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

[Desperado]

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.

Wrong, it is all about credibility and with both Hillary and Williams getting caught in their own lies, both have lost any pretense of credibility.

 

[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.

Wrong, it is all about credibility and with both Hillary and Williams getting caught in their own lies, both have lost any pretense of credibility.

-- but "credibility" in what? In describing their own experiences, sure.

But is that even relevant? Why should we care what a politician or news talking head relates about themselves? Why should I give a shit? Who takes self-ego stroking seriously?

I may not trust Fox Noise on its interpretation of its latest "booga booga scary black people" story but that doesn't mean I can't trust 'em when they're telling me what the weather is.

 

[hadit]

This case DOES illustrate something profound. We expect people who tell us the news to be truthful, because we want to trust them. We also expect democrats to lie to us, because we just want to believe they care about us, even though we know they don't.

 

[depotoo]

Because when they can't be honest about themselves, feeling they must embellish their owns lives, that would not stop with their wanting to embellish on their reporting, wanting them to make their stories bigger than life, real life that is. When reporting major stories, it should be of the truth up to that moment, not embellished to sound like they have a bigger scoop than others,when they don't.

Just as Hillary aggrandized having lived through being fired upon, when she hasn't. Hillary has gotten away with alot throughout her career. She never heard of Castle Grande when she had worked on it. She lied to Sir Edmund Hillary, telling him she was named after him. There have been others.

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.

Wrong, it is all about credibility and with both Hillary and Williams getting caught in their own lies, both have lost any pretense of credibility.

-- but "credibility" in what? In describing their own experiences, sure.

But is that even relevant? Why should we care what a politician or news talking head relates about themselves? Why should I give a shit? Who takes self-ego stroking seriously?

I may not trust Fox Noise on its interpretation of its latest "booga booga scary black people" story but that doesn't mean I can't trust 'em when they're telling me what the weather is.

 

[Rozman]

Brian Williams,News business,we expect the truth.
Hillary,politician....We expect them not to be truthful most of the time.

 

[Meathead]

Did Brian Williams tell everyone he was dead broke?

 

[Pogo]

Because when they can't be honest about themselves, feeling they must embellish their owns lives, that would not stop with their wanting to embellish on their reporting, wanting them to make their stories bigger than life, real life that is. When reporting major stories, it should be of the truth up to that moment, not embellished to sound like they have a bigger scoop than others,when they don't.

Of course. Nobody disagrees with that.

But these weren't news stories that were embellished, distorted or just plain made up. They were personal stories. That's a different thing. Hence my Fox Noise analogy above. Or below, wherever you left it.

The problem is we don't hire a politician to be an executive and TV doesn't hire an anchor to be a newscaster. In both cases they're trying to sell a personality. That's what both of them were trying to pump up. There's no reason in the world to pay a guy umpteen million dollars and put his name in the title of the broadcast if your objective is to do news. There isn't even a reason for him to be wearing a suit and have perfect hair. You could do the news with a screen full of text. Or a reader in a T-shirt. You could simply plunk down whoever was available that day. It would be the same news.

Obviously they're not selling the 'news' -- you can't sell news anyway. They're selling the concept of, in this case, "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams" which is a different thing from "NBC Nightly News". He's not an anchor, he's a "star". Which is why he's in trouble -- it's tarnishing the brand.

Same thing with politicians. We don't elect anybody for what their qualifications are; we pretend we do but it's all show. We elect whoever has sold us the best personality brand, and he or she had better look good -- cnsider -- when was the last time we elected a bald President? Eisenhower. And he was a war hero. In the next election, JFK scored big over Nixon in televised debates-- because he looked better. Nixon learned that lesson and eight years later brought people from advertising like Haldeman. Roger Ailes, who also worked for Nixon, understood it too and eventually got his own TV channel to run.

This is the result of a commodity-fetish society immersed in advertising. Brian Williams, and others like him, are hired not to deliver the news, but to sell the network they work for. His sales pitch as a "star" went off the rails, but it is after all the value that TV sells us. And we buy it.

That should be the lesson here -- why are we letting television set us up with its own "star" to deliver the news? We shouldn't even know Brian Williams' name.

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.

Wrong, it is all about credibility and with both Hillary and Williams getting caught in their own lies, both have lost any pretense of credibility.

-- but "credibility" in what? In describing their own experiences, sure.

But is that even relevant? Why should we care what a politician or news talking head relates about themselves? Why should I give a shit? Who takes self-ego stroking seriously?

I may not trust Fox Noise on its interpretation of its latest "booga booga scary black people" story but that doesn't mean I can't trust 'em when they're telling me what the weather is.

 

[depotoo]

Pogo, if it is told in private, then maybe, but they were told in interviews, as nothing other than the guy from nbc nightly news. Why else would he be interviewed, because he is just some guy off the street? He represents the company when in public, and receives invitations due to his status at the network.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, if it is told in private, then maybe, but they were told in interviews, as nothing other than the guy from nbc nightly news. Why else would he be interviewed, because he is just some guy off the street? He represents the company when in public, and receives invitations due to his status at the network.

