I'm a big fan, Brian, but I think you'd better read Peggy Noonan's column a little more closely. The gaps in logic, ridiculous bias and outright incoherence (do you honestly think there's any narrative flow to that piece?) represent three of the biggest problems with today's newspaper writing. (And I speak from experience, having been a print journalist/writer/editor for years.) Pulitzer? C'mon, man -- that piece should be used as the "what not to do" example in a writing class.

I was wondering when you would get around to trashing the New York Times.  It’s really all about that pesky, well-written story about the generals and their propaganda, isn’t it?  Instead of manning up and addressing the issue, you ridicule the NYT.  Then you send us scurrying off to read a piece by rightwing Peggy Noonan.  How Republican of you.  
And I’m sorry, Brian, but the only thing that Bush is “very good” at is reducing this country to rubble.  
My husband and I have watched Nightly News faithfully for a long time even though we’ve had our suspicions about you.  Thank you for coming out of the Republican closet and clarifying things for us.  Your ratings are about to go down again.

What an entry!  A real crowd pleaser.  Cheap shots at New York? Check!  Bashing liberals? Check! Confirming exalted status to the conservative media elite? Check! Got it all covered, didn't you?  You're good for steady invitations on the D.C. cocktail circuit for another four years, if you get your man McCain in.

"Peggy" [NOONAN] and "Pulitzer" in the same sentence!?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one!

Noonan, as always, writes beatifully, but did you read the substance of her column?  She's calling Obama elitist while bemoaning the indignities of flying commercially.  Has she not been to an airport in the last seven years?  This "who loves America the mostest" conversation is demeaning to everyone who participates in it.  All of these people, who have devoted their lives to public service (not to mention enduring the last 15 months of nonstop campaigning), love their country.  The fact that this is a topic of conversation in the mainstream media is an embarrassment on par with anything in the Sunday New York Times, and is hardly Pulitzer-worthy.

Hey, Brian, is this a joke or something?  Peggy Noonan telling us what patriotism is deserves a Pulitzer?  How can you compare that insipid drivel with what Elizabeth Edwards so eloquently conveyed?

Do you have any concept of what's going on in America right now?  Do you know matters to us, the little people?  We have a terrible economy, out of control inflation, rising gas price, rising health care costs, stagnant wages, perpetual war and our country is torturing people.  And you think we should worry about which candidate is more patriotic?  Unbelievable!

What a surprise. Williams sucks up to his tax-hating, Bush-loving incontinence-product-buying, dwindling number of viewers by bashing the NYT and giving a shout-out to shrill conservative apologist Noonan. At least he's open with his bias.

Peggy Noonan deserves a Pulitzer?  That syrupy, far right-wing, Reagan-fawning hack?  What have you been smoking?

Williams... seriously, are you touting Noonan's hack job? Wow, I thought you really did "get it." You and Noonan wouldn't recognize "gate 14" people if they clunked you on the head with them... completely out of touch with voters like me. Bowling, flag pins, reverends... puh-lease. How vapid do you think we are?

Brian, this is some world class snark. Hilarious! I really have to hand it to you - you really had me going there for a moment. But the "curl up with this one" line really gives it away.

Your sarcastic riposte to Noonan's pernicious and vaguely racist column was spot-on.  There is not better antidote for the kind of filth in Ms. Noonan's column than the kind of satire you so perfectly crafted with this blogpost.

I mean, you were being satiric, weren't you Brian?

Brian?

Why don't you stay home every day, you hack.

By the way, adverbs ending in "ly" don't take a hyphen, Mr. Smarty Pants.

By knocking Elizabeth Edwards and heaping inexplicable praise on Peggy Noonan's latest right-wing screed, you've made your political leanings pretty clear. I don't think I'll be watching your broadcast again anytime soon.

Brian, I suppose from a pure literary writing style, perhaps Peggy Noonan is fine.  Unfortunately, once getting past style and on to content, it is the usual right wing character assassination.  The script was written many years ago - snooty lefty Democrat vs. strong patriotic Republican.  Just change the names every election, but the storyline remains constant.  Can't believe you think that is worthy of anything other than the garbage, let alone a Pulitzer.

