ABOUT THIS BLOG

The Daily Nightly began on May 31, 2005. As Brian wrote in his first post it aims to provide a narrative of the broadcast day and a window into the editorial process at NBC Nightly News. Brian weighs in every weekday and NBC News correspondents and producers post regularly.

Brian Williams became the seventh anchor and managing editor in the history of NBC Nightly News on December 2, 2004. Read his full biography.



...Or forever hold your peace

Posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:10 PM by Sam Singal

By Brian Williams, Anchor and managing editor

I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people, telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night's broadcast. It was a closing piece about Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment, especially in this era when, as I put it, marriage seems "under attack" as an institution. My meaning?  Our national divorce rate, which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been  further from my mind, as many others easily understood. In fact, one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, who said, "It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack -- by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement."

The upside of the web today?  The emails I've received from my fellow loyal Springsteen fans. Yes, I'm proud to say that my wife and I (tacit, embedded defense of marriage!) have been to three concerts so far on this tour: Meadowlands, Madison Square Garden and Boston. It just gets better every time.

I hope you can join us for tonight's broadcast. Until then, here's an interesting take on a couple of things that happened today, from my colleague Andy Franklin.

A Pardon and a Star

Two American traditions played out today, in ceremonies on opposite ends of the country. In Washington, President Bush pardoned the National Thanksgiving Turkey. In Hollywood, the Munchkins were awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We call them American traditions because it’s safe to say that these two rituals take place nowhere else on earth.

The idea of teaming up presidents and turkeys (your punchline here) got its start 60 years ago, with President Harry Truman. Contrast this to the United Kingdom, a place with a lot more experience in the tradition business: 60 years ago today, they were enacting the centuries-old ritual of a royal wedding (between Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip; see above). America's own turkey-presentation ritual got its start as a way for the poultry industry to push its product during a time of peak demand. What better way to sell Thanksgiving turkeys than to have one pose for pictures with the president? The notion of the president “pardoning” the bird – sparing it from being killed and eaten after the photo-op – actually took hold later, although the “pardon” has now become a central element of the ritual.

The White House turkey presentation takes place every year, but the president himself is not always the recipient. Richard Nixon got out of it after the 1970 turkey got agitated and spoiled the photo-op. (A Washington Post article headlined “White House Flap” said in part, “Reporters at the presentation in the Rose Garden witnessed what seemed to be mutual dislike: the president stayed well back of the agitating wings; the turkey gave the President a baleful red-eyed glare.“)

The following year, Nixon chief of staff Bob Haldeman (a former advertising executive who knew lousy PR when he saw it) kept the president off stage – as indicated by the following conversation, recorded by Nixon’s White House taping system: 

Haldeman: It’s turkey presentation time again, and I thought we’d present it to Mrs. Nixon this time, because they’re presenting a dressed turkey rather than a live turkey. They finally wised up on that. Totally asinine bringing that wild turkey into the room. 
Nixon: Very good. (laughs)
Haldeman: I got you out of that.
Nixon: (laughs) The turkey story. It’s always so silly.
Haldeman: That’s a bad one, anyway. In the first place, it’s an unsympathetic story. People don’t like the idea of killing birds –
Nixon: A beautiful white turkey –
Haldeman: They put that beautiful bird there, and say I’m gonna kill and eat it. And it’s always a stupid picture.
Nixon: Hoo-hoo, God. All pictures with animals, except dogs. King is the only good picture I’ve ever seen of a dog.
-- Executive Office Building, November 18, 1971

“King” was Nixon’s Irish setter, King Timahoe. Four days later, a live turkey was in fact presented to Mrs. Nixon at the White House. President Nixon himself never again participated in the ritual.

Meanwhile, Hollywood continued today with its tradition – placing stars in the sidewalk and naming them for entertainment figures. This is also a tradition that has commercial roots. Fifty years ago, a group of Hollywood business owners got together and decided the neighborhood needing spiffing up. They came up with putting stars in the sidewalk, and the idea took hold. Today it was star number 2,352 – in honor of the Munchkins, the diminutive stars of “The Wizard of Oz.” There were 124 actors playing Munchkins in that classic film. A few of them were actually children, but most were adult “little people.” We're told that eleven of those adult Munchkins are still alive, and seven of them were present for today’s ceremony, which took place outside Grauman’s Chinese Theater, where “The Wizard of Oz” premiered in 1939. Sadly, all of the principal stars of the film – Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, Bert Lahr, Margaret Hamilton and the rest – are gone. (They are not only merely dead, they are really most sincerely dead). Toto too; the Black Cairn Terrier named Terry who played Toto died in 1944 at the age of ten. “The Wizard of Oz” was just one of 13 films Terry appeared in; perhaps one day he will have his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Until then, our congratulations to the members of the Lollipop Guild, the Lullabye League, as well as to all those Munchkins who remain unaffiliated.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Just as long as there isn't any real news.  What a failure to practice journalism, Brian.  The moment you start using terms as "obvious" and "easily understood" you've run off the rails of reporting and right into punditry.