I'm sure he does. And these were self-serving stories to pump that, no doubt, and that's a problem.

But it still wasn't the news. I had to correct several people who were running with the idea that the stories about the helicopter and Katrina were part of some newscast. When I asked for proof, all I got was one news report from 2003 -- which was accurate. Turns out neither of these stories were ever part of the news, yet some believe they were. These myths take on their own lives, I guess because people look only superficially at the emotional content. And of course a quick scan of the topics on this board reveals rampant mythology created in real time.

So the original point -- that one depends on a news provider to be honest still doesn't relate here. Relaying the news is one thing; telling tall fish stories about one's own experiences is another. It's not excusable, but it's also not falsifying the news.

Actually it's a bit like a politician's stock going down because they had some torrid sex affair and/or lied about it. Sex is not what we hire them for; it's irrelevant. But Herman Cain and Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gary Hart know what happens. That's just one more demonstration that we don't elect an executive but rather buy a personality. That's the only way that sort of thing matters.

 

[depotoo]

Brian Williams perhaps 8216 misremembered 8217 dangers of Katrina hotel manager says - The Washington Post

That’s why DeGersdorff was surprised to flip on the news this week and see a perplexing story about NBC News anchor Brian Williams and the hotel she once managed. His recollection of what happened there didn’t match hers. In interviews that surfaced over the past week that she had never seen, Williams said the hotel was anything but secure. In fact, he told Tom Brokaw last summer, gangs had “overrun” the place. He spoke of seeing a dead body floating past the hotel. Williams also once told a book author that he got dysentery during Katrina. During his stay at the hotel, he said he declined an IV and then “had no medicine, nothing.”


Myra DeGersdorff was the general manager of the Ritz-Carlton during Hurricane Katrina. (Courtesy Myra DeGersdorff)

DeGersdorff, now a resident of Scottsdale, Ariz., was confused. She said there was more than enough medicine and doctors in the MASH unit.

“Maybe he misremembered,” she told The Post of Williams’s claims. “I’m not going to judge him, because it was such an unpleasant week and there were times to be concerned. … And when there is that kind of concern, you can misremember. And maybe he was out there, and it wasn’t impossible he could have encountered a body, but I don’t think it was in the French Quarter. The French Quarter only got inches” of flooding.
...
From the manager of the Ritz Carlton.

 

[Pogo]

Brian Williams perhaps 8216 misremembered 8217 dangers of Katrina hotel manager says - The Washington Post

That’s why DeGersdorff was surprised to flip on the news this week and see a perplexing story about NBC News anchor Brian Williams and the hotel she once managed. His recollection of what happened there didn’t match hers. In interviews that surfaced over the past week that she had never seen, Williams said the hotel was anything but secure. In fact, he told Tom Brokaw last summer, gangs had “overrun” the place. He spoke of seeing a dead body floating past the hotel. Williams also once told a book author that he got dysentery during Katrina. During his stay at the hotel, he said he declined an IV and then “had no medicine, nothing.”


Myra DeGersdorff was the general manager of the Ritz-Carlton during Hurricane Katrina. (Courtesy Myra DeGersdorff)

DeGersdorff, now a resident of Scottsdale, Ariz., was confused. She said there was more than enough medicine and doctors in the MASH unit.

“Maybe he misremembered,” she told The Post of Williams’s claims. “I’m not going to judge him, because it was such an unpleasant week and there were times to be concerned. … And when there is that kind of concern, you can misremember. And maybe he was out there, and it wasn’t impossible he could have encountered a body, but I don’t think it was in the French Quarter. The French Quarter only got inches” of flooding.
...
From the manager of the Ritz Carlton.

There's already a thread about this article actually, here. And another one of those disingenuous titles we were just talking about.

I like the way she says "only inches of flooding". It's like saying some facility is "only steps away from" some attraction -- of course that could mean it's seven thousand steps. In that thread mentioned above, there's a picture posted of people standing hip-deep in water on Canal Street -- which is where the body was supposedly seen, so it certainly could have been there.

Most of that article though, is about DeGersdorff's taking issue with Williams' characterization of security in the hotel. I haven't read what that characterization was but it sounds like she has a right tto be pissed, and good for her for speaking up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Pillowbite, you huff to much oven cleaner.

Hillary "Stolen Valor" Clinton is unfit to be president.

 

[Uncensored2008]

-- but "credibility" in what? In describing their own experiences, sure.

But is that even relevant? Why should we care what a politician or news talking head relates about themselves? Why should I give a shit? Who takes self-ego stroking seriously?

I may not trust Fox Noise on its interpretation of its latest "booga booga scary black people" story but that doesn't mean I can't trust 'em when they're telling me what the weather is.

Hillary "Stolen Valor" Clinton made up the whole thing. There was never a sniper, she invented the story in hopes that this would boost her image.

Did she print out a purple heart on her home printer and claim to have earned it as well?

It wouldn't be a surprise.

