Jym, with all due respect he is either lying or he believes the untruths because they are verifiably false.
On this thread I have expressed the opinion that I find him cocky and thought he acted as though he was too cool for school on some talk shows. I stand by that opinion. It is opinion and it’s not exactly off the charts unusual, either. He got a ratings pass until it collided with the credibility of the nightly broadcast. Meanwhile, if you search your posts you will find charges of tarring and feathering, cutting and filleting, and a lynch mob mentality. lol.
He is not “delusional” and that is outrageous and inflammatory. You thought the term “talking head” ( a term for seeing someone from the chest up talking)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talking%20head is insulting but “delusional” is somehow ok? Really?? People have read your opinion, over and over and over in this thread. They get it. He was chewed up in this thread, and I stand by that. But calling someone delusional is IMO quite inappropriate. As is changing the subject because you can’t back up your other inflammatory statements. They are BS.They serve nothing but to be disruptive, and its annoying to those trying to have a conversation.
So how about letting people who want to have a discussion do so…
So once again its time to get BACK on topic. The derailing… will of course be denied, as usual.
What do folks think if the news media was as quick on the trigger and as open a few decades ago as it is now? Reposting this interesting link, which happened to be the topic of discussion on another listserv recently. http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/02/presidential-neurologic-disorders
"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. "
Not MANY posts, marie, one. By me. And I certainly didn’t say that all BW does is read the news nicely. I said he is more of a figurehead than a journalist; I said he is largely a presenter of other people’s work. There have been many examples of far more egregious misrepresentations than what BW has done – downright fabrications of data! – by people who are still on the air. BW’s transgression is, in comparison, a tempest in a tea cup. So BW personal credibility is shot: you’re right, I won’t believe next time he says on the air that he was shot at. (Not that he’ll be telling personal stories on TV anytime soon.) But I have no reason not to believe him should he be presenting a seasoned reporter’s story on, say, the latest un-cease fire in the Ukraine. (Not that he’ll be presenting any stories on TV anytime soon, either.)
“People act as though news just falls into the teleprompter somehow.”
Again, marie, what people? show me a post that suggests this anywhere on CC. I dare you! You think most of us just fell of the turnip truck. News to marie! Even with his title of managing editor, BW does not decide what goes into the newscast ("into the teleprompter, as you so expertly put it) or how it’s presented. Those are decisions largely made by a whole coterie of behind-the-scenes producers, reporters and business people who gauge content based on current events, ratings, competitive advantage (or lack thereof) politics, ratings and politics again.
For someone who is supposedly amused by “people’s” inability to separate hysteria from news, you sure are holding tight and indignantly on to this BW grudge.
Delusional might be a clinical term, but it appears that the beloved BW has some issues distinguishing facts from fiction. For a position that should exude credibility, it does appear that his chances of returning in the same role and position are pretty slim. If the network still cares for him, he might find a spot on the morning Today show as he would represent a drastic improvement over the more recent hires, and perhaps stop the show’s rapid descent in brute tomfoolery.
Don’t think anyone is disagreeing that there is a credibility problem. A big one. Ironically, the TV was on in the background earlier talking about the ratings drop since Lester Holt took over and that some opinion poll (didn’t hear which one) showed 52% of people wanted to see BW return. Personally, I don’t think he can or should go back to his previous position, and I’d love to be a fly on the wall as the attorneys for BW and NBC dissect his contract and decide if he violated a morals clause. And its unlikely he’d want to return in some lesser position. But implying faux outrage at the term “talking head” while then in turn using the term “delusional” is hypocritical at the very least.
Well, just to clarify, I’m not at all outraged about any of this. I am amused. Sorry. And, there is no grudge going on here. Nope, none. Looks like most agree he won’t survive. And, he shouldn’t. imho.
I think in BW’s case he is always going to be vulnerable going forward, and the network, who just wants this all to go away, is well aware of that. He is too much of a risk to their own reputation to put him back on - and I think that means “back on” anywhere. Even talk shows, which used to be pretty benign and entertaining, have gotten political and down right ugly at times (The View comes to mind.) So putting BW’s in that kind of forum is risky too. The minute someone disagrees with him and he pushes back, he’ll get the “well you lie, you have no credibility anyway” sort of response, which just dredges up the whole matter all over again. The network is not going to go down that road.
Kind of reminds me of what happened to a former Gov. of NY. I personally thought that ES still had a lot to offer. They gave him a talk show - think CNN not sure- and it just did not work. Some things can make you forever vulnerable.
On the RG controversy, he thinks what he thinks and it was an opinion he expressed intentionally and he spent all day yesterday explaining why he feels the way he feels. He can’t be fired from anything since he has his own business. And, he gets to have opinions so there won’t be any consequences short term. He is also not running for anything or posing as a journalist. But, the relevance to BW and this thread escapes me. The ES CNN show was just a bad show, hooker or not. Actually, without the prostitution escapade ES probably would never have had a CNN show in the first place. I did feel sorry for Kathleen Parker, though. The pairing was just awful.
No, I read it. Here are few cuts of the posts I was reacting to when suggesting that people might be diminishing his role at the network. BW was important. If not, he’d have been gone a long time ago since his tall tales were not a secret…
“I have never held broadcast journalists in high regard, for the most part. They are paid for their Q scores and the way they look and sound on TV.”
" I find it pretty darned funny that we care much, much more about the lying of a newsreader, a guy who reads from a teleprompter in a pleasant, non-offensive manner, than we do about politicians who actually legislate."
Where are they from? Post #s? And where are there others?? Don’t see them. Nor do other posters. Perhaps you were correct that you are misreading. Your first quote is a general description of someone’s thought about broadcasters. Not about any one in particular. And the second seems to be trying to compare the relative importance of a news media figure to a political figure. But can;'t tell out of contest. Need the link to the post numbers. Please.
You provide half statements or clips out of context and then complain about communication problems. When others provide links they either quote the post or provide a link. Its called being helpful. Good heavens this is such a waste of bandwidth. Sigh… You don’t know what needs to be clarified? Read: The. post. numbers. Its not necessary to purposely obfuscate.