Different Times

Stew — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:16:18 GMT

Nice try, Brian. But you're still a right wing, Pentagon stooge.

Different Times

Lisa McNeil,Alpharetta,Georgia — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:36:35 GMT

Good Evening Mr.Williams, First of all I hope you are having a wonderful day. I was reading through some of the comments from last evenings post of Daily Nightly and some of them were quite harsh. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and I would never attack anyone elses viewpoint. But I just want to say that I think you do an excellent job at being a Managing Editor and Anchor of Nightly News. I always enjoy reading and commenting on your Daily Nightly posts and I know that you write these posts. Regarding General McCaffrey, Jack Jacobs and General Wayne Downing, they all gave good tough criticism of the Pentagon and the war effort. I agree with you that I wish General Downing were still around today. And I agree with you that they never pushed a "rosy Pentagon agenda" as you stated. Your news division does a great job! I will always be a loyal viewer! I look forward to the broadcast this evening. All your correspondents do an excellent job! And thank you Barbara Raab for your hard work and posting Mr.Williams Daily Nightly posts! I just wanted to spread a little sunshine out to you Mr.Williams! Keep up the great work! Peace to you and to all!

Lots of Love to Laurel,Jackie and Stephanie!
Be well Ladies!

Different Times

jim, Honolulu — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:51:39 GMT

Sir,

Were your questions to these Generals designed to elicit any sort of truly critical responses? Just wondering.

Different Times

Karen C, Auburn Georgia — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:58:59 GMT

You didn't know? It was reported five years ago.

From The Nation, April 21, 2003:

McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to "engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein," and among its targets are the US and European media. The group is chaired by Bruce Jackson, former vice president of defense giant Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of the F-117 Nighthawk, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and other aircraft in use in Iraq), and includes such neocon luminaries as former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle. Downing has also served as an unpaid lobbyist and adviser to the Iraqi National Congress, an Administration-backed (and bankrolled) opposition group that stands to profit from regime change in Iraq.

NBC News has yet to disclose those or other involvements that give McCaffrey a vested interest in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War, is now on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies--all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts. Despite that, IDT is floundering--its stock price has fallen by half since March 2002--a situation that one stock analyst says war could remedy. Since IDT is a specialist in tank upgrades, the company stands to benefit significantly from a massive ground war. McCaffrey has recently emerged as the most outspoken military critic of Rumsfeld's approach to the war, but his primary complaint is that "armor and artillery don't count" enough. In McCaffrey's recent MSNBC commentary, he exclaimed enthusiastically, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and... the Bradley fighting vehicle," and added for good measure that the "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker." In March alone, IDT received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware.

"TV's Conflicted Experts"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/interns

* * * *

Just saying.

Different Times

Patty Pasadena, CA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:05:51 GMT

You rock Brian! Don't let the jerks get you down. I appreciate your even look at all the news every night and read with great delight your posts when you inject some of your great humor into them. Thanks for coming into my house every evening!

Different Times

Brian, Miami — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:35:01 GMT

I'm glad to see you've stopped ignoring this important story, Mr. Williams, but your comments leave too many questions unanswered. Viewers deserve to know whether NBC, by using these military analysts, was providing objective information about the war.

1. What did NBC do to ensure there were no conflicts of interest with its military analysts? Did NBC check to see if the analysts were working for defense industry corporations that could profit from the war? Did the analysts themselves profit from the war?

2. In addition to tactical analysis, did the consultants offer any opinions about the "rightness" of the war that were similar to what the administration was saying? Were those comments challenged by NBC or by anti-war consultants?

4. Has NBC done an audit of its war coverage and its use of military analysts? What were the results?

5. What will NBC do to be sure viewers will receive truly objective analysis in the future?

This is your responsibility as well, Mr. Williams, and your viewers deserve a thorough answer.

Different Times

Anna — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:38:37 GMT

Oh, no another case of he said/she said/what said/who said. Sounds like a Dr. Seuss book! This right wing/left wing non-sense is for the birds!

@ lnp: Grand Poohbab! (Chuckles!) Everytime I hear that term I think of a sunami wrestler. Don't ask me why? I'll surrender to Lisa. She won the award from the Huffington Post. I'm a newbie here.

@ Lisa: Congratulations on your mention in the Huffington Post!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/richard-engel-named-nbc-n_n_97411.html

Different Times

Frank Spencer-Molloy, Simsbury, CT — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:45:17 GMT

Your testaments to the character and probity of Gens. Downing and McCaffrey notwithstanding, your and the other networks ignored this story utterly. As you responded here, someone could have responded to the NY Times story on the air, if only you had reported it on the nightly news.

Different Times

Joe Standish, Portland, Ore. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:47:51 GMT

How many anti-war people does NBC News employed on an "of counsel" basis? You know, those people who doubted the WMD evidence, who thought UN inspections were working, who thought we should have a plan for after the invasion, and have never been employed by the Pentagon? You know, the people who were right. Do you have any on staff? It would be nice to hear from people who demand hard evidence (rather than just administration say so) about future conflicts such as Iran. Can you name one?

Different Times

Jackie Rawlings 62 Riverside California — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:52:49 GMT

Hi Brian
I'm a person who judges an individual myself, not by who likes them. I've noticed over the 6 years of chaos in the US that some people will go one side then another. I've seen Generals support Bush, then they tell the truth and their fired. Each Bush appointee is said to be the best until he disagrees with the White House propaganda. I'm have little faith in the award Pulitzer winners after the actions of Judy Miller and Chuck Philips. So many people aren't really who they say they are.

What can I say about our US problems. President Bush is the Boy Who Cried Wolf. No one can believe a word he says. Now he's blaming the Democrats for the gas prices, while his policies give the oil companies big breaks/big profits. I guess we are to forget the Republican controlled Congress that gave Bush/Cheney blank checks to spend. With all the corruption in the White House, Pentagon and Contractors I just surprised Bush didn't say Bill Clinton was at fault for this mess. I will admit the White House does a great job at spinning the news. While the Media is reporting about the weather, food prices, home foreclosures and who Roger Clements dated. The Law makers and White House are very busy pushing out the money, contract, selective prosecutions and as much crime as possible while no one watching. To hear Bush talk he's been away on the planet K-Pax for 6 years.

People should respect each others choice of political party, religion, race and culture. Just let the political process continue and make your choice. I do feel bad for the voters without ID's. It reminds me of those who couldn't vote because of their color. Funny think about Evil it just seems to never win in the End.

As for that famous rebate check I decided to get the box for the TV that we will need.

See you this evening

To my friends Lisa, Laural and Stephanie

Stephanie I don't live in the area that was on fire but thanks for thinking about me.

Different Times

Amy Porzio — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:05:34 GMT

Tuesday night's 4/29 story about the wounded vet who thinks the greatest injustice of the media is the media not sharing how many military are wounded (rather than focusing on the dead). Brian, I am disappointed that you ended the segment with thanks for his service and STILL not stating the number wounded. You did that gentleman a disservice.
Make it better, tomorrow night, please

Different Times

Dewey Quong, Reno, NV — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:05:43 GMT

I never expected the generals, or any experts in the fields you have as contributors, to totally reveal what they know.

The generals knows secrets they will never reveal regardless of what their new employers say. They first took an oath to protect this country and they were told things if now revealed will harm this country.

All the experts, if competent, knows secrets that makes them experts and they will keep the secrets secret.

Brian, if you were to switch networks and your new employer were to ask you to reveal what you know about the package you received from the Virginia Tech shooter you won't do it.

There are things that will never be known except by the ones holding the secrets and that's they way it must be. The generals may withhold information they believe would violate their oaths but by the same token I don't expect them to lie to the viewers.

Withholding information by not commenting is one thing, outright lying is not acceptable. I trust you, you trust them and by extension so do I.

Different Times

Joe Standish, Portland, Ore. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:08:40 GMT

Different Times

Troy, San Jose, CA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:13:33 GMT

Brian:

You are (purposefully?) missing the point of the New York Times article.

The point is not whether the analysts in the employ of or of council to NBC (and other news organizations) were good guys or good friends of yours or even military heroes. And the point is not the degree to which those analysts were or were not critical of the war effort.

Instead, the point is whether NBC conspired (wittingly or no) to spread government propaganda. As such, NBC viewers deserve answers to the following questions:

1) The Times article details Downing and McCaffrey's extensive and readily apparent conflicts of interest. Who at NBC knew about these conflicts?

2) In fact, former NBC analyst Ken Allard charges that no one at the networks asked about the outside business interests and other potential conflicts held by their military analysts. Is that accurate? To what extent did NBC examine and consider the potential conflicts of its analysts?

3) Assuming that NBC was aware of the conflicts, why weren't they disclosed to viewers?

4) Again, assuming that NBC was aware of the conflicts, why, in light of them, did NBC think that these analysts could comment on the war situation in an unbiased fashion?

5) Were there any internal discussions at NBC about these analysts' conflicts and whether or not those conflicts would jeopardize even the appearance of those analysts' objectivity?

6) NBC military analyst Rick Francona told the Times that he didn't think that NBC was aware that he and other analysts were participating in the frequent and extensive briefings from the Pentagon. Is he correct, or was NBC aware?

7) If NBC was aware of those briefings, did NBC ever question the nature of those briefings and the extent to which its analysts' on-air opinions were being swayed by them?

8) Allard charges that networks such as NBC did not object when the Pentagon began paying for commercial airfare of the analysts' trips to Iraq. Did any NBC analyst have his trip to Iraq paid for by the Pentagon?

9) If so, when did NBC become aware that the Pentagon was paying for these flights?

10) Does NBC have any policy on sources (government or otherwise) paying for trips taken by its analysts?

11) Allard essentially argues -- as does the article -- that Pentagon briefings and Iraq tours were essentially propaganda efforts. The analysts were being spun so that they -- as supposedly unbiased experts -- could then spin the American public. When did NBC realize that it was part of a broad propaganda effort?

12) What steps has NBC taken, if any, to address the problems highlighted in the article?

Different Times

Troy, San Jose, CA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:16:13 GMT

One other thing, Brian:

Who paid for the trips that you and Wayne Downing took to Iraq: NBC or the Pentagon?

Different Times

Rich Levy — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:18:28 GMT

"I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

Actually, Brian, no, they aren't, and no, it isn't.
That's why network news has lost a million viewers a year for the last twenty-five years.

Different Times

Joel Grant Bothell, WA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:22:23 GMT

It is not reasonable to expect someone like Brian Williams to be critical of his management. Although a bit less rah-rah would be nice.

Whatever Brian Williams' opinion about this guy or that guy, the fact remains that the US Government was doing the following:

a. employing people to push their agenda, including getting together in a group to decide on the latest message and coordinating dissemination of that information as widely as possible, and
b. Doing this while pretending to be independent and unbiased experts.

This may be illegal; it is unquestionably propaganda. It is not what Americans deserve from those whose job is to inform.

Americans are grown up enough to weigh our options, but please do not put such a heavy thumb on the scales.

Different Times

peter Hanks lexington, ma 02421 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:25:31 GMT

Hi Brian,
Good story on the wound warrior project. But why did you not get into more of the wounded numbers which is at least 100 times the dead.
When people ask me my take on the 4000 I tell them there are alot more wounded, physically and mentally. In fact I would say just about all are mental effected for a year or two.

I was strange for a year or two after my tour in Vietnam. fortunately I was able to see the forest and made some decisions along the way to get out of the mental wounds. BTW I turned down a purple heart because really physically wounded warriors deserve that medal, I only had smaller physical wounds I still have both legs,arms, eyes and balls.

best wishes,

Different Times

Daniel, Syracuse, New York — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:27:32 GMT

Brain

Tonight your choice to lead the broadcast with the economy and gas prices over the Rev. Wright story is exactly why I choose to watch NBC Nightly News every evening. The economy is after all, shown in the poles, to be the number one issue the American people think is important, and it deserves to be the lead story in the News broadcast every night (which I notice is what you have been doing lately) instead of tabloid, got you, guilt by association stories that other networks seem to love running. And tonight focusing on the ever increasing gas prices and what the presidential candidates plan on doing about it, and what the current president has failed to do, was well produce and informative. Nice work tonight Brian, keep showing those other networks what real journalism looks like.

Different Times

Lisa McNeil,Alpharetta,Georgia — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:32:31 GMT

Good Evening Mr.Williams, Beginning the broadcast with the troubled economy gives one a sense of real hard times for everyone. President Bush speaking in the Rose Garden about how he understands that Americans are anxious is fine, but the solutions he provides concerning building more oil refineries will take time. His statement of not being able to "wave a magic wand" to make the price of gas fall is an understatement. Of course, Americans know it won't be fixed instantly or overnight, but there should be a light at the end of the tunnel to show some hope of a decrease. I spoke with someone just today and she complained about how much it costs to fill up the gas tank. She said it is really ridiculous and hopes it will come down soon. The report by Anne Thompson concerning ethanol made from corn and its use for fuel was interesting, but troubling because the corn is used to feed people and animals. The chickens, cattle and hogs have to be given the feed in order to supply food for people. Everything supports something else and if one thing falls apart the whole process collapses. Hopefully, there will be a way to balance out the need for corn in both uses of food and fuel. The report by Mr.Costello about the Acela train from Amtrak showed how train travel could become more popular considering all the hassles of flying and the high cost of gas. The system does need to be overhauled though because of the age of the tracks, yet the convenience is very good. The speed of 150mph is great for the Boston to New York route and 135mph for other routes. I can understand the engineer's point of not wanting to hit the curve of track at 150mph and reduce to 80mph. That would be too dangerous. Maybe, the train will become more popular for travel. Time will tell. Finally, I enjoyed your interview with John Fernandez. He served his country well and is a brave and dedicated soldier. After losing the lower parts of his legs in the war in Iraq he fought back and showed remarkable recovery. It is great he remains active in sports and his Wounded Warrior Project will help many veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of the wounded soldiers should receive the best treatment and never be forgotten. We should honor all our soldiers. God Bless all out troops. Thank you for the broadcast Mr.Williams. Peace to you and to all!
Lots of Love to Laurel,Jackie and Stephanie!
Be Well Ladies!

Different Times

Chris Dowd — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:35:42 GMT

Wow, criticizing how well the war is being waged? Tactics and strategy differences! Brian Williams presents that as the extent of "criticism" these "analysts" delivered before his cameras? It's fairly obvious Mr. Williams hasn't even have an understanding of the very serious allegations made by the New York Times article. That attempt to respond to this story speaks volumes all by itself about the degenerate worthless state of NBC News.

Different Times

Matt, 20, San Diego — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:39:20 GMT

Mr. Williams,

I didn't read the article form yesterday in its entirety, but it seemed somewhat bias in my opinion, and I think the next time you provide a link, it should be more down the line (but its your blog, and obviously you do with it what you like). I read one of the comments from yesterday questioning your qualifications to criticize a newspaper when you have never worked for one. I think its only fair to point out that anyone, and everyone, criticizes everything else, and that certain qualifications only make the criticism possibly more justified. I didn't realize so many people read the nightly news blog, so at least theres a silver lining there! I will say that it may have been bad timing to criticize articles in the NYT and then have a segment later than night on Miley Cyrus. I don't like to criticize a figure such as yourself, and I hope I didn't cross any lines there, but those were just some of my thoughts on the subject. Its amazing how many people just complain and complain on here, and in such a negative tone. I guess its easier to type mean words than to say them to someones face. I also wanted to say that I think NBC all day yesterday gave too much time to Jeremiah Wright. I saw at least 3 NBC related shows throughout the day giving too much(in my opinion) time to the subject. I also watched a few minutes of ABC World News with Charlie Gibson and they talked about it as well, so I'm not just pointing at you guys. I personally do not care about what Jeremiah Wright says when I decide who to vote for, nor do I care about Barack Obamas affiliation. It's funny that Mr. Obama has to tell the media that he doesn't agree with Mr. Wrights comments, as if there are people out there who believe otherwise. That also goes for Senators Clinton and Mccain, and there relationships with people. Anyways, sorry for the long paragraph. I will say this though, I think as long as you are anchoring, nightly news will never lose me as a viewer. Thanks for all your work Mr. Williams.

I feel sorry for the person who has to read this post,and all those from yesterday, before it can be put on here. I apologize for my long post, and hope that we can still be friends anyways.

Different Times

Lois, Saint Paul, MN — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:43:57 GMT

In Barack Obama's news conference today he stated quite plainly that Jeremiah Wright was his pastor, not his spiritual advisor. So why do we see Tim Russert on your show calling him Obama's "spiritual advisor" -- not once, but twice? This is really sloppy reporting and merits an on-air correction.
I'm no fan of this Rev. Wright guy, but let's not forget the guys on the right wing (Falwell and Robertson) who have said some pretty outrageous things themselves, including that 9/11 was our own fault because we allow homosexuality and abortion. I say we just ignore all these "Reverends" -- they shouldn't have any place in government or elections anyway.
Finally, another ridiculous press conference by President Bush. So his solutions to gas prices are more drilling and building more refineries? Great. We've got to wake up and understand that the rest of the world gets to work by bus, train and subway. But we Americans won't elect anyone who utters the "T" word (taxes!) to pay for these types of things. So here we are. Hopefully things will start to change soon.

Different Times

Phyllis Kunz Louisville, Ky. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:51:27 GMT

Mr. Williams, it is not my intent to stir things
up but I am not so sure the story about Sen. Obama
and Rev. Wright is without precedence. My memory
is fuzzy but I do remember when the tapes were made
public of Pres Nixon and Dr. Billy Graham talking
against the Jewish people, it was shocking at the
time. And I wonder if Israel felt betrayed by
America.

Different Times

Deborah Levine, NYC — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:57:48 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams:
It's your job to know the biases and potential conflicts of interest of your analysts and commentators. You didn't. Your post doesn't cut it.

