During his 6 month hiatus Mr. Williams will be taking post graduate classes at the Gonzo School of Journalism. Professor H.S. Thompson is President Posthumous of that school.
Does NBC require random drug testing for its news anchors and reporters?
The Brian Williams saga.
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
During his 6 month hiatus Mr. Williams will be taking post graduate classes at the Gonzo School of Journalism. Professor H.S. Thompson is President Posthumous of that school.
Does NBC require random drug testing for its news anchors and reporters?
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I agree turtle, Williams and O'reilly both have shown symptoms of senility.
Regarding O'reilly's 'war zone' comment...
From article:
Widespread public anger spilled over into the streets at midweek as violent demonstrations wracked Buenos Aires. For a time Tuesday evening, police were unable to control angry mobs that turned the Plaza de Mayo, in front of the Casa Rosada (the Argentine White House), into a BATTLE ZONE. (emphasis mine)
Argentina stalls, Britain frets - CSMonitor.com
From article:
Widespread public anger spilled over into the streets at midweek as violent demonstrations wracked Buenos Aires. For a time Tuesday evening, police were unable to control angry mobs that turned the Plaza de Mayo, in front of the Casa Rosada (the Argentine White House), into a BATTLE ZONE. (emphasis mine)
Argentina stalls, Britain frets - CSMonitor.com
Last edited:
Fixed it for ya.
So any reporter who was covering Ferguson can claim experience in a war zone too?
They wrote stories claiming it was a war zone or resembled one.
Ferguson resembles a war zone after ruling - Al Jazeera English
Ferguson, a war zone or U.S. city? (Opinion) - CNN.com
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5674573
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Here in the soapbox, did anyone defend William's? Did anyone try to explain away his comments? Did anyone say he shouldn't be fired from NBC or suspended? Did anyone excuse Brian Williams at all?
No, nobody did and nobody should have, he lied, embellished the story, he came clean and apologized for his lie and it got him suspended for six months. Good, that's what should have happened or at least he should have been fired but I have a sneaky suspicion he won't be able to make a come back and will be gone. Good, I believe that is what should happen and I think NBC is doing its best to let him go with what ever integrity he has left.
Then you have O'reilly. The usual soapbox suspects doing their best to make excuses for this guy, giving him a pass, gobbling up all the BS O'reilly is shoveling out. The guy embellished his experiences so he could talk to actual combat vets and say, "I know what it's like". The problem is, he doesn't know what it's like and he never will. The more he tries to prove that he does, the worse he looks. It's okay though, because he knows that you have his back and people like those in the soapbox will cover for him and make him answer to any of his BS.
It's pathetic. If only those like O'reilly would live up to what they preach. Anyone that celebrated Williams' demise and now is defending O'reilly is officially, a rube.
No, nobody did and nobody should have, he lied, embellished the story, he came clean and apologized for his lie and it got him suspended for six months. Good, that's what should have happened or at least he should have been fired but I have a sneaky suspicion he won't be able to make a come back and will be gone. Good, I believe that is what should happen and I think NBC is doing its best to let him go with what ever integrity he has left.
Then you have O'reilly. The usual soapbox suspects doing their best to make excuses for this guy, giving him a pass, gobbling up all the BS O'reilly is shoveling out. The guy embellished his experiences so he could talk to actual combat vets and say, "I know what it's like". The problem is, he doesn't know what it's like and he never will. The more he tries to prove that he does, the worse he looks. It's okay though, because he knows that you have his back and people like those in the soapbox will cover for him and make him answer to any of his BS.
It's pathetic. If only those like O'reilly would live up to what they preach. Anyone that celebrated Williams' demise and now is defending O'reilly is officially, a rube.
Lol, Witness ... Did you read the OP?
From OP:
I was going to put this story in the Liberal News' biases and double standards thread, but this story doesn't really fit. Yes, NBC news has a liberal bias , but this really isn't about bias.
Brian Williams is being accused of lying about his account of what happened.
IMO , Williams DIDN'T INTENTIONALLY give false information in his story.
