"Is Brian Williams an aberration?" Topic

Before you reply, bear in mind that 23.78% of Dawghousing around TMP are due to questioning specific News sources. So, lay off blaming just one as "inaccurate".

What makes us think that ANY News source is to be trusted? They are all composed of humans with human failings. The need to please their bosses, to produce the product that is expected. The belief that what they believe is the Truth.
Reporters are not some ivory tower saints, any more than clergy or scientists or politicians.
I would say they are every bit as credible as used car (or cable TV!) salesmen, no more no less.

So I see Brian Williams as the tip of the iceberg. There are a LOT of reporters thinking "There but for the Grace of God…) while putting stern looks on their faces.

BTW you have no one to blame but yourself if you end up in the DH.

Not unless you can figure out what this has to do with wargaming …

IIRC, it was an internal investigation that turned this up. Being promoted as the most trusted reporter made someone look.

I suspect we will hear a line like "I'm not a journalist, I'm Newscaster!"

Brian Williams is nothing new or unique.

During the Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite broadcast from Hue during the battle. Back in New York machine gun fire was dubbed into his interviews with the Marines there to make it appear as if he was up on the front lines.

and he was considered "the most trusted man in America". That network was See BS.

Now, NBC (Nothing But Crap) has been caught lying again.

I've always felt that if you only get your news from one source you will only get one point of view. I follow several news sources (US and foreign), put all the info together and make my own opinions of the events.

One local news station had an ad that said "We not only tell you what happened and where, but what it means to you."

Thanks, but no. I can make my own deductions on what a news event means to me.

During the Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite broadcast from Hue during the battle. Back in New York machine gun fire was dubbed into his interviews with the Marines there to make it appear as if he was up on the front lines.

Citation? Because a quick Google turned up nothing.

My belief is based upon experience, so I answer the OP's question with an emphatic "No!". It is more Procrustean process to get the fit of the desired slant and timeframe in my opinion.

Of course there is the old saying from Texas … "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

This type of reporting has been around for a long time:

The Spanish-American War is often referred to as the first "media war." During the 1890s, journalism that sensationalized—and sometimes even manufactured—dramatic events was a powerful force that helped propel the United States into war with Spain. Led by newspaper owners William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, journalism of the 1890s used melodrama, romance, and hyperbole to sell millions of newspapers--a style that became known as yellow journalism.

Newscasters and news stations have moved from reporting the news to trying to become rockstars and get ratings and/or fit a specific demographic. Never trust one source of the news.

BW was caught lying (or inaccurately remembering – I don't buy that), but US politicians have made the same erroneous claims with no repercussions.

Some say more and more the Media does not report the news … they make it …

Let's face it, most broadcast "news" sucks, whether network or cable, TV or online. It's designed for easy digestibility, not in-depth reporting, and it's driven by the ratings scramble.

Some sources are better than others, like the BBC and Al Jazeera, but overall you get much more solid content from print journalism, specifically newspapers, not glossy "news" magazines, and preferably from a variety of sources and points of view.

jpattern2,

Here ya go. "Battle for Hue", Keith Nolan, page. 108

It seems that it was done in the States by CBS without Cronkite's knowledge and he was angry when he was told, but See BS and Cronkite let the scam go on for years and never said anything about it.

Journalism was never perfect, and now it's completely dead.

All there is to do is read a wide variety of sources and try to distill the facts from the Venn diagram.
-Kle.

Oh hey, a thread where everybody is going to the DH :-)

Chomsky pretty much nailed all this stuff many years ago. Democratic consent can and is manufactured. We're just used to only getting mad when the "other side" does it (whoever the "other" is for you).

Hence, people insisting that one network is always wrong and one network is always right, when they basically tell you the same thing.

Williams and everyone else who uses the military to fabricate lies or disclosing sensitive information should be terminated immediately. Additionally, the military should no longer allow them to be attached. That nit wit Geraldo from Fox News is a prime example of someone that should never be allowed in theater let alone attached.

In an industry that bases performance on ratings I'm sure he is not unique.

"Are things really that bad now or am I just remembering a past that never was?"

"A little bit of both."

He is only a talking head. I watch the film footage from various news sources and draw my own conclusions. If you take anyone's word alone, you get what you deserve.

Brian Williams is sentenced to 6 months in a reeducation camp and will then return all shiny and new and contrite.