Different Times

RGMacdonald — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:02:58 GMT

"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." by Brian Williams
Interesting fact about McCain is carrying it in his bones. Born under socialized medicine, educated through college with tax payers’ money as Daddy was millitary, eating food from a commissary at cut rate prices whose normal cost covered by taxpayers’ money, drawing pensions from Navy & SSA – is he a true person who has brought himself by the bootstraps vs Obama? As a vet and coming from a 5 star family of WWII including my father & 4 brothers, I really don't think Ms Noonan even has any idea of Act I when it comes to Obama. How many black playmates in MS as I did while my father was camped at Camp Shelby did she have who couldn't go into a cafe to eat with her as I had to do with my black friends in 1944 by going into back “Black Only” with them. How many colored drinking fountains has Ms Noonan drunk out of while going to segregated bathrooms. Every bone in McCain is a socialist's bone as he has never lived out side of a system that has allowed him to be under the cover the US Government. I want to know what his Act II is going to be for the common man who didn't have an Admiral for a daddy or granddaddy. As an Army mustang, I do know the difference in the life McCain lived and Obama lived even though I am White. Why doesn't Ms Noonan truly identify the real problem - whites are bigots in the voting booth.

Comment to WSJ on Noonan’s Gate 14 article 4/23/2008
I am applied that Gate 14 is considered the highth of Peggy Noonen's

For you Brian to consider this sparkling piece of journalism makes you sound like Rev Wright or are you also on the payroll of the Pentagon as front like the Generals? Peggy Noonan couldn't even defend herself to me. Now all your comment readers surely will come to your defense for being a socialist and defending the Socialist Manifesto which both you & Ms Noonan apparently compliment each other's writings as defining journalism on the highest level.

Different Times

ladytechie, 59 Farmington NM — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:03:48 GMT

I love it when the blogsphere proves my point, remember Williamsgate not 2 weeks ago? I believe at the time you were a stark raving mad liberal. So now you are a dour conservative, at the mercy of the Pentagon no less!
Were the Generals briefed? You've admitted they were. Did they give their own opinion and analysis, yes. End of story.

Yesterdays postings go to the heart of what's wrong with politics today (and remember I'm what's called an activist Dem, I go to meetings, serve on committees ect.) Jimmy Carter once pointed out that his campaign was the last where you had to call your opponent "My esteemed opponent" in a debate. It is now the norm to deride, scorn and condemn those you disagree with. State your opinion, as fact, don't back it up, just scream it as loudly as possible.

It's not just the pols anymore either, nor limited to just one party. I actually know people who will not speak to me because I'm a Dem, and a couple of Dem friends who are horrified that my boss and my insurance guy are Republicans. Add to that at least one person who feels that marrying out of your political party far outweighs marrying outside of your religion, class whatever. The civility and honest discourse that usually mark this blog do not exist in most places. For that I am truly saddened.
End Rant

I was so bound and determined to get this post done I just missed the broadcast.. It was on and I didn't pay attention. What time does the netcast go up?

Different Times

Raff, Boston,MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:07:45 GMT

Not good enough Brian, you know that. I bet you wish you had a time machine so you could go back and tell yourself not to post that entry.

Different Times

Alexie J. Rodriguez, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:18:38 GMT

Aside from all the explanation about the friendship you have with these men and the details of their duties and services to our country. The one point you made about unsecured military personal is a striking point to myself. These are details that most average americans never hear about unless we read articles like this or take the time to inform themselves. Perhaps this is the reason we have over 4,000 military men and women dead in Iraq not including Afghanistan. My many thanks to you Brian Williams and NBC news for the sharing your thoughts and opinions with us Americans. Keep up the good work...and we'll keep watching.

Different Times

Greg, Madison, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:20:46 GMT

Regardless of your personal experiences with these generals, the Times article was a major story any way you look at it. Shouldn't Americans be informed of this and decide for themselves if the generals' integrity exonerates them? I think it's strange that this blog would praise Noonan for her article about how Obama is elitist because, well, because she has some theory about how he is an elitist, and then go on to say that we Americans don't have to worry our simple little minds about this Times piece because Brian Williams has met them and Brian Williams knows what's best for us.

Different Times

Brant Cooper, San Diego CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:33:36 GMT

Mr Williams,
Your close friendship with these gentlemen is disturbing and at the very least, gives an impression of a lack of objectivity. Your acquiescence and lack of critique of the Pentagon's embedded reporters program is further evidence of your lack of a critical viewpoint.

Your defense that these men are your friends and are honorable does not respond to the points of the article. Many military analysts were briefed with talking points, with specific things to say in promotion of war. There's plenty of evidence that supports the story.

So now you have responded. You believe your analysts were not among those who repeated Pentagon talking points. Great. Do you not think it's a story? You have no comment on the Pentagon's practices? You have no comment on the dangers of military propaganda? Are you a journalist or no?

Different Times

Doug — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:39:16 GMT

Mr. Williams,

Unfortunately, whether you are willing to admit it or not, your "close personal relationships" with those who provide news, analysis, information, and/or opinion on your show necessarily bias you and your views toward them, making it all but impossible for you to truly be a skeptical journalist with those people and the information they put forth. It should be so basic to you that your job is to report news objectively, vett your sources, and not be a part of the news, but merely a skeptic observer of the news, one who is a watchdog of the government, not a reporter for the government. Surely you will never acknowledge such blasphemy, and yet millions of us no longer trust the likes of you in the MSM for this very reason, making you more and more irrelevant to us, as your constant ratings decline clearly shows. You merely saying "Huh uhh" doesn't make it any less true.

Finally, the fact you disparaged a very real and intelligent sentiment expressed by Elizabeth Edwards, one that is loudly reflected by millions of other American Citizens, is perhaps the greatest example of your bias and unprofessionalism that is now part of the public record. And that is said from someone who genuinely was a fan of yours until this all came about. I am sad but unsurprised to realize you are just another cog in the corporatocracy-controlled and increasingly useless mainstream media.

Events of the past 8 years have proven the MSM cannot be trusted to do it's job with even the most basic use of journalistic integrity. When you're owned by the same people who receive the largest government contracts, tax breaks, and make huge profits at the expense of the taxpayers you broadcast to, none of us should be surprised.

Different Times

Robert Griswold, Walla Walla, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:25:28 GMT

Not long ago, I watched a clip of your NYC forum on race relations. I was disappointed. Everyone on stage seemed to be from somewhere other than the ghetto. Where were the single mothers and others who struggle every day to survive in the ghetto? Their opinions would carry more weight than those wealthy and comfortable spokepeople for the black community, whose only message seemed to be that all the serious problems, including the bad choices that individual black people make, are whitey's fault and the only possible solution is for whitey to cough up more money for new programs.

Different Times

Grant Dunham — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:35:59 GMT

"I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men."

Which, as any journalism textbook will tell you, is critical for maintaining objectivity in vetting sources.

Different Times

Corey Morris — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:48:43 GMT

Brian Williams said:
"I've worked with two men since I've had this job -- both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals -- Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I'm sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men."

Seriously Brian the viewer does not want you making friends with Military anaylst (pentagon shills) we would prefer that you just give us the hard new.

I think this story like nothing else before shows that NBC is not in the business of real news.

You really need to think about this Brian. What the hell would Edward R Murrow have to say about all of this. You have betrayed everything that your supposed to stand for. Good luck

Different Times

B. Dunn — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:00:08 GMT

Brian,

I agree, you give us the best news. We don't want bad news - or critical questioning of leaders - we just want the best news that General Electric chooses to provide through it's paid mouth-pieces. And Brian, you are the best for GE.

Sorry for being a Vinnie. But there are more of us than there are of you. We just don't have the platform

Thanks for always being there for US.

Bill

Different Times

Carmen, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:02:19 GMT

And still you think that Noonan deserves a pulitzer for that piece?

Different Times

Clark Freese, Onsted, MI. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:10:56 GMT

While I am confident in your beliefs that your integrity is not tarnished there still remains a question about the retired military officers reputations. There remains the appearance of impropriety in their public criticisms (analysis)of the organizations which they have left. They are safe they no longer lead. They appear to be entrenched in the old ways of operating and unable to adapt to change. Every time I hear them come on television or the news I have to fight my way through my perceptions of their lack of loyalty to the military institutions where they spent their careers. So I really find the NYT attacks and the defenses against them as exercises on a dead end street. I have ten years of military service understand it's shortcomings but that undesttanding can't hold a candle to the teh profound respect I have for what it can do and those that lead it on active duty.

Different Times

sammyl, Carbondale, Ill. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:48:21 GMT

Brian Williams has in these two successive blog posts effected a remarkable unmasking.

Williams is not content with ridiculing the NYT for publishing an op-ed which quite reasonably points out that media celebrities, like Williams himself, are more interested in label pins and $400 haircuts than the life, death and welfare of Americans who don't enjoy lives of corporate privilege. Not to mention small matters like war, peace and the political economy.

No, he then goes on to praise Republican shill Peggy Noonan, for a column which baldly asserts that Barack Obama is not a true patriot, or even a real American. And why? Because Obama doesn't see the world in the same way a privileged white man does -- to wit, a fine unblemished man like John McCain or George W. Bush.

For the anchor of a major TV network to openly praise such a column is astounding, even in the age of Fox News. After this admission, is the public supposed to believe that Brian Williams is unbiased and neutral?

After praising the view that the likely Democratic nominee is a traitor to American ideals, and that the Republican nominee embodied those ideals virtually from birth, how exactly is Williams going to cover this election fairly? And who's going to believe him?

And yet there's still more. The military "analysts" appearing on WNBC couldn't be propagandists because, Brian tells us, they're honorable men. No matter that Brian Williams never did due diligence on them, and declines to do due diligence on them now. Like GWB, Brian can evidently look a man in the eyes and see his soul -- and his contractual relationships and his dealings with the Pentagon. So there's nothing to apologize for.

Finally, we learn that GWB did "very well" at that correspondents dinner. "Very well", indeed -- a man who's brought havoc on the world, did "very well" clowning in front of America's elite, while the rest of the world burns. Could anyone, much less a "newsman", be more removed from reality than Brian Williams? Is this the Twilight Zone? Or just American in 2008, courtesy of Brian Williams and his colleagues?

This level of fatuity, self-love and ignorance verges on parody. Brian Williams is to be thanked for this remarkable performance. Rarely do we get it in so undiluted a dose of it.

Different Times

Sue Faxon Alexandria, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:50:09 GMT

Uhhm, now how about adressing this 'general' problem ON THE AIR where more than a dozen readers can hear your explanation of alleged collusion with the pentagon in reporting on the most disastrous military adventure in American history?
How about actually bringing the subject up on air during a MorningJoe appearance?

Different Times

Rich Hartzell, Indianola, IAq — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:51:30 GMT

"At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

Mr. Williams: This is called prejudging the news based upon your 'friendship' with some of the subjects of the story, not to mention your own employer. I'm sure a man of your intellect (Gate 14 disadvantages notwithstanding) knows exactly what this is called. And NBC is being called on it. As it should be.

Different Times

Steve Jones — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:56:07 GMT

The GeneralsGate story is in important one. Authorizing the use of former military personnel to disseminate government progaganda is in violation of federal law prohibiting such campaigns.

Of course, this comes from an administration that has made authorizing illegal behavior an everyday occurence.

I wish the Media would devote some time to this. Their silence only heightens their complicity.

Different Times

ross c. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:56:46 GMT

"I read the article with great interest."

And then you spend 5 paragraphs blowing it off and never answer the question as to why you never mentioned it ON AIR. The time to do that was Monday April 20th. And we got a collective silence from you and the rest of the broadcast media.

That was a major piece of investigative journalism.

Silence speaks volumes.

Different Times

David J Garcia, Henderson, NV — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:26:57 GMT

Once again you and your brethren fail to address the the criticism of the media directly. There was ONE issue that the NYT article came back to over and over again DISCLOSURE. The military "experts" failed to disclose their business interest to the networks. Failing to DISCLOSE those conflicts of interest was a breach of professional ethics. If the networks/news media were aware of these conflicts and they failed to DISCLOSE them, they breached journalistic ethics. DISCLOSURE of conflicts of interest (actual and perceived) is the responsibility of both parties. How difficult would it have been for the NTY, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox News, etc. to have checked the background of these "experts"? One of the earlier commentators pointed out that Gen. (ret.) McCaffrey was a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, surely this was known by the network and should have been DISCLOSED as should his employment/interest regarding various military contractors with business dealings involving the Iraq War.
My personal criticism of news media reporting regarding the Iraq War specifically and news gathering in general is the lack of DISCLOSURE of personal, professional, business contacts between reporters, their sources, the people and the departments they cover. I find it disturbing when I see members of the media socializing with the same people they report on. It is my feeling that the members of the media ( the head of the network, the publishers, bureau heads, reporters, editors, producers, anchors and columnist) need to be reminded that they must maintain a separation between themselves and the people they are covering. These people are NOT your "friends", and when dealing with them "Trust.. but verify".

Different Times

Jackie Rawlings 62 Riverside California — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:29:21 GMT

Great show Brian

With tonight's news it's clear how all the dots connect to our recession. It's not just gas prices. The Boy Who Cried Wolf aka President Bush has created the perfect storm. I think President Bush shouldn't confuse Harry Potter as real with the magic wand comment. He might let out by accident that Dick Cheney is really Lord Voldemort.

I am so proud of Lt. Fernandez for his service. I know lot of soldiers who don't like to hear the numbers of soldiers who died. He's right we have so many soldiers that have hidden injuries not just the ones we see. Vietnam was different but this time we really don't have an honest reason for the invasion. Saddam ruled a country in chaos and had enemies within. This conflict would have happen without the US. Now because of what the White House and Pentagon call mistakes new terrorist groups have developed. Because of the White House propaganda, lies, stealing, torture and bombing in populated areas we have a big problem with will last for many decades to come.

As for Senator Obama ending his friendship with Rev. Wright. Life gives us choices and those choices bring consequences. No one ever believes everything that told. Rev. Wright lived like alot of African Americans during troubled times and still served our country in the Military. Senator Obama went to the Rev. the Rev. didn't go to Obama. Twenty years gone because of choice. My Dad always said you will have many friends when your doing good but when your at your lowest look around and see who is still there if anybody at all. The question the Senator will have to ask himself is was it with it, and what else is he willing to give up? I believe in unconditional love if you use the word love and mean it. I wish both Senator Obama and Rev. Wright the best as twenty years is a long time.

Just a little note of thanks Brian for putting up with my rambling and you know how I have talk about everything.

Best to my friends Lisa, Laural and Stephanie

Different Times

Charles Hardy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:31:34 GMT

Regarding the Generals vs. Rumsfield:

Much more investigation is in order regarding the ties nearly all retired flag or general officers have to the defense industry.

In many instances (e.g. protecting vehicles from missiles and/or IEDs) Rumsfield's modernizing aproach was to buy something that worked off the rack, such as systems from Israel. The generals, who were so often at odds with Rumsfield, typically favored sending billions to defense firms to see if we could have something working in time for the next war . . . they are all men of integrity, and I am sure that the fact that they are on the boards of these companies (if retired) or going to work for them just as soon as they retire (if they're still on active duty) in no way influenced their judgement of how to proceed.

Things brings me to a point that really irritates me about the administration and the Republicans: Their failure to communicate this point. I guess all politicians think voters are dumb.

Suppose Rumsfield had assembled a room full of parents of troops serving in the middle east, and put the question to them: Should we buy protective systems currently available from Israel, South Africa, or whomever? Or should we award a U.S. contractor a multi-billion contract to see if they could develop something five years from now? No question whom the public would have supported.

I am a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and went to the middle East three times while on active duty; I have some experience in these issues.

Different Times

Sean Heneghan, Melrose, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:58:14 GMT

Anyone else notice that Mr. Williams didn't include a link to the NY Times article, yet in his previous post he sure included a link to that dreck Peggy Noonan column Mr. Williams swooned over?

Telling.

Different Times

Andy, Seattle, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:05:45 GMT

Sir,
One of the bothersome aspects of the NYT's article is the ties between the generals and defense contractors. I would like to know what NBC's policy is for vetting on-air analysts. Are the backgrounds actively searched, or are analysts expected to voluntarily disclose potential conflicts of interest? What about for other topics, i.e., on-air business consultants?
I realize you are busy but the allegations in the article were strong and well-documented, and the news organizations are further undermining their credibility by remaining silent.

Different Times

G. Bachelard, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:14:57 GMT

I would love to read a response to Karen C's comment, the fourth following your post, Mr. Williams.

By the way, it is not helpful to include in your network's defense against the NYT's observations that you were such good buds with the men in question.

Do you really think they could serve on the board of a group lobbying for the Iraq invasion, attend regular propaganda "briefings" at the Pentagon and consort with other "analysts" who were financially invested in the occupation and not have their opinions colored even an itsy bitsy teeny tiny bit?

I swear to God, journalism has gone to hell. Is there anything in this matter, you could have done better?

Different Times

jamesD, Cleveland, OH — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:32:39 GMT

You contend, Brian, that your news division "is better than that" -- better than to present government propaganda.

But in fact your news division DID present a steady diet of government propaganda, and declined to present alternative views. Wasn't it MSNBC which fired its highest rated cable TV host for bringing on anti-war guests at a time when MSNBC competitors were "waving the flag", as described in a leaked NBC memo?

And isn't an undisputed fact that your new division did in fact give the public a government-fabricated view of reality? Even if the generals in question believed these fictions, where were the other viewpoints -- the people who were saying that Iraq did not possess WMD, that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S., that it would be no "cakewalk", that disaster might well result, that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens would be killed and millions more displaced? How often were those views represent on the nightly news, compared to war advocacy?

To this day, your network has yet to apologize to the public, or reform its practices. And how could it, when you have yet to concede the failure which occurred?

Different Times

John Manning, West Point, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:33:40 GMT

"All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq."

I can see it now: The Greaterest Generation by Brian Williams.