(Just my view. I could be wrong)
He did get some of his facts wrong.
There are still conflicting reports of some of the details, so this story isn't over yet.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/06..._r=0&referrer=
From OP:
I was going to put this story in the Liberal News' biases and double standards thread, but this story doesn't really fit. Yes, NBC news has a liberal bias , but this really isn't about bias.
Brian Williams is being accused of lying about his account of what happened.
IMO , Williams DIDN'T INTENTIONALLY give false information in his story.
(Just my view. I could be wrong)
He did get some of his facts wrong.
There are still conflicting reports of some of the details, so this story isn't over yet.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/06..._r=0&referrer=
Last edited:
WITNESS WROTE:
'Here in the soapbox, did anyone defend William's? Did anyone try to explain away his comments?'
YES
Do you know that he INTENTIONALLY tried to deceive?
lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Both Brian and Bill embellished in the same way to make themselves look better. I don't think Williams did it on purpose, because he accurately reported things initially and it got conflated over time. O'Reilly on the other hand mischaracterized his experiences from the get-go and cannot bring it upon himself to admit it. What Williams did was bad, bad, bad, but what O'Reilly did and is continuing to do is just scummy. Neither of them can be defended.
It's practically O'Reilly's bread and butter that he play fast and loose with the truth for his own benefit. Keep in mind he's the guy who proved the existence of God when he said, "The tides come in the tides go out, you can't explain that, " despite the fact that we've known for centuries why the tides go in and out. When called on it he stuck to his guns, stupidly, just like he's doing now, and comes off like the idiot he is. Bill O'Reilly is not the horse you want to hitch you credibility wagon to.
It's practically O'Reilly's bread and butter that he play fast and loose with the truth for his own benefit. Keep in mind he's the guy who proved the existence of God when he said, "The tides come in the tides go out, you can't explain that, " despite the fact that we've known for centuries why the tides go in and out. When called on it he stuck to his guns, stupidly, just like he's doing now, and comes off like the idiot he is. Bill O'Reilly is not the horse you want to hitch you credibility wagon to.
Last edited:
From article:
“Maybe it was worrisome, maybe it was a riot that out of control, but if you covered a protest in Washington during the Vietnam War, in which there was scuffling and bottles thrown and fires set, are you allowed to say that you were a correspondent in the Vietnam War zone?” Corn said during his exchange with Hewitt.
This quote exposes the subjective lens through which reporters can view dangerous situations. If Corn is on a mission to impose some modesty and circumspection on journalists who cover tense episodes of civil unrest, he’s going to be waging a particularly grueling campaign against the entire journalistic establishment. Reporter, politician, and analyst alike almost uniformly determined in the summer of last year that Ferguson, Missouri, had quite literally devolved into a combat zone.
“The stories coming out of Ferguson, Missouri, paint an increasingly worrying picture—that of a Middle America city like most any other being turned into a war zone,” Cato Institute’s Tim Lynch wrote in an op-ed for CNN.
CBS News agreed when it reported on “why Ferguson, Mo., looked like a war zone this week,” in a post from August.
“Is this a war zone or a US city?” Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) wrote in a tweet.
“Ferguson resembles Fallujah more than it does Ferguson,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) insisted.
“Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opined. “Not in America. We are better than that.
That assessment of the situation on the ground was shared by at least one Ferguson police officer, who called the increasingly dangerous city a “war zone” in a statement to a reporter last August. Missouri’s Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon agreed. “This is a place where people work, go to school, raise their families, and go to church,” he said. “But lately it’s looked a little bit more like a war zone and that’s unacceptable.”
No, Ferguson wasn’t literally a “war zone,” but those reporters who were on the ground (often embedded alongside protesters facing down police barricades) were taking on some personal risk. Few would begrudge figures within the media or political class for making a rhetorical comparison between a combat situation and violent civil unrest.
Media: Post-Falklands War Argentina wasn?t a war zone, but Ferguson was « Hot Air
Last edited:
Did you read the OP yet?