Your continued negative stance towards blogs is interesting in light of Chris Colvin's excellent blog reporting right here. Methinks you use blogs as a convenient scapegoat for your own shortcomings as a credible news reporter.

Go back to your comedy skits, SNL and Springsteen and hand the news reporting to someone who knows how to observe and report news.
Andy should write his own stuff, not tack it on the end of yours. The more voices the merrier in the blogosphere.
Thank you for sharing Nick Nelson's story on the broadcast tonight.  I couldn't help the tears forming in my eyes from falling over as I watched his story.  He is wise beyond his years.  I must also applaud his parents for their support for such a big decision.  When a child is ill, the entire family suffers and is involved in his care; it is heartwarming to see how they embraced his decision.  I have no doubt that once he is used to his new leg, with his family by his side, there is nothing that will stop him from doing whatever it is he wants to do or go.  
Great News on the stem cells!!  Looks like President Bush had more "faith in science" than the Liberals. Wonder if they'll line up to say he was right? Yeah I'm not holding my breath either.
Hillary was the face of foreign affairs? So she's the one who failed to bring Iraq to a satisfactory conclusion through 8 years of diplomacy working with our allies and the UN.

Bill was busy else where.
Brian Williams - The guest appearance you did on Saturday night live inspired my 12 year old daughter to begin watching your nightly news cast with me. As a parent I am thrilled. She continues to refer to the very funny telephone message you placed to yourself on the SNL skit. It just happened to be a night we were having some "girl time" together - later than we usually do, but she LOVED you.  I think you may be a parent's secret weapon in getting our kids to gain an interest in news.  It's so important to the kids to have an adult that reaches them - I think you have what it takes.  Tonite we watched the nightly news together and she said, "Mom - he's so funny - and so serious on the news. I like him."  I assured her that you're just like us - the professional side, the funny side, the out-with-friends side. Great job, Brian Williams. Please consider pursuing your "way" with kids and encourage them to watch the news and know what's going on in their world.  
Good Evening Mr.Williams, Thank you again to Mr.Franklin for the history lesson. This time regarding the pardoning of a turkey and President Nixon. I presume by the turkey's reaction that it did not like President Nixon. It was probably better to have the turkey presented to Mrs. Nixon four days later. On another note it is extremely nice that a star was placed on the sidewalk in honor of the Munchkins from "The Wizard of Oz". That movie is my favorite and I just love watching it on video. It is sad that all the major stars have passed away, but I'm sure they are looking down very happy. As you stated congratulations to all the members of the Lollipop Guild, Lullaby League and everyone involved with the munchkins. Now on to the broadcast. The report titled "Life in Baghdad" reported by the New York Times journalist was sad and touching. These two women one who is Sunni and the other Shiite being friends and enduring all those hardships of the war brings to mind just how difficult it is to live in that region. Hearing the children singing in the library was sweet, but hearing that on of the mothers will not allow her son to play outside because of the violence is horrible. It is terrible that they have lost family members or that they cannot leave to see any other family because they feel they must stay. One really hopes peace will come soon. On another note the story about that nine year old boy was heartwrenching and touching. What a brave little boy to go through that surgery to amputate his leg to be fitted with a prosthetic to help himself walk. I am happy he will be seeing the Macy's Parade he certainly will love it. Finally, that was nice to know that Neil Diamond wrote "Sweet Caroline" for Caroline Kennedy. I always liked that song and now we know for whom it was written. Thank you for the broadcast Mr.Williams. Peace to all!
Mr Williams, per the "marriage is under attack situation": We absolutely appreciate your response and believe you intended no anti-gay sentiment. However, we do take some exception with your phrasing,  in which you make it sound as if you were "being attacked in parts of the blogosphere" for the comments. Our site was the very first one to post and comment on the video, and we did not "attack" -- we pointed out that the phrase is hostile terminology employed by the far right, and that such probably should not be used in a mainstream news broadcast. And we didn't take it upon ourselves to assume that you were "somehow attacking gay marriage" -- we used the information that was given to ask what, exactly, you meant.