People still what broadcast news? Why?

A big part of the problem is who the "journalists" are now. I'm not talking conservative or liberal here but their base mindset. At one time the function and job of a "journalist" (I despise that word) was to gather information and pass it on as much as possible "as is". It lead to some truly great reporting. That was when you could call reporters, "reporters" instead of "journalists".

In those days reporters functioned as transmitters to the public of what was going on. They sought the truth as much as possible. Sure, there was sensationalism and hype, however as a whole the media performed this function. These people were, IMNSHO practitioners of applied philosophy. Today "journalist" wish to "help people" Which predisposes them to have a world view locked in place that will only allow them to see "the real world" though their own rose tinted spectacles. Also, journalists of today have become celebrities in their own right: being feted by the famous and powerful. All this leads to inflated egos and a hubristic sense of self worth that needs constant feeding.

I believe Brian Williams "needed" to "feel real" while "reporting" the war effort and made it sound like he was part of something "dangerous and heroic". What amazes me is that the guys on the chopper didn't call BS right from the get go.

They didn't call BS from the get go because his story changed over time. Initially he told the truth, which was that a helicopter near his took fire or something.

Later he saw the helicopter get hit and later still he was on it.

So the evolution of the story is what is the problem.

I doubt that it is, but it could be that his memory actually misremembered the event over the course of time.

Memory is pretty lousy actually.

I am not going to the DH for this, my answer, no I will never accept Fretos making me eat corn chips shaped in a triangle, keep the ribbon shape you yellow-livered japes.
Cheers and with that you can guess my thinking :)

Journalism is a cut-throat business. Reporters are constantly competing with each other for viewers and ratings. Any kind of edge that can be had will be taken advantage of, including embellishments of stories and even outright lies.

News agencies particularly need to spice up war reporting to make it seem like the reporters themselves are in some peril. It wouldn't surprise me if NBC's culture encouraged Williams and others to make their stories more interesting than they actually were. Everybody wants to be the next Wolf Blitzer.

If you accept that and watch your newscasts with a degree of cynicism, you'll be alright.

To make this fit gaming:
How can we ensure that the correct types of troops, vehicles, artillery and cavalry are used, with proper color of uniforms and such, IF we get the information from the news media?

Hah – for the first couple of posts I thought you guys were talking about brian wilson from the beach boys.

Anyway didnt Hilary famously "misremember" on similar lines?

Back in the Before-time the a game about the war in Vietnam. It included journelists who could only be found in bars.

Some people prefer to tell a good story than the cut and dry truth. Even if they have no reason to given how exciting their life is already. That is true from gaming stories to personal ones. I think Mr. Williams got caught up in it. This has to be a painful setback for him. Sometimes we all need a reset in our lives. I view this more as a personal problem than anything else for him.

The news can never convey the truth. It can only convey a perspective filtered through a lot of subjective interpretation. Its an old story. When history was invented as a thing to make a record of, it was noted that it was subjective, impossible to get right and often used as a tool for purposes other than enlightenment.

Unfortunately for Mr. Williams this isn't the only case of "false memory syndrome".

At least two incidents in his Katrina reporting have been called into question.

News is not about facts anymore. It is about the political agenda of the company. All the news organizations do it. We must learn to be able to shape the truth from the malarkey we are being told. Not as easy task.

I seem to recall a Vietnam game where the media crew was controlled by the VC and the free world forces lost point if thier allies were caught acting up.

Why anyone would believe anything they saw on the network news
is beyond me. They are no longer content to report the events
as they happen, but instead attempt to make every story a
"must see" ratings bonanza.

Does anyone here really think that what happened in Ferguson, Mo would have happened if not for the hundreds of news cameras
that couldn't wait for the tensions to boil over, so that they could show a real live riot?

Of all the dangers facing the United States, a corrupt press is the most dangerous.

Back in the early 70's I hobnobbed with print reporters briefly. They waited for press conferences in nearby bars. And they could put it away.

I seem to recall a Vietnam game where the media crew was controlled by the VC and the free world forces lost point if thier allies were caught acting up.

It's called the "Tet Effect"? With embedded journalists this is no longer an issue.

Possibly the problem in the US is that there is no requirement for journalists to tell the truth?

Here Russia Today has got into hot water with our regulators for.. well.. basically Making Stuff Up.

Hence I will state that RT is probably not a news source to be trusted…because an independent body has stated so.

