I'm not picking on you, I swear, but this attitude, which seems to be that of the general population when it comes to pretty much anything that comes out of an official source is why we are in the shape we are in politically, economically, socially, etc. Truth, character, and credibility matter, especially when you are doing something, anything, in a public capacity. Are people perfect? Nope. But that is absolutely the wrong attitude and way too many people have it.
I taught my entire floor that making out with chicks was awesome, and facilitated at least two threesomes that I know of, and your country paid me back by NEVER FUCKING ME. God bless America. #neverforget
I understand where you're coming from and I get what you're saying, but Brian Williams isn't the only source. The stories he's telling are being told elsewhere. Now if he was the only news source, and he reported on the apocalypse coming to a city and the city evacuated, but he misremembered then we could talk. I just want to know what the actual impact is of misremembering being attacked in a helicopter or random Katrina stories. The media gets shit wrong ALL THE TIME about things that actually affect people. Yes I know Brian Williams is the editor, but he's not on the ground doing reporting. He's getting actual information from other real reporters all the time. As long as that stuff is accurate, I'm good. He'd be flat out insane to take something that was factual news then change it to be something else. Anecdotal stuff, I can't muster the freak-out. That's all. Would I rather it not happen? Sometimes I just want to really focus on the tangible cause & effect of certain things when the outrage rises up, that's all. I don't have some major faith in any one news outlet where something can shatter it like people feel like Brian Williams adjusted memories have shattered peoples. What there should be more outrage about is the huge miss by all the meterologist in regards to the east coast snowstorm that didn't happen at all. People stayed home, schools were closed and businesses had people telecommute/stay home for what turned out to be nothing. You can put a price tag on that. That miss had a tangible impact.
No, NBC gets to save some money while he rides out the storm. Fuck Fareed Zakararaiarra PLAGIARIZED a whole fucking article, yet that smug twit still has his own show. Unless they find someone with a bigger draw and is cheaper to boot, he'll be back.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I thought the time when we look at TV news anchors as anything more than a 5/10 on the trustworthy 'n credible scale ended in the late 90's, if not earlier. Outside of major events happening in real time (catastrophes and atrocities, usually), I don't know why anyone watches any network broadcasts. Is this no longer the case? I find the media freaking out on him funny, and perfectly emblematic of what's wrong with media in general (no credibility to be found, until an outside party calls one of them on it, then they all go fucking nuts). They aren't just pots calling the kettle black, they're calling it the N-word. People freaking out, on the other hand, confuses me. "I remember when I hosted the Daily Show." - Brian Williams #BrianWilliamsMisremembers
#BrianWilliamsMisremembers being on the grassy knoll. #BrianWilliamsMisremembers being in tower seven. #BrianWilliamsMisremembers being at the Ambassador Hotel. I wish I had photoshop skills as I'd put Brian Williams on the grassy knoll in a second.
A quick answer to your question is that the networks, in return for essentially getting to use the airways for free, were supposed to provide one hour a day of public service announcements. Hence, the creation of the news. Given the fact that these companies make ludicrous amounts of money, without having to really pay for the privilege, means they should be held to the original deal they entered into. While I agree that we're all a bunch of fucking rubes for believing in these people in reality, the idealist in me believes they should be held to a higher standard. If not, why even have the news?
"And after a 50-year tenure as a correspondent for '60 Minutes,' I died suddenly in a car accident." #BrianWilliamsMisremembers ...too soon?
This is probably a big reason why twitter is so often used as a news source. News an event that occurs and is observed. I don't think we really need highly trained people to report their observations. Analysis is different, what most people look for in reporting is simple observation, not analysis of their observation
Going to have to respectfully disagree here. Most people are terrible at remembering what they saw. After having seen personally many witnesses not be able to describe things accurately, and things that happened to them, the average person (myself very much included here) is a terrible witness. You need people that are trained at drawing out the story from multiple sources/witnesses who can confirm to a reasonable degree of certainty what actually took place. While I think twitter may well have a role, let's not forget that people on Twitter mistakenly reported who the Boston Bombers were, and the family got severely harassed. Good news reporting is more than just saying 'some shit happened.' It requires training, patience, experience, and an understanding of how people and sources work. While the final result that we see and consume APPEARS to just be some people making observations, the real journalism goes on behind the scenes and is, in my opinion, very necessary.
I definitely agree that they SHOULD be held to a higher standard, my point is that it's tough to remember the last time they actually were. Hence my amusement at the rest of the media freaking out over a relatively minor fib (as if they think we all believed they're a collective paradigm of integrity and THIS is what shattered our belief), and my confusion at any public who are surprised or legitimately upset. Following what toddamus said, between the decline in credibility, and increase in online instantaneity, it seems like nightly news casts are edging towards redundancy. Don't think they'll ever go away completely, but besides maybe the elderly, I can't imagine anyone gets their information from a single TV broadcast. Or if they do, they aren't to be taken seriously. Riots, a major natural disaster, or Robin Williams kills himself? I'll begrudgingly flip to...CNN, I guess. Literally anything else that has depth, nuance or multiple angles? I'll check many online/print sources before even kind of forming an opinion (not quick to trust them, either). I'll maaaaybe check out a long-form TV investigative report, if the story has been around long enough (I thought CBC did a surprisingly good job holding their own execs accountable about that faggot Jian Gomeshi). It's my impression that this approach is becoming more and more the norm, especially for the youngins. "I remember watching my daughter get her ass motorboated." #BrianWilliamsMis...oh, right.
What ^ he said and freaking out about Brian Williams being wrong is like being upset that a white police officer acted outside the law and got away with it in 2015. It's like when are we going to stop expecting people to be perfect and have the expectation people are trying to stay as perfect as they can. Unless their is malicious intent, that's a different story. I don't think Brian Williams had malicious intent, he was just trying to be more...something. I think it might be a generation thing, older people relied on those big names like Brokaw and the like to get on TV, tell them what's happening in the world and provide perspective on it. Younger people have guys like John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and John Oliver reminding us how people like them now are full of shit and not trust any primary source.
Back in the day, the news was the news, and how it found out about important shit in the world and their life. Now it's clickbait entertainment and fluff. Funnily enough, the cheaper the news gets, the more it takes itself seriously.