Should the LIE Ruin Brian William's Career?

[asher]

If people stop watching him and his ratings drop. But sadly I think the american people are going to forget, and his liberal audience will issue him a free pass, likely contrasting it to what they perceive as bigger lies by conservatives.

While MSNBC is more to the left of most other large TV news networks, they're still pretty damn in the middle. And BW is on the right side of that. His coverage of the 2012 election was awful.

And the vast majority of the mainstream media bought the Bush stuff hook line and sinker. - even the NYT. Lots of shoddy reporting and ostracizing any critical voices. It helped kick start the blogosphere.

 

[Explorer]

I don't watch Fox News or read conservative news sites. I'm not the guy who pushed this off topic. It was whoever wrote #29 and then you got something up your butt.

If you want this back on topic, stfu!

Actually, I thought that the truthfulness of a journalist and/or news organization, and whether that news source should leave journalism for intentional lies, was an interesting idea.

I immediately thought of Bill O'Reilly misremembering having won a Peabody award, and that lead to me looking up past stories about Politifact and the Union of Concerned Scientists finding that the Fox journalists were constantly "misremembering" things, or were out-and-out lying (COUGH! pandering COUGH!).

I don't rely on Fox or NBC/MSNBC for my news, as I tend to go with news with better honesty ratings. Does that mean I have a "bias" for facts?

 

[asher]

The truth has a well known liberal bias, man.

Politifact engages in quite a bit of centrist both-sides-do-it hackery itself.

 

[Konfyouzd]

*logic*
...Does that mean I have a "bias" for facts?

Fortunatley, yes.

 

[estabon37]

Keep in mind;
If a network were to only present substantiated facts and no opinions/individual-analysis, they'd basically have to run a 15min. segment repeating itself all day long .
It's the curse/benefit of the 24hr. news cycle that they've "too much time on my hands" (well their hands, or Mike And The Mechanics hand's)

Australia has exactly this station: ABC News 24 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It's really designed for breaking news, but it's also handy because at any time of day, I can turn on the TV, watch it for ten minutes, get all the big news happening in my country / the world, and then turn it off again.

The so-called drawback? It's a government-owned station. As such, there is a lot of screeching about it being biased in favour of the left to get money out of the government (which is silly, being that our equivalent right-wing party has been in charge for fourteen of the last twenty years, and has won most national elections since Menzies' first win in 1949), and most of that screeching seems to come from journalists working at Rupert Murdoch's newspapers. Speaking of whom, several of their commentators recently accused the ABC of 'stealing' their share of the market by providing the news for free, as if Ebay didn't steal all their classifieds money and Seek all their jobs-advertising money. Print journalism is dying, and blaming free news for its decline is like blaming radio stations for falling album sales. We know the internet is to blame. The internet is always to blame.

The actual drawbacks to ABC24? Shitty production values. Governments tend not to give them much money, so they can't afford fancy holograms, wall-sized screens, or CGI recreations of plane crashes. Not only is it a small price to pay, it makes you realise how much 'fluff' commercial and cable news stations include in their version of journalism.

I realise that I'm using a medium that most of this community is totally unfamiliar with, but I really can't find an equivalent in the United States. Many of you know how the BBC works in the UK, and Australia has attempted to base the ABC on the tenets of the BBC, but our station lacks the funding or imposed licences that would allow the ABC to flourish the way the BBC does, and I'm too unfamiliar with its operations to make claims about how it works. ABC is really limited to just covering the basics, while BBC seems to create most of the world's quiz shows. In other words, through limitation and intention, ABC is just about the best example of an independent fourth estate news service (that has a station for toddlers on the side). It screws up very rarely, and when it does, it even holds itself publicly accountable (along with every other media service in Australia) on Media Watch (which is itself the program that local conservative pundits hate the most because NewsCorp journalists tend te be over-represented through their own negligence).

The closest US example I can think of is NPR, which I've heard lambasted as lefty propaganda. I can't shake the feeling that people on both sides of the political divide too easily lump anything they don't agree with in with 'the other side', but I've not spent enough time with US news providers to see how prevalent their left/right leanings are. I've tried to watch both Fox and CNN on my Grandad's cable service when I lived with him for a couple of years, but I never really found any news broadcasts on either station; just hours and hours of opinion pieces thrown together by talking heads.

I realise this might all seem pretty off-topic for this thread, but I just don't understand how someone like Brian Williams might be considered to be trustworthy, important, or powerful as a single person, as opposed to being part of a trustworthy, important or powerful team. News anchors can certainly gain a lot of respect in this country, but nobody pulls the kind of shit that Williams did. Because when arseholes say stupid shit in our media, they wind up in court. When our media personalities breach standards, they are charged. When they breach the law, they go to jail (for a very short amount of time). That presenters with Williams' status are merely subjected to public scandal and debate (assuming they're caught) suggests a need for higher or stricter standards of journalism in the US.

PS: It's been such a long time since I heard anybody mention Mike and the Mechanics. Thanks for making my day!