Hopefully his career is over. As it should be.

Lots of people telling very tall tales, "misremembering", purposefully misleading the public, etc., etc.

Of course, a lot of that doesn't get covered by the "nightly news", since they're too busy backing their favorites, or telling their own "news stories" (I think perhaps they're appropriately named).

Sadly, had to delete about 20+ examples to avoid the Dog Haus, but there are far too many lies, and most are never held to account for them, since they are favored, public figures.

How ironic is it that some of the most pretigious awards in "Journalism" are named after Hearst (Hearst Journalism awards) and Pulitzer (Pulitzer Prize). Or how many Journalism awards there are (dozens). The words journalist and reporter have become jokes. They are more like salesmen (and women) who sell their product for their "news" organization resulting in higher "ratings" (sales figures) which reap great profits for their organization. I once observed an incident in Washington, D.C. and then read about it in the newspaper the following day. After reading the story, I wondered what planet the reporter had been on, as it certainly was not Earth. The story twisted around the Facts to a point where the events which were supposed to have place were now exactly opposite of what had actually occured. People who threw rocks were now peaceful demonstrators. While I realize that "Truth" is often in the eye of the beholder, simply making things up has now become the standard of the industry. I don't even watch the news on T.V. or read a newspaper anymore.

There have been prominent military historians whose research has later been called into question. link

The story twisted around the Facts to a point where the events which were supposed to have place were now exactly opposite of what had actually occured.

It's called "spin." And skilled practitioners of this art are called "Spin Doctors."

"Anyway didnt Hilary famously "misremember" on similar lines?"

Yes, claimed to have landed in Bosnia under fire. However she is just a politician and no one expects the truth of them…

Sarcasm mode on.

Editor Bill,

You are right about SLA Marshall. In David Hackworth's book "About Face" he was assigned to Marshall as an aide while Marshall travelled in Vietnam collecting information for his next book. Hackworth wrote that Marshall told him real peoples names were worth a thousand facts. It was more important to get the people right than what really happened.

In the early 90's I was able to interview Lt. Gen. Hal Moore (We Were Soldiers Once, and Young). I asked him about Marshall. He was very polite and simply said that Marshall wrote about him doing things in places he never was.

There is much to say that SLA Marshall is not accurate in his history, but he is still used by the New York Times as a master historian (from the article you linked) and that says something about the paper that is using him.

As human beings people can be prone to exaggeration and embellishment of their stories. Even those who don't need to do so have fell into this trap, like American Sniper Chris Kyle.

Hackworth wrote that Marshall told him real peoples names were worth a thousand facts. It was more important to get the people right than what really happened.

This makes me wonder how much credence we can give so-called "oral histories" written about WWII or any other wars that depended heavily on interviews with veterans that occurred years later. Did these veterans recount their experiences under fire accurately or did they also embellish their tales of heroism to an extent which bore little resemblance to what actually happened?

Hmmm……

History has to be made by both oral and documented sources. You should never use one as your primary material, both are required to produce a good history of an event.

As a former member of the media I'm always amused when people never include their favorite news outlet in the list of lying media personalities. It's always the other guys who are making up stories for ratings.

I can also attest to the fact that an overwhelming majority of people working in the various news outlets are simply doing a job they believe in: REPORTING the news. I know I never had time to manufacturer the news and stuck to strict editorial ethics.

When the media are in place in a volatile area and capture a riot they are goading on the rioters to get a good story. When they're not in place to capture and report on something they're covering it up to further their own agenda. Win-win huh?

A guy who merely reads from a teleprompter lies and he gets suspended and most likely fired. Uproar ensues.

Politicians continually knowingly lie regarding issues that are actually of great importance and we just shrug it off.

Crazy.

DM

History has to be made by both oral and documented sources. You should never use one as your primary material, both are required to produce a good history of an event.

That's true, but if the documented sources such as official histories or AAR's only provide context or are not sufficiently detailed and specific, exaggerations or fabrications via interviews will not necessarily contradict them.

I remember watching a doco about journalists in Palestine. They were paying Palestinian kids to pelt rocks at Israeli soldiers.

In essence they were trying to create the story.

Here in Australia even reputable shows like Lateline have been busted lying badly.

Most media is about profit and ego. The truth is an irrelevance.

Here's a bright idea…

link

Whitphoto +1.