Naw, like I said. Everyone tells war stories.. And all war stories are bullshit. Even the true ones.

ESPECIALLY the true ones.. :D

Michale

That's mighty big of you. I really thought you'd have some anti-BriWi screed, here.

I think conservatives misread NBC News. It's not MSNBC. I find it more slanted towards the conservative point of view than CBS, for example. Dunno about ABC, they seem steeped in sensationalism, which is kind of a different thing.

But BriWi and NBC seem to be closer to the conservative viewpoint in both the slant of the stories themselves (always willing to bend over backwards not to call conservatives on untruthful statements) and in the prominence they give stories like "jobs report best in over a decade" (just from Friday's report).

Like I said, I enjoy BriWi's comedy, on SNL and late-night (he did some hilarious "as himself" appearences on Conan O'Brien skits, for instance). I would truly enjoy having a beer with the guy.

But I have little respect for him as a "journalist." And that goes way beyond political slant (as I've often said, the Fox Sunday morning guy is the best interviewer of conservative politicians, because he is freed from the "liberal media" label, so he asks MUCH tougher questions).

So I was interested to see that BriWi voluntarily turned the NN over to Lester Holt. Next week will be interesting, that's for sure.

-CW

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/brian-williams-misremembers-memes-galore/

:D

Michale

1- Everyone tells war stories...

2- ALL war stories are bullshit..

My personal take on the whole Williams issue??

"Let it go... Let it go...."
-FROZEN

Michale

I define news as stories that are sourced and fact-checked. Those I expect to be factually accurate. I see no real reason a journalist's personal recollections should be held to a higher standard than anyone else's, even when reported as news.

Not a particular BriWi fan but a faulty recollection isn't slanted, manipulated, or even sloppy reportage. Just human nature. Knowing its a personal recollection should be all the disclaimer anyone needs. The details of the event may be inaccurate but the recollection is being accurately reported. Eyewitness testimony is always unreliable.

I doubt many will see it that way. I only wish more would! People tend to invest far too much faith in what they are told without considering just how likely it is that reporters actually know the facts, however trusted they may be.

It isn't just that recollections probably haven't been fact-checked, its that breaking news may be incomplete or inaccurate, and any news may be edited to reduce or increase controversy, or to be more, or less, partisan. Getting "just the facts" is never likely. Which is why multiple sources for any story is always preferable. And any single-sourced story should always be suspect.

Now that's exactly what we need: a differentiation from "news reader" and "journalist." There is indeed a difference, at least in most cases.

:-)

-CW