It's very easy to attack the blogosphere as an angry monolith filled with quick to judge individuals. However, we take offense to that characterization, especially when talking about a situation that we still think should've been worded very differently. Even climbing divorce rates are not exactly an "attack" on marriage; the institution itself is not being maliciously targeted in such a hyperbolic fashion. So again, we sincerely appreciate that you responded to this. We just wish you wouldn't have done so by painting it as if it was a situation that was easy to understand, if only those pesky, angry bloggers hadn't been so irrational.
What struck me about your comment that marriage is "under attack" is that it is right out of the right-wing Frank Luntz playbook. It shows how successful the right has been when a definatively "mainstream" news anchor just tosses off one of THEIR talking points as if it were established truth. Furthermore, the words carry a baggage that make some of your audience feel like THEY have been attacked as well, and Brian, it tells us something important about your principles as a newsman when you integrate right-wing-spin into the news. (And I'm saying this as someone for whom the "gay marriage" issue isn't even on my top 20 list of political concerns. The rightward turn of the press, however, is right up there.)
Brian Nick story was so good he is a very smart young man. I wish he the best and hope you follow up on this.

Today was a great one as alot of the secrets of crimes committed came to light.
Scott McClellan finally told the truth and I most say David misspoke about a person going to jail for the Plame leak. Libby has never put a foot in a jail. Americans don't seem interested in the Bush Administrations criminal acts. President Bush could admit he lied from day one about everything and wasted Trillions of taxpayers money and the public would still say nothing. We lost thousands of soldiers based on lies and thousands injured while if the White House admitted this invasion was a set up for oil Americans would still do nothing.  As Andra Mitchell reported today on the campaign for President.  Americans are the leader of Woman's Rights but don't want a qualified woman to be President.  Americans would prefer a male who isn't qualified as all the male candidate have no foreign policy experience.  You can bet if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate he will not be President. Every person will then start with we're not ready for a Black President and he's not qualified. Americans would rather have a white male who will learn on the job and bring back Rove, Cheney, Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Libby and Abramoff back to the White House to finish what they started.

I notice how the new Bush Justice System works. Warren Jeffs got 5 years for 2 counts of rape as the young man who had sex as a teenager was given 20 years. I guess to the new Justice System it makes since.
Good thing the Bush Administration lined the Supreme Court with Judges that will follow the White House directions. Now that old question of the right to bear arms will be settled with the NRA as the winner. Yes the law was made for America before we advanced and became a world leader.  Looks like the nuts will come out of the wood work now. Next will be Woman's Rights then the Civil Rights bill.

Brian its sad when you live so long you remember 1963. I remember the CIA was part of the cover up of the assassination of JFK. Yes our CIA hired the killers who we hired to assassinate Castro. Now the CIA is still keeping this information from the public. Those of us who could understand know America killed President Kennedy.  

Iran has done everything they could to make friends with the US during the Bush Administration. Bush has even hired Ari Fleischer to spread propaganda in hopes the lies will get the support of the public to illegally bomb Iran.  Oh how the criminal turns now the Bush Administration has accepted talks with Iran. If I were Iran I wouldn't believe a word this Administration says.

Country Wides owner was appointed as a US Diplomat by the Bush Administration because of the money he gave for the election. Now we know how he got so much money on the fraud of the sub prime program.  Now a selected few homeowners will get longer mortgages while millions of other lose out. I guess this shows crime does pay in America.

The White House is going to lay off government employees if Congress don't give him the money he wants.  Now blackmail is legal. Using Americans as the weapon of choice.  Yes as families don't' have a Christmas because the White House wants the money for pay offs, propaganda, contractors and lining the pockets of friends.  Still Americans do nothing but let his Criminal Administration continue.  
Brian- Nick Nelson's story tonight was by far the most heart warming story I have seen recently.  Please, for the all of us that need a little inspiration in our live, continue to give us updates on his story.
"Marriage is under attack" is language used by anti-gay bigots.  Gay people have endured enough oppression through the millenia.  I am glad some have questioned you.
As a blog/internet junkie, even I have to admit that the tenor of the internet dialogue is mean and ridiculously inflammatory as well as entertaining and sometimes very smart.  "Comments" to most blogs are the internet equivalent of road rage.  There's a lot of anger out here!  It was clear what you meant, Brian, and as a regular viewer, I got it. Can't we talk about stem cells and the Supreme Court gun case?  There's plenty of important stuff out there...
Mr. Williams, you did not say on your news cast that, "...marriage <i>seems</i> 'under attack' as an institution...",  you said, "In an era when marriage is under attack..."  You did not say it "seemed" to be under attack; you did not say it was under attack as an "institution" either.  