Different Times

GordZilla — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:19:04 GMT

Brian,
Have you ever heard of that other Pastor, Rev. Hagee?
I'm just asking because, heck, I don't exactly recall you ever mentioning that the GOP frontrunner and presumed nominee *also* has a 'pastor problem' (tm).
Seems there is this pastor with views so extreme that he makes Rev. wright seem quite the moderate.
Oh, you know, claims God smote Louisiana with all his mighty wrath because of a gay parade that never actually took place, since God answered Hagee's prayers to a fare-thee-well before it could be implemented. Quite a story, actually. I knew you'd jump all over this and I am glad to be the one to bring it to your attention first since you have evidently never heard that, at least i you couldn't have since you have never even mentioned it!

Also, has the art dept. been instructed yet to create a logo and background music for the ongoing Rev. Hagee story? Complete with a clip from Youtube where anyone can view it at will?

Please enlighten us all....

Different Times

Doug Hopper, Beaverton, OR — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:22:53 GMT

Ah, I am so reminiscient of Don Henley's song "Dirty Laundry" with people like you Brian. Like he says, "The bubble headed bleach blonde comes on at 5, she can tell you about a plane crash with a gleam in her eye...".
The media in this country has turned into such a vapid and mindless wasteland. I doubt any of the nightly new anchors for any network has a useful thought in their heads any more. This has led to the downfall of this country. It used to be we could count on the media to question the government, not be a mouthpiece for it. Using implants from the Pentagon to push a war agenda that is killing this country slowly is reprehensible, I don't care if any were critical about the way it was being run, they still did nothing to stop it.
For my sake and the sake of the country, do your job, or get out! I am sure you could retire comfortably, unlike most of us working folk who will never see $10 million in our lifetime, and get someone in there who will actually do the job of reporting real news and being critical of the government instead of another shill.

Different Times

More questions about the CIA. Mitchellville, IA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:26:44 GMT

IPTV had the temerity to air a program entitled "Bush's War." I have neither seen nor heard one major media element deal with the question, "Where did Bush get his information about the now infamous WMDs?" Well, Readers, what is your answer? Do you think he discovered them while in company of a clandestine party of Navy Seals? MOST LIKELY that information came from the CIA -- the same outfit that supplies the day-to-day intelligence from all over the world to our government. The same group that supplies the intelligence and operations plans to our forces (air, land, and sea). Can our armed forces initiate an action and skip informing or running it through the CIA first? The US debated going into Iraq for over a month. When we did go in, we did not use paratroops to seal off the roads going north and west out of Iraq. Why not? That is basic military strategy. Just tonight (Tue 29 Apr) IPTV continued its series on the carrier Nimitz. Every day launching planes. Every day dropping no ordinance or firing any rockets in anger. Over 2 months went by and the planes delivered no ordinance. Lack of targets? The whole ship was disappointed and discouraged that all of their training and efforts were going for naught. Very demoralizing. We used to have small patrols that were dispersed at night to act as FOs (Forward Observers). They might be deployed for 2 or 3 days or even a week or longer. Surely there can't be that many roads between Iran and Iraq (or wherever else from which the enemy may be being supplied). Infra-red observations. Or even close enough to the roadways to hear the traffic. Give our flyboys some targets. Perk up their morale, if for no other reason. I would like for you to check into THIS, Mr. Williams.

Different Times

Dollar Ed — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:39:36 GMT

Brian,

The allegation is that these gentlemen had a conflict of interest and were strongly incented to give a biased, favorable view of a war that has cost us over a trillion dollars with no benefit to any of us (except war profiteers and the Republican party).

Whether or not they later wised up (McCaffrey) or didn't (most of the rest of them) is irrelevant.

Your response is that you like them. It is no response at all, and it shows you don't have the integrity or critical thinking skills to be a journalist.

Four thousand US dead. Twenty thousand maimed. At mimimum, five hundred thousand Iraqis dead. At least a trillion in costs, now and later. And you can't even lift a finger to find out the truth.

We pay you millions for this? Shame on you.

Different Times

Tim Alberts, Seattle, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:48:20 GMT

Mr Williams,
I appreciate that you respect and trust the former generals you mention in your blog, but that does not address the charges of the NYT article. Specifically, has NBC used military analysts that were briefed on talking points by the pentagon? Has NBC used military analysts that had a financial interest in the war? directly or indirectly? Using an independant standard and investigation, did NBC participate in what would be considered war time propaganda or hire analysts that were doing so?

Please reveal this information along with a strategic plan to make sure this information is revealed to viewers in the future.

Different Times

Jeffery E. Chinn, Vallejo, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:28:00 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams,
The problem with "military analysts employed by the news services" is that at no time were "the people" afforded the knowledge of their briefings by the Pentagon and their ties to the military contractors and defense industries.

I do not doubt the generals patriatism or expertise. However, a man is judged by the company he keeps and the by the advice he gives. Th NYTimes article has irrepairably damaged the influence of these analysts and again added the Orwellian perspective that we as a people cannot afford to tolerate in the very news agencies that help to provide the knowledge we require to attend to maintaining our Constitution, government, and way of life.

The generals, knowingly or unknowingly, in passing knowledge or views gleened from the pentagon or white house to inform the people have actually aided the enemy by destroying one of the few remaining foundations of our Constitution by destroying one of the true keepers of our freedoms - the press. If we cannot trust the Press to give us the truth there is no hope for freedom to remain.

As to your defense of the generals under your hire, it is expected, but one thing needs to be added to your explanation and that is, thank you for your service and that will be all, goodbye.

J.E. Chinn

Different Times

A concerned citizen, way upstate, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:45:42 GMT

Hi Brian,
I just wonder when the "real" issues of the day will start to be discussed. The facts that everyone of us in america are all using the same currency (US Dollar) with which to purchase goods (gas, food, utilitys, mortgages). The differences in the population being those that have and those that do not.
I mean how do people like the trumps & gates, et al. of this world justify the need for their wealth vs. folks like myself who are disabled and are forced to live on virtually nothing??
How is it that social security in it's infinate wisdom actually believes that a person collecting social security is supposed to live on 30% of their monthly salary. I did not ask to be injured on the job. I paid into the system for years under the premise the system would be there for me when I needed it to be. Do you have any idea of how horrible the care is for someone on medicare?? To begin with most doctors refuse to treat you because they do not accept medicare and if you do find a doctor, they tell you they can only treat you withing the scope of what Medicare will pay for?? There is no such thing as preventative medicine just what is the shortest and least expensive route in which to treat the patient to get them out of the doctors office or the hospital. Everything in America regarding the decision makers seems to be predicated on job security and to hell with the people who pay the taxes which in turn pay the salarys of those same decision makers. The decision makers have compensation packages, salarys, and perks that amount to 10's if not hundreds of times what it takes to maintain a normal middle class life all off the backs of the blue collar worker. How is this right, Brian. How do you as a journalist justify to the american people the corruption and abuses of power going on around us every day. Nothing of this is ever mentioned. Our soldiers are fighting and dying everyday to keep this country free for all and they way they and the american worker are paid back for their service is just more retoric from the establishment about how we are all in this together. There is nothing "together" about a senate and congress, corporate CEO's and upper management, being rewarded with "executive" packages that amount to nothing more than "greed".
Why are we all spending so much for a gallon of gas when we have the resources and technology right here at home to ease the crisus at hand?? Why are we talking about the rising cost of food to ourselves here at home when we have give-away food subsidies to other nations of the world?? Why are our own children, elderly, and those disabled like myself basically forgotten about here at home while we spend BILLIONS to re-build a country (Iraq) that our military has blown back into the stone age??
Why can't this country just go back to minding it's own business instead of minding everyone's else's business?? These are the topics you should be speaking about every night instead of just following the corporate line. I stop what I am doing every night to watch your program. Why?? Because as a broadcast journalist, I admire your style and what I hope is honesty but as I watch your show each evening, I hope to come away with some evening with a feeling there is "light at the end of the tunnel".
People are not as stupid as the politicians, the police, and those in the media think we are when they "spin" and "slant" the truth to justify the actions of the oppressor against the oppressed. The average "joe" is getting really tired of it. I live in small town america and I see things on a daily basis of the struggle to put gas in the car, food on the table, and keep the lights on that those of you with your exhorbanant salarys do not even have to think about. Why do we not talk about the abuse of power, the excessive salarys, and the deep rooted corruption that plagues our financial markets and the crooks who stole from people who could not qualify for mortgages in the first place that caused the sub-prime mess to begin with?? Where are the arrests of the people who caused this mess, Brian?? It was the personal greed of the brokers who started this domino effect that has bled over into the financial markets, the weaker dollar, the rising cost of gas and now the rising cost of food. So why are these decision makers still walking around free to create a new scam to steal the rest of the peoples money?? Do a story on that Brian. Give america back it's desire and purpose to be the most prosperious nation on the planet. Show the average "joe" that radical changes are happening to the "old boy network" of backslapping and I think you will start to see a re-newed desire of the people of this country to want to work harder to make this a better place for future generations. But until something is done to stop the apathy and feelings of "there is nothing we can do" for the little guy, the problems that america are facing right here at home are only going to get worse.
I do not care what your polls are telling you about how the people are feeling about hillary, obama, or mcCain, the truth is from what I see here in upstate NY is NOTHING is going to change regardless of what the canadates say. Why?? Because the Senate and Congress will NOT work with them unless there is a financial personal reward for the politicians that LOOKS like it is going to benifit their constituents whereupon the policitians will be re-elected, thereby insuring job security. In the meantime, the rest of us just go futher and further into debt trying valiantly to pay for the continuing mistakes the politicians just keep creating for us. It is ALL about GREED and CORRUPTION and nothing more.

Different Times

Norman Charles, NYC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:56:53 GMT

At first I couldn't understand why professional wrestling was playing on one of the video monitors behind Nancy Snyderman when she was giving her closing remarks during her Tuesday story about childhood vaccinations. Then it occurred to me: WWE Wrestling is a mainstay on the USA Network, which is owned by NBC Universal. Even during a story on childhood vaccinations, you're subliminally plugging "WWE Monday Night RAW" on your sister station! Nice synergy!

Different Times

Mary Beth Schlagheck — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:54:11 GMT

I would like to hear an Iraqi program on the
Nationalists vs. the Separatists.

Different Times

John Dillinger, Washington, DC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:12:55 GMT

The mounting troubles this country faces at the moment are directly traceable to the vapid "rah-rah" journalism Mr. Williams and others chose to engage in so they could advance their careers. Him and the others will never admit to having failed to do their job covering the Iraq War or the housing bubble. When people ask me what it is like to live in DC these days, I tell them you can't beat a front row seat watching the fall of modern Rome in real time. And Mr. Williams and his ilk are one of the circus acts the ruling class has given us to distract us from noticing the country problems.

Different Times

howard L. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:15:24 GMT

We need to thank Brian Williams for showing us what kind of "newsman" rises to the top of a corporate media empire today.

Here we have a highly paid and esteemed journalist who can't for the life of him understand what's wrong with offering up the "analysis" of two deeply compromised and partisan generals -- ideological advocates of the Iraq invasion long before it occurred, and profiteers from the venture itself. I mean, there's no such thing as deceit and conflict of interest in public life, is there -- especially among the rich and comfortable?

And he evidently has no idea that public praise for a Peggy Noonan column which impugns not only the patriotism, but the very Americanism of Barack Obama, while praising the Republican nominee in an equally shameless and preposterous manner (McCain, unlike Obama, cries at the thought of Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers, because he learned true American values at his grandfather's knee, again unlike Obama, who learned exactly what?) just might raise questions about his (Williams') judgment and impartiality.

And finally we learn the Williams listens to the indispensable Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis, time he might have better spent looking into the previous associations and current financial arrangements of his Iraq war "analysts".

And this is "journalism" in America today, the top of the profession. It ain't just bad. It's truly beyond belief.

Different Times

Jo T , Chicago, ILL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:53:25 GMT

Brian, you neglected to mention that the entire Iraq war was based on LIES!!! The real reason was to secure OIL and once and for all establish the welfare of the "Military complex" and domination of the American people by the CORPORATIONS that really run everything.

You are and were one of their finest cheerleaders.
Good Job !!!!!

No Meters = Stolen Billions
Old story, but still nobody does a thing

Excerpt:
Atop Iraq's al Basrah Oil Terminal, heavily armed anti-terrorism forces stand guard — while the theft of the century may be occurring right under their noses. Tankers berthed at the sprawling platform, located in the Persian Gulf, take on the oil that is the lifeblood of Iraq's war-torn economy.

Millions of dollars' worth of oil is stolen daily in Iraq because of the absence of oil meters, a basic tool for preventing corruption. "I would say probably between 200,000 and 500,000 barrels a day is probably unaccounted for in Iraq," says Mikel Morris, who worked for Bush's State Department in Baghdad. Depending on the price of oil, the thefts could be worth $20 million to $30 million per day.".

Half a million barrels at $120 each is $55 millions dollars, and that estimate has to be low becauseonly Bush cronies know what new wells are open, what pipelines were built, where the oil is stored, etc.

This is why the evil rat-bastards invaded Iraq and they're in their SIXTH YEAR of stealings millions per day.

Even after all this... ...nobody ever asks Bush at a live press conference,
"Why, after all these years, are there no meters on Iraq's oil wells?"

Doesn't anybody care?

Different Times

Stephanie-Umbro, 33 Maine — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:01:24 GMT

Had company; missed the broadcast. I appreciate the time you took to explain your view of the NYT article, Brian. I agree with Lisa M's first post; everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I just find it intriguing that more people come here and post only when they have an ax to grind. Seems to be a symptom of any website I happen upon. Also seems very simple to me: no one forces anyone to watch a particular program. If you don't agree, turn the channel. That's the #1 reason I know watch Nightly News over the "other guy" I had been watching. With the internet these days, you can find just about any opinion you want, so why fuss with one that doesn't suit your tastes? Then again, harsh words are also subject to the reader's interpretation; when you can't hear the inflections of a person's voice and see the person's face, you loose some of that important communication. Just my two cents on the issue.

Wish I'd been able to see the story on Amtrak. One day I'm going to take the train to Boston.... I promise I will! It's the "in" thing to do around here!

Glad you're okay, Jackie!

Different Times

Dane, Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:02:37 GMT

Brian:
I appreciate your belief in the honesty and sincerity of the military men you hired as analysts. At the same time, there is no doubt that they were getting special treatment from the pentagon. When a doctor writes a research paper, they must disclose from where they got financial support. Was it a drug company? Many medical schools are now banning special treatments (free samples, lunches) from drug company representatives to avoid questions of conflict of interest. I have no doubt that most physicians are honest and sincere in their work, but the conflict of interest questions should not be hidden.

In matters of life and death, such as whether to go to war or to continue a war, an American media consumer (excepting Fox News) has an expectation that their news is free from propaganda or bias. When a news organization like NBC fails to address or disclose conflicts of interest in their analysts, they are not fulfilling their responsibility.

So no matter how much you personally vouch for your analysts' integrity, the fact remains that NBC, and all major television news sources were using men in whom there was an obvious potential conflict of interest- The pentagon was sculpting the information available to them and providing them with perks. Yet the TV news never disclosed the conflicts, and has not even acknowledged the NY Times' in-depth story on the air....

To me, this is a failure to adhere to core responsibilities of journalism.

Different Times

Craig McDonald — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:06:19 GMT

The NYT article and the Nation article referenced above raise some pretty serious questions about the integrity and reliability of NBC News. So please excuse me if I'm not willing to simply take your word for it that your friends wouldn't do anything wrong. Since we're constantly being reminded that "the news business is a BUSINESS" it may be useful to think of this in terms of a business term that everyone understands: brand. Asking us to accept the integrity of your commentators on your say-so in the face of very real and serious questions hurts the brand of NBC News. Nightly news pieces on Miley Cyrus hurt the brand of NBC News. Investigative and appropriately skeptical journalism build the brand of NBC News. The lack of willingness to address the military analysts story begs the "bottom line" question that should make sense to the corporation: is NBC News concerned with its brand?

Different Times

don wilson,brooklyn,ny — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:06:22 GMT

Was my comment to truthful??..still think you should read glenn greenwald's column in salon Brian...its right on about you and the state of the news media today..could be a wake up call..stranger things have happen..you might even remember why you wanted to be a journalist..but then again maybe not..just a "Vinny" from the blog..

Different Times

Clark Jones, Saint Leonard, MD — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:07:51 GMT

Brian,

In response to the writer who questioned why the generals did not speak out sooner or while in uniform, I offer the following thougts.

Officers of all military branches take an oath of office during which they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". The Constitution outlines many responsibilities, one of which is the President is Commander in Chief of the military.

While in the service your opinions are subordinate to the commands of the seniors and a good leader does not permit his subordinates to know if they differ. A leader owes his superiors 100% commitment to their positions and orders. That does not mean there is not a lot of discussion in private between subordinates and superiors but once the decision is made all must comply.

If an officer feels strongly a position or order crosses a moral, ethical or legal boundary he must make a decision whether in good conscience, he can continue to serve. Although the boundary has been crossed, an officer is still bound by the oath of office and allegianceto the chain of command until they resign.

Officers recognize they have given up many freedoms guaranteed civilians under the Constitution, one of which is freedom of speach. Only when they are no longer serving as a military officer are all their freedoms restored.

Different Times

Kelly Armstrong, Louisville, Kentucky — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:25:18 GMT

Thanks for the laugh Brian, I really needed it. Like millions and millions of other Americans, I stopped watching network news a long time ago. All of you are beholden to corporate interest and the quality of your product shows. It's a shame that the US media, you very much included, shoved this war down our throats and failed to ask the critical questions. That you would ignore something as important as this story says volumes about the integrity of NBC News and it's employees.

Different Times

Frank Schmitz, Fall (blue collar) River, MA. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:33:24 GMT

Since Brian is "just folks" like me, he knows the news we need to know.

Can't wait for more naughty Hannah Montana updates on tonight's broadcast, or something on Jeremiah Wright.

Health care. Nope...too boring and too complicated.

BTW: I last boarded an airplane in 1987, so does that mean the Supreme Court said I can't vote?