Brian, are you auditioning for The Onion? If so, you need to sharpen up your satire a little bit.  Peggy Noonan for the Pulitzer is knee slappingly funny, but why not make it the Nobel? Real exaggeration is one of the lifebloods of comedy.  By just nominating her for a Pulitzer some of your readers may take you seriously. That would be a tragic mistake.

On the other hand, with posts like this, you are becoming the joke. And, considering your influence, it's not funny.

Another viewer who would like Mr. Williams to address the question of presenting retired generals and military experts as unbiased commentators on his program when it has been revealed that they were bring coached by the White House to deliver the Bush administration party line. Mr. Williams, I admired your fortitude in continuing to address the Katrina disaster long after the rest of the major news outlets lost interest in the story, and despite viewer complaints. I hope that you can summon some of the same determination to address this matter, however difficult it may be.

Peggy Noonan--elitist extraordinaire. . .
What annoyed me the most about the MSM-manufactured "Bittergate" affair was that right-wing elites, who haven't been near any working class enclaves in their lives, and who have purposely played on cultural hot buttons such as race, religion, and guns to win elections, have had the nerve to heap it on Obama for a few ill-considered remarks that were basically true.

Noonan's column is a prime example of this phenomenon. She studies the so-called normal folk from afar, miming faux outrage on their behalf at Obama, yet would be the first to attack him as less-than-masculine if he got misty-eyed about anything.

I guess nobody bothered to tell her, while she was getting all weepy about Henry Ford, that he was a vicious anti-Semite whose screeds about the Jews inspired some of Hitler's minions. But, then again, those kind of sentiments probably wouldn't bother her if Ford were alive today as long as he wore a flag pin on his lapel.

You could always balance things out with a story about how many paid shills for Soros have appeared on the networks in the last 7 years. A simple cure for the American left would be to have them all live in one area without armed guards and gated communities. What a Comedy Reality Show that would make.

So you respond to valid complaints about the eager descent to utter triviality that you and your peers have indulged while we live through the wake of the single most destructive presidency in the last hundred and fifty years by -- chortling about the NYTimes Sunday style section? And touting the work of a columnist who can't figure out why some Americans might be a bit ambivalent about the legacy of Jew-baiting Henry Ford? Or why some other Americans might be ambivalent about the legacy of slave-holding George Washington?

Dumb as a post, Brian.

If you're prepared to offer a mea culpa about penguins (PENGUINS?!) how about some time spent on a reply to Stephen Goldberg's question, above? How could you not be utterly ashamed to have been made such a fool of by the Pentagon propaganda machine? And while you're busy laughing at the NYTimes, how about noticing that it was the Times that caught you and yours with your pants down? Or is that why you're so eager to run the paper down? Very grown-up of you. That story is the kind of reporting I expect from the Times, and I'm disappointed when I don't get it. From you and Russert and the rest of you overpaid intellectual and ethical lightweights, I expect nothing at all, and am therefore never disappointed.

Thanks for validating my decision never to take you seriously or lose thirty minutes of my life on your "news" broadcast.

Brian:
You have been reading the wrong parts of the New York Times.  You evidently forgot to read the expose on how TV networks like yours have been hoodwinked by the Pentagon and how all these so-called analysts were just part of a disinformation scheme to sell the Iraq war.   Yet all you can do is praise Peggy Noonan and criticize a few of the Times more silly stories.  You are the person who deserves condemnation.  You are the one who failed to do his job in getting at the truth in the Iraq story.  You are the one who did not do the digging to find the truth of the matter.  You are the one who will go down in history as being complicit in the failure of modern journalism to do its job in challenging what government tells us.  You are the one who should be mocked, criticized, and ridiculed.  And you have the nerve to criticize someone else's journalism.   Instead of worrying about the speck in someone else's eye you should be working on dislodging the twig in yours.

I think Brian is Peggy Noonan's child.  The way they speak has always reminded me of one another.  Regarding the Times, I cannot imagine what our country would be without the newspaper.  Rupert Murdoch (and, I guess Brian, too) would be a very happy man.

Glenn Greenwald's latest column attacks the vapidity of your "writing" here.  I agree with every word of his;  your comments, please?

The New York Times recently revealed that your network was using generals and ex-military men who were government shills to push the war;  your comments, please?

