home

Breaking: NBC Lacks Journalistic Integrity

Credit to Glenn Greenwald and Matt Yglesias for pointing to the latest NYTimes article that demonstrates that NBC and its empty headed, blow dried anchor Brian Williams have not a shred of integrity. See their posts and the Times articles for the details. But this is the bottom line about NBC specifically and the Media in general, from Yglesias:

it’s worth contemplating the breathtaking lack of integrity on display from the television networks here. As I said, Barstow published a piece on this back in April. None of the TV networks addressed the issue he raised in anything resembling a serious manner. And, again, we now have NBC News caught flat-out in the midst of corruption, deceiving their viewers. And NBC News isn’t sorry. They’re not apologizing. They’re not ashamed. Because they’re beyond shame. They never had a reputation for honor, so they don’t even see this sort of thing as damaging.

And if the Left blogs thinks this does not extend to their favorite cable new network, well, then they are willful fools.

Speaking for me only

< MoDo Speculates: Am I Going To Be Outsourced? | Obama: Delivering What I Expected >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    NYT Story was excerpted (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    in the Orlando Sentinel this morning.  I hope that now that the election is over stories like this can get get some traction. I'd love to see the whole smug network come down.

    Capus' Comments Were Telling... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by santarita on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    In the NY Times article Steve Capus thought that the general was a man of integrity who would never let his business connections get in the way of his objectivity.  And Capus noted that McCaffrey had disclosed his various connections to NBC.  Did it ever occur to Capus to disclose those connections to us the viewers?  Apparently not.  

    As I read that article, I found myself hoping that Obama wants to drain that swamp of incestuous defense relationships.  

    Capu is a tool (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    Has been for a while now.

    Parent
    swamp of incestuous defense relationships (none / 0) (#21)
    by michael098762001 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
       Yup, my late Dad who made a career in the military-industrial complex used to tell me outrageous stories about cost plus contractors. Gordon Adams, a solid leftist policy wonk on the "Defense Triangle, "(Congress, DoD and the military contractor community) didn't I read that he is on the Obama transition team? He worked on the NSC during Clinton, IIRC.


    Parent
    i must admit, i am stunned. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    not by the utter hubris of NBC, that's been self-evident for years. it's the complete arrogance of gen. mccaffrey, who apparently believes that, alone among all humans, he is able to completely separate two, wholly conflicting spheres of influence: his monetary interests, as a paid consultant to a military contractor, and his appearances as a (supposed) objective, learned military analyst.

    bad enough that he suffers from hyper-inflated ego, worse yet that neither he nor NBC felt any compulsion to disclose those obvious conflicts to the viewing public.

    so much for "duty, honor, country".

    There Must Be The Equivalent of ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by santarita on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    a moral force field around these elite insiders in which the normal rules simply don't apply.   Where normal people might not be able to objective when substantial financial self-interest is involved, the good general and others like him are apparently immune from such  effects.  Or maybe the better explanation is that they have convinced themselves that they are immune.  Or maybe it is that they believe that their self-interest defines the self-interest of the country.  What's good for Gen. McCaffrey is good for the country.  

    Parent
    I look forward to Rachael Madow's thrilling (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Faust on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    expose on this material.

    I can report with some authority (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    that one of the people McCaffrey respected for analysis on Iraq was Tom "flat" Friedman.

    I actually respect McCaffrey's analysis (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    Though I often disagree with it.

    The point is NBC has no business putting him on as an "objective analyst."

    But NBC stopped being a news organization many many years ago. witness the elevation of the incompetent Brian Williams to news anchor. The man is a buffoon.

    A rich buffoon to be sure, be a buffoon nonetheless.

    Parent

    I have tried and failed (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    to identify any talent he has other than doing a mediocre impersonation of a news anchor.  I guess that is enough for NBC.

    I keep hearing about his great sense of humor, but I just don't see it.  Jon Stewart needs to stop encouraging him.

    Parent

    I'm speaking of Williams (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    McCaffrey's sense of humor is self evident.

    Parent
    I love John Stewart (none / 0) (#23)
    by Faust on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    But the man is quite possibly the worst interviewer on the face of the earth.

    Parent
    Which is why he fits in so well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    on NBC (and MSNBC), the home of the rich buffoons, the catholic boys club of Jack Welch.  They are his peeps you know.

    Never knew much about Brian Williams (I guess he never impressed me enough to pay attention to him).  But one day I heard or read his quote about how he respected Rush Limbaugh. I had to wander how someone who calls himself a "journalist" could not be appalled by the likes of Rush and his hate mongering.  What is there, pray tell, to respect about this man?  And does that mean, Mr. Williams, also respects David Dukes?  Because there is not much of a difference between him and Rush...except that Rush has a national forum on radio.

    Parent

    I have no problem hearing his (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    analysis if his conflicts are disclosed by the network.