Different Times

Michael Ruschau, Indianapolis IN. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:36:25 GMT

Brian, I am a honorably discharged U.S.Navy veteren with over 9 years of service. I would like to thank you for your genuine support of the military. I feel America needs to remember we have a Democracy and not a Dictatorship as our governing body. No one person causes or solves the problems of this great country. It requires actions from at least 2 and sometimes all 3 branches of government for change to take place. I think alot of us could use a refresher course in civics. If we truly want change, it must start at all levels of government not just the Presidency. Please continue the wonderful job you do and I will continue to watch you nightly. P.S. America if you must protest, protest the government not the military, remember they protect your right to protest. Thank you.

Different Times

Frank Schmitz, Fall River, MA. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:42:02 GMT

Joe Standish,of Portland, Oregon asks "How many anti-war people does NBC News employed on an "of counsel" basis? You know, those people who doubted the WMD evidence, who thought UN inspections were working, who thought we should have a plan for after the invasion, and have never been employed by the Pentagon? You know, the people who were right. Do you have any on staff? It would be nice to hear from people who demand hard evidence (rather than just administration say so) about future conflicts such as Iran. Can you name one?"

Let me answer for Brian: Michael O'Hanlon, of Brookings is, according to Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer, a well-known war opponent, and appears to be "of counsel" for all of the networks.

Different Times

harry williams,ret,faifax, va — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:43:22 GMT

col wayne downing was the guy featured in my briefing videos when i did the at/fp thing while active duty, he was very respected for his expert insights into potential and real global threats. the tv analyst thing became a easy route for old soldiers still with working brains, whether or not they leaned 6 or 12 was an individual choice. i like to think col downing was a straight shooter instead.

Different Times

Justin, Atlanta — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:48:35 GMT

Brian,

I will no longer be watching NBC News.
Your behavior on this issue is unprofessional.

Different Times

Matthew, Austin, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:48:52 GMT

The point isn't that the two particular pentagon shills you like best said things you felt were not the party line.

How do you even find out what the party line is?

How is it ok that you present people as independent when they're not, even if you somehow feel it's ok because the propaganda they spewed was subtle enough to fool most of us country rubes?

Isn't part of being a competent journalist identifying not only the content of someone's speech, but the context out of which that speech emerges?

Then again, we both know you're really just a guy who looks good in a suit and can read out loud in a serious voice.

If you want that Edward Murrow respect from Americans, you have to have that Edward Murrow integrity and competence. When you allow shills to come and spew propaganda without even having the decency to point out who pays them, you're doing your country a disservice.

A correct response to this revelation on your part might be a little shame and contrition, not the smug hubris we've seen to date.

Mock the times if you must, and granted I would very much like to have the 10 minutes I spent on that dating vs babysitting article back, but at least they have the stones to admit their failures, unlike yourself.

Different Times

Peace Brother — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:52:14 GMT

I guess no one expected you to admit that you have been dutifully spouting this criminal and corrupt administration's talking points. Pat yourselves on the back for being the "team" players that you and the rest of the mainstream media are for Bush and Cheney's ruination of our country.

Different Times

Crust — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:52:25 GMT

I highly recommend Glenn Greenwald's response to Brian Williams:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/index.html

It's essentially a longer, documented version of howard L.'s comment above.

Different Times

Robin, Peoria, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:53:34 GMT

Even if I accepted your defense (which I don't - see Glenn Greenwald's much broader view of the situation), why didn't NBC report this story to its viewers? A front page story in the NYT, denouncements from Clinton and Obama, investigations to be initiated by Congress, and finally suspension of the program by the Pentagon. But it put the major networks in a bad light, so not one word on any of it for viewers of the Nightly News (or any other network news show). How convenient.

Different Times

R. Mutt, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:54:40 GMT

"But far worse, the specific, undisclosed conflicts of both McCaffrey and Downing -- the two Generals cited by Williams to prove NBC did nothing wrong -- were disclosed more than four years ago by The Nation. And there is no way that NBC and Williams can claim not to have known about it, since The Nation described those ties as specifically as could be. Did NBC ask the Generals about these ties? Did they consider disclosing them to their viewers? Did the undislcosed ties violate NBC News policy? Does NBC have policies now to prevent this from happening again? Who knows? NBC refuses to comment on any of this.

[snip]...Apparently, the substantial financial interests of their "independent" military experts to advocate for the war were simply "not their interest." Of course, it's not all that surprising that NBC News doesn't consider these conflicts worth noting, given that, as a subsidiary of General Electric, a corporation that also profits greatly from increased defense spending and wars, NBC is plagued by the very same conflicts."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/

Different Times

Greg F. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:56:39 GMT

Brian, did you ever disclose the participation of either Barry McCaffrey or Wayne Downing in the 25-member Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

Different Times

Sean Olsen, Chaska, Minn. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:58:21 GMT

"I think it's fair, of course, to hold us to account for the military analysts we employ, inasmuch as we can ever fully know the "off-duty" actions of anyone employed on an "of counsel" basis by us."

Well, Brian, it'd be far better if you did your homework up front so you didn't get yourself in a position where you've got clearly compromised "analysts" on your airwaves. As has been pointed out, the ties of these folks were hardly a secret. If you spent a fraction of the time looking into your "analysts" as you did parsing Rev. Wright's comments or reporting on how much John Edwards' haircuts cost, maybe you wouldn't have to make these specious defenses of your behavior.

Different Times

B. Kagan, Merion, Pennsylvania — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:17 GMT

Brian: Greenwald's columns are devasting. We have known for years that we were being feed "hookum" by the analysts.....none of whom were actually against the war.........only anti rumsfield at best. You owe yourself a good look in the mirror and the kind of self reflection absent defensiveness that will allow to learn from this debacle. a real mea culpa would help as well. there is plenty of complicity to go around. accept your share gracefully and with full awareness of the mistakes you have made. by the way, no regular guys i know drive a g2.

Different Times

darcylu, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:20 GMT

Good comment from "howard L.".

Brian, you wer the only evening newscaster I listened to anymore, however in the last month, the more I hear on your broadcast, the less it seems to matter, so NOW I can't even listen to you.

You and all the other commercial networks have become irrelevant. And I chose to not pay for cable. But I do watch PBS, and I will increase my support of public broadcasting even more and more in the future. Thanks to you.

Different Times

Chris S., San Francisco, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:03:19 GMT

Glenn Greenwald explains why this is such an outrageous conflict of interest:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/

I look forward to your response on the nightly news.

Different Times

Anna — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:05:05 GMT

Hey, Norman, I hope you are having a great day in NYC. Funny what viewers notice. I was watching CNN one day and they were showing FOX in the background -- Bill O no less! I think all of the networks watch each other. Hey, let me know if you see the Cartoon Network running on CNN. (Chuckles)

Hi Howard. Journalism today is crazy! I agree. That's why I watch and read from many sources. In the meantime, I look at the celebrity that has been brought into the news at the network and cable level. Some of these celebrities I don't believe because I have watched them over the long-term.

Others I believe are really trying to "get it right the first time." Overall, I would give Brian an A minus. I think as Managing Editor and Anchor he does his best in 22 minutes per day. Will he make mistakes? Absolutely. He is human just like you and me.

When I read on this blog folks poking fun of Brian's salary and his homes and family, I just wonder could the average man or women handle all of this?

While his compensation package is large so isn't the budget at network news, don't forget agent's fees, federal, state, local and city taxes in NYC. At the end of the day, 55% of that paycheck is gone. Net, net of it all, isn't this America? Doesn't every man and woman have the opportunity to maximize their income based on their talents and experiences? I hope that opportunity continues to exist in America for every man and women.

Just a few thoughts for Wednesday!

Different Times

Brian S — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:10:20 GMT

Mr. Williams, if NBC and the other networks made a sincere effort to put objective analysts on the air, how do you explain the "coincidence" of the fact that so many of these analysts turned out to be Pentagon sock-puppets?

I actually would be willing to cut you some slack if you simply admitted that you put on their air pro-war analysts working with the Pentagon to push propaganda, but that you did so because you considered it your responsibility as a corporate citizen to aid the war effort once the decision had been made to go to war. Saying "Look, once we're at war, we're going to show a certain deference because that's what the public expects, and because we want the nation to succeed," would still be bad, and would still be an indictment of NBC's journalism across the board, but at least it wouldn't insult my intelligence. But the fact that you prefer simply to deny the network's obvious bias is really regrettable.

Different Times

Rod Brady, Somerset, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:11:06 GMT

Brian Williams: "It's ok, they're my friends and we're all really patriotic, so you'll just have to trust us, despite all evidence to the contrary."

Different Times

Attaturk, west des moines, iowa — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:14:12 GMT

Retired Generals McCaffrey & Downing were NEVER war skeptics in regard to Iraq, they were war supporters from the beginning. At no point is this ever pointed out...at no point has NBC News attempted to use military experts that opposed this war or stood up to Pentagon spin ... or who had an interest with defense contractors.

They are out there and available...

And your FRIENDSHIP with these individuals is NOT a defense, it is far closer to an indictment, not of them, but you.

Different Times

bob smith — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:16:06 GMT

Read this article, then make up your mind Brian Williams and the rest of the news media were honest.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/

Different Times

Ed, Reston, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:16:24 GMT

Your "analysts" are neocon partisans who were prime movers in banging the drum for war with Iraq - meaning you gave a platform to these buffoons to get us into the debacle we are currently in. As a result, we are less safe than before the war with huge resulting deficits and more Iraqi civilian deaths under US occupation than under Saddam. You are complicit in all of this.

What's the Brian Williams mantra - "give war a chance" ? Can we go back to "give peace a chance" ? Or is that not manly enough for ya?

Different Times

Sy, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:17:19 GMT

"All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. ... I knew full well whenever either man went on a fact-finding mission or went for high-level briefings. They never came back spun, and never attempted a conversion. They are warriors-turned-analysts, not lobbyists or politicians."

Kool-Aid. Tastes. So. Good.

"They are warriors-turned-analysts ..." That's rich. Try warriors-turned-mercenary cheerleaders.

Different Times

Clint D — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:17:49 GMT

I'd invite anyone who is interested in this story to read Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon. He has some lengthy posts backed by numerous quotes and evidence to support his claims. In short, he exposes Brian Williams for the hack he is.

Different Times

Emily, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:20:57 GMT

Brian - good try. You failed to mention that these military experts that you claim to be such great men were on the board of defense contractors and personally profited from this war. Why doesn't NBC at least acknowledge that? I will NEVER watch NBC News again. Not that CBS or ABC is any better. They are all a joke!!!

Different Times

Pablo Navarro, Canada — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:21:56 GMT

I know why Mr. Williams won't address the topic seriously, he's as complicit as the Pentagon Message Force Multipliers in the propagandizing of the war. It's really that simple.

For example, a responsible and principled journalist would disclose to viewers the relevant background of an expert guest, just as Mr. Williams did on his November 24, 2003 broadcast:

WILLIAMS: Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey joins us from Seattle tonight. He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, two Distinguished Service Crosses, was a division commander during the first Gulf War.

These days, he's a professor at West Point and an NBC News military analyst, and I know him well enough to know that he's going to want to say a word here, General, and please feel free, about the value of sergeant majors in the U.S. Army who are as talented and as beloved as that man.

But, Mr. Williams chose to mislead, to lie by omission, by failing to mention that the General was also on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, whose stated purpose was:

"...educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny."

To have mentioned this very relevant information would call the General's independence into question, and hence his value as an expert guest on the broadcast. Mr. Williams did not do this, just as he continues to sweep the Pentagon Military Analysts' news story under the rug.

Mr. Williams is the news, and he doesn't want to report on it.

Different Times

Mark from Canada — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:22:03 GMT

Hi Brian. Don't let the critics and little people get you down. You still look *great*, and that smooth authoritative voice of yours could sell ice to the Inuit or sand to the Arabs. I'm sure the NBC/GE paychecks will keep coming, and that's what really matters in the end.

Different Times

Jim M., Madison WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:23:49 GMT

Brian,

It is your responsibility as a journalist to fully disclose whatever interests your sources have that a reasonable person might consider to be conflicting. It is not your responsibility to reason for we the viewers whether or not there really is one. To paraphrase those god-awful hacks over at Fox "you report (and disclose), we decide." In these matters you should always err on the side of disclosure. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that I had to find out about this conflict of interest through The NYT and Glenn Greenwald's column in Salon.com.

Different Times

cynicalgirl, Piscataway, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:26:37 GMT

If their intentions were honorable as you suggest, why didn't you disclose the obvious conflicts years ago? Why would you intentionally keep your viewers in the dark? And since it's illegal for the Pentagon to propagandize, why won't you report it on air? Shouldn't you report on government law-breaking? Or would that be an admission of your bias?

The so-called "liberal media" has exposed itself as a shill for the government when they failed to question the WMDs. You could have avoided this mess that Bush created. Instead, you continue the deception.

It's time you people start questioning an obvious corrupt government instead of enabling them. It's your job!

Different Times

Jim, Chicago — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:26:50 GMT

Williams is clearly out of his league on the nightly news. Asking his viewers to essentially "trust him" because these generals are his friends is even worse than his failure to cover the story at all. These men were exposed as war advocates several years ago, when they served on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq with such neocons as Bill Kristol and Richard Perle. Both generals have direct ties to the defense industry. Yet Williams never divulged any of this information to his viewers, and never relied on the many generals who opposed this war from the beginning for their expertise. I guess nobody should be surprised when the owner of NBC, GE, stands to make billions off this war.

Different Times

Mark Tresgard — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:27:47 GMT

Thank you Brian for addressing the controversy about the generals employed by NBC, but could you talk about the questions of legality surrounding this, as pointed out in this column?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Also, I believe the other poster made a good point. How about NBC employ people who have actually been right about how the whole course of the Iraq invasion has gone? Those are the ones that said crazy things like: "The invasion is really going to be about oil. You just watch. Not only will we find no WMD, but we'll end up staying there after getting rid of Hussein!" Now shouldn't NBC be employing true experts like that? One would almost think that there is some kind of nexus between NBC and the military invasion/occupation, but that would be crazy conspiratoial thinking. I know you can't change everything there at NBC Brian, but you should try. Shouldn't you?

Different Times

Samantha, Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:28:49 GMT

Hey Brian,
I see why your viewership is down to historic lows, but don't let that stop you, have more nerve like your general buddies, who sat on the commitee to liberate iraq while pushing for war on your network.

Different Times

Jim, Madison, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:30:05 GMT

Mr. Williams,

First, I generally admire your work, and ... SNL sense of humor.

However, your column on military analysts wholly fails to address the relevant issues -- as described in Glenn Greenwald's 4/30 Salon column. This is truly troubling and as it directly goes to your credibility, I hope you will elect to forthrightly address these issues in detail. Thanks.

Different Times

Sean Clancy, Los Angeles — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:30:22 GMT

The depths to which our media has sunk (a prime example of which is being provided here by Mr. Williams) is infuriating and unconscionable. They don't ask hard questions, and they don't challenge the Bush administration's orthodoxy. To quote Helen Thomas last week, "Where is everybody?"

For those of you who are blindly defending Mr. Williams, please read today's article by Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/index.html), which explicity refutes, with documentation, Mr. Williams' patently false denials of his failure to report the news, his complicity in participating in the propaganda, and his mind-boggling claims that he did nothing wrong. Either he's a liar ... or he truly believes his "analysts" weren't compromsed, then he's a dupe and a mindless talking head. In either case he has no business purporting to be a journalist, and no business being seen and heard on our national media (which needs a thorough cleaning-out from the bottom up).

Different Times

N. Shah, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:31:36 GMT

Both of these generals were outspoken advocates for the war in 2003, having participated in an organization, "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" whose mission statement advocated immediate invasion of Iraq; to characterize them as objective analysts is fatuous. Add to that fact (which should have been disclosed at the beginning of every interview with either general but never was) the generals' lobbying and consulting engagements in the defense industry and you have a substantial conflict.

And please don't hide behind the smokescreen of patriotism--of course the generals are patriotic, the question is whether they were biased. That's not your decision to make--you owe it to your viewers to let them know about any potential conflicts so they can evaluate opinions accordingly. In this case, when these generals very regularly advocated "staying the course," viewers would have been enlightened to know that they also advocated for the war to begin with, and that they have a continuing financial incentive to continue to do so.

The NY Times story didn't tell us anything new, except for the relatively predictable disclosure that the Pentagon was selectively providing briefings to pro-war generals with the intention of lobbying the American public in favor of the war. That effort was likely illegal. But that cynical effort by DoD would have never worked if networks like your own did a reasonable job vetting their analysts, irrespective of your apparent belief that earning a certain number of stars absolves of you of basic journalistic obligations.

Major media's coverage of this war has been marked by the kind of favoritism for the pro-war side that ought to be reserved for state-owned media in less democratic societies.

Do you honestly not see what the issue is here?

Different Times

Chris, Georgia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:32:22 GMT

Dear Brian:

"I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that." Wrong on both counts.

For your generals and NBC to not disclose that the generals were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq is beyond dishonest. When will the media accept their corrupt, lazy role in "catapulting the propaganda"? Acknowledgement of the problem is the first step toward recovery.

Go to salon.com and read Glenn Greenwald---a dreaded blogger doing the job of a network news reporter or anchor.

Different Times

just john, Poughkeepsie, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:32:42 GMT

Heckuva job, Briany!

Your Medal of Freedom is on its way.

Different Times

Pat Doyle, Austin Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:35:57 GMT

It should now be glaringly apparent to any objective observer here that Williams is a Limbaugh-loving GOP shill. Just say no to the corporate media. It's the humane thing to do.

Different Times

ted disante — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:39:51 GMT

Mr Williams is acting as the perfect simulacrum for the current state of Network News: (1) Assertion posing as Fact. "I just don't think it's that way." (2) Cronyism Conquers All. "My friends are noble and virtuous because they are my friends. Look at their shiny medals!" (3) Style Over Substance. "I'm pretty, so who cares what I say?"

In fact the 2 generals were not objective and not independent. They were Pentagon shills feasting at the Pentagon's trough. Seems that Mr Williams spends more time on his tan and haircuts than he does analyzing & reporting. What a fraud.