 

[jknowgood]

Because when they can't be honest about themselves, feeling they must embellish their owns lives, that would not stop with their wanting to embellish on their reporting, wanting them to make their stories bigger than life, real life that is. When reporting major stories, it should be of the truth up to that moment, not embellished to sound like they have a bigger scoop than others,when they don't.

Of course. Nobody disagrees with that.

But these weren't news stories that were embellished, distorted or just plain made up. They were personal stories. That's a different thing. Hence my Fox Noise analogy above. Or below, wherever you left it.

The problem is we don't hire a politician to be an executive and TV doesn't hire an anchor to be a newscaster. In both cases they're trying to sell a personality. That's what both of them were trying to pump up. There's no reason in the world to pay a guy umpteen million dollars and put his name in the title of the broadcast if your objective is to do news. There isn't even a reason for him to be wearing a suit and have perfect hair. You could do the news with a screen full of text. Or a reader in a T-shirt. You could simply plunk down whoever was available that day. It would be the same news.

Obviously they're not selling the 'news' -- you can't sell news anyway. They're selling the concept of, in this case, "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams" which is a different thing from "NBC Nightly News". He's not an anchor, he's a "star". Which is why he's in trouble -- it's tarnishing the brand.

Same thing with politicians. We don't elect anybody for what their qualifications are; we pretend we do but it's all show. We elect whoever has sold us the best personality brand, and he or she had better look good -- cnsider -- when was the last time we elected a bald President? Eisenhower. And he was a war hero. In the next election, JFK scored big over Nixon in televised debates-- because he looked better. Nixon learned that lesson and eight years later brought people from advertising like Haldeman. Roger Ailes, who also worked for Nixon, understood it too and eventually got his own TV channel to run.

This is the result of a commodity-fetish society immersed in advertising. Brian Williams, and others like him, are hired not to deliver the news, but to sell the network they work for. His sales pitch as a "star" went off the rails, but it is after all the value that TV sells us. And we buy it.

That should be the lesson here -- why are we letting television set us up with its own "star" to deliver the news? We shouldn't even know Brian Williams' name.

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.

Wrong, it is all about credibility and with both Hillary and Williams getting caught in their own lies, both have lost any pretense of credibility.

-- but "credibility" in what? In describing their own experiences, sure.

But is that even relevant? Why should we care what a politician or news talking head relates about themselves? Why should I give a shit? Who takes self-ego stroking seriously?

I may not trust Fox Noise on its interpretation of its latest "booga booga scary black people" story but that doesn't mean I can't trust 'em when they're telling me what the weather is.

I think I might have to throw Dan Rather in there. He did make up a story about Bush.

 

[depotoo]

At the opposite end of Canal St. From the Ritz, there was deep water and as you walk away from the Ritz toward the nw end, it got deeper and deeper. If you looked at that flood map I posted in the other thread you would see that.

Brian Williams perhaps 8216 misremembered 8217 dangers of Katrina hotel manager says - The Washington Post

That’s why DeGersdorff was surprised to flip on the news this week and see a perplexing story about NBC News anchor Brian Williams and the hotel she once managed. His recollection of what happened there didn’t match hers. In interviews that surfaced over the past week that she had never seen, Williams said the hotel was anything but secure. In fact, he told Tom Brokaw last summer, gangs had “overrun” the place. He spoke of seeing a dead body floating past the hotel. Williams also once told a book author that he got dysentery during Katrina. During his stay at the hotel, he said he declined an IV and then “had no medicine, nothing.”


Myra DeGersdorff was the general manager of the Ritz-Carlton during Hurricane Katrina. (Courtesy Myra DeGersdorff)

DeGersdorff, now a resident of Scottsdale, Ariz., was confused. She said there was more than enough medicine and doctors in the MASH unit.

“Maybe he misremembered,” she told The Post of Williams’s claims. “I’m not going to judge him, because it was such an unpleasant week and there were times to be concerned. … And when there is that kind of concern, you can misremember. And maybe he was out there, and it wasn’t impossible he could have encountered a body, but I don’t think it was in the French Quarter. The French Quarter only got inches” of flooding.
...
From the manager of the Ritz Carlton.

There's already a thread about this article actually, here. And another one of those disingenuous titles we were just talking about.

I like the way she says "only inches of flooding". It's like saying some facility is "only steps away from" some attraction -- of course that could mean it's seven thousand steps. In that thread mentioned above, there's a picture posted of people standing hip-deep in water on Canal Street -- which is where the body was supposedly seen, so it certainly could have been there.

Most of that article though, is about DeGersdorff's taking issue with Williams' characterization of security in the hotel. I haven't read what that characterization was but it sounds like she has a right tto be pissed, and good for her for speaking up.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

Simple, no politician runs claiming they're especially honest and would never lie. Whereas tv anchors pride themselves on little but that.

 

[Pogo]

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

Simple, no politician runs claiming they're especially honest and would never lie. Whereas tv anchors pride themselves on little but that.

The OP's title makes the assumption that the two are held to different standards. But nobody established that that is the case in the first place, nor is that what his article proposes.

Since the Williams case is in progress now it's impossible to have the perspective to make that assumption anyway. It would be like trying to historically rank a sitting President.