 

[Grief]

I think post #29 pretty convincingly demonstrates what I've said.

A liberal says William's lying is bad but then says that relative to Fox News' "warmongering" it's small potatoes.

Is being called a liberal today the modern equivalent of being called a communist during the cold war?

I don't really understand the reference as I don't really have a political horse in any race, nor am I a viewer of BW. And nor am I American. But in a discussion of whether lack of standards or scruples should result in this guy losing his $10m a year job, it is entirely germane to compare it to other instances on other networks where they have been guilty of greater inaccuracy and with greater potential for harm, without fear of any sanction.

Whether regulation is the answer I don't know, but at the very least one might hope for a public understanding that what is presented on each channel is highly-selected and produced to fit a pre-determined agenda.

 

[Explorer]

There's been some excellent studies about how people be made to remember events which didn't actually happen.

Could this be behind Williams and O'Reilly (among others) remembering things which didn't really happen to them?

As for how one would tell if something was the result of an out-and-out lie or from genuinely "misremembering," I don't know.

GDrag, I had asked a question previously, but I don't see that you ever answered it. Given your strong beliefs on honesty being a mandatory attribute to be a reporter, I think the answer to this question is a given, but I just want to be sure.

Would you hold the same to be true about politicians? Especially given that that they swear to or affirm an oath of office?

If so, should their career be over if they lie?

 

[pushpull7]

Brian Williams has and always will be a wanker. BTW, let's not throw "him" under the bus like he's something special, it's not the first time someone has lied intentionally.

I think the whole repub/liberal thing is just another popcorn munch. Most people know the difference between right and wrong. I think that both sides are equally guilty of looking the other way for their own personal benefits.

 

[GoldDragon]

There's been some excellent studies about how people be made to remember events which didn't actually happen.

Could this be behind Williams and O'Reilly (among others) remembering things which didn't really happen to them?

As for how one would tell if something was the result of an out-and-out lie or from genuinely "misremembering," I don't know.

GDrag, I had asked a question previously, but I don't see that you ever answered it. Given your strong beliefs on honesty being a mandatory attribute to be a reporter, I think the answer to this question is a given, but I just want to be sure.

Yes, but it has been shown that the political machine protects liars from impeachment. There has to be a "perfect storm" that would allow a politician to be removed.

In the case of Williams, free market governs his continued employment. With enough outrage and pressure from military personell, NBC may decide that it will impact their bottom line and give him a pink slip.

Politicians are generally highly functioning sociopaths, the dynamic between journalists and reporters should be that the journalists are installed because of their ethics and credibility, which would hold politicians accountable. In a world where the public does not see the shady actions of politicians, they will be able to do whatever they want. We need to trust that journalists and news agencies will accurately report what is happening.

This is why it's imperitive that journalists have high integrity.

There is enough debate about the integrity and objectivity of journalists that removing a proven liar should be a given. Removing Brian Williams is (should be) the low hanging fruit.

 

[shanejohnson02]

There's been some excellent studies about how people be made to remember events which didn't actually happen.

Except that neither I, not any of the fellow soldiers I know who've seen combat, forget a single detail of the more important events. You remember the weirdest small things, which is why slight resemblances can sometimes trigger a PTSD / Flashback episode.

There are just some things you don't forget. And some things you'd rather forget, but can't. Trust me that getting shot at with an RPG is probably right up there on both lists.

I would question whether those people that are made to remember false events are actually remembering, or just inserting themselves in a story to find relevance.

EDIT: It's also very important for us to clearly remember events as accurately as we can. It can mean the difference between a fallen comrade getting the medal he deserves, or getting his name dragged through the mud on international TV. It's expected of us. No, we're not always paragons of truth, but you can actually be kicked out of the Army for lying. It's pretty easy, actually. Every so often, we are given counseling statements. Some are developmental to help us find direction in our careers, and others are punitive. One of the options on the punitive one is to list which of the seven Army Values (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage) were violated by the offender. Integrity is one that, with enough violations, can lead to article 15's and/or bar to re-enlistment.

 

[Grief]

He's on his way out it seems:

NBC anchor Brian Williams 'temporarily' steps down



BBC News - NBC anchor Brian Williams 'temporarily' steps down

 

[Demiurge]

He's on his way out it seems:

NBC anchor Brian Williams 'temporarily' steps down



BBC News - NBC anchor Brian Williams 'temporarily' steps down

When I saw that, I was reminded of this other current event:

Syracuse basketball team self-imposes postseason ban this year in response to NCAA investigation - ESPN

A little bit of the "See how hard I am on myself! Oh, and the lengths I'm going to in order to reduce the distraction for my organization! Gee, I hope when the investigation is over, this will earn me some leniency" act.

 

[Grief]

^ That's assuming BW has made that decision himself. And that's a leap considering the main potential consequences for this controversy are commercial ones for his network: ratings, sponsors, ad revenue sales. I would guess the underlying truth is likely to be that he has been asked to step aside by the 'men in suits'

We need to trust that journalists and news agencies will accurately report what is happening.