As a man you have acknowledged being a fan of and friends with, Rush Limbaugh once said--words mean things.

Although I'm sure you're pleased that a nameless "friend" from the NL&GJA defended your comment, and that "many others" understood what you meant, that does not change the fact that many others also understand your intention and the reasoning behind using that specific phrase.  

You're welcome to spin your comment all you like, however NBC will not be watched in my house any time soon and I am forwarding links of video of your newscast to family and friends and asking them to do the same.
Hi Brian.  Nick Nelson's story was very moving.  Thanks for that.  And I hope he and his family will have a great time over there for Macy's Thanksgiving Parade in NYC.
Brian Thanks for clearing up what you MEANT to say anjd what it was about in your mind...but it still leaves questions in MY mind. Why use the specific term "under attack" which is often used by the right?
Gays only want to participate in marriage like every one else...Do you understand that? What IS your opinion on on marriage/civil union for ALL Americans?
Sure would like to feel that you are a caring man who does not buy into bigotry.  
Mr. Williams:

Your story on Nick Nelson's courage brought my husband and I to tears.  What a remarkable boy--we pray for him and wish him all the best.

You have Springstein - I have Neil Diamond.  Thank you for the story about "Sweet Caroline."  

I want to wish you and your family and your NBC staff a Happy Thanksgiving.

Those of us who follow the propaganda of the religious right, televangelists and "family values" crowd, instantly knew you spoke their code phrase exactly.  "Marriage is under attack in America"
(from gays) is what they say over and over and over.  It's mantra.  Nobody else uses that wording.  Marriage is under attack from...divorce?  If that's what you meant to say it was an odd way of saying it.  You could have said "with the divorce rate so high..."  I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I am really surprised that a newsman is unaware of some of the various political agendas in this country.
Brian,

I really don't understand. How is the fact that divorce rates are wherever they are an indication that 'marriage is under attack'? Who is attacking marriage?

Jonathan
yes Brian, blogs are bad aren't they. Don't you just wish people would stop reading them? Too bad....
Just open tonight's news with a reading from Noam Chomsky, and the McCarthy Left will go away.
the phrase "marriage under attack" is a common one and it is used by people who think a permissive society is at blame.

If I said I was listening to "hip-hop" and somebody sent me some Jay-Z, I wouldn't be surprised. it seems to me that maybe B.W. would.

I'll join Jonathan from Belmont, CA in asking, "Who is attacking marriage?"  

If divorce rates are indeed at 40-50% in America right now, how long have they been at this level?  Is this something relatively new or has this been true for a while?  How long is the "era" you speak of?  (Not that googling is close to being real research, but a quick web search on divorce rates brings back articles which suggest that divorce rates have fallen in this century, not risen.)

Saying "marriage is under attack" is exactly like calling the inheritance tax a "death tax."  These are phrases created by people on the political right to confuse the issues and create misinformation.  Marriage is not being attacked by anyone in this country and no one is taxed for dying, period.    

Language choice is important, especially when someone is supposed to be reporting facts in an objective manner.
Sorry Brian, but I'm entirely rejecting your 'marriage is under attack' explanation.

First of all, the EXACT phrase you used on-air was "In an era when marriage is under attack...". There's no mention of the word 'seems', and only a passing reference to 'marriage as an institution', as your explanation asserts. Perhaps that's the idea you had when you wrote the piece, but it is NOT what you wrote and said on-air.

Secondly, you didn't get to where you are now without knowing how to identify a 'dogwhistle phrase', regardless of its ubiquity in the common vernacular. And you knew FULL WELL when you wrote that piece that this particular phrase is "owned" by those opposing gay marriage. You KNEW that, Brian. You also knew how a large portion of America would interpret the phrase  'marriage is under attack.' And yet you used that exact phrase anyway.

I worked in a medium-market TV newsroom for 7 years.  This was a soft-news piece at the end of the newscast. You could have easily said the story was written by someone else, and the first time you saw the text was in the teleprompter, and you deeply regret that the use of that phrase in that story may have offended a portion of your viewers. But no. Instead you've chosen to lie by saying you had no idea (NO IDEA? ARE YOU *KIDDING ME?*) that the phrase would cause such a backlash.

Bottom line: I do not believe your explanation. You are a far better journalist than that, Brian. At least I thought you were.

Trust is one of the few things that is earned over time but can be lost in an instant. Respect is another. Both of these attributes are essential elements of any successful journalist. Brian, in my opinion you've lost a bunch of both because of this.