Different Times

Stephen Johnson, Madison WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:19 GMT

Brian,
That's a pathetic defense of your putting bought and paid for "analysts" on the air without noting their obvious conflicts of interest. Are you a journalist, or a vapid corporate propagandist, selling the wares of your owners, GE? I guess the answer's obvious.

Different Times

Scott O, Madison, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:43:35 GMT

Your two military heroes/sources used to prove your point are founding members of "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq"... and you knew it.

Different Times

Heather Campbell, Pittsburgh PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:50 GMT

You "think" these are good men. You "think" they were telling you their honest opinion. I don't really care what you "think". You are a reporter, right? Prove to me that they are honest men. Prove to me that they had no ulterior motives? Prove to me that they weren't just pushing the Bush line. Prove to me that you didn't know that there was a potential conflict of interest with these guys. I am never again going to watch network news. You have all lost your credibility. good luck trying to get it back.

Different Times

Kevin, Council Bluffs, IA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:57:47 GMT

You trust the generals and ask us to trust you. Based on what? You have misled us so far with paid propagandists.

Different Times

Mike, Bellevue, Wash — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:58:25 GMT

This post doesn't address the substantive points of the NYT article at all.

I know this is was a personal blog post and not an official response. On the other hand, TASS hasn't seen fit to give an official response, so dribs and drabs like this blog are all we get.

Different Times

Mike T, Baltimore — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:58:33 GMT

Nobody is saying that Downing and McCaffrey are not "guys" that you are friends with. That, in fact, is part of the problem.

They are not independent. As members of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq they are self described advocates of the war in Iraq. Also, at the time they were giving this analysis they were paid defense contractors. None of this was ever disclosed. On air, in print, anywhere.

You (NBC) provided partisan war advocacy under the guise of 'military analysis' without disclosing any conflicts.

You fully understand that what you and NBC did was unprofessional. But the consequences of your failures assault us on a daily basis. Your sins are so large they can't be forgiven with just an apology. That's why you never offered one. Not because Downing and McCaffrey are "guys."

Different Times

Elaine T — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:59:17 GMT

Brian,

I appreciate your finally covering this story, but your piece hardly addresses the blackout of it in general among the networks. It's clear that you addressed it only because readers of your blog sort of forced your hand, and when you did, it is full of support for the generals themselves--whether or not they were compromised--rather than the media's complicity. See the difference? You focus on the military's (potential) lapse of ethics rather your own.

I happen to remember many of your broadcasts of Gen. McCaffrey, and I agree his voice seemed more independent than some others. Nevertheless, you and your network owed it to your listeners to 1. expose his bias in promoting the war (any objections he aired related to the execution of the war, not its existence), and 2. offer more varying viewpoints that questioned not only the execution of the war but its rationale.

Different Times

Ryan D. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:59:51 GMT

There's only going to be a certain level of accountability from the "journalists" and pundits that we trust to report the news or offer political opinions. The politicians and those who cover them, like Mr. Williams, are part of the same elite social group and attend the same functions.

Too much bashing or trash talking will result in fewer invitations and opportunities to rub elbows with the connected and powerful - sources of "information" will be lost. Isn't it telling that David Gregory is seen on stage dancing with Karl Rove during Rove's infamous rap at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner? Do you think Stephen Colbert is ever going to be invited back to the W.H. Correspondent's dinner?

I watch evening news only occasionally and appropriately treat much of its content as suspect at best, propaganda at worst. If one cares to see what a nightly news cast should be like, with reporters who haven't tossed aside their ethics and critical thinking skills, try the BBC. If you can't stand the thought of off-shoring your news, Olbermann and Stewart are about the only other choices.

Different Times

Blogger Ethics Panel, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:01:05 GMT

A better news division would have disclosed McCaffrey's and Downey's ties to neoconservative organizations that were devoted, pre-war, to molding public opinion in favor of forceable regime change in Iraq, so that NBC's viewers could make their own assessment of their credibility.

You write that it's "fair, of course, to hold us to account for the military analysts we employ". But how can anyone do that when you fail to disclose the analysts' affiliations -- at least ones (like those disclosed in the Nation article cited above) that are directly relevant to assessing their potential biases?

Different Times

Jim CH, Encino, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:03:38 GMT

Gee, Brian, not one bit of abashed apology, not one acknowledgment that the media were duped (yourself included, Dude!) by the Pentagon's nefarious propaganda program. Instead, you bluster that your hands are clean, your conscience pure...if there was evildoing, it was surely someone else, one some other network, right?
A real man admits his mistakes, Brian.

Different Times

katherine j, Wisconsin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:03:42 GMT

Brian - is there any pretense of journalistic responsibilities at NBC or the other major networks? Tell me why I should stick with MSM? I feel I've been taken to the cleaners. You having been exposed by this NYT article and your less-than-above-board response. You were the last network I was willing to watch for national news - now it's on to something else. The web offers a wide range of viewpoints that are clear about their own agendas. At least I know what I'm getting.

Different Times

John Doe, Seattle Washington USA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:04:43 GMT

I have never heard anyone say that we know that Iraq had WMDs. He got them from the US, and they were used on the Iranians, and Kurds. Is that information secret?

Different Times

Algernon D'Ammassa, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:05:58 GMT

The fact that these generals offered criticisms of the war on occasion does not make the conflict of interest go away, Mr. Williams. The conflict itself is what is at issue. I'm not poised to write poison pen letters on blogs at any opportunity. I am compelled to post here, however, because it is rather astonishing that this serious expose about your network's conduct, and what would be multiple violations of the law by the Pentagon, remains unaddressed by you.

Different Times

Alexei Panshin, Quakertown, Pennsylvania — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:07:45 GMT

I was a regular nightly news watcher for forty years. I gave it up in the run-up to the Iraq invasion when programs like yours put nothing but people boosting the coming shock and awe on the air, even though it was apparent that it could only lead to something like the present situation. McCaffrey and Downing may be swell fellows. You yourself came across as the jolly good fellow you present yourself as in this blog when you appeared on The Daily Show. That doesn't make it any less clear that you've soiled yourself. The New York Times (which doesn't have clean hands) and Howard Kurtz and Glenn Greenwald have your number. And being a goodfellow who keeps company with goodfellows and swears by them, doesn't alter what you are and what you do -- it confirms it.

Different Times

Mykola Kulish — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:09:14 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams,

The generals have ties to the defense establishment and constitute what that "pinko" General Eisenhower termed the "military industrial complex" and you were obliged to reveal their ties to military contractors just like you do when you do a story on GE, NBC's parent company.

But you didn't, did you? And you still don't. The fact that Gen. McCaffrey is your friend is no guarantee that he is an impartial and unbiased analyst, is it?

It's called basic journalism, Mr. Williams, something that neither you nor NBC news seem to think should be applied to the stories you report.

Shame on you for trivializing and dishonoring the four thousand dead and countless wounded by not honestly covering this unprovoked war. Mission Accomplished indeed!

As a former viewer I wish you luck in your next job as Pentagon propagandist. You Sir, are a hack.

Different Times

J. St. Lawrence — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:13:25 GMT

This is a weak response, Mr. Williams. Your personal opinions of the various analysts' character notwithstanding, your news organization and others failed utterly to examine your sources, and abetted the administration in "selling" the Congress and the public an incredibly ill-advised, destructive war.

You all chose, again and again, to eschew any actual journalism in favor of what amounted to nothing more than sophisticated "press releases" from the administration and its many paid stooges.

Beyond merely ignoring the direct conflicts of interest these "analysts" had in commenting on the war, the fact that many of these retired military officials were being coached and paid by the Pentagon is not only evidence of a possible crime (domestic propaganda) of enormous proportions that you and your colleagues deliberately ignored, it *was* the story you should have been covering, rather than lazily passing along to your viewers the information handed to you by those you knew, at best, were paid members of administration-friendly "think tanks" who also had personal, vested financial interests in sending America into a pointless, destructive war.

American journalism has as much to answer for as we look at the debacle of the Iraq war, and television journalism in particular has reached a new low of uncritical, unthoughtful, unvaluable prattle that often does not even rise to the level of what journalists used to derisively refer to as "info-tainment."

It's up to you Mr. Williams, to decide whether your news program is going to be an evening version of a coffee-and-gossip morning show, or whether any effort will be made to use the investigative power of good, responsible journalism to serve the public, rather than simply to support the stock prices of another multinational conglomerate.

Different Times

Trina Lee, San Fransico, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:13:43 GMT

If Mr. Williams does not see the obvious problems with having military analysts give commentary on our approach to and conduct in the Iraq War and Occupation without disclosing their ideological and financial interests in the war, then perhaps he dropped out of college before he got to the section on real and apparent conflicts of interest in his journalism classes.

Different Times

Pat H, Prescott, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:16:01 GMT

"At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers."
By not disclosing every time they spoke that they were making money off the war they pushed a rosy agenda.
These guys you defend because you like them have financial ties to the military industrial complex and were versed in talking points by the Pentagon. None of that was ever disclosed by them, yourself, or NBC. That is corrupt.

Different Times

Aron Blue Brooklyn, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:19:01 GMT

So happy I don't watch the news. Your network has been shamelessly pumping pure pro-war propaganda into the living rooms of Americans, and your only response is hey, these are good guys. Thanks. Glad that's settled.

Different Times

cogn8 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:21:29 GMT

Mr. Williams -
I wonder if you have decided to cover Iran differently, based on the information that has come out on military analysts. Will you restrict their analysis to tactical implementations of policy? Will you enhance your coverage with historians who know the region? Will you seek out more skeptical voices to better inform the public and provoke a richer exchange of information? I wonder.
If you cannot admit mistakes, you can't learn from them.

Different Times

Brett B, Dallas, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:24:01 GMT

Wikepedia defines a conflict of interest as:
"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.

However, conflicts of interest do not only apply to professionals. A conflict of interest arises when anyone has two duties which conflict - for example an employee's duty to well and faithfully perform their work as purchasing manager, and that same employee's familial duty to their sibling who happens to be tendering for the sale of widgets to the employee's employer. In that case the employee has a conflict of interest, despite the fact that they are not a lawyer, doctor, politician etc"
This is an obvious case of conflict of interest. Wikepedia goes on to say that there are several ways to remedy conflict of interest to include: Removal, disclosure, recusal, and third-party evaluations. It states that a code of ethics helps minimize the potential for conflicts of interest by creating ethics policy standards and managing effectively to maintain them. If you look at it strictly from a literal, black and white perspective, this appears to be a conflict of interest caused by a lack of code of ethics and/or lack of full-disclosure.

Different Times

Greg in LA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:24:56 GMT

Shame on you, Brian Williams. Cover the story, admit your mistake and stop showing your right-wing bias. Shame shame shame.

Different Times

Tom Ritchford — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:25:57 GMT

And, wow, Glenn Greenwald has eaten your lunch, and your dinner and your tomorrow's breakfast: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/

I defy you, Mr. Williams, to look at all the photos here in this photo-documentary called Children of Iraq: http://zonaeuropa.com/20040504_1.htm There are a lot of them; and you bear some responsibility for each one.

Different Times

Chr.Sweet,NY,NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:26:21 GMT

Our nations is in a disaster in Iraq, but before we went in - sure the invasion would be a cakewalk - did no one in the Pentagon have any qualms worth mentioning about the operation? Any concerns or doubts or worries about the preparations, about the aftermath of the invasion? About the consequences of the invasion? From McCaffrey and/or Downing and/or Williams? None? Of course, Brian Williams has nothing but respect for these men and their expert commentary, because they all agreed with each other. They were all on the same side, promoting the Bush policy. The mainstream media and the Pentagon have failed the American people and contributed to the endangerment of our democracy and the weakening of our country. A disaster from beginning to end and still they pat each other on the back concurring in how honorable they are. I scorn you. Bush goes in some months, how long will NBC last?

Different Times

Lettuce — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:31:40 GMT

Are you planning, now, at least to say something n the NBC News and apologize?

Different Times

Nina Kohl, Greenfield, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:36:45 GMT

This is still a democracy, and the Fourth Estate still has an obligation to play its part in it. The Pentagaon Pundit story is an extremely important one, and your viewers have a right to know about it. I'm deeply disappointed in you, Mr. Williams. I love this country and its liberty and I think it's disgraceful that you would watch its citizens be propagandized and say nothing. Needless to say, I will no longer watch your program, because, as a citizen in a democracy, I need actual news in order to play my part. Please play yours.

Different Times

chuck cushman washington DC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:37:14 GMT

GEN McCaffrey is a great American, a wonderful Army officer, and 100% in the tank for whatever DOD wants. And NBC happily lets him announce the party line

Different Times

Jose Chavez, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:37:29 GMT

Brian, you should be ashamed of yourself, honestly.

Different Times

Walt Askier , Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:38:07 GMT

Shorter Brian Williams:
"Downing and McCaffrey are good old boys, just like myself. We'd never do anything like that. You can trust us."

When trying to determine whether Williams was duped by the phony analysts or whether he was complicit in disseminating propaganda, this weighs heavily on the complicit side.

Different Times

JP — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:38:27 GMT

"inasmuch as we can ever fully know the "off-duty" actions of anyone employed on an "of counsel" basis by us"

You can know if you try - especially if they are your "friends". It wasn't hard for others to find out their conflict of interest. Would you consider this good journalism?

Different Times

Bill Batten — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:39:09 GMT

Mr. Williams:

You defended your two "military analysts" never mentioning that they had extensive ties to the Pentagon, military contractors and an advocacy group which wanted us to invade Iraq. There are three possible explanations for this. You are either lazy, stupid or dishonest. You might be a combination of these things. One thing you are not, however, is an honest journalist. You are a propagandist, plain and simple.

Different Times

RobWyoming — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:40:43 GMT

Mr. Williams,
I have no doubt that the two men you wrote about are good people, patriotic and hard-working. In truth, no one ever questioned that, not even the NYT, if you read carefully. The NYT story recounted the suspicion that "analysts" were being given access to government briefings and free flights to Bahgdad if the analysts' coverage was favorable. The NYT also reported that some "analysts" resisted or blew the whistle on this alleged attempt by the pentagon to curry favor with the American public (which may or may not be bad). The important thing is that the story be told, letting the viewers decide the degree of propriety or lackthereof. Your personal defense of your friends does not address this issue, and the quotation about the then-debated "civil war" status in Iraq is a pale attempt to contradict the allegation and results in further suspicion upon your defendees, which they may not deserve. Rather than make this story personal, may we, your viewers, humbly suggest that you address head-on the issue of suspicion of improper influence of "analysts." I don't belive it is your role as a news anchor to stick up for your friends on the national scene. Those are peronal matters for you to deal with off-camera and not in an news column. Rather, your job is to tell the news without fear or favor. We don't think that the two gentlemen you defended in your piece are demons. Quite the contrary, we have great respect for their service AND their views. But, that does not address the issue that has emerged. Please, tell the news, lest your network become a "fair and balanced" Diet-Fox that reports, unapoligetic, that Obama was educated in a Madrassa in Africa, or that gives us the scoop on whom J-lo is dating rather than outlining the contents of the latest farm bill or energy bill or the de-classified portions of the National Intelligence Report. Time is precious, as any television person knows. You have a great deal of power to influence the country. Be careful how you wield this power.
Rob

Different Times

Ernest, Chicago — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:44:22 GMT

Michael O'Hanlon was not a war opponent, despite his recent pleadings. A simple internet search will lead to ample documentation of that fact.

By the way, relying on Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer for anything is always problematic, unless you are search of the same conventional wisdom that is so often wrong. Just like ABC saying Downing and McCaffrey are tough critics of the war, these two identifying O'Hanlon as a war critic does not make him one.

Different Times

Bill,Boston,MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:44:24 GMT

Mr. Williams, I think a follow-up is in order!

Different Times

abiodun, Charlottesvile, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:53:40 GMT

So Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffery, "heavily decorated" 4-star generals became your friends....you totally missed the point of the NYT article! It is unfortunate that you refuse to see your complicity in over 4000 of our citizens dead in Iraq and over 40000 wounded(not counting Iraqi dead).
As long as the viewers see our MSM as a propaganda arm of the US govt no matter who is in the WH, you will continue to hemorrhage viewership and advertizing dollars.

Different Times

John Doble — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:54:23 GMT

Dear Brian, if this is the best you can do in terms of journalism, please stick to Saturday Night Live and Coffee Talk instead of the NBC Nightly News. You were terrific then. But what you've done in response to the Times story on the Pentagon's propaganda campaign is a disgrace.

Sincerely,

John Doble

Different Times

pmorlan, Louisville, KY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:55:23 GMT

Mr. Williams, I must say I'm sorely disappointed that you've failed to inform your viewers of the explosive NYT story and how NBC used retired Generals who were not independent observers as you represented but individuals who had obvious conflict of interests. I don't know how you can in good concience pretend that your silence is in any way ethical. And the fact that you still don't get it after all the comments I've read on your blog is very troubling.

I know that you are a huge fan of Dale Earnhardt as am I. One of the reasons I liked Dale was because he always strived to be the best. When it came to his kids he never let his feelings for them interfere with his job of racing. He treated them just like any other driver and didn't show favoritism. In your work it looks like you've let your friendship with the Generals cloud your judgement and get in the way of your duty as a journalist. You need to be more like Earnhardt if you ever want to be the best in your profession.

Different Times

Ruth Pabich,Thorp,Wisconsin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:59:44 GMT

You became "friends" with these two retired generals??? Who cares? Your job is to cover the news, not cozy up to your "analyists," swallowing whatever they say. Several years ago The Nation revealed McCaffry sits on the boards of several companies involved in multibillion dollar military contracts. Did your buddy tell you that?????

Different Times

David Prolliano, Columbus, GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:01:27 GMT

Brian,

I'm honestly curious as to why you have this blog and its comments section still on. Doesn't one of life's little rules go something like: "Once you find yourself in a hole, quit digging"?

I jumped over here from the Glenn Greenwald article because I had heard what a thumping you were taking and wanted to see if there was any road kill.

Worse than I thought, dude.

