's the outrage?

Not important. Because it's all about illusion.

Pfft. You know EXACTLY what it means.

When it suits you and your ilk to DENY that Brian Williams has been considered a "reporter," you blithely deny it.

When it suits you to label him a "reporter," he gets bestowed with that honorific title even if that term has become largely meaningless.

The political slant of almost every major main stream media news outlet in this Republic is decidedly left of center.

And when the "reporter" known as Brian Williams was discussing this stolen valor stuff, he was DISCUSSING what happened to him in his role as a reporter. So it doesn't matter if he said it on Letterman or repeated it later in a news broadcast designed to honor actual servicemen and women.

It does undercut any hope of his to laying a claim to integrity.

The big question, really, is: given what we already know, why hasn't that lummox been summarily dismissed from NBC?

Gee. I wonder.

 

[boedicca]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.

And no part of anything Brian Williams has ever said about his work as a reporter has ANYTHING to do with his alleged "credibility."

No idea what that means. But I'll use it as a segue anyway.

As I noted waaaaay back in this thread, Brian Williams isn't a "reporter" or "journalist", regardless what he or his employer or his competitors call it. These aren't "reporters"-- they're actors. Their job is to look pretty, look credible, and deliver the script in a clear cadence in perfect sync with the broadcast clock. The actual journalists, we never even get to see them. They're the workers, not the Queen.

The TV news talking head no more represents the work of reporting than the CEO of EnormoCorp represents the piecework his 11-year old Vietnamese girl does making his clothes products. You can see that as soon as he takes the screen -- he's in a SUIT. Why is he wearing a suit? You don't need a suit to tell a story...

This is exactly why: because they're not selling "news"; they're selling illusion. That is after all what TV is entirely made of: illusion. And part of that illusion -- a BIG part -- is credibility, the second element mentioned above. That's why Brian Williams is a liability for NBC right now-- not because he made up or embellished some anecdotes (those are after all not part of the news) but because his illusion of credibility is in question. And when you're selling illusion, that means money.

CLEARLY the issue here isn't ethical journalism. These stories after all didn't come from journalism but from personal anecdotes, one or both of which was self-inflated. The issue is illusion. If the issue was actual ethics in journalism, I wouldn't be the only one taking the Advocate to task for trying to sell the bullshit that "the French Quarter never flooded". That actually IS falsifying the news. Where's the outrage?

Not important. Because it's all about illusion.

Pfft. You know EXACTLY what it means.

When it suits you and your ilk to DENY that Brian Williams has been considered a "reporter," you blithely deny it.

When it suits you to label him a "reporter," he gets bestowed with that honorific title even if that term has become largely meaningless.

The political slant of almost every major main stream media news outlet in this Republic is decidedly left of center.

And when the "reporter" known as Brian Williams was discussing this stolen valor stuff, he was DISCUSSING what happened to him in his role as a reporter. So it doesn't matter if he said it on Letterman or repeated it later in a news broadcast designed to honor actual servicemen and women.

It does undercut any hope of his to laying a claim to integrity.

The big question, really, is: given what we already know, why hasn't that lummox been summarily dismissed from NBC?

Gee. I wonder.

The other Big Question is "how many people in positions of power at NBC knew he was lying, but covered it up"?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

When Will Fox News Fire Bill O Reilly For Lying About Combat Duty

^ stolen directly from the DailyKos.

'Nuff said.

 

[Pogo]

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.

And no part of anything Brian Williams has ever said about his work as a reporter has ANYTHING to do with his alleged "credibility."

No idea what that means. But I'll use it as a segue anyway.

As I noted waaaaay back in this thread, Brian Williams isn't a "reporter" or "journalist", regardless what he or his employer or his competitors call it. These aren't "reporters"-- they're actors. Their job is to look pretty, look credible, and deliver the script in a clear cadence in perfect sync with the broadcast clock. The actual journalists, we never even get to see them. They're the workers, not the Queen.

The TV news talking head no more represents the work of reporting than the CEO of EnormoCorp represents the piecework his 11-year old Vietnamese girl does making his clothes products. You can see that as soon as he takes the screen -- he's in a SUIT. Why is he wearing a suit? You don't need a suit to tell a story...

This is exactly why: because they're not selling "news"; they're selling illusion. That is after all what TV is entirely made of: illusion. And part of that illusion -- a BIG part -- is credibility, the second element mentioned above. That's why Brian Williams is a liability for NBC right now-- not because he made up or embellished some anecdotes (those are after all not part of the news) but because his illusion of credibility is in question. And when you're selling illusion, that means money.

CLEARLY the issue here isn't ethical journalism. These stories after all didn't come from journalism but from personal anecdotes, one or both of which was self-inflated. The issue is illusion. If the issue was actual ethics in journalism, I wouldn't be the only one taking the Advocate to task for trying to sell the bullshit that "the French Quarter never flooded". That actually IS falsifying the news. Where's the outrage?

Not important. Because it's all about illusion.

Pfft. You know EXACTLY what it means.

No actually I don't. It made no logical sense.

When it suits you and your ilk to DENY that Brian Williams has been considered a "reporter," you blithely deny it.

When it suits you to label him a "reporter," he gets bestowed with that honorific title even if that term has become largely meaningless.

Horseshit. Where have I ever called ANY TV talking head a "reporter"? More to the point, who on this website has railed against TV and the bullshit illusion it represents more than I?

OK then. Don't start something you can't finish.

The political slant of almost every major main stream media news outlet in this Republic is decidedly left of center.

And when the "reporter" known as Brian Williams was discussing this stolen valor stuff, he was DISCUSSING what happened to him in his role as a reporter. So it doesn't matter if he said it on Letterman or repeated it later in a news broadcast designed to honor actual servicemen and women.

Actually it does. The myth was already going around -- and prolly still is -- that all of this had something to do with "dishonest news reporting". As I point out, it isn't news reporting.

It does undercut any hope of his to laying a claim to integrity.

Agreed. That's what I just posted -- "integrity" insofar as illusion.

The big question, really, is: given what we already know, why hasn't that lummox been summarily dismissed from NBC?

Gee. I wonder.

Easy. Because he's been selling. The same reason he's under fire now-- sales may go down.
I just covered that too.

 

[depotoo]

For him to be considered credible on his news program, I would assume he would need to be credible when interviewed by others, since he is the managing editor. I don't know anyone that would consider that moot, other than your statement here.

To your second point-
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" (with Brian Williams) to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664To your first point-

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Still no objective, documented proof from the right that the media are 'liberal,' that Williams is a 'liberal,' or that a single individual is 'representative' of the entire group to which he belongs.

This is kind of a moot point here. IIRC neither the Katrina story nor the helicopter story was part of a newscast.