The Brian Williams saga.

[witness23]

Did you read the OP yet?

I did, and the posts that followed it. Where there were comments such as these:

Saying he can't believe NBC would hold onto Mr. Williams.

I think NBC is going to try and ignore this one. He claimed that he saw a dead body float by his hotel but he was in the French Quarter which wasn't flooded. There are also his claims about getting dysentery among other questionable stories. I can't believe NBC would even try to hold onto him.

And this one where he obviously thinks NBC won't do a fair investigation of the allegations.

The may not since they are doing their own investigation. We will be hearing the Brian Williams hour though on MSNBC.

And this giddy little moment.

It's amusing that certain 'News' agencies are showing their unreliability in gathering facts with this story. CNN's Brian Stelter of the show, (wait for the punch line) 'Reliable Sources' interviewed a person who claimed he was Williams' pilot on the mission. Problem is it looks like he wasn't the pilot after all. And part of Stelter's vetting this guy was from, wait for it ...NBC. Hehehe.

Not even sure why you posted this?

How Jon Stewart turned lies into comedy and brainwashed a generation | New York Post

Now its turning political and of course, "It's Obama's fault!!!!!"

Without his willing accomplices in the MSM - which includes NBC - the source of the above quote would never have been elected POTUS. Granted, his primary opponent (Hillary) was weak and dislikeable, and his 1st GOP opponent (McCain) was weaker and more dislikeable. But considering the abysmal record of his 1st term Obama would never have been re-elected with having the MSM firmly in his camp. You're right - these networks are doing serious damage to the country, especially those that are supposed to be providing hard news and objective reporting.

After Williams apologizes let's act like an 8 year old and celebrate in his demise. And, let's give this post a "Like".

Poor Brian. All this grief he's getting and just because he followed the Dan Rather school of journalism.

And another "Like" from you on this one. Why do I like it? Well duh, it makes the mainstream media look bad.

Cronkite was dean of that school.

Then you opened your big yap on this one and added a "HEHE" at the end of it.

Yeah, the lib media and journalists are on a seek and destroy mission to get a 'conservative'. Too bad this one is much ado about nothing. Hehe

MISFIRE: Mother Jones Trolls Bill O?Reilly with Hair-Splitting to Avenge Brian Williams - Breitbart

Media Wars, Media Wars. Now its us against them, or maybe that's why this thread was started in the first place?

I think it is funny with the Williams disaster, MSNBC tries this approach.

Further defense of O'reilly's BS, with emphasis no less.

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

Here's the difference between Williams and O'reilly and the networks they work(ed) for. One of the networks did an investigation and held one of their own accountable for his actions, the other network has doubled down and defended a coward. One of em manned up and apologized and took a 6 month suspension for what he said, the other doubles down, shouts down anyone who disagrees with him, exaggerates and twists the truth so he doesn't have to be held accountable for his BS.

Bottom line, Williams got what he deserved (he won't be back anchoring the nightly news) and O'reilly will continue to look like the lying douchebag he is but will remain on the air because he works for a "news" network that doesn't care about honesty and integrity; not too mention their are a lot of rubes out there willing to defend him.

 

[muttly]

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...

Muttly said: 'IMO , Williams DIDN'T INTENTIONALLY give false information in his story.'

You said no, nobody did. But that is incorrect, right? I made the above statement and also posted a link(blinded by science post) trying to 'explain away his comments'. Right?

 

[davekc]

I find the whole thing hilarious. Williams gets caught, and likely will be permanently replaced by Holt. Ratings didn't change much with the shift which is bad for Williams. Lester in my opinion does a pretty decent job with what he does.
It is a political hit (maybe deserved) when this is followed by the O'Reilly circus. Even stranger is a former NBC guy is one that is defending OReilly's account of what happened.

 

[muttly]

Witness, I also posted an article trying to corroborate Williams' story. It proved to be an erroneous story, but I tried. I relied on CNN and they interviewed the wrong pilot. lol
From a previous post in this thread:
Here is some more info from the guy who claims he was Williams' pilot.
It has NOT been verified with certainty though that he was the pilot.
'When asked whether Williams would have been aware of the bullets hitting Krell’s Chinook, the pilot responded, “He would have been aware of it because the activity of the crew. The door gunners were returning fire.”

 

[aristotle]

Really, what does Bill O'Reilly bring to the table other than bullying his guests? Perhaps, he is a dear friend of Roger Ailes. I am at a loss to see where O'Reilly adds value to FNC.

 

[Turtle]

Really, what does Bill O'Reilly bring to the table other than bullying his guests? Perhaps, he is a dear friend of Roger Ailes. I am at a loss to see where O'Reilly adds value to FNC.

People watch him. It's ratings dollars. And it's why Bill O'Reilly is much more valuable to Fox News than Brian Williams is to NBC News.