Why are you leaving the comments on since you are being stripped down to your media undies in such a merciless fashion that you will have no adequate comeback for? This is insane. This isn't Sunday morning with the NYT and having a few adoring fans stop by for a chat.

The blogosphere has discovered you. Don't you see that?

Don't you know that the few fans you have left are going see you exposed here?

Only explanations I can think of: (1) You don't realize what you are; (2) Think by leaving these comments open you are showing your "integrity"; (3)Don't have a clue how the blogosphere works or the role it plays in our political discourse.

Of those three, #1 scares me the most.

David Prolliano

Different Times

B Kulesz — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:03:11 GMT

Your estimate of these men reminds me of President Bush's statement of Vladimir Putin, when he looked into his "soul" and saw he was a "good man." No wonder you enjoyed Peggy Noonan's piece so much: it was based on the same facile, superficial "interpretation" of the candidates that seems to matter so much to you people in the TV news media. Policies? Legislative records? Doesn't matter...it's all about how "real" they can act.

The fact that Gens. McCaffrey and Downing were among the original signers of a pro-invasion group, or that they sat on the boards of contractors who stood to make millions from a war? Immaterial.

Just because YOU think these are good guys, Brian, just because they're personal friends of YOURS, does NOT make their business and ideological affiliations irrelevant to your viewers...i mean, either you're giving us the full story or you're not. it is, at best, condescending for you to omit these (critical) details (you KNOW these guys to be independent, facts be damned); at worst, it's dishonest and corrupt. either way, it ain't good journalism-- Murrow ( who made a habit of "afflicting the powerful") is no doubt rolling over in his grave.

Different Times

bdop4, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:10:33 GMT

You miss the entire issue at stake here. The fact is that by virtue of their affiliations with lobbying groups and defense contractors, these generals have an inherent conflict of interest which can't be dispelled by their alleged heroism, patriotism or integrity.

Journalism 101 (you should take it some time) demands that these affiliations be disclosed at a minimum, and that an opposing perspective be aired so the viewer can get BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY. Even tactical/strategic analysis contain elements of political ideology and allow the speaker to promote a position which advances his personal interests.

It's tragic that I even have to educate you on this point.

Different Times

Joan Dheere, Sebastian, Florida — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:10:36 GMT

Mr. Williams

Why do you and the rest of MSM and the 5 corporations who own them hate America and its citizens so much that you would continually progagandize the party line?? It was known about the generals 4 years ago and you have yet to honestly address your participation in this unfortunate period of American History. You and your well paid cronies have made a mockery of your professional ethics and responsibilities and you have helped weaken whatever democracy we may have left. Shame on you.

Different Times

Doug--Kansas City, MO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:14:23 GMT

Mr. Williams,

Your comments in response to the crushing amount of criticism received here in the past couple of days is unbelievably weak and disappointing. You admit to having these two men as sources who are your PERSONAL FRIENDS, with whom you hold close relationships. How in the world are we to believe you did not know of their CLEAR and PRESENT conflicts of interest by way of their involvement with neo-con pro-war advocacy groups and financial ties to the military industrial complex? These very issues were clearly investigated and reported at the time, appearing in great detail in publications such as The Nation.

Can you please respond to Glenn Greenwald's comments made today? Do you dare? Do you have even a shred of journalistic integrity with which to do so? Here is his summation:

"Just consider what is going on here. The core credibility of war reporting by Brian Williams and NBC News has been severely undermined by a major NYT expose. That story involves likely illegal behavior by the Pentagon, in which NBC News appears to have been complicit, resulting in the deceitful presentation of highly biased and conflicted individuals as "independent" news analysts. Yet they refuse to tell their viewers about any of this, and refuse to address any of the questions that have been raised.

More amazingly still, when Brian Williams is forced by a virtual mob on his blog yesterday finally to address this issue -- something he really couldn't avoid doing given that, the day before, he found time to analyze seven other NYT articles -- Williams cited McCaffrey and Downing as proof that they did nothing wrong, and insists that his and their credibility simply ought to be beyond reproach because they are good, patriotic men. But those two individuals in particular had all kinds of ties to the Government, the defense industry, and ideological groups which gave them vested interests in vigorous pro-war advocacy -- ties which NBC News knew about and failed to disclose, all while presenting these individuals to their millions of viewers as "independent." Is there anyone who thinks that behavior is anything other than deeply corrupt?"

Any response, Mr. Williams? How can you claim to be a journalist and at the same time claim ignorance to any and all of this very obvious evidence?

And.....care to comment on the contrast between you dis-respecting Elizabeth Edwards' Op-ed vs your hailing-as-great Peggy Noonan's demand that Obama worship a racist Nazi sympathizer?

Seriously, your entire credibility is humming a happy tune as it throws the stick and hobo bag over it's shoulder and saunters right out of town. Unreal.

Different Times

BurningFeet, Arlington, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:16:38 GMT

Sir,

Your statement, "They are warriors-turned-analysts, not lobbyists or politicians." reminds me of attitudes in the antebellum Southern slave owners. If I may paraphrase, "Our's aren't like that. They love us."

No, they didn't.

Do you think that Viet Nam military officers that carry the "the media stabbed us in the back" mentality love you?

Yes, Massa.

Different Times

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:17:31 GMT

Brien-
A simple apology to the families of the dead and wounded, and to the American taxpayers who have to foot the bill, would seem to be the minimum of good taste. You must have some kind of public forum in which you can do this, right?

Different Times

Vinny's a better "journalist" — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:19:01 GMT

The "journalist" gets pwned by "Vinny" in the efficiency apartment in the Bronx.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Different Times

H. B. Acker, Anchorage, Alaska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:19:06 GMT

Mr. Williams, Glenn Greenwald confirmed what I had long suspected: Like most tv news personalities, you can't be trusted.

Too bad, I had thought that perhaps, just maybe, you weren't a propagandist like so many others on television. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Williams, that's exactly what you've become, a propagandist.

Regards, H.B. Acker, Anchorage, Alaska

Different Times

Mike Filancia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:20:21 GMT

Please, what are you smoking? You need to read Glenn Greenwald's post on this issue at Salon--and then you need to tell the truth to your viewers. Do you really wonder why less and less people are turning to the MSM for their news? Your network, some of these generals and the Bush admin are making money off dead soldiers. Shame on you!

Different Times

Jon, Boston, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:23:03 GMT

Why do you rely so heavily on "experts"? Especially ones who were part of pro-war lobbying groups prior to the war. Walter Pincus points out that these days you guys substitute "experts" for actual independent knowledgeable reporters:

"Today’s mainstream print and electronic media... have increasingly become common carriers, transmitters of other people’s ideas and thoughts, irrespective of import, relevance and at times even accuracy.

At a time when it is most needed, the media, and particularly newspapers, have dropped the idea of having experienced reporters provide analysis and context and turned instead to retired public figures or so-called experts to provide commentary. It was not always this way.

As a copy boy at The New York Times in 1954, fresh out of college, I delivered newspapers and mail to Hanson Baldwin, then the paper’s highly respected military correspondent. When Baldwin wrote a news story or an analysis piece, it was read by Pentagon officials and members of Congress. They read him because his years of coverage and perceptive views made him as much an expert as top generals and civilian defense officials."

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1851

Maybe if you had bothered to pay for real reporting on the Pentagon (e. g., reporting on Doug Feith), instead of the rent-a-generals, we wouldn't be in the ridiculous, costly, and deadly mess we're in today.

Different Times

LaurenC, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:23:52 GMT

Hi Brian-

Saying that these guys were good friends of yours and that you think they're good guys is a very anemic response. I find it hard to believe, that if NBC really wanted some independent military analysis, that they couldn't find some ex-military officers who were *not* cheerleaders for invading Irag (members of the "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) and were *not* directly ited military contractors which directly benefited from the invasion. (McCaffery was on the board of IDT, which got a big boost from the Iraq war). Yea, sure these guys were "independent" and "critical".

Different Times

John Dillinger — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:24:37 GMT

Now we know why Brian didn't want to address this issue to begin with; he is simply out of his depth when it comes to most issues, including one of the most important ones facing us. Given his paycheck, you'd think he'd actually do some research, instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh's rants. My prediction is that Brian will decide that he's simply to busy to blog any longer.

Different Times

Wayne Waters — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:27:49 GMT

Why hasn't there been any comprehensive explanation for the media actions in the lead up to the Iraq War?

With the exception of probably McLatchy they uniformly cheered this county into a war based on smokescreens and lies. It was an utter and compete collapse of the 4th estate. Anti war critics were silenced or completely thrown off the air (Donahue). There was no reporting on the soldiers who resigned - i hear there was 4 start track marine general who resigned instead of supporting the war. Nothing Nothing Nothing.

No explanations about how Judith Miller became a propaganda tool and how that was allowed to happen. No explanations about these retired military experts used as a propaganda tools. It was all propaganda that the media gleefully reproduced. There has not been one ounce of accountability or self examination by the press corps. Deny, Ignore, Excuse, Justify.

Just like your explanation about the analysts. The fact that you aren't stark raving mad about being manipulated by the pentagon and turned into to a propaganda tool yourself just clarifies that the age of Murrow and cronkite are dead and will never return.

But I guess they pay you well.

Different Times

Nina, Greenfield, Wisconsin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:28:18 GMT

The Pentagon Pundit program was "covert propaganda," which is illegal in America. The Government Accountablity Office defines covert propaganda as "information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party," according to the Center for Media and Democracy, which featues an article on its website called "Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law." http://www.prwatch.org/ Mr. Williams, the citizens of a democracy deserve, and must have, better than you are giving us.

Different Times

Harry G., Sacramento, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:31:25 GMT

I was going to say "Nice try, Brian," but of course it wasn't that at all. Don't you get it about conflict of interest? NBC knew of its analysts' affiliations; why did NBC decide not to reveal them?

That's the question.

When I'm listening to two people debate, it helps to be told, for instance, that one works for the White House and one works for the Democratic National Committee. Then I can more fairly judge their comments and their bias. Why did NBC want to keep such information from its viewers?

Different Times

Miles Bachman, Cincinnati — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:33:10 GMT

From Glenn Greenwald- "Both McCaffrey and Downing were about as far from "independent" as a news analyst could possibly be. On November 15, 2002, a press release was issued announcing the formation of something called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," which was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq." Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis. Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing -- the two extremely independent "news sources" hailed yesterday by Brian Williams -- were two of its 25 founding members."

Also, why haven't you gone after McCain's association with John Hagee or any of a number of right-wing bigots with anything like the energy you've followed the Wright-Obama story. Bob Jones University, anyone? The Republican party is still a racist institution- remember Reagan and "States Rights?" Remember former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist's well-documented efforts to bar blacks from voting? Why was his racist past never a major news story?

Different Times

Wayne Waters — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:34:22 GMT

AND ANOTHER THING - why doesn't the news ever feature those critics who were right on the war?

It's as if the media wants to hide the fact that there was any dissention in order to validate their own failures - ie "everyone was for the war".

No they weren't. The media continues to showcase the same old idiots who are now scrambling to back away from their own mistakes while continually marginalizing the analysts who were correct.What ever happened to the truth?

Different Times

SomeNYGuy, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:37:40 GMT

Every NBC newscast should carry a disclaimer: "We are a subsidiary of G.E., one of the world's largest military contractors. Every war, every bomb, every DoD pork project fattens our bottom line and helps to pay Brain Williams' multi-million-dollar salary. We will air no facts and no opinions that might threaten our profitability."

Different Times

John D Crestwood, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:41:47 GMT

So let's get this straight: a network owned by a major military contractor acts as a willing tool for the Pentagon, which briefs and sends a bunch of its flunkies to appear on the network and peddle propaganda as ostensibly objective coverage of its war aims and tactics?

Good God, Sir, How much do you expect me to believe?

Next you'll be telling me that our president and vice president are doing the bidding of the oil companies and their other corporate cronies.
For shame.

Different Times

Mick Boyce — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:43:12 GMT

Williams vouches for Mcaffrey and Downing: They are honorable men! Period!
Also:Peggy Noonan is brilliant and deserves a pulitzer for questioning Obama's patriotism!
I cannot for an instant imagine Walter Cronkite, Bob Schiefer or Peter Jennings heaping praise on such on obviously partisan tool as Peggy Noonan. It just smells of impropriety and bias for an ostensibly neutral newscaster to heap such high praise (a pulitzer!)on a party apparatchik like Noonan. Brian Williams has flushed his credibility.
Mcaffrey and Downing are almost certainly honorable men. But it will take someone with higher credibility and more neutrality credentials than Williams can present to vouch for them.
Sad.

Different Times

Adam, Mesa, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:45:37 GMT

I've now lost the last vestige of faith I'd had in the MSM. You're response to this large matter was underwhelming and self-serving. The fact is that the Pentagon has been running a propoganda machine and you and your network have been complicit. Over the past several years, I've witnessed the media become more and more obsessed with fluff stories (heidi & spencer, OMG!) at the costly expense of important stories (US Attorney purge, Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, on and on ad nauseum).

You, the MSM, don't ask tough questions. You report two sides to every story with no effort to research which might actually be right or true. In short, you've become a mouthpiece and a talking head, truly.

I'll never watch your show again, and I bet I'm not alone. How does the verge of extinction (irrelevancy) feel, Mr. Williams?

Different Times

Jemand von Niemand, San Francisco CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:46:44 GMT

Brian, you have ducked and ignored this issue, and now you claim to have taken a position by touting a personal and professional relationship with two ex-general officers who are, in my view, prime examples of the very story you and the greater [prt of the media have ignored.

This isn't 1917, Brian, and you're not here to behave as if Howard Creel (look him up, Brian) were still running things. It's your job to research, and report the truth -- and if the truth is that the government has broken the law, that's a fact, and it's news; that's what you report -- the facts and the truth. That's what our media is supposed to do.

Somewhere, you've forgotten where you left your credibility. I'd suggest you try and find it.

Different Times

Rosalie — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:49:53 GMT

Brian,you still don't get it. Both Generals were founding members of the 2002 "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq". They were gung-ho for the invasion. Hardly independent.

Different Times

Patrick Wasser, Chicago IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:51:42 GMT

I'm guessing your newsroom operates under the assumption that the kind of people that still watch your irrelevant newscasts don't ask questions such as those posed by the likes of Glenn Greenwald. While it's likely a safe assumption on your part, just know that there are a lot of us that have long since left your types of programs behind exactly for their ignorance of what's really relevant and their failure to seriously challenge those in power. Your network might as well shut down the news department and just show more new editions of "How to Catch a Sexual Predator". At least you'd all be accomplishing something.

Different Times

R. finley — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:53:54 GMT

If Brian Williams and NBC can't acknowledge this glaring lapse of journalistic and ethical standards, what exactly did the network and its employees learn from the now widely faulted coverage of the Iraq invasion by the America media? Was it all someone else's fault?

And why should the public trust NBC's election coverage, if the network remains not only unresponsive to its past lapses, errors and violations of the public trust, but defiant and unrepentant despite getting the story disastrously wrong?

In particular, how is Brian Williams' coverage of Barack Obama to be trusted, when he's lavishly praised a Peggy Noonan column which effectively calls Obama a word we can't mention here?

Different Times

Sandy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:54:31 GMT

Brian, about your praise of Peggy Noonan's article: it tells me that you have mistaken idea about those of us who live in the rural areas and about our patriotism and who we support for president. It is because we love our country that we support Obama. It is because we are patriots that we choose him as the best candidate to lead our beloved country. you and Ms. Noonan assume to know to much about what we think and believe. I am from Talladega, from Nascar country. I know people who work at the track and they are not happy about the Iraq war, not just how its going but that it was started in the first place. They told me that it has hurt race attendance. That it was an illegal war from the get go. That sort of messes up your image of us out here in the boondocks doesn't it. We don't care about flag pens. We care about getting the Republicans out and Obama in. We care because we care about our country as does Obama or why would he go through this gruelling campaign? I read the NYT article and I am dedicating my life from now on to make sure that we have honest leaders and honest cabinet members who do not think that we are fools who can be manipulated into supporting an illegal war. You and Peggy Noonan are the elitists thinking you know how we rednecks think and vote. You would be surprised!

Different Times

Patrick Meighan, Culver City, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:04:35 GMT

I think it's fair, of course, to hold us to account for the military analysts we employ, inasmuch as we can ever fully know the "off-duty" actions of anyone employed on an "of counsel" basis by us.

I'd suspect that one way to "fully know the 'off-duty actions" of McCaffrey and Wayne Downing would've been to simply Google their names and discover that they are high-profile members of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," dedicated to "educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny."

Did NBC News bother to Google their names and learn their affiliations before giving a national microphone to them with which to do exactly what they declared they would do: advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic support for the invasion of Iraq?

If not, will NBC News now publicly append the record to disclose this very relevant information about these two "honest brokers": McCaffrey and Downing?

And what will NBC News do in the future to ensure that sworn proponents of a critical policy choice (such as the choice to invade another nation without cause) are never again presented to its viewers as disinterested, independent analysts without affiliation?

Patrick Meighan
City, CA

Different Times

Jim Harrison, San Francisco, California — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:04:48 GMT

You and NBC are in the wrong in this case. You simply should not act as a propaganda channel for the government and then compound your misbehavior by making transparent excuses. Gee I wish we had a free press in this country!

Different Times

Brian43ny — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:05:19 GMT

So are any iraq war critiques getting paid by NBC news and do they appear on nightly news? Most people agree that the war was a mistake and we need to get out but I never hear that on your newscast.

Different Times

Frank, Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:07:07 GMT

Brian,

Your defense lacks merit for a variety of reasons which I am sure were obvious to you as you wrote the above piece.

First, as a threshold matter, the article implies that your unquestioning trust and belief in the independence of Mr. Downing and Mr. McCaffrey somehow exonerates both your and the network's failure to disclose the various conflicts of interest which these two men had. Frankly sir, how you felt about these men, and its affect on your reporting, is more an indictment of your integrity, ability to judge character and skill as a journalist than a justification for your actions. Where such blatant conflicts of interest exist, it is not your duty to dismiss them based solely on the unwarranted affection which you felt for these men, but rather to report the conflicts in meticulous detail so the viewers can arrive at their own rationale conclusion as to the weight that should be given their opinions.