But perhaps more importantly, you've lost my viewership.
I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people, telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night's broadcast. It was a closing piece about Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment, especially in this era when, as I put it, marriage seems "under attack" as an institution. My meaning?  Our national divorce rate, which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been  further from my mind, as many others easily understood. In fact, one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, who said, "It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack -- by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement."

I don't buy it.  You didn't say a word about the extensive divorce rate, and anyone who knows anything about the cultural arguments in this nation knows the "marriage is under attack" phrase is used, almost exclusively, by people opposed to gay marriage.  And I notice you did not apologize or clarify this on the air, last night.  I'm not watching NBC News anymore.
Once again, just another example of how bored people must really be, why does everyone feel the need to disect everything anyone says anymore, "oh my god, someones not being politically correct, we better hurry up and correct this", who really care what was meant by the statement? I thought we were all entitled to our own opinions in this country, for every person out there who doesnt like my opinion, theres another person out there who doesnt like yours, get over it, if the worst thing that ever happens to you is someone not agreeing with your life style, then you have it pretty good-and by the way, I dont think he was commenting on anything but divorce.
Leslie: It's called paying attention to the news and challenging how it's presented, something that too few people do because they don't want their nightly spoonfeedings of heartwarming pap disturbed by "negative" or "politically correct" people who might upset their soft-focus view of life. Oh, and you might be entitled to your opinion, but journalists aren't supposed to be slipping their opinions into news broadcasts.
Brian-  Did anybody notice the two pieces of unsecured luggage tumble end-over-end down the tarmac of the Atlanta airport from the motorized luggage train as it sped towards departing flights during tonight's piece on holiday travel? Priceless. You should save such clips  for the airline execs when they insist things are getting better for the flying public.    
So does this mean you are in favor of gay marriage?  And you ask "What liberal bias?"
to brian williams,
just to educate you about a few things about born again christians, at least the hundreds and hundreds i've met in my lifetime.  We are NOT anti gay.
God's word, the bible, says that homosexuality is a sin. Of course , you, being part of the drive by  media, make up your own rules and laws, being so elite, you think you can decide what right and wrong And just ignore what the bible says about it.
Repeat, we love gay people, we just dont love their sin. Just like I dont love the sins that I commit.
  Second topic: Anti abortion. Brian what if your son or daughter had been aborted? Why not kill children at 6 months or 1 year if you dont want them. why does that seem so ridiculous, yet to murder a baby in it's mother's womb with a heartbeat is acceptable to Lib's.
God's word has no gray area.
Brian, repent of your sins and receive Christ. He'll change your heart.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Pro jesus. Of course, no doubt about it. Jesus Christ is the king of the world. And every knee will bow to the king of kings at their death. amen, so be it.  
happy thanksgiving

Brian, I was disappointed to hear of your "Attack!" comment. I don't watch your program, and I'm reminded why. Either you're wearing blinders and actually DIDN'T recognize the phrase as one most commonly used among anti-gay bigots, or you know full and well what you said, and are only back-tracking because PR told you to.
And to the comment above from Steven Waterbury- dude. Just, no. "God's word has no gray area"? I suppose we'll see each other in hell, what with all our eating of shrimp and cutting of our hair.
When people have to go on and on about their personal religious eliefs, they are completely disingenuous. Those words mean nothing- they are bred in fear and bleated out against others, hatred disguised as "word from the good book." It's pathetic.
Brian, I hope you blog again- maybe with the truth this time- and I bet we'll see a change in your viewership soon.
Leslie said, "if the worst thing that ever happens to you is someone not agreeing with your life style, then you have it pretty good-and by the way."

Hello, Leslie. Please note, it's not a "lifestyle", it's a "life". And if you even took two seconds to consider the following, maybe you would have a change of heart:
1. Not being able to visit your significant other of 30 years in the hospital as he/she is on their deathbed because you are gay
2. Being fired from work at whim because you are gay
3. Being denied housing because you are gay
4. Not being able to participate in inheritance spousal benefits
5. Not being able to participate in marriage spousal benefits
6. Not being able to participate in Social Security spousal benefits you've worked all your decades of life to contribute to
7. Not being able to be covered under a spouse's health insurance plan
8. Not being able to have any of the 1,100 federal marriage benefits
9. Being kicked out of a private university in America for checking off "gay" on one's Myspace page (look it up). Yes, really.

I wish some people would just put themselves in other people's shoes, even for one second.