Bill OReilly will survive this whereas Brian Williams will not. One reason is because Williams' case is very specific but O'Reilly's is more open to interpretation. If you want to defend O'Reilly, you'll interpret the least damaging meanings, and you won't necessarily be wrong in doing that. "In the Falklands" can easily be interpreted, if you're kind and generous, to mean "during the Falklands War" and not necessarily in the Falkland Islands. A "war zone" can be applied to so many confrontations other actual war that it can also be generously interpreted.

Also, O'Reilly isn't trying to steal any solder's valor with his story.

The other big reason O'Reilly will survive this is because of his reputation versus the Williams reputation - the fact that the reputation of Williams as a trustworthy source got destroyed. Williams’ lies are a betrayal of that trust, because people actually thought he was trustworthy. Bill O’Reilly’s lies, on the other hand, are the equivalent of your grandpa telling you he walked ten miles to school everyday, uphill both ways and in four feet of snow. You know he's full of crap most of the time anyway.

 

[davekc]

Just my personal opinion, I do like some of his "Talking Point Memos". Not a fan of his interviews. Cuts people off and talks over the top of them constantly. Although I did enjoy his interview of Barney Frank. Outside of that, the other thumbs up is "Watters World". That is hilarious at times.

 

[Turtle]

It makes for some fine entertainment.

 

[RLENT]

It makes for some fine entertainment.

Yup - it's great if one wants to be "entertained" ...

But not so much if one wants to be well-informed ...

 

[Ragman]

Yup - it's great if one wants to be "entertained" ...

But not so much if one wants to be well-informed ...

Well informed from TV news? Ya, right.

 

[davekc]

Yup - it's great if one wants to be "entertained" ...

But not so much if one wants to be well-informed ...

Oh, I don't know? Dennis Miller is pretty informative.

 

[muttly]

Just my personal opinion, I do like some of his "Talking Point Memos". Not a fan of his interviews. Cuts people off and talks over the top of them constantly. Although I did enjoy his interview of Barney Frank. Outside of that, the other thumbs up is "Watters World". That is hilarious at times.

Same here. He'll have a guest on his show with something interesting to say, but will cut them off. Watch his show just occasionally and most of the time for just a few minutes when there is an interesting topic. Not a fan of him. Do like the things he does for the military. I often disagree with his views on topics though.

 

[RLENT]

Well informed from TV news? Ya, right.

Precisely ...

... but here ya go:

Oh, I don't know? Dennis Miller is pretty informative.

 

[RLENT]

Just my personal opinion, I do like some of his "Talking Point Memos". Not a fan of his interviews. Cuts people off and talks over the top of them constantly. Although I did enjoy his interview of Barney Frank. Outside of that, the other thumbs up is "Watters World". That is hilarious at times.

Same here. He'll have a guest on his show with something interesting to say, but will cut them off. Watch his show just occasionally and most of the time for just a few minutes when there is an interesting topic. Not a fan of him. Do like the things he does for the military. I often disagree with his views on topics though.

So ... wadda youz two think of Sham Flamnity ?

 

[davekc]

So ... wadda youz two think of Sham Flamnity ?

Same problem as OReilly. When interviewing, he talks and interrupts people that disagree with him. Harder to comment on him though because I seldom watch his show.

 

[Pilgrim]

75 posts and still no one has brought up even the possibility that the liberal cable networks have their own equivalents of loudmouthed, outrageous, factually-challenged hosts. But what about Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Ed Shultz, Al Sharpton - maybe there are others. It's hard to tell due to their insignificant viewership and ratings.

 

[davekc]

75 posts and still no one has brought up even the possibility that the liberal cable networks have their own equivalents of loudmouthed, outrageous, factually-challenged hosts. But what about Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Ed Shultz, Al Sharpton - maybe there are others. It's hard to tell due to their insignificant viewership and ratings.

That is why they aren't mentioned because no one watches.

 

[muttly]

If a cable 'news' host has a show that no one watches, is he actually hosting a show?

Al Sharpton?s Long Bill of Goods, From Tawana Brawley to Primetime - The Daily Beast

 

[davekc]

No not really. That is AL's pulpit. He is just hoping that someone watches.

 

[muttly]

75 posts and still no one has brought up even the possibility that the liberal cable networks have their own equivalents of loudmouthed, outrageous, factually-challenged hosts. But what about Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Ed Shultz, Al Sharpton - maybe there are others. It's hard to tell due to their insignificant viewership and ratings.

Chris 'Screwball' Mathews' antics is well documented. He's probably the worst, but here is another host with a screw loose over at MSLSD. Must be a prerequisite for working there.
From article:
The cornerstone of her presentation–aside from the cringe-worthy spectacle she was making of herself–was the idea that the country must “break bodies [in order] to perfect the union.”

... “We break bodies in order to… get to where we need to go,” she explained.

Here's the question for MSNBC's Phil Griffin: If this doesn't make Melissa Harris-Perry undeserving of a national network's air time, what in the world would?

- See more at: MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry: I Hope Trayvon ?Whooped the Sh**? Out of Zimmerman