If you really believe that Noonan's vapid writing has any value at all aside from the very Conservative stance, I feel deeply sorry for you.  To continue to attack one candidate for not wearing a flag pin when NONE of the candidates do, just to pick one paragraph, is deeply biased.

John McCain has patriotism in his bones, we're told, but not Obama. Does anyone else see a subtext that we can trust the red blooded (white) american, but not that foreign seeming guy whose bones are half kenyan? Is there any other point to this?

peggy noonan is right -- we don't have enough respect for the likes of henry ford. sure he was an anti-semite who supported the nazis, but gol durn it he was an AMERICAN fascist! good going brian, you know who the real ptriots are.

Peggy Noonan's article you reference is filled with the usual liberal-bashing tripe that she's good at except that this time it's focused on Obama rather than Obama and Clinton. If this is what you consider "good journalism," then I shudder to think of the meager pickings that are considered good journalism by the MSM...

My mother was named Peggy Noonan before Peggy was.
I find this whole lighthearted jabbing a little disengenuous. Are you, Brian, hitting back at the people who uncovered the pentagon Pipeline stoirym, which would have deeply challeneged your journaistic credentials? Or do you feel a need to challenege an institution that itself has challeneged the truthiness of such efforts as the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance and other NBC-missed stories?
Which news organization has created more credible, more significant breaks, NBC or the NYTs? Or Peggy Noonan?

Are you kidding me? Peggy Noonan is your choice for a Pulitzer? with such insights as, "they're not questioning your patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness"? That's about a dishonest a statement as i've seen in print in, oh, about a week.
Brian, you betray your own political leanings with this nonsense...do you really believe that Peggy Noonan speaks for the "common people"? Or do you believe that you do, for that matter? You media people are so incredibly out-of-touch that I bet you do...
And how is it that Barack Obama, by Noonan's lights, does not appreciate American history while John McCain carries it "in his bones." This is utterly offensive drivel, but then you know from drivel...where were the stories on the Pentagon's propaganda push (aided and abetted by your network), or the meeting of WH principals on the torture of detainees (you know, real news)?
You are symptomatic of what's wrong witht the American media these days: privileged, powerful, obsessed with ratings, trivialities and often flat-out dishonest (by omission if nothing else); else how to explain the lack of reporting on the retired generals story? Was it not as "important" as Obama's pastor, Brian?
I am done with NBC News-- you've done your part in lowering the standards of a once-respected organization.  

Did Brian Williams write this drivel or was it Barbara Raab?

Brian (if you did write that blog posting):  it is elitists such as you (with gold-plated health care) who wax and muse forever (and to the benefit of the GOP) about a candidate's "feelings" about intangibles rather than their concrete (or lack thereof) proposals on health care, free trade, Iraq, etc.

You and the entire professinal, millionaire press corps have failed over the past couple of decades at the to perform the very basic need of journalism in a democracy:  clear-eyed, factual reporting.

I've recently noted another (al la 2001) uptick in shark-attack reporting.

Frank: I'm Barbara Raab, I'm a member of the Nightly News staff, and I can assure you that Brian writes everything that says "By Brian Williams," including this and every other blog entry under his byline.

Brian:

WHY ARE YOU HATING ON NEW MEXICO?!?

Sorry to shout, but seriously. I used to think you were cool.

Brian,
Whats the matter? Are you just upset at the New York Times for outing you and other networks as mouthpieces for the government's military propaganda? Interesting how you have failed to mention this scandal on your cloying nightly newscasts.
Noonan is a gasbag who was inevitably going to question Obama's patriotism b/c that's what Republican shills do. You think that someone who suggests that Obama ought to get misty eyed at the thought of Henry Ford is deserving of a Pulitzer? That's a laugh. Ford was one of the great racists of that century. Does Noon, or do you for that matter, really think that ANYONE ought to get misty over the thought of a man who admired Hitler and loathed Jews?

Well, Brian, I have to say that you've showed the level of your thinking. If you can't find something in The New York Times that will hold your attention, perhaps you should ask the other news readers on your show -- for the most part, all they do is parrot what is in the Times, though they may wait a few days to try to mask it as original reporting. The Times and other print media so obviously set the agenda for TV, it's just disingenuous for you to claim anything else.