Further, your assertion that the opinions of these two men were unaffected by their affiliation to pro-war organizations, defense contractors and the pentagon is laughable. These two generals were unabashedly for the war prior to the invasion, going so far as to establish a pro-war organization comprised exclusively of neo-cons who had encouraged the invasion of Iraq since the mid-90's. These two generals stood to benefit financially from the invasion and continued prosection of the war. These two generals were in constant contact with the pentagon regarding the best strategies to stifle dissent and lend support to this administration's policies. How one could take the position that none of the above facts molded the generals' opinion about the war is beyond me. A good analogy to this situation would be your brining on a member of Obama's campaign to discuss whether Obama would be an affective leader, failing to inform your viewers of the obvious conflict of interest and than, after your lack of journalistic integrity is exposed, arguing that the Obama campaign worker was a purveyor of unbiased and independent opinions.

Different Times

Demos Ioannou, Shaker Heights, OH — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:08:29 GMT

I can't wait until Keith Olbermann starts ripping you and the others for this. Fess up. You look like a shill.

Different Times

John C Doe — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:08:40 GMT

Brian, if your program isn't a pain to the government then you are a stooge. It's that simple.

Different Times

Stephen, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:12:27 GMT

"... these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. ... I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

It's nice that you, personally, have these convictions, but your opinions, beliefs and feelings on these matters are irrelevant. As a journalist, it is your responsibility to fully vet your sources. As a professional, it is your responsibility to associate yourself with others who will tell you the truth, expose their biases and and lend your news casts an air of integrity. It is also your responsibility to *avoid* associating yourself with those who clearly have an agenda (that is, an agenda that does not involve telling the truth). You're supposed to give us the news, not your opinions on who is a good guy, etc.

Different Times

Rod Paul — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:14:42 GMT

I knew Wayne Downing a lot longer than you did, Brian... I first worked for him when he was a lieutenant colonel commanding a Ranger battalion.
I have absolutely no doubt he was incensed about "war on the cheap" ... but that begs the question: WHY DIDN'T YOU BROADCAST THAT????

The WAD on television doing one of his celebrated rants about how Rumsfeld was screwing up the invasion could have gone a long way toward turning things around before they devolved into the mess we had by late 2003.

More importantly, as far as I can tell, NOT ONCE did you identify Downing as 1) former terrorism czar who quit the Bush administration in disgust, 2) lobbyist/advisor to the Iraqi National Congress or 3) prime author of "The Downing Plan" to use limited special forces and Iraqi nationals to remove Saddam, along the lines of what was done in Afghanistan.

Downing had strong opinions and serious connections to people with special interests in Iraq. That does not make his analysis irrelevant -- but you owed it to your viewers (and your personal integrity) to clearly identify those special connections and potential conflicts of interest, the same way you would if you were using a professional political consultant as an analyst.

Your limp "defense" of the NY Times criticisms is an insult.

Different Times

StratRat, San Diego — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:14:52 GMT

I can appreciate the position you and your network have with regard to balancing the need to inform with the need to adequately address your business model. That is a tight balance, I am sure. Nonetheless, you do have a inate duty to your profession as envisioned by the founding fathers of this country. The media was accepted as a type 'check' against government over-reach and secrecy. I am afraid you and your network failed in your obligation to fully disclose and inform your viewers so they could determine how to accept and digest the information your 'military experts' were providing. Please try and regain the philosophy the founding fathers counted on when they created the greatest country on earth.

Thank you.

Different Times

Barbara A, Silver Spring, MD — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:15:11 GMT

I hae been watching you for some time, and had faith that you were presenting fair reporting. No more. I'm going back to reading the Nation, which I should never have given up. And now it means I have extra time at night to do worthwhile things. Thanks for nothing.

Different Times

Patrick Torbert, Somerville, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:17:09 GMT

It is pretty amazing to me that a managing editor of a major news network claims inability to find out what "analysts" appearing on his show do for a living.

That is in stark contrast to any private company I'm familiar with W/R/T hiring practices. Don't the principles of journalistic integrity demand unbiased view points. Is Mr. Williams' friendship with two men who have obvious reason for bias a sound vetting process? Would that litmus test work for a clinical trial? The SEC?

We all know it wouldn't, so why the sophmoric pretension to the contrary?

Mr. Williams, you are a disgrace to honest journalism. You should be ashamed and those who support you in this mockery of objectivity should refresh themselves on what the role of journalism is supposed to be in this country lest they wish to surrender their ability to think for themselves.

Different Times

born_7_4 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:17:17 GMT

I knew there were no WMD in Iraq before the war started, I knew the aluminum tubes were phony and the yellow cake was baloney and I knew the arm chair generals still worked for the pentagon. How? I watch PBS News Hour, Now and Bill Moyers Journal.
Main stream news media retired with Tom Brokaw and died with Peter Jennings. Brian Williams, Judith Miller and the other propagandists are as much responsible for this war as Bush et al. Our democracy depends on independent, quality journalism to inform the voters. These people have committed treason.

Different Times

Allen, Sacramento, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:18:25 GMT

Your response to the NYT story is shameful. In fact, all of the televised media should be ashamed. I can't believe what I'm NOT hearing from you guys. And if you are so full of courage and integrity then respond to Glenn Greenwald @ Salon. He presents salient FACTS about the generals you paraded out at the onset of this war.

Different Times

Bryan, Urbana, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:19:10 GMT

Brian,

And now for something completely different:

I thought the story on the wounded veteran was inspiring. I wish all Nightly News newscasts would end with something just as hopeful, as did the story about the Honor Flight campaign.

Ending on a happy note such as these makes the bad economy, politics, medicinal failures, etc., look a little less horrible.

Good work; I look forward to tonight's newscast.

Different Times

Tom — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:22:07 GMT

You are lost in a bubble.Sad, really.

Different Times

john doe, seattle, wash. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:23:28 GMT

mr. williams, your arrogance is breathtaking.

i am once again reminded why i, along with millions of others, no longer watch nightly network news.

Different Times

McE, Atlanta , GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:25:27 GMT

This, and many other reasons lately, have been why most people on the left, the right and the middle no longer take NBC and other mainstream news sources seriously. You bend over backwards to let politicians and analysts lie to you and leave it to the public to find out who's affiliated to who and who's got a reason to deceive us. Thanks for helping Mr Williams. Thanks for being an accomplice. You were one of the few I still had respect for, based mostly on your reporting during Katrina, now that's evaporated along with you and your networks credibility.

Feel free to continue these behaviors. Maybe extinction of you and your ilk is the best outcome. Maybe its time real people - ones who don't own a Porsche and are friends with the people there supposed to monitor - to take back their media from the dilettantes who now dominate it.

Oh, and feel free to silence your critics: http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/37303-mighty-tim-russert-wields-his-clout

Feel free to talk about flag pins while soldiers are dying for that flag.

Feel free to talk about Rev Wright, even though he's not running for office.

Feel free to talk about bar-b-ques and haircuts while our health care and housings systems crash.

Feel free to force the most vacuous stories possible on us (Miley Cyrus, Brittney Spears, et al) and then blame us for not wanting substantial stories.

Feel free polish the lies until they shine, but don't be surprised when your decline in viewers continues to the point where no one is listening to the echo chamber you live in.

An echo chamber I am done with - along with you, and those like you, Mr Williams.

Different Times

Jim Bishop, Reno, NV — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:25:46 GMT

Brian,

Either you've missed the point of the NYT article (is it coincidental that you disparaged the NYT in your post the other day? Hard to imagine that its is) or you've deliberately chosen to obfuscate it. In either case, you've certainly raised questions about your fitness to present the nightly news in a fair, objective, and coherent manner.

The NYT article makes no claim that Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey are not "passionate patriots" or "good men." It does, however, argue that they had an egregious conflict of interest that was never disclosed on NBC. Both have financial connections to defense contractors that benefitted greatly from the invasion of Iraq, and both were members of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group that was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq"--and that included Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, and Richard Perle. I don't care whether or not you have had a "close friendship with both men," but I do care about your network's use of these men to create an impression of their independence and objectivity, when in fact there's a mountain of evidence that they were neither independent nor objective.

Indeed, the fact that you think your "close friendship with both men" is somehow an adequate defense of your behavior--and your network's behavior--is telling of what's broken in our mainstream media culture.

Different Times

Jack , Portland, Oregon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:30:56 GMT

Actually, I come to praise you, not to scoff at you. You have generated extraordinarily-productive material for a module I teach on ethics and conflict of interest. This is an absolutely great case. You offer testimony from individuals with a direct financial interest in the policies they support without informing the public of that relationship. You present people who promoted policy to comment on that policy. You avoid discussion of the fact that their conduct, and yours, has become a legitimate news story and topic of public concern. And you obscure the fact that in making choices regarding news coverage you are employed by a network owned by a major defense contractor.

Don't let the criticism by the uninformed get you down. You are performing a public service by offering a marvelous example of the collapse of professional ethics and the embrace of conflicts of interest as a guiding principle in corporate behavior. My students will love you.

Different Times

Anna — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:31:37 GMT

I found this all interesting thoughts and ramblings.

With regards to government television, I would like to know if any of you have ever seen Chinese television? I am serious. It is available on cable channels in America. This is government sponsored television at its finest. The media abroad are infomericals for socialism and communism. If a journalist does not speak the government word, they are imprisioned or killed.

NBC been equatated with government TV is nothing but hog wash. Of course I think these guys should have been better vetted but seriously, government television. Oh, please! Disclosure yes! Government TV, oh no!

Brian, maybe when you are at the Olympics you could bring your viewers back some clips of government-sponsored television? What do you think? Can you risk it?

Different Times

jude folly, beverly hills, calif — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:32:10 GMT

morally and politically, the networks blessed the invasion--is there a more effective way for television to say, 'don't touch that dial; we'll return with more war coverage after a message from our sponsors'?

why wouldn't they rely on bought-and-paid-for analysts to cheerlead the invasion proceedings? i commend you, network television, for doing your share to keep the american war machine churning.

Different Times

Mojopo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:32:48 GMT

Honoring those men with glowing assessments of their character (from your NBC soapbox) is awfully kind of you. It is also meaningless because you fail to address the subject. I wish you could set aside your personal feelings for these analysts and let us know a few things.

Is it possible that good generals distributed bad information? What was their motivation? What part did the MSM play in promoting the war and advocating for the Bush Administration? Can anyone in the MSM, or their employers, honestly say that truth comes before ratings? Is truth above friendship and can truth prevail against hero-worship?

Gee, I'm glad you think well of those men. But I don't know them, and I don't know you. Why should I take your word for anything? I might believe you if you had no personal interest in the story. The problem I have with you is a problem I have with many journalists in the MSM - you are biased.

Different Times

Stella, St. Louis, MO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:34:28 GMT

I wish I could believe that you have the integrity to feel shame for what you and your network are doing both to your profession and to our democracy. I wish I could believe that you lose sleep thinking of your fellow citizens who have given their lives to this war and to the families they leave behind.

Do you ever think of this? Are you capable of introspection? When will you take personal responsibility for your actions and the actions of those you represent? May these actions haunt you for the rest of your life Mr. Williams, as they will haunt the rest of us.

Different Times

tarheel, Wilmington, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:34:52 GMT

A two year investigation by the New York Times and the best Brian Williams can do is blog about the illegal propaganda campaign by the Pentagon? I hope Mr. Williams doesn't have children who might have to read about his lack of integrity and honesty to the American people by reporting the facts and the truth on the air. These are OUR AIRWAVES Mr. Williams broadcasts his "close friends" propadanda from, perhaps it's time to take those airwaves back.

Different Times

Eli Rabett, Washington, DC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:36:03 GMT

The fun part is going to be when you get called to testify before Congress under oath. You better be careful about what you write here

Different Times

Wally Sandaber — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:37:56 GMT

So that you are biased in favor of your homies, McCafferty and Downie, makes up for the fact that you never mentioned their role as Board members for tank companies? Um, that is the point; you covered up their personal finanical interest in promoting the war (which is what you allowed them to do, over and over again) What part about patronage and corruption do you not get?

Different Times

David, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:38:28 GMT

Mr. Williams, you are a disgrace to your profession. You should be ashamed. I was once a fan, and it is sad to see how either biased or brainwashed you are. You can do the right thing here, and put our country back on the right track. I hope you do some serious soul searching, and do the right thing.

Different Times

Rob — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:38:52 GMT

Mr. Williams you and your corporate sponsors have blood on your hands just as much as Bush and Cheney and the rest of their crime family.

May God Forgive you!

Different Times

NathanHale — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:42:28 GMT

Hey Brian, DRS Technologies stock is trading over $63.00 today. Next time McCaffrey's on your show, would you please ask him for me how much money he has made in the five years since DRS acquired Integrated Defense Technologies.

Different Times

DNK — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:45:58 GMT

Mr. Williams,

You should not get to decide for me whether or not it is relevant that the "independent" military expert you are presenting to comment about a policy has ongoing connections to that very organization. You MUST disclose this. It is for me to decide what importance to give it, not you.

From your conduct I may rightfully conclude from this that you are far too gullible, far to reluctant to question what you are being spoon fed, to be trusted with covering issues of national importance. The main stream media is not up the task of keeping the public informed. Your response is a perfect example of this.

Different Times

Chris, Seattle, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:49:24 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams,
it's quite irrelevant whether you liked these folks. The problem is that you presented them as independent commentators, when actually they were part of the Bush administrations public relations effort. And you still haven't commented on this in your program. That's shameful.
Chris, Seattle

Different Times

Tricia S., Berkeley Heights, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:51:01 GMT

Oh Brian! For a seemingly well-educated journalist that blogpost was truly sad. Did you forget everything you learned in Journalism 101? These men are biased and to present them to your audience as otherwise is bad journalism. But then, to defend your position as you have makes you look even less professional.

Different Times

Jeff, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:51:18 GMT

Brian, I'm usually a big fan of yours, but do you realize why "in my opinion, these are good men" is not a valid defense? It's not about your opinion. It's about journalistic safeguards, and full disclosure to your viewers, and objectivity.

An analogy is the U.S. Constitution. Its structural principles are based on the notion that human beings are imperfect. The news, too, should have structural principles that do not rely on one man's personal character judgments of other people.

It doesn't matter if you're the most excellent judge of character in all the world. "But... but... he's a good guy!" does not work. Because it's not about you. Your news division violated journalistic principles. And that's that. And I'm very disappointed in you for doing so.

Different Times

Holiday Hudsucker — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:51:54 GMT

I also would like to spread a little sunshine out
to you Mr. Williams as one of the first comments did and you really rock with your healthy tan and that cute smile you and don't worry about that thing with these generals I think they are also so cool and it's great that you are hanging out with them a lot and they probably let you drive in their tanks and fly with their helicopters and also that mission
acomplished thing I always knew that was you Brian and it was also one of the proudest moments of my life when you acomplished it and and you are so right me too always has to read what I am writing
and then I know what I was thinking and if other people do this for you the better and it is not bad if you are not as clever as these terrible people at
these New York Times what channel is that anyway I never saw any of there programms and they can not be as cute as you love you Brian and God save America
such a paper only people who what

Different Times

Jon Doh — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:52:40 GMT

You are either incompetent (your were their unwitting tool) or you are a true believing GOP propagandist. Have you quit lying to the American people yet?

They may be "fine men" according to you - maybe they flattered you, but they and you are a national disgrace. And that they did is very close to, if not in reality, illegal. The US can NOT run propaganda in this country - it is illegal.

Brian William, fool or GOP toadie.

A new press please. this one is too stupid and corrupt to be believed.

We aren't going to take it anymore. These people are the ruin of our country.

Different Times

Holiday Hudsucker — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:54:07 GMT

Uh I forgot to tell you that i live in Las Vegas Nevada

Different Times

Jay Saul, Tucson, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:59:49 GMT

As they say, you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. Brain, you have obviously looked into these generals' eyes and seen their souls. We views should not worry; you would not do anything undignified. After all you are one of the USA's leading teachers about what we need to know and how to put that knowledge into context.

The most important thing you share with these “retired” military men is you belief in your own objectivity. It is that sense of self that makes your journalism so hard hitting.

Different Times

Billy Pilgrim — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:00:25 GMT

Dude, Glenn Greenwald ripped you anew one today. You deserve it. Again, how many people AGAINST the war did your netrwok hire to comment on the war?

Fools and idiots.

Different Times

Alan Cochrane — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:03:00 GMT

If Gereral McCaffrey were a member of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, then that, to my mind, disqualified him as an independent analyst regarding the U.S invasion and subsequent occupation. At the very least this should have been disclosed to viewers. The fact that I'm only learning about it now by reading the comments to this blog suggests that NBC News was either negligent in its reporting or guilty of an undisclosed editorial bias in favor of the U.S. invasion.

Different Times

Ralph Kramden, Acton, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:05:52 GMT

Shorter Brian Williams: "So?"

I think it's clear by now that we should not expect actual objective reporting on the war or any other issue of substance from NBC News, a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Electric (which rakes in billions from the military every year).

Different Times

Joel Wolfe, Amherst, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:11:26 GMT

When I watch the network news, I watch NBC, but your response to this story has been quite troubling.

What really bothers me is that this isn't a matter of Democrat vs. Republican or Obama vs. Clinton, this is a matter of war -- of life and death -- and you refuse to admit that you played a destructive role in the rush to war.

Beyond the media stuff and inside DC stuff, do you ever think about the young men and women who died, in part, because people in the media (including you) didn't do their jobs?

Different Times

Andy Olsen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:12:02 GMT

Mr. Williams:

Given your own clear ideological bias, which you do not hide, you did not go looking for criticism of the invasion or occupation. And, I don't care if you have a personal relationship and think they're swell, beyond the degree to which that colors your reporting, as we see here.

