“ad nauseam.” 
Ooh, typo. Like I never make those, LOL. Thanks, Harvestmoon. Next time I’ll just say it made me throw up a little bit in my mouth. I can spell that 
From what I’ve read of Cronkite, I think he would have been of the opinion that bankers and politicians are judged on a different metric from responsible news people.
I’d also bet he’d be dumbfounded by what passes for the same these days.
I can certainly see Marie’s point about the importance of Brian Williams’ credibility as head of NBC’s Network News division. Someone who has repeatedly shown no compunction in fabricating a personal narrative out of whole cloth is also in charge of spearheading an organization for which integrity and credibility should be absolutely prerequisite. I get that. I also agree that it should be the job of journalists and news organizations (worldwide, not just here) to stand watch over politicians and the political regimes they serve, as well as financial power brokers and others with the power to peddle influence. It seems most of us agree there was a time when that standard was largely upheld in most American press and news operations, and that facts, along with the gestalt distillation of them—truth, are more and more being treated as optional accessories to “story”.
But as I see it, the Brian Williams kerfuffle only serves to mask a much more troubling truth: The news itself was long ago hijacked by big telecom, which literally owns the organizations tasked with its delivery. This is why none of the major networks is talking about the proposed FCC rule changes, which would fundamentally alter the internet as we’ve come to rely upon it. The drivers of this change are none other than the big telecommunications giants (Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, et al), whose lobbying budget is second only to that of the defense industry, and there’s a reason why they don’t want the public to know what they’re up to. They have literally put a gag order on their news organizations, forbidding them from covering an issue of game changing social and economic implications. They’ve managed to install their own man as the head of the FCC (talk about the fox guarding the hen house!), and have no doubt been busy incentivizing anyone in the position to help facilitate their aims. So, they own the news rooms, they own politicians and at least one government agency, and we somehow think Brian Williams’ made up personal narrative (which he never told from the Nightly News desk) is important? Really?
Rolling Stone has sucked since they went to glossy from newsprint.
I find that there is often more truth in fiction, than what passes for news reporting.
@poetsheart - so what do those proposed FCC rule changes look like?
^I thought they were going to maintain net neutrality. Wasn’t that what Comcast was opposing?
For a little explanation on what’s up with net neutrality, let’s turn to John Oliver:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
Few people these days are naive enough to expect honesty from law enforcement, either.
Reporters get the news from law enforcement, politicians, corporate big wigs, and connected sources and they either verify it as fact or indicate that one side says this and other side says that and there are varying levels of grey between the two reported realities. People act as though news just falls into the teleprompter somehow.
“People act as though news just falls into the teleprompter somehow.” – What people, marie? Who exactly are you talking about and how does this play into this discussion?
@katilamom, hilarious!
Exactly, katliamom. It seems like more strawman. Readers understand that different news staff have different jobs, from gathering the news to writing the news to reading the news to any combination thereof.
As for the interface of news media and politics, our history would likely be quite different if , for example, the medical ailments of some past presidents were more widely known or publicized at the time http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/02/presidential-neurologic-disorders or the hanky panky of Kennedy was as publicized at the time as was Gary Hart’s monkey business on the Monkey Business, etc. Would Kennedy’s Addison’s disease (indirectly addressed and indirectly denied) and the multiple pain meds he took to manage his back pain and colitis have cost him the election if it was all over the nightly news? Sometimes there can be a fine line between the need to know and the want to know. That said, the effects of multiple pain meds on judgment can be as of equal concern as the possible early Alzheimers of a sitting president.
“People act as though news just falls into the teleprompter somehow.” – What people, marie?"
There are many posts about how all BW does is read the news nicely and who really cares if he lies about himself and what happens in the field occasionally. It’s all good. And, no-one expects the network news to be true, anyway and lots of us watch comedy news instead. Or maybe I’m misreading something again but that was my takeaway from some of this discussion.
It’s truly unfortunate that the news-watching public expecting or demanding honesty is seen as naïve but journalists don’t or are not supposed to expect honesty at all. They are supposed to ask questions and they are not supposed to think the world revolves around them. They are supposed to be neutral observers with pen and paper or cameras and microphone. Of course, the problems in the press currently are much bigger than BW as poetheart notes above somewhere but he is as good a place as any to start the clean up operation. And, he has no-one to blame but himself.
There is lots of under-reported or ignored news or would-be/could-be news every day. That is where news judgment and leadership is critical and these days with the number of outlets around it’s a safe bet none of those stories would be secrets. Today’s problem is that people don’t know what to believe.
So, credibility matters. I don’t know why this is hard, really.
Where is there a post that says that? Can you point us to one?
Perhaps so.
Yes, several but no I’m not going back and forth all day or searching the thread for the fun of debating a non-issue. There just is no rational defense for being okay with a delusional network news chief and no-one thinks there is; hence he is a goner.
And no one is disagreeing that credibility matters. Which is why most of us don’t rely on tabloid crappola or entertainment news as reliable.
You make a statement that, when asked for evidence to support it, you blow off and decide isn’t worthy of your time, or its a “non-issue”. So much for credibility. If you can’t back up your statement, its just more unsupported opinion.
**eta-- now you add that the person is “delusional” and don’t see that as in the lest bit offensive or inflammatory. Good grief.
Some of us understand how this all works. And, some of us clearly just don’t. And, some of us just seem to want to bicker over nothing. Pass.
Yes, some of us want to have a discussion and others seem to want to post annoying, unsubstantiated stuff just to agitate. And then run when they are asked to back up their statement. Pass. Time to stop blowing that irritating horn, or is it a sax?