And a few notes on Ms. Noonan's writing.

It takes no "courage" to side with the conservatives these days;  in fact, it's hard to identify even one national columnist who isn't a shill for the Republicans.

Peggy Noonan writes at an eighth grade level;  her English is riddled with mistakes;  she eschews logic in favor of sentiment;  and all of this always in the service of permanent war, forever.  You're not doing yourself a favor by studying her work.

If you want to learn about writing, why not read Winston Churchill's historicals?  He's a "great conservative thinker" so you won't have to sully your mind with anyone who isn't on the far Right, and he's a real writer with a command of the English language.

Once you've had Churchill's meat, you won't want Noonan's grade D ground round.

Hey, Brian, before snidely remarking on the NYT decline in subscriptions, have you paid any attention to the decline in the number of Americans who watch network "news"?

Here it is:

"The combined average audience for the big-three evening newscasts in 1980 was about 53 million viewers. By the fall of 2006, when Couric was getting ready to make the jump from NBC's "Today" show, the three national evening newscasts had a combined audience of about 27 million viewers.

How's that for a trend line? The evening newscasts lost about half of their audience over 26 years. They lost viewers at a rate of 1 million a year, and they're still losing them. Last week, according to numbers Nielsen released Tuesday, the combined audience was 21.5 million."

http://www.cleveland.com/tv/index.ssf/2008/04/cbs_news_ratings_woes_arent_al.html

So, you and your pals have seen your viewership decline from 53 million to 27 million. Not much to brag about there.

Noonan a great writer?

Yes, Brian, like Bush is a great president.

You've proven to me, yet again, of the shallow, sloppy thinking that dominates the MSM. (and maybe explains the fall off in network news viewers. Perhaps you should be less concerned with the NYT's readership and fix your own problems.)

Brian Williams nominates Peggy Noonan for a Pulitzer Prize
The WSJ column hailed by the NBC anchor as "a splendid piece of journalism" has to be read to be believed.

Glenn Greenwald

Apr. 29, 2008 | (updated below - Update II)

One of the greatest benefits of the proliferation of blogging is that its unedited, less restrained format tends to unmask people. Unbenownst to most of the world, NBC News anchor Brian Williams maintains a blog, and his one entry from yesterday reveals more about him than all of the profiles and cover stories combined.

Williams -- in a rant that would make Rush Limbaugh proud -- devotes his first six paragraphs to bashing the New York Times (h/t ck). He begins by taking note of the superb Op-Ed by Elizabeth Edwards in this Sunday's NYT "bemoaning the lack of serious, in-depth coverage of the political race" (headline: "Bowling 1, Health Care 0") -- in which Edwards, to the apparent chagrin of Brian Williams, highlights how our establishment media's election coverage is obsessed with empty trivialities at the expense of substantive coverage. Williams snidely noted that "the New York Times Sunday (and weekday) circulation is down" and then spent multiple paragraphs mocking the Sunday edition's articles ("it's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking").

But after that, the NBC anchor pronounced:

   On the other hand, one sparkling piece of journalism (which touched on a lot of themes frequent readers of this space will recognize) was by Peggy Noonan in this weekend's Wall Street Journal. Curl up with this one and give it the quality time it deserves. I'll say it again: Peggy is doing the work of her career and must be considered an early favorite for next cycle's Pulitzer for commentary.

Let's take a look at the specific Noonan WSJ column that Williams -- a leading figure in America's Liberal Media -- singled out as an example of brilliant and inspiring commentary. Written before the latest media outbreak of Jeremiah-Wright-Fever, it features such insightful, innovative gems as this:

   Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

   John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

   Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country -- any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

   Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear.

"Gate 14" refers to The People -- the Regular Folk -- Noonan studied like zoo animals the last time she was in an airport ("Gate 14 is small-town America, a mix, a group of people of all classes and races brought together and living in close proximity until the plane is called"). Now she knows what they think. She speaks for them, of course. And what they want to know is whether Barack Obama loves America.

