Why is Brian Williams held to higher standard than Hillary Clinton?

[Desperado]

A fantastic quest that is yet to be sufficiently answered: Other than she is a politician and we expect her to lie.
Sharyl Attkisson: Why Did Hillary Survive a Brian Williams-like Tale?

Sharyl Attkisson Why Did Hillary Survive a Brian Williams-like Tale http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Rate...erformance/id/97/kw/default/?dkt_nbr=plvukdte

 

[EatMorChikin]

Because the elite are not trying to shove Brian Williams down our throat as president.

 

[Porker]

Because the elite are not trying to shove Brian Williams down our throat as president.

That should read:

Because the elite are not trying to shove Brian Williams up our ass as president.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

 

[EatMorChikin]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Link?

 

[Desperado]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

 

[Pogo]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

 

[Desperado]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

 

[Pogo]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

It's a legitimate question (the OP) -- the credibility factor of a (fill-in-the-blank-name) TV news anchor versus that of a (fill-in-the-blank-name) politician. Anyone who fits either of those addresses that question.

Unless you're trying to single out Brian Williams personally and specifically versus Hillary Clinton personally and specifically -- both outside the roles of what they do. But that would be a useless discussion.

Both of these statements were about self-aggrandizement. What Clinton said wasn't about politics and what Williams said wasn't about the news. They were both about "dig me". The question is, is that more of a problem for a news anchor or for a politician? Or is it a related at all to their job?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Only a sloppy and lazy mind would try to compare the two.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

Apparently he's an elected official.

Or maybe Clinton is a news caster.

Its one or the other because otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

 

[Desperado]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Only a sloppy and lazy mind would try to compare the two.

Why they both told the same lie?

 

[Desperado]

No comparison between Williams and Clinton.

A more appropriate question --

Why is Williams held to a MUCH higher standard than Fox, which is truthful in only 18% of their stories?

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

Apparently he's an elected official.

Or maybe Clinton is a news caster.

Its one or the other because otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

Why does it matter what their occupations are, they both told the same lie?

 

[Pogo]

Where was Fox News mentioned in the original post? Hint: It wasn't.
The Question involves only Hillary and Williams. Lets stay on topic.

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

Apparently he's an elected official.

Or maybe Clinton is a news caster.

Its one or the other because otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

Why does it matter what their occupations are, they both told the same lie?

Obviously it must matter -- that's the whole basis of the question in your OP. Are you abandoning the question?

Actually it's a strawman to assume one IS "held to a higher standard". There's no basis for that. The examination depends on stipulating that as a premise.

Ergo, one argument is that they're not held to "different standards" at all, and therefore the queston is inoperative. It's also not the title of the article -- you made a leap.

 

[Desperado]

Actually Fox is news media, and Williams is also news media. To the extent it has to do with credibility and veracity -- it is on topic -- although to be apples-to-apples it should be a specific person. But if you're using a news medium as one of the players, then other synonymic media can be in play for comparison. As can other politicians.

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

Apparently he's an elected official.

Or maybe Clinton is a news caster.

Its one or the other because otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

Why does it matter what their occupations are, they both told the same lie?

Obviously it must matter -- that's the whole basis of the question in your OP. Are you abandoning the question?

Actually it's a strawman to assume one IS "held to a higher standard". There's no basis for that. The examination depends on stipulating that as a premise.

Ergo, one argument is that they're not held to "different standards" at all, and therefore the queston is inoperative. It's also not the title of the article -- you made a leap.

Too bad you cannot answer the question. only more deflections

 

[Pogo]

What is so hard to understand? It is not about News media vs another news media! The comparison is simply between Hillary and Williams!
Quit tying to change the subject and stay on topic

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

Apparently he's an elected official.

Or maybe Clinton is a news caster.

Its one or the other because otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

Why does it matter what their occupations are, they both told the same lie?

Obviously it must matter -- that's the whole basis of the question in your OP. Are you abandoning the question?

Actually it's a strawman to assume one IS "held to a higher standard". There's no basis for that. The examination depends on stipulating that as a premise.

Ergo, one argument is that they're not held to "different standards" at all, and therefore the queston is inoperative. It's also not the title of the article -- you made a leap.

Too bad you cannot answer the question. only more deflections

On the contrary I just spelled out your question and breathed life into it. You're welcome.

 

[Desperado]

Refresh my memory -- what business is Brian Williams in?

Apparently he's an elected official.

Or maybe Clinton is a news caster.

Its one or the other because otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

Why does it matter what their occupations are, they both told the same lie?

Obviously it must matter -- that's the whole basis of the question in your OP. Are you abandoning the question?

Actually it's a strawman to assume one IS "held to a higher standard". There's no basis for that. The examination depends on stipulating that as a premise.

Ergo, one argument is that they're not held to "different standards" at all, and therefore the queston is inoperative. It's also not the title of the article -- you made a leap.

Too bad you cannot answer the question. only more deflections

On the contrary I just spelled out your question and breathed life into it. You're welcome.

I understand if you don;t want to answer the question, after all it would put Hillary is a bad light.

 

[Pogo]

Which question would that be? The one the article asks, or the one you tried to morph it to?

 

[depotoo]

This, for me, isnt just about Brian Williams, but NBC. Remember the story by nbc Dateline where they rigged up a gmc truck to explode on impact from the 90's, claiming the truck could not take an impact?
Remember canoegate on the Today Show? The editing of the 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case?

There is a pattern here.

 

[Pogo]

This, for me, isnt just about Brian Williams, but NBC. Remember the story by nbc Dateline where they rigged up a gmc truck to explode on impact from the 90's, claiming the truck could not take an impact?
Remember canoegate on the Today Show? The editing of the 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case?

There is a pattern here.

I don't know what "canoegate" means but those seem to be news stories. So no, it's not a comparison.

Brian Williams' historical revision wasn't about the news. It was about Brian Williams. It's not a story that influences anything gong on in Iraq; it's a self-serving story to make Brian Williams larger than life.

That is, after all, what TV talking heads are hired to be. TV doesn't sell news; it sells illusion. He tried to feed the illusion and got busted going over the line. But it had nothing to do with what the news is.

Yes there's a pattern, but it has to do with media and how it's used psychologically-- not what its content is.

Same with politicians. Look at any election -- we don't elect a candidate based on what their issues are; we elect them on whether they "sell" as a product. Clinton inflating an event in Bosnia -- if she doesn't get caught -- serves to beef up her "brand". Same thing; self-aggrandizing hype that has nothing to do with politics.

These stories weren't about anything going on in Iraq or Bosnia. They were about selling the brands of Brian Williams and HIllary Clinton.