Brian Williams and his helicopter issue.

[rudeguy]

LOL, where are the people now saying it doesn't matter, because this must the only thing he's ever embellished? Hmmmm, guess all his past stories are up for debate now...

But he has nice hair and a nice voice!

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, where are the people now saying it doesn't matter, because this must the only thing he's ever embellished? Hmmmm, guess all his past stories are up for debate now...

Exactly. Once it seems pretty obvious that you lied about one story your credibility is shot. (har). How can people believe his reporting going forward?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Exactly. Once it seems pretty obvious that you lied about one story your credibility is shot. (har). How can people believe his reporting going forward?

I'm more interested in his Katrina stories. There seem to be a few whoppers told about things he would not have seen. Does it rise to the level of absolute condemnation? I'll reserve judgement on that, although when a major outlet uses people with a track record of willful inaccuracy their organization becomes suspect. That's on NBC and him.

 

[zinfamous]

How many times did Obama say "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
How many times did Obama say "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"?

Thousands is a low estimate. But hey...great job bringing W into this! Its nice to see you liberal morons sticking to your playbook.

An infantile discussion to be sure, but if I had to guess, he probably actually said that a handful of times--maybe even only once in one speech?

Or are you taking the hourly repeats of the same statement on Limbaugh's show and Fox.whatever shows as unique instances of him saying it?

:hmm:

 

[rudeguy]

An infantile discussion to be sure, but if I had to guess, he probably actually said that a handful of times--maybe even only once in one speech?

Or are you taking the hourly repeats of the same statement on Limbaugh's show and Fox.whatever shows as unique instances of him saying it?

:hmm:

You may want to fact check your guess before you say I'm wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

But he has nice hair and a nice voice!

Just like Perry! who is also smart now because glasses!



Honestly, this doesn't rate all that high for me--but I completely get it.

In his position, this certainly casts very real doubt on his credibility. I understand that it casts doubt on many of the things that he's said.

Specifically, for this type of lie, though, it is in itself rather benign. It's a stupid embellishment akin to turning an interesting story into a "wow" story...but yeah, there really isn't any good reason that he would do it.

Sure, his credibility should be shot for this...but I'm really not too concerned about embellishing a "party story" over reporting false facts that are relevant to voters and their ability to make decisions.

 

[zinfamous]

You may want to fact check your guess before you say I'm wrong.

So, he actually said that in ~ one thousand individual speeches and conversations with the media?

I know the dude would be stumping on this policy for many months, of course, but those numbers just don't compute....

 

[zinfamous]

He's the voice and face of liberal institutional lairs and alarmist kooks..doing all they can up to and including lying under oath(clinton) to forward the liberal agenda and whip up mass hysteria (eco-KOOKS). The truth is not a liberal tool. Most news viewers know this. That's why MSNBC viewership is lower then snail snot.

You know that Fox's "dominance" over the cable news audience means, basically, 2 million people?

2 million.

pfft.

 

[rudeguy]

So, he actually said that in ~ one thousand individual speeches and conversations with the media?

I know the dude would be stumping on this policy for many months, of course, but those numbers just don't compute....

Again...you may want to fact check your guesses before you say I'm wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

Again...you may want to fact check your guesses before you say I'm wrong.

tell me the impact of such a fact? seriously--the raw number of times he said this is salient to the topic?

It was just as wrong the first time he said it.

 

[rudeguy]

tell me the impact of such a fact? seriously--the raw number of times he said this is salient to the topic?

It was just as wrong the first time he said it.

You are the one debating it, not me.

 

[zinfamous]

You are the one debating it, not me.

I'm questioning the relevance of such a number more than anything. It seems like such a preposterously stupid and meaningless statistic to cling on to.

Does such a number exist? What kind of petty sockpuppet would track such a thing? Obviously I don't give two shits, but you sure seem to.

:hmm:

Though, I will say, when one's claim is usually challenged, the challenged is at liberty to back up these claims. It's like, what gentleman do and stuff. (can't doff gloves over the internet. :\)

 

[rudeguy]

I'm questioning the relevance of such a number more than anything. It seems like such a preposterously stupid and meaningless statistic to cling on to.

Does such a number exist? What kind of petty sockpuppet would track such a thing? Obviously I don't give two shits, but you sure seem to.

:hmm:

Though, I will say, when one's claim is usually challenged, the challenged is at liberty to back up these claims. It's like, what gentleman do and stuff. (can't doff gloves over the internet. :\)

Sorry...I actually have to do work and stuff today. What kind of BS is that?!?!?!?

The conversation went:
Someone jokingly said Williams should get a job from Obama
Someone said Bush was a liar as well
I said Obama Dem's stuck by Obama even though he lied thousands of times
Someone challenged my number
I gave the "IYLYPYCKYP" as an example
You took it to mean that he said "IYLYPYCKYP" thousands of times but I mean that he had lied thousands of times total
You guessed he only said "IYLYPYCKYP" a handful of times
I told you to fact check because I was too busy to give a real response
Now I have a couple minutes so I replied and am watching Katy Perry music videos

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry...I actually have to do work and stuff today. What kind of BS is that?!?!?!?

The conversation went:
Someone jokingly said Williams should get a job from Obama
Someone said Bush was a liar as well
I said Obama Dem's stuck by Obama even though he lied thousands of times
Someone challenged my number
I gave the "IYLYPYCKYP" as an example
You took it to mean that he said "IYLYPYCKYP" thousands of times but I mean that he had lied thousands of times total
You guessed he only said "IYLYPYCKYP" a handful of times
I told you to fact check because I was too busy to give a real response
Now I have a couple minutes so I replied and am watching Katy Perry music videos

:thumbsup:

 

[soundforbjt]

You know that Fox's "dominance" over the cable news audience means, basically, 2 million people?