And to the person who said gay marriage isn't one of their top 20 concerns, I know you're well-intentioned and I appreciate your words, I really do, but please read what's just several lines above.

Also, the Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. SOME people's interpretation of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin. If you go back to the original of what was written, you'll see that you may well be mistaken.
First the newscast uses language that is well-known to be attacking gay people for purportedly/supposedly/ridiculously "attacking" marriage when all gay people want is not to be discriminated against.

Then the anchor claims he is the victim of an attack by the blogosphere when perhaps in reality it was more of a conscientious, honest, appropriate dialog.

I really admired the NBC anchor. I liked his insight, ability to be extremely articulate and compassionate, smarts, sensibility...but now, I don't know. I just don't know--it makes me disappointed. Please notice the past tense of the word admire above. I still respect him, but now I have my doubts.

This is due to the piece itself and the subsequent explanation.
I just read your comments about "unappreciated Rush Limbaugh" and the segment of the population he appeals to.  Does it occur to you that Mr. Limbaugh is a bigot and so is a large segment of the population.  I think the fact that Dick Cheney appears on Limbaugh and Fox should tell us what kind of message he sends.  I would hope that we are striving to be better people and not people who curse and damn other people's beliefs.  I'm very disappointed to find that you fall in the Limbaugh camp and I won't be watching your new program again.  I have also told friends and family so that they can make a judgement.  Goodbye.
   
The segment was about Queen Elizabeth's 60th year of marriage.  Mr. Williams compared the time of her wedding, to the present:  "...the city of London was still recovering from the pummeling it received while under attack in World War Two.  In an era when marriage is under attack the United Kingdom is these days celebrating a sixtieth wedding anniversary..."

60 years of marriage is quite an achievement, especially in today's world and over the course of history since the war.

The lack of an explanation in the broadcast of what the "attack" on marriage is today, renders any observation about marriage or history, meaningless.

For gay couples, together for as long, or longer and with service during that war, even one moment of recognition by government or even a news broadcast would be heroic.

The lack of an explanation about what is attacking marriage goes beyond being insensitive, if viewers were to make meaningful sense of the world then or now.
Mr. Williams,

I have long been an enthusiast for your reportage,inteeligent, articulate, polite, and objective.

What I find disappointing is that you made this statement and then made a very "fishy" explanation that reminds me all too much like the explanations of this White House.

1) "Marriage under attack" is not an expression meant to refer to "gay marriage," and I've never heard it used to mean divorce. It is a "hot button" issue used by the anti-gay-marriage "defenders" to mean the homo issue.

How can marriage be under attack if it is the participants, be the attackers? Any person of your intelligence and resources should understand this nuance. Even if you didn't mean what you said, you should have thought about it, and your breezy, unapologetic "explanation" is hardly appropriate for such a sensitive issue. Admit it, you laid an egg.



Brian...I have been reading some the messages on this blog.  We watched the news that evening when you, heaven forbid, said that marriage is "under attack".  I think most thoughtful people took the comment exactly the way it was intended.  God knows that marriage has has it's difficulties of late. I also have to wonder what why anyone would think you were attacking any particular group.  You made a true statement concerning marriage. I also question why the two words "under attack" have to fall in either the right or left camp. Brian, you keep up the good work.  Your news team and you are a class act and we appreciate the work you all do to keep us informed.  
"Marriage under attack"--that's the alarmist phrase Mr. Williams used. Mr. Williams' explanation is that he meant divorce. But take a few seconds to really think about this. How can marriage be under attack by divorce? Who/what is the agent? Divorce itself is marriage itself that's ending. I don't get it. The explanation is faulty, misleading, and empty. An attack means another agent attacking, causing harm upon something.

Questions:
...If a cookie breaks in half (due to a blend of ingredients that just didn't work, not because someone physically broke it in half), is the cookie under attack?
...If furniture that has lasted for 10 years falls apart on its own (whether from wear and tear, a bad mix of glue, or just time), is it under attack?
...If a tooth falls out naturally (because of a bad fit), is it under attack?

Do you see my point? I don't want to belabor it. It wouldn't even matter, except for the fact the phrase is well-known in everyday language to virtually always refer to gay people somehow externally negatively affecting straight people's marriages.

And everyone, especially news anchors and reporters, know well that in 100% of the cases when someone uses the well-worn, tired, and disingenuous phrase "marriage under attack", they're blaming it on gay people (who just wish to have the same equal rights as everyone else). To state so or think otherwise when one is a well-read, intelligent person is deceptive and glib.