Nor, as Glenn Greenwald points out today, have you yet come clean on the degree to which these men were long behind an invasion of Iraq. They both signed onto the PNAC letter in the 1990s. They were both on the advisory board to a war lobby group (despite your protestations they are not lobbyists) called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq."

Plus they both had financial interests in a war and saw those interests increased as a result of war. Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Too bad you don't respect HIS views!

Yet, you still withheld from your viewers your generals' role in promoting the invasion, their commercial interests and only described them as independent. Who do you owe more allegiance to; your viewers or your military-industrial complex pals? Apparently, the latter.

You're engaged in simple denial here to cover up corrupt practices. To think such deception is being broadcast over the public spectrum, to boot!!

You owe the public a full accounting and an apology, not the smug denial you display here.

Links backing up what I say:
http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/04/committee-for-liberation-of-iraq-press.html
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Different Times

NattyB, Washington DC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:12:15 GMT

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" Mark 8:35

Thanks for helping sell this BS war Brian.

I'm sure you're sacrificing like the rest of us. Nope, you're not.

Different Times

Don Bolen, St Louis, MO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:16:34 GMT

Brian: I think you do an excellent job. I think your reporting is critical when appropriate, and complimentary when appropriate. I don't always agree with you, but, I'm not in the war room with you, so I do trust in your reporting. I also don't live in a world where I disbelieve anything that comes from those I disagree with. As far as your critics, it's easy to be critical when one hides behind a computer and all that is read are articles that propose the same viewpoints.

Different Times

DG, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:26:19 GMT

Two mercifully quick questions: does total abdication of one's critical faculties come with the territory, as it were? Is it part of your job description?

Different Times

Simplicissimus, Washington DC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:32:15 GMT

"I will not do them wrong; I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,
Than I will wrong such honorable men."

Different Times

Spencer, St. Petersburg, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:34:13 GMT

Michael O'Hanlon, of Brookings is, according to Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer, a well-known war opponent, and appears to be "of counsel" for all of the networks.

Frank -

Please read some of O'Hanlon's public statements about the war and try to find some that could credibly be described as "anti-war." You'll really have to stretch the definition of the phrase to make that experiment work - at most, he's had quibbles with the manner in which this war was carried out, but none with the idea that the war was our best course of action in the first place.

So we're back to Square One with the original question, then . . .

Different Times

CL New Jersey — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:34:22 GMT

Great article Brian...

You are correct in your analysis of these men and NBC news. These guys, especially Jack Jacobs, who is often on Imus, is constantly ripping the Pentagon, Rumsfelf, and the strategy of the war. He's as fair as one can be. So I'm not sure what the times, or the critcs to your posting is listening to or talking about.

Different Times

Steve Ruger, Rock Hill, SC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:35:13 GMT

Brian Williams ended his alibi-laden post regardiung use of Bush Administration/Bill Kristol shills as "independnet" experts with the words, "I think they [the "independnet" military analysts] are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

The answer is, "No, you are not". Your military analysts are active, paid staffers with Right-wing groups with vested nterests in backing the Bush Administrtation line. And you are too lazy, or cozy with the Bush Team to do your job of reporting what is happening.

Real reporters would have told us about the analysts full background, or, better yet, done their own analysis. Only Lap Dogs would just call in the easiest-to-obtain voice to fill air time with the Party line.

Different Times

Jane Buck, Seattle, Wash — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:37:30 GMT

Mr. Williams, your post has removed the doubt in my mind. You were not an unaware tool of a Pentagon domestic propaganda program. You were a willing accomplice.

Different Times

david surlaw — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:38:01 GMT

this is unadulterated hogwash. NBC is no better than Fox--in fact it's worse, considering that Fox is quite open about its political agenda (despite Roger Ailes' claims to the contrary).

Different Times

David Rayy New York NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:39:57 GMT

Dear Brian,

Don't worry dude. The I-Man will have you on his show and he will kiss it and make all better and that nasty realty go away. It is good not to report on news of worth. Please, don't stop any news of shark attacks or Hannah, or Brittany, or Paris. This is the information I need to make a decision on my choice of vote.

You do it good Brian.

Different Times

Brian Finneran, Saratoga Springs, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:44:05 GMT

Dear Brian,

You are our regular anchor, and my wife and I enjoy your broadcast each night. We are also regular readers of the NY Times, and consider that fine paper, despite an occasional blemish, to be the venue of record.

I just want you to know that you disappoint us occasionally by your omission of critical news - the latest being the NYT story about the Pentagon's program of prepping the media's military "experts."

So, as anchor you are really good, but as managing editor you are pretty disappointing. It is not good enough for you to blog praise on a couple of your favorite generals. My gosh, Brian, don't you realize that this is an important news story on which your viewers count on you to report - on the air?

The Time's story had lots of detailed examples of meetings, talking points and individual quotes. It ran it as the lead story on the front page of its Sunday paper. Are you now saying because you swear to the objectivity of your two friends, the public needn't be told of a critical issue so embedded with how this war was sold, and continues to be sold?

Shame, shame.

Different Times

Nick Fury, an undisclosed safehouse somewhere in the continental United States — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:46:02 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams,

Whatever happened to the Fourth Estate!?!?

Methinks it’s time you tendered your resignation at ABC and applied for a job at Fox.

If you want to shill for the Republican Party, FINE.

If you want to use your influence to extol the virtues of neo-conservatism and it’s endorsement of a unilateral foreign policy (that history has proven to be a complete failure), FINE.

BUT DON’T PRETEND TO BE AN OBJECTIVE AND NON-PARTISAN VOICE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. That is disingenuous, dishonest and you are truly providing a disservice to the country that you so proudly profess to love. First your failure to address this issue (the military analyst issue) and then your proposal to nominate “the most elitist right-wing hack in the GOP propaganda machine (Peggy Noonan) for a Noble Peace Prize?!?!?!?! Come one!!!! Seriously??!?!?! You and the rest of media that helped SELL THIS WAR to the American Public are equally to blame for the carnage and folly that Iraq has know become. I hope you sleep well at night (in your “swanky” Nantucket home) knowing that you are also responsible for the death’s of more than 4,0000 American GI’s.

Different Times

Jeff Coleman, Lancaster PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:53:14 GMT

Mr. Williams, considering how rapidly Mr. Rather was removed from his position for a much less serious journalistic lapse of judgment, I believe it's time for you to step down.

Different Times

Bruce M. Smith — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:54:09 GMT

If the General you're talking to about an impending war with Iraq is a member of "The Committee to Liberate Iraq." Your viewers have a need to know that. And when I,for one, find this out five years later I am not really satisfied with the explanation that they're good honorable patriots. They didn't fail the viewers, you did.

Different Times

Ronald Ibach, Memphis, TN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:54:25 GMT

Mr Williams and NBC (as well as the other major networks) ignore their willing participation as shills for the Bush Administration and its drumbeat toward war. Even when exposed by the New York Times, they conceal the truth from their viewers. One need not wonder why the fiasco that is Iraq (and possibly now Iran) continue as it does. Shame on Williams. Shame on NBC. God help this country if we continue to depend upon the major networks for anything resembling the unbiased truth.

Different Times

Andrew Rodgers, Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:55:21 GMT

That's a start. Now mention it on the AIR!!!

Different Times

Anthony Torchia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:57:45 GMT

have you dared to read this sir?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story

It's one thing to sell out, but at least try and be honest about it. Closet conservatives like you, people so far in denial they are delusional, are ruining this nation.

Best of luck with the whole denial thing. As someone who has tried it and failed, I can say that if you're honest with yourself, you will have much to make up for.

Different Times

Susan Dirks — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:59:49 GMT

Brian,

You say you trust these good, patriotic men and we are supposed to trust your judgement? What judgment is that? The same judgement that told us all to go over and waste five minutes of our life that we can never get back reading the vacuous Peggy Noohnan column? I'm sorry. Your judgement seems a little off to me. I need proof that these men weren't just selling us a war based on Neoconservative Ideology and War profiteering. Call me crazy, but I don't know you well enough to trust you about the selling of a war that has cost the lives of 4,000 truly good and patriotic men and women.

Different Times

Patrick in Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:02:18 GMT

Brian,

What a hack. You do a disservice to your profession. If you can't see the conflict here and the lack of teeth in your reply to Glen Greenwald then all you do is show your dishonesty.

Patrick in Chicago

Different Times

MarkS, Madison, Wis. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:04:49 GMT

It's nice to see that NBC News has kept its stenography department intact. The integrity and journalism departments appear to have been downsized, however.

Different Times

chris, raleigh, nc — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:08:41 GMT

how much do you want to bet this is the last we hear from Williams on this (and he'd CERTAINLY never put this story on the air)? Glenn called it, these guys really dont think theyve done anything wrong. thats just the way things go. he's worked hard to get where he is and he's not gonna let Vinnie wearing his pj's in the basement call him a republican shrill and get away with it. after all, Williams has a $10 million dollar salary and a rep to protect. these guys are clowns. I cant wait til their viewership dips so low that salaries start getting rolled back. if Williams only made 100k a year, Id bet we'd get the truth.

Different Times

deering — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:15:59 GMT

Mr. Williams, it's really, really, really nice that you are friends with these generals--and that you like Peggy Noonan. But real journalism isn't about playdates or letting your friends slide on ethical violations (or in Noonan's case, egregious bad-writing ones.) In short, you are too close to the problems to even see them. Your lack of objectivity is incomprehensible--and disgraceful as hell. Shame on you.

Different Times

Matthew, Austin, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:28:31 GMT

Mr. Williams,

It is a sad testament to the state of your so-called profession that you can one day heap praises upon the likes of Peggy Noonan for her article on how McCain weeps for the anti-semite Nazi lover Henry Ford and the next insist that the paid propaganda shills you paraded around weren't shills because they were your good friends.

Words can't express my disgust at the disservice you've done and continue to do to our nation.

Different Times

James, Mt. Vernon, IN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:27 GMT

Nice job ducking the issue with some personal anecdotes. That doesn't change the fact that the military industrial complex is dominating the airwaves and marginalized anyone who questioned our invasion. Now there is blood on our hands but our eyes are open. We will never trust you again.

Different Times

TR from Pocatello — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:38:09 GMT

Brian,

The nation's news media was used as a political propaganda mouthpiece for the Republican Party...and you don't seem to care because you think everthing is honky dory at GE/NBC...without even doing a thourough investigation to confirm that none of the analysts used by GE/NBC had conflicts of interest.

It's called the news, a responsible voting populace needs to know the truth of this... but it looks like GE/NBC may not want the truth about conflicts of interest between government and war profiteers to see the light of day.

Different Times

G.L. Horton — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:50:41 GMT

Reading your response to criticism on this issue I am filled with despair. Have you no concept of the vital role of the press in making space for views beyond those put forward by "official sources"? Even when the government is well-meaning and itself listening to critics at home and abroad-- which is certainly not been the case during the Bush presidency!-- the citizenry needs to know the whole spectrum of fact and opinion from which the officials have selected those which underlie and support the government's policies. Otherwise it is impossible to tell when things are going wrong in time to take corrective action. You and your news organization knew or should have known that the experts whose views you put on the air were pre-committed to the government's policy and unfit to serve as critics: the Salon article today makes that very clear. QUOTE: "Both McCaffrey and Downing were about as far from "independent" as a news analyst could possibly be. On November 15, 2002, a press release was issued announcing the formation of something called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," which was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq." Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis. Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing -- the two extremely independent "news sources" hailed yesterday by Brian Williams -- were two of its 25 founding members.
On the day of its formation, the group announced that they would meet later that day with then-National Security Adviser Condolleeza Rice to discuss Iraq. The group's President was quoted in the Press Release as follows: "We believe it is time to confront the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime by liberating the Iraqi people." Here was its stated purpose:
The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The Committee is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.
So this was a group devoted to building domestic support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq through so-called "educational and advocacy efforts." And NBC News then hired both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing as supposedly "independent analysts" to opine to NBC's viewers about the war, and did so without ever once disclosing this affiliation to their viewers, without ever disclosing that they were dedicated to propagandizing on behalf of the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq."
How can we trust you going forward? Or NBC News? Or GE, your corporate parent?

Different Times

Scott F New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:52:42 GMT

How many American service members did you kill with your TV commercials for the war ?

At least you made some new friends. Wow- four star generals as friends-thats so cool !

The next time you want to read something with "great interest", try the list of the 4000+ American honored dead.
Then please reflect on how many lives you are responsible for destroying.

Different Times

Rod, Houston — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:53:57 GMT

Brian, the problem is that you talk about two men and say they are honorable and not involved in the administrations spin job on the war. But it is not just two people.

Taking these comments, I see that the NY Times was correct and you are trying to spin the article as a personal attack on two men you know.

But the spin is not working...

Different Times

Eric Kane, Exeter, NH — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:59:37 GMT

Mr. Williams:
Back when I was in journalism school (almost 30 years ago), the role of a journalist was still seen as "comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable." Among the "comfortable" to be "afflicted" were government officials, whose every statement we were expected to approach with skepticism and a suspicious eye.
Now, 30 years later, you have become comfortable, and long ago ceased to afflict anyone who threatens your comfort. There isn't anything wrong with that. But perhaps it means you should look for a different career, as your blog-posts the last couple of days suggest that you have, for whatever reason, lost the ability to effectively perform the one you have.

Different Times

Brian Sims, Hayward, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:59:58 GMT

Mr. Williams:

Give me a break! In Nov. 2002, McCaffrey and Downing were founding members of the "Committee for Liberation of Iraq" along with pro-Iraq War neocon luminaries Richard Perle and William Kristol. This group's stated purpose was to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny." You have a responsibility to reveal their pre-existing commitment to sell the war, but instead you mischaracterize calls for transparency as slights on their patriotism. Well, I don't question their patriotism, but I want to know where their own convictions lie before I evaluate their opinions. When Kristol or Perle go on TV nobody pretends that THEY are not partisan, and the public deserves the same honesty about McCaffrey and Downing.

Different Times

David M Browne, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:03:47 GMT

This is a very weak response to the charges -- a deliberate obtuseness.

No one doubts that McCaffery et al. are patriotic and earnest men. So defending their use on that basis is just a straw man defense.

The problem is presenting them as alleged independent experts with agenda-free opinions, and not doing anything to disclose the fact that these men are not independent and balanced. They were firmly committed to war advocacy, and either you knew and did not care or were stupidly ignorant of that fact.

Present them as war advocates -- not as independent experts. Or else make a point of putting on equally distinguished generals who are war critics.

And stop playing dumb about what the problem is with your conduct.

Different Times

Jean-Paul Bondy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:07:00 GMT

Once again, Glenn Greenwald shows who is the true journalist here.

People like Brian Williams, Tim Russert, and their talking-head cohorts are on their way out, and *real* journalists like Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Sy Hersh and so many more, are thankfully showing you guys the way out the door.

Thanks to the wonderful world of the web, the days of TV journo hacks will ever more resemble what happened to the recording industry. You're a dead format, with tired, weak and outdated losers at the helm, taking it down with you.

Sorry Brian, you should just leave.

Different Times

scott — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:13:03 GMT

Brian, my home is currently blessed/cursed with being a Nielsen household. Blessed because we get a major say in your network's advertising revenues and cursed because we have to click the damn Nielsen box remote every fifteen minutes just to "prove" that we are awake and watching.

Your network's refusal to address its complicity in the illegal use of former generals to propagandize for an invasion of Iraq and then your disgracefully smug and wholly unsatisfying response above will make my switching the channel away from NBC News just as you come on the air every night sweet indeed.

We've got just over a year left on this two year gig with Nielsen Media Research and knowing that my actions damage your ratings on a daily basis is a small comfort for the damage that hacks like you and your network have done to this country.

Different Times

Daniel Q — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:13:16 GMT

Brian, you are one of America's heroes. You put it where it needs to be without bias. I cannot say that for other certain news organizations. Keep doing what you do. Heroes do not look for fan fair. If you see Tom Brokaw, let him know I consider him a hero also. Be safe.

Semper Fi.

Daniel

Different Times

Sriram (Arlington, VA) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:16:08 GMT

The irresponsibility and contempt in your post is striking. You becoming friends with these people does not improve your journalistic integrity -- indeed the opposite occurs. I know the skeptics in your network will not bite the hand that feeds them, so I understand the silence. But these people were charged by the white house to lead the PR charge FOR THE WAR. How can you be sure you were not hoodwinked? Their job was to ingratiate you so you would cheer for the war like you did? Cronkite blushes.

Different Times

ladytechie01,59, somewhere west of New Jersesy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:16:12 GMT

Ok, so all the posters are citing just two sources, Glenn Greenwald, a very liberal blogger with a book, damning the MSM, to sell on the military analysis issue, and Timothy Noah, an equally liberal, let's say a bit to the left of Obermann, on Peggy Noonan. ( I cannot find the exact post now, but when I read Mr Noah piece last night I couldn't figure out why it seemed so familiar, then I realized I'd already read much of it on the posts, some without attribution by the way)

Is it really so shocking to find out that military people supported the war in 2003? Excuse me, but in 2003 it was unamerican to NOT support the war. All
the posters who so roundly condemn Mr Williams on this issue are at the same time assuming that the critical thinking skills of the viewers are lacking, that we would simply not assume that on the face of it an instructor at West Point wouldn't support the war.

Equally interesting are the posters who go to great lengths to protest that they would NEVER watch MSM news, then go on to protest that they have somehow been "duped" HUH? You didn't watch, weren't aware of the reports given by Gens Downing and McCaffrey, and yet you are so offended, that name calling is the best argument you have.

One last point, if I concede that there was a conflict of interest (which currently I'm not prepared to do) Please all of you explain why you are holding Mr Williams and not both Mr Gibson and Ms Couric (and for that matter Mr Jennings and Mr Rather and Mr Brokaw) equally responsible. And why the free pass for Fox?

In an earlier age of the Internet most of you would simply be denounced as trolls, linking here to post your party line with little or no understanding of the nature of this blog. Begone with you!

Different Times

Eric, Bellevue, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:20:10 GMT

Brian,

Thank