    Parent
    Wait a Second (none / 0) (#10)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    You're telling me that TV is mendacious and dumb?  Only the Last Honest Blogger could possibly have the integrity to come up with something like that.

    Only the blind blogger (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    could have missed it.

    Parent
    It's About Time (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    I haven't been calling it the Mouth Piece Media for nothing.

    Not to worry: (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    "His motive is pure," Mr. Weiner[Gen. McCaffrey's longtime publicist] said. "It is national interest."

    Note:  NYT style manual apparently ordains a General always be referred to as a General.  Senator Clinton, on the other hand, devolves on subsequent reference to "Mrs. Clinton."  

    Hillary is "Mrs. Clinton" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    because she indicated a preference for that honorific at some point in the past. The Times is apparently following her wishes.

    Parent
    Yes, I've heard that here; but (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    haven't seen the evidence.  

    Parent
    Your wish is (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    granted:

    Q. I remember hearing that it took The New York Times quite some time to abandon the titles "Mrs." or "Miss" and start using the all-inclusive "Ms." in its articles. So why is it that certain women, particularly Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush, are still referred to as Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Bush in The Times? I personally think it's kind of a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton -- she's one of the top candidates for president, and it shouldn't matter whether she is married or not, or to whom. It does make me wonder, though, whether some public figures have expressed to The Times that they prefer a certain title.

    -- Emily Liner

    A. Our style is to use "Ms." unless a woman chooses to use "Mrs." or "Miss." That rule applies both to private individuals and to public figures.

    Aside from these inquiries about "Ms.," I've been surprised not to get more questions about our use of courtesy titles. After all, our continued insistence on Mr., Ms., Dr., etc., is perhaps our most obvious stylistic difference from other news organizations, which generally use bare surnames for second references to people. The Times's style seems strange, at first, to every reporter or editor coming here from another paper.

    I don't know whether the lack of comment in this forum reflects approval of the courtesy titles, or just familiarity or apathy. I do hear occasionally from reporters who'd like to drop them. Most recently, when we reduced the width of our pages, several people suggested eliminating courtesy titles to save space (it wouldn't really help).

    Perhaps I'm tradition-bound, but this is one quirk of Times style that I would go to some lengths to defend. We strive for a tone that is literate, civil and serious: not fussy or old-fashioned, but also not chatty or self-consciously hip. It's not an easy balance, and we don't always get it right. But I think the simple use of courtesy titles -- whether it's "Mr. Bush," "Mrs. Clinton" or "Ms. Rivera, a teacher from Queens" -- injects a note of thoughtfulness and civility into our pages. Amid the daily cacophony, that seems a worthy effort.




    Parent
    Good research skills. You will (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    go far in your chosen fields.  The entire piece is quite interesting.  M.D.'s or M.D.s?

    Parent
    i'm still waiting for the evidence. (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    if this is what you're referring to:

    Our style is to use "Ms." unless a woman chooses to use "Mrs." or "Miss."

    that isn't it. all it is a recitation of their policy. show me where the nyt's was specifically asked, by sen. clinton, to use "mrs.", when identifying her.

    Parent

    Read the question it's in response to (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    If you're not satisfied after that, you're setting a standard of evidence I can't meet.

    There are many reasons to ridicule the New York Times; this is not one of them .

    Parent

    That's an objectively fascist defense of (none / 0) (#19)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    McCaffrey.

    Parent
    NYTimes style (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    is idiosyncratic and anachronistic and rigorously adhered to.  They're proud of how weird it is.  But at least they are consistent.  I think military rank is the only title they use after first reference.  Otherwise, it's Mr. Mrs. Miss, and they were finally persuaded to also use Ms. decades after the rest of us had been using it.  But they don't like it and only use it if the subject insists on it.

    Parent
    Well, yes as to the full General. Not (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    as to the Major-General though.

    Parent
    Embracing MSNBC (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jake Left on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    as a defender of the left is rampant on many sites. Your term is perfect. Willful Fools. Instead of WiFi We have WiFoo.

    As in we have a growing WiFoo network.

    Barry McCaffery's shilling of the Iraq war?

    Get real.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jake Left on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:37:24 PM EST
    GE is GE. They make money on the war just like McCaffery. Or maybe I missed the expose that KO did on the war profiteers that have GE contracts.

    Parent
    Times style (none / 0) (#29)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 08:39:33 AM EST
    They're proud of how weird it is.

    My personal favorite was reading Iggy referred to as "Mr. Pop." That just tickled me :)

    NBC/MSNBC ultra-propaganda (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sumner on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    who knew? Look at just one tie-in of these banksters' mouth-pieces to the Rockefellers.
    When GE goes to the federal government for their handout, (er, "bailout"), you will know that America's very darkest days are truly upon us. God bless Alex Jones.