When during these times there is a group of people in our community who are in fact the real people who are under constant, stupid attack for being who they are, for who they were born as, for being gay, it's a pretty bad thing to go along with these idealogues' linguistically alarmist, dishonest catch phrases. So yeah I agree with the many other people who found fault in your broadcast and in your explanation for that broadcast.

If this didn't involve a group of people who still don't have the same equal rights as everyone else, this wouldn't be a big deal. But your dissemination and proclivity to spread idealogues' catch phrases--which really do palpably hurt honest, good, decent gay people in their strive for equal civil rights--do a significant disservice.

I think it's important to bring these things up and have these discussions, if only to enlighten people who take their own status and rights for granted while dismissing others' understandable struggle for those same rights as well.
I thought, heck, I'll give Brian a second chance despite the unfortunate choice of words. I'll still watch the program.

But after the illogical, doesn't-make-sense explanation, which didn't address the concerns at hand, I am very wary of giving him a third pass. So maybe I won't be watching the program anymore. I'm sad about that, because it used to be my favorite evening news program.

Not unless they start to portray real American families, including real American gay people in all their fullness, struggles, goods and bads, moments of glory and their foibles as well--without always employing the constant steady hits of implying they exist to "attack marriage". I'm only in college but I'm already tired of the people all around me, entrenched in their views, telling me I'm always attacking them and their marriages. All the while denying me. All I want to do is eat a good hamburger, do my homework the best I can, learn as much as I can in classes, work really hard and be productive at my job, and be a good example to people around me. But I'm already tired of being told I'm bad. Enough already. Maybe it's time to turn off the TV (will my comment be posted now?) and stop listening to those around me in society telling me I'm somehow tearing their lives apart and being bad. Those words are just silly.
To Steven Waterbury,

If you hate the sin of homosexuality, then you must hate the fruits of that sin. Let me list a couple of the fruits of my sin: Terry, my husband, and our daughter, Ellie. What do you have in store to cure us of our love for one another?
Dear Mr. Williams:

As a professional journalist, you certainly should know more about choosing your words carefully. How anyone who follows politics could not know about the invection coupled with a phrase like "marriage under attack" is beyond me. Please prove to us that you are not just a newsreader. I know your broadcast is struggling for ratings, but this kind of loose talk is not going to help you. I certainly won't be watching you any more.
And exactly why should you or anyone else be worried about what 1 to 1.5% of the population think Brian.  What are they going to do....quit dressing funny?

Very doubtful.

Any more than my family will stop carrying .357's.
I don't believe him. Two parts of the job in reporting the news is having...

A) An understanding of all current events and cultural issues.

B) Impeccable launguage skills, including modern phrases and all of their uses.

Consider that "marriage on attack" is not an appropriate phrase for divorce rates, a suitable statement would either be to state the fact, or to use a statement that expresses the "deplorable" conditions of marriage.

Also consider that, as a newsperson, he would have knowledge of the fact that "marriage under attack" is a statement used solely by the anti-gay community, thus concluding the fact that he knew well what that statement meant and used it.

Adding to this, in newsrooms every script is checked and double-checked, and followed with exacting precision....especially in the NBC Nightly Newsroom.

This was simply a ploy to pander to his conservative following, as he knows he competes with Fox News. It is difficult to reach out to a demographic. The most effective solution is the "oops!" method, that gives one demographic what it wants, and while the offended demographic is offended for a short while, they slowly trickle back after a nice apology.

Don't be fooled, he's an obviously intelligent man who knows what he is doing.
I'm going to ignore bill's comment except to say that he is in fact one of the people who Brian Williams was quoting and (seems to be) speaking to. We all understand the comment "marriage under attack" refers to the right wing straw man argument that they use to justify attacks against the glbt community. I don't think that "many easily understood" that that is not what Brian Williams meant. I have usually watched NBC over ABC and CBS. Now my viewing habits may be due for a change.
As others have pointed out, William's response to those complaining about his "marriage is under attack" comment suggests that the broadcast stated that marriage "seems" to be under attack, when what it really said was that "marriage is under attack." Thus Williams seems to be trying to minimize the position of those who took issue with the phrasing in the broadcast, and also he misquotes himself, both of which seem to add to rather than amend the original problem.

As others have also pointed out, a professional with the experience Williams has should be aware both of the power of a particular phrase, and the power and history of that particular phrase ("marriage is under attack") so at best, his use of that phrase does seem incompetent, and, at worst, malicious.