How trite, inane, and McCarthyite is this dreary right-wing pablum -- even for Peggy Noonan? One can barely begin to count the ways (to note just one, FDL's Blue Texan observed the oddity, to put it generously, of Noonan demanding to know whether Obama cries Patriotism Tears when he thinks of Henry Ford, of all people). But Brian Williams, leading news anchor in The Liberal Media, found that specific commentary and the insipid right-wing polemicist who spawned it to be "sparkling," worthy of a Pulitzer, something you should "curl up with" and "give it the quality time it deserves."

Elizabeth Edwards' Op-Ed critiquing our media's vapidity prompts multiple paragraphs of trite NYT bashing. Peggy Noonan's insistence that Barack Obama's love of America is in question among the Gate 14 crowd (in contrast to the Ultimate Patriot John McCain) -- a column that is dumb and disgusting in exactly equal measure -- prompts a Pulitzer nomination from our leading News Anchor and deep praise. That's because we have a Liberal Media.

UPDATE: As several commenters both here and at Williams' own blog have pointed out, it's hardly surprising that Williams would be bashing the Sunday NYT given that, just two weeks ago, it was that paper's edition which revealed that Williams' network continuously fed government propaganda to its viewers by repeatedly featuring the Pentagon's and defense industry's pre-programmed, controlled retired Generals and presenting them as "independent" military analysts.

Williams has been a central part of the media blackout of that story. Not only did NBC News refuses to comment on the story, but Williams himself has not even mentioned it once, nor has anyone on his entire network (including, with the exception of a brief reference from Keith Olbermann, MSNBC). So his viewers have absolutely no idea that a major expose revealed that the sources used by NBC News were anything other than what they were presented to be -- omissions so glaring that it even prompted angry condemnation yesterday from Howard Kurtz.

Yet Williams, while failing even to acknowledge that story which implicates the core integrity of his network, instead bashes the Sunday NYT which exposed it and touts Peggy Noonan for a Pulitzer for her banal, malicious meanderings over Barack Obama's lapel pin. It's ironic how Williams began by subtly dismissing Elizabeth Edwards' critique of our sorry political media only to then proceed to exemplify her core critique perfectly.

UPDATE II: It's particularly odd that Williams would snidely employ the right-wing weapon of "circulation decline" to bash the NYT in light of this:

   Network evening newscasts collectively lose about a million viewers a year. (This year they've lost 1.2 million, helped along by the writers strike.) Revenue is going down in lockstep: the three network evening newscasts reap about $100 million in ad revenue apiece, but are declining at about 2% a year.

And this:

   The combined average audience for the big-three evening newscasts in 1980 was about 53 million viewers. By the fall of 2006, when Couric was getting ready to make the jump from NBC's "Today" show, the three national evening newscasts had a combined audience of about 27 million viewers.

   How's that for a trend line? The evening newscasts lost about half of their audience over 26 years. They lost viewers at a rate of 1 million a year, and they're still losing them. Last week, according to numbers Nielsen released Tuesday, the combined audience was 21.5 million.

Few institutions have lost as much popularity and credibility over the years as network news programs. Those don't really seem to be metrics that Brian Williams ought to be touting to bash media outlets which expose the corruption of his network.

who has more military service under his belt, jeremiah wright or bush, cheney, nooner, reagan and brian williams combined? come on, this is an easy one.

Mr Williams criticizes a great newspaper because they have some fluff stories on weekends. He lazily ignores the actual news stories, and simply ignores Eliz. Edwards' artful & correct criticisms. Here's why: Mr Williams is simply mad at the NYT because it had a recent expose proving that networks like his (NBC) were complicit with a Pentagon Psych-Ops campaign to slant war coverage with ethically compromised ex-generals. In effect, NBC is in the DISINFORMATION BUSINESS. Further proof is that he extolls Peggy Noonan as some sort of Great Writer, when in actuality she is the Leni Reifenstahl of the Republican Right -- a stylistic wordsmith in the service of very bad ideas.

The only brilliant feature of Noonan's piece is her ablity to disguise her warmed-over McCarthyism in elegant prose.  I have to admit, duping a network news anchor into lauding it as Pulitzer-worthy is quite impressive.

Peggy Noonan should be read for ironic value only. Her misty-eyed pro-Bush pro-war treacle that we've had to put up with for seven years has zero journalistic value, and so your Pulitzer mention simply must be a joke.