2 million.

pfft.

And, they get beat by pro wrestling when it's on at the same time

 

[rudeguy]

And, they get beat by pro wrestling when it's on at the same time

and MSNBC gets beet by the Chop O Matic informerical when its on at the same time




(I have no idea if this is true but it sounds about right)

 

[zinfamous]

And, they get beat by pro wrestling when it's on at the same time

it's weird how networks cling to numbers like that, as if it is still 1958, or hell, 1978.

It's important to note that the leading networks--all 3 of them--prior to cable, commanded a share of roughly 200-300 million people.

Murrow and Cronkite and those guys had 100million+ people in their audience. And they did things right. And they weren't afraid of the news, or afraid of their audience. And they had class.

Today, you have these major news networks fighting over something like 17-20million people, that represent the entire news-watching audience in the US.

insane.

In the mad scramble for this increasingly small demographic, you have blood-letting and low brow entertainment passing itself off as information, just to grab half a million or 1 million more viewers than the other 5 or 8 networks.

Whenever someone makes the argument "more people watch Fox so we are the majority of the country!" I actually know that they are talking about a majority of roughly ~8% of the country.

Whenever a mopey hipster bitches about how stupid our country is because Fox is "so popular," I think that some ~4% of the country being "so stupid" ...really sounds about right when you look at humanity overall. It's kind of enlightening, really. Or when some Teabagger screams that liberal nazis are "ruining mah country!", I really wonder if he understands that the ~1% of people that actually watch MSNBC shouldn't be a valid concern in is daily life?

 

[zinfamous]

and MSNBC gets beet by the Chop O Matic informerical when its on at the same time




(I have no idea if this is true but it sounds about right)

Not sure if they still sell the chop-o-matic, but I bet that creepy mustache guy that sells the bowel cleanse at 3am on Saturday nights draws a larger audience.

 

[JEDIYoda]

stolen valor....

 

[Fern]

Just curious how were Brian Williams and Obama linked?

IMHO if all these stories are true BW should resign. I just don't know why you are ok with an entire network lying about the President on a regular basis...

birth certificate
200 million/day trip to India
etc..

Don't recall and righties demanding Sean Hannity be fired.

Oh Dear Lord....

Sean Hannity is NOT a journalist. He's a talk show hosts that eventually got a TV gig. His show is about HIS opinion.

OP/Ed ain't "news" and "news" shouldn't be OP/Ed. Newspapers catch hell if they mislabel them.

Fern

 

[Fern]

it's weird how networks cling to numbers like that, as if it is still 1958, or hell, 1978.

It's important to note that the leading networks--all 3 of them--prior to cable, commanded a share of roughly 200-300 million people.

200-300 million people watching those news broadcasts?

LOL. That's like, what, 100% (or more) of the population tuned in? (If the population of the US was even that high way back then.)

I think your numbers a bit off. LOL

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

200-300 million people watching those news broadcasts?

LOL. That's like, what, 100% (or more) of the population tuned in? (If the population of the US was even that high way back then.)

I think your numbers a bit off. LOL

Fern

certainly possible. But it was whatever the TV-owning audience was, which was actually quite high. And the difference between #1 and #2 in those days was staggering. I think I recall it being compared to some percentage greater than the total news-watching audience of today's ratings.

 

[Fern]

naturally, nobody responds to this.

I wanted to, but didn't have time. I had to log off then.

Even yesterday this Krell's story had already been 'challenged' by two other military pilots who claimed they were the pilots for BW.

Moreover, and I think equally as important, other parts of BW's story, including parts of his apology, were being challenged.

BW claimed to have spent 2 harrowing days in the desert after the choppers landed. I saw at least one soldier call BS on that. He claimed BW was picked up about 30 minutes later and choppered back.

Worse, reports were that BW's chopper was nowhere near the one hit by the RPG etc. BW was said to have been in a different convoy.

As far as the 'lie' about this story, probably best to wait a bit to see ultimately turns up.
------------------------

I'm now thinking BW is history. Two reasons:

1. I've heard reports his producers knew this story is BS and have previously told him to stop repeating it. Yet he continued on multiple occasions.

2. Media firestorm. Now everyone is looking into his past. There are bound to be times that even though he was truthful, he won't be able to prove it. The accusations will pile up. If this circus continues his cred will be destroyed. At some level it doesn't matter if he lied, or he's simply delusional: The result is the same; he can't be trusted.

Fern

 

[marincounty]

Not that I'm aware of but I've got to tell you that I find your interest in this topic to border on the obsessive. I mean it's pretty obvious that marincounty has got some kind of man love thing going on with Williams but you too? He's a news guy. They're a dime a dozen. Just report what the top dogs want you to report and you're golden.

But hey, I read somewhere that Napoleon told a lie once and I'm still carrying that torch around. j/k

No, I do not have some man love thing going on with Brian Williams. I don't even watch network news you twit.
Get Hannity's knob out of your mouth you ignorant pervert.
You are quite the intellectual.
Sorry, I lied.

 

[Fern]

certainly possible. But it was whatever the TV-owning audience was, which was actually quite high. And the difference between #1 and #2 in those days was staggering. I think I recall it being compared to some percentage greater than the total news-watching audience of today's ratings.

Yeah, your basic point is correct. I just had to laugh at those numbers.

Heck, there were a number of households that didn't even have a TV back then.

But a lot of people watched the nightly news, and at best there were 3 choices: ABC, NBC and CBS. And for those of us who didn't live in a big metropolitan area we were lucky to get 2 of those when the weather was good. Because of channel availability, we usually watched Cronkite. Morrow must have been on a channel we didn't get. I'm familiar with name/fame, but I don't recall watching him.

Fern