Lastly, also pointed out by others, divorce rates might be rising, and marriage rates might be falling, but this does not constitute an attack, but merely reports statistics. Each of these points, to me, suggest that Williams still has more to explain, and perhaps apologize for, beyond his recent reply, which seemed to me more of an excuse/dismissal rather than a true understanding of the situation he created by use of the phrase in the broadcast.
Whoa, look at the number of comments for this blog, Mr. Williams.
You really struck a nerve. Just an observation.
And you really did spread the fear-mongering phrase "marriage under attack" which is in our society 99% used by anti-gay, homophobic, bigoted people to spread their hate. And like others have said, your explanation of divorce being truly the thing "attacking marriage" rings hollow. Divorce can't attack marriage because divorce, um, hello, is marriage...that's ending.
I really am scared by some comments by bigoted people above.
This is the society we grow up in.
And Mr. Williams unfortunately your choice of words just contributes to spreading that fear and hate, even if unintentionally. It does. You don't seem to recognize this.
  Mr Williams wrote: "Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage."
  No, I respectfully disagree, Mr Williams. Others did not "take it upon themselves to decide" you were attacking gay marraige. The truth is more like others "took it upon themselves" to actually point out that the phrase was invented by homophobic fearmongers who use it to turn gay people's struggle for equality into something insidious and sinister, which could not be further from the truth. It has no place in a well respected news broadcast.
  A lot of phrases in your written explanation raise eyebrows. I don't think you're as unbiased as you seem. There is more than a hint that you don't see why so many people were hurt by your cutting words. You have a big podium and you used it in this instance to spew and spread a phrase that is commonly known as blatant antigay propoganda.
  Mr Williams you wrote: "The simple fact is that nothing could have been  further from my mind, as many others easily understood." If so many others easily understood, why are there dozens and dozens of comments about this subject? Dozens and dozens of comments that make sense.
  The choice of words is sadly a shame. That it was spoken and heard by millions once again is a shame. And surprising, especially coming from such an experienced news figure.
  I wish this phrase didn't exist but it does and because antigay people popularized it.
  I won't be watching anymore. I used to every night. I'd turn it on at my friend's house when I was over. Now I'll be turning away, at my house and theirs.
I say this with all due respect, Mr. Brian Williams, wow, it seems you really have no understanding of what gay people face and the hate they are bombarded with. Your broadcast comment displayed this. Your later dismissive explanation shows this as well, although you should be partially commended for bringing up an explanation (or was it your PR team persuading you to?), but really I found both the original comment and then the explanation inexplicable, divisive, and dismissive.

I wish you would just understand a fraction of what gay people face by society.
Personally, as a regular viewer, I felt under attack when I heard Mr. Williams use the phrase, "when marriage is under attack." I was in the other room folding laundry, and heard him say it. I came into the living room, asked my boyfriend if that was indeed what he said, since I was incredulous that he would use such a phrase. Sure enough, he did. Between the initial use of the phrase, and this beyond belief "explanation," Charlie Gibson has received a new viewer.
Paranoid much Brian?

Marriage is under attack?  You are being attacked?

How about some journalistic integrity and explain how marriage is under attack?  Is demanding accurate and unbiased 'news' threatening to you and NBC?

It would seem this is a case of POOR words, POOR journalism and a PATHETIC attempt to deflect both.  The divorce argument falls flat because that 'era' is old news - even MSNBC reported that divorce rates are at their lowest rate since 1981.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18600304/

Let's face it... you can't get real 'news' on TV anymore.  The era of truth in journalism was attacked and killed decades ago.  It too is old news.

Try reading... and read news from more than one source and try to get all sides of story.  We now have to do this ourselves... we have to be the journalist - and we have to keep our minds open to new ideas - and we have to admit when we get it wrong.
Sorry Brian.  You can't blame the people who heard correctly what you said and pretend they are too sensitive, misreading your words and unable to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I think you said what you meant and now wish to get off the hook for mouthing the sentiments of the radical right.  Bad job of writing and an even worse job of hiding your personal views.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

RECENT STORIES FROM NIGHTLY NEWS

  • Nightly News section front

CONNECT WITH US

About the broadcast | Biographies

RSS is an easy way to get the news you want as it is updated even if you are not on MSNBC.com. More information about MSNBC.com's RSS feeds.

Subscribe to feed

Podcasting brings you audio and video from each weekday broadcast on your iPod or other portable MP3 player anytime, anywhere. More information about MSNBC.com's podcasts.

Subscribe to podcast

Sign-up for our daily e-mail newsletter. It offers a preview of the stories and special reports featured on each weekday broadcast.


Syndicate This Site

Add The Daily Nightly to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google