This is why it's imperitive that journalists have high integrity.

This is absolutely the worst lesson that can be derived from this debate. News media is highly-selected, produced to a set a set agenda and pretty much never objectively truthful.

A better message to glean from this might be to understand that all news lacks objective integrity and it serves its own market - people watch the news that fits their own personal politics so it has already been cut to suit their bias. Does this for example on CNN look like accurate reporting with high integrity?

And in the US with no regulation there is no need to be truthful at all. So all sorts of nonsense claims can be made without legal consequence such as those famously made on Fox about Birmingham and Paris.

 

[kmanick]

IMO he should absoulutely be fired.
he'll probably show up over on MSleftBC in a bit anyway

 

[shanejohnson02]

And in the US with no regulation there is no need to be truthful at all. So all sorts of nonsense claims can be made without legal consequence such as those famously made on Fox about Birmingham and Paris.

The only problem with regulation is that it implicates the government as being (at least somewhat) in control of the media, which is a blatant violation of our Constitution.

Not saying it would be better or worse, just that under the current system there is no room for it. And honestly, wouldn't you rather have the occasional liar and get every story as opposed to just the ones "they" want you to see? If you're worried about liars / false reporting now, just wait and see what happens if the government were to begin controlling the media.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I have lost touch with family members who are. There have been lots of arguments that I totally de-bunked with either common sense or because I'm in the military and know how some of those things work. I'm just giving you a thought exercise to ponder the ramifications of regulating the media. Remember, give an inch to someone and they'll take a mile.

Also, I'm of the opinion that, in most cases, more regulation is a bad thing. The taxpayers shouldn't have to dip into their pockets just to make sure someone tells the truth. Luckily, the court of public opinion is strong enough these days to oust the liars pretty quickly.

 

[asher]

....which is why Fox has had stellar ratings for a long time and is still around, despite ridiculous amounts of intentionally inaccurate and biased reporting?

I get tired of "the magical hand of the Free Market will fix it!" claims. I can understand generally wanting as little regulation as possible. That's cool, that's a respectable ideological position. But claiming the system balances itself to some moral equilibrium is ridiculous. It's a completely amoral system (by which I mean, morality is not a factor at all, not that it's completely depraved or something by nature). It takes a set of conditions and restraints and maximizes revenue for itself. These outcomes can be, and often are, quite different from what is "best" for the actual society.

See: long history of labor laws.

In fact, this is exactly why everything has trended towards sensationalist reporting, why Fox does so well despite being an objectively terrible news organization, and CNN runs that damn Nancy Grace show.

The market is pretty happy with where it is here, because it's not interested in actual quality reporting, it's after monetizing it and locking in as much of an audience as it can.

 

[Explorer]

Before Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, you'd routinely see holders of broadcast licenses allowing outside editorials, calling them to task for factual errors in their news shows.

That worked pretty well, and it wasn't the government coming up with the viewpoints being broadcast.

I always chuckle to think of what would happen if there were editorials on some of the cable news stations which consisted of an instant fact check. *laugh*

 

[Grief]

The only problem with regulation is that it implicates the government as being (at least somewhat) in control of the media, which is a blatant violation of our Constitution.

Not saying it would be better or worse, just that under the current system there is no room for it. And honestly, wouldn't you rather have the occasional liar and get every story as opposed to just the ones "they" want you to see? If you're worried about liars / false reporting now, just wait and see what happens if the government were to begin controlling the media.

.

Some points:

1. The government don't regulate media in the UK. Media producers largely self-regulate and fund independent regulatory panel and process. In UK certain standards are agreed such as no overt sex or extreme violence prior to 9pm or when the target audience is anticipated to be mainly kids. In contrast Fox news in US seem to think that it is appropriate to use TV like rottendotcom and broadcast 22mins of execution footage. Curiously in UK advocating censorship is conservative viewpoint and in US I suspect it is liberal. Difference being one would mean that f/ex kids would be free not accidentally channel surf into a man on fire, the other would leave business free to broadcast firey man and sell advertising on each side of it.


2. US doesn't have free media anyway. Advertising for instance is surely regulated. I was first over here recently in 2005 and medication adverts were proclaiming all sorts of OTT stuff like each drug is a panacea. Nowadays, side/ adverse effects and efficacy statements are made - this is surely product of regulation?

3. In ref to BWs news reporting and war reporting in general the US govt absolutely controls the narrative. They say what information is released and when and indeed who gets to be embdeed with the troops. So that is hardly free press either.

So there we are. It is possible to have non-governmental regulation and press freedom in US seems to be a myth even in the niche example of the BW story in the OP.

 

[flint757]

Free press with no government interference doesn't impede a narrative being told for the benefit of ad companies, corporations, military, politicians, etc. When no one is regulating a market the only thing that has any real say is money. People with big wallets can easily turn the narrative to their liking and likely do.

 

[asher]

Which is, at least in certain areas (anything Murdoch touches) exactly what we've seen happen.