As for the merits of her piece, I sure hope Barack Obama doesn't tear up when he thinks about Henry Ford, the Nazi-sympathizing union-busting automaker.

Noonan's continued hyping of the flag pin story is cynical character assassination and projection. Who is she to question *Obama's* patriotism when she had her own part in advocating getting our military stuck in Iraq, with thousands killed, thousands wounded, an overstretched and breaking military, corruption rampant, and no viable exit strategy??? The people cynically displaying their flag pins who put us in that situation are the real traitors, squandering our blood and treasure in pursuit of their political fortune and theirs and their friends' monetary interests. They ignore our returning soldiers, ignore the harm they have done, and dare to point the finger at the person who (like so many of us but who did not have a voice in 2002-2003) was actually right about Iraq and demonstrated sound strategic thinking.

People like you should not be voicing your support for this nonsense.

And where is your coverage of the propoganda via retired generals and officers, which the NYTimes reported your network and others were taken in by? (and honestly, wasn't it obvious to you in 2003-04 that most of these guys were spinning?) ABC embeds reporters with the troops; the US govt embeds its agents with ABC and the rest of the mainstream press.

the other commenters make a good point. where is NBC's coverage of the pentagon plants in the media? i guess that's a stupid question when the network (and its anchor) are owned by a defense contractor.

Brian,
  I am astonished that you cite that Noonan piece with approval.  The idea that Barak Obama needs to show that he loves Sutter's Mill and Henry Ford is derranged.  
  As an initial matter if Obama, like Noonan, called the 49ers "losers and brigands," the folks on the right would have a field day calling him unpatriotic.
  With respect to Henry Ford, The inventor of the Model-T, mass production, and the weekend was an unabashed anti-Semite. He is infamous for his essays on what he called "The Jewish Problem in America." These essays were published in book form and were an influence on Baldur von Shirach, leader of the Hitler Youth, according to von Shirach's testimony at the Nuremberg Trials.  The idea that Obama, or for that matter Noonan, should hold Henry Ford up as an example of love for America is flat out crazy.  Also, Noonan's screed clearly implies that it is impossible for someone from Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, to love America.  Noon writes that "Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92."  the insinuation here is that it is impossible to acquire affection for the history of the United States in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, or Connecticut, where Senator Clinton lived before she lived in Arkansas.
Noonan continues in this vein with "Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country—any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?"
Noonan's real point is obvious, She is mentioning the flab pin for the same reason that Henry Ford complained that a yarmulke on Bernard Baruch's head. Baruch was the Other because he was Jewish. Obama is the Other because of his race.  Under the guise of asking whether Obama is patriotice enough,Noonan's column suggests that an African-American must be assumed unpatriotic until proven otherwise.  Rather than applaud this column I wish you would have condemned it as the ravings of a bigoted moron who believes that xenophobia is patriotism. Why a member of the working press should pose such an idiotic question is not easy to understand.  Why you cite this disgusting tripe as pulitzer worthy is impossible to comprehend and disappointing.

Brian,

Your insightful analysis of the substance of the NYT comes from your reading, or at least highlighting of, the paper's Style and Travel sections? Do you think were idiots? How about commenting on the Time's article having to do with your network's use of Pentagon propagandists, disguised as dis-interested, purely objective and impartial "experts"?

Noonan deserves a Pulizter for regurgitating the usual media-spawned "narrative" that "lefties" are "elitist"? Give me a break.

I find this weird beyond belief. Mr. Williams-- do you really think it's appropriate to keep a personal blog on MSNBC where you can spout off your political ideas (and they are political)? You're an anchor... and your supposed to be a journalist-- do you have no sense of shame? Can you imagine someone like Walter Cronkite doing this when he was America's top anchor? We expect you to bring us the news-- not your opinions. Is that too much to ask? I'm tired of journalists-- and I use that term provisionally-- spinning their personal ideas into things.
Now I'll be surprised if this comment makes it through the gatekeepers-- it doesn't gush "Oh Mr. Williams!" But if it does make it through I have a dare for you Mr. Williams. Respond to my comment. Tell me why I'm wrong. I dare you Mr. Williams-- heck I double dare you. Shameless.

As Anchor and Managing Editor, when you own up to the use of retired Generals on your network (and in the media at large) in the ramp up to the most unjustified military action this country has ever undertaken, then perhaps I will take an interest in your recommendations for a Pulitzer Prize.

On second thought, when it comes to the blah-blah-blah tripe of Peggy Noonan, never mind. Your opinion on her writings and chances for a Pulitzer Prize had led me to switch you and your program off my channel for good.

For the good of the country, take one for the team - step down, switch yourself off, and hand over the reins to someone who provides a more 'fair and balanced' perspective. I'm sure Fox has room for someone with your insights and objectivity.

Peggy Noonan ought to be doing commentary on your broadcast. Or maybe Ann Coulter. Michael Savage would be great too, if he can restrain himself just a teensy bit.

It would be a terrific way to show people where you're at politically, just in case anyone thinks you're unbiased and not just another wingnut.

Brian,
I suggest you read Timothy Noah's recent piece in Slate on Noonan and then tell us if you come to teh same conclusions.

Dear Sir,
 You strike me as a funny guy, usually.  I quite like your giant head on The Daily Show, for example.  But this is a fairly stupid entry. Readers agree with Edwards.  Not Noonan.  I'm "Gate 14," except of course that I teach critical thinking.  And I suggest you take a critical look at what you are saying. Noonan's piece is out of touch, we don't revere McCain, and your (not your personally, but the media's) craven pandering to the Idiocracy won't disappear because you prefer not to think about it.  Weren't you taught to be critical and objective?  Or is that only about haircuts and flag pins.
 The real problem with this administration is that you can't learn from your mistakes if you don't recognize them.  So sit in your kitchen watching NASCAR, if you like, in your restored farmhouse.  But if you don't experience a bit of a shiver when you see ol' George claiming that history will vindicate him (pace historians), you are living in your own little bubble.  Good journalists, I would think, would wish to turn the tide of the decline of your profession.
 Perhaps you would like to ruminate about why newspapers and t.v. news are declining.  As part of the system, you *appear* blind to the fact that the system sucks.  So make fun of people who want substance, and blogs, on your blogs.
 Reaction formation isn't just for Larry Craig.
Best wishes.

I wonder why Mr Williams did not mention the decline in viewership on the evening news, the decline in advertizing,etc. while piling on the NYT. And did your network not feed us propaganda from retired military brass?
Maybe you should go back to covering Spears, Wright and other faux-controversies while you ignore all the issues plaguing this country, that will be hard work.
And pls do not insult my intelligence by nominating Noonan's tripe for a Pulitzer, while trashing a thoughtful article on health care by Edwards(by the way, McCain got govt health care his entire life), and impugning Obama's patriotism.  

There are so many dissenting voices that have been silenced by the corporate media that it shocks people when a dissenting voice like Rev Wright finally is heard.

I hope Rev Wright starts to speak about the use of torture which has been called an "intrinsic evil" by main stream churches. Never heard of that? Well it happened in January 2008 and never made it to the corporate media

United Methodists Join Anti-Torture Campaign
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=7824

or maybe he could talk about a nation that waged a war for profit (the oil in Iraq) and killed hundreds of thousands because of greed. Or maybe he could talk about the health care systems that are universal and successful in other western nations...while the US is mired in power plays between special interest groups like the insurance companies.

So much for Rev Wright to speak about..where could he begin? But at last the dissent has broken through with someone. Well Wright was invited to speak at the reporter's dinner because some wanted to weaken Obama. What better way to do that than to give Wright a platform?

Use that platform Rev Wright and talk about how corrupt this nation has been and call for an impeachment!

(Calling for an impeachment will get him off the stage...because the US is very very corrupt..and not following its own laws...and there is no free press in the corporate owned media)

Regarding Mr. Williams current blog entry in which he criticizes the New York Times after they outed his and other major networks for selling government propaganda to push the Iraq invasion, nothing answers his absurd opinion of the grusome Peggy Noonan column than Glenn Greenwald's most recent blog entry at Salon.com. I highly suggest that anyone who believes Brian Williams to be an honest journalist read Glenn Greenwald and, for good measure, Bob Somerby over at Daily Howler. People need to understand what a colossal phony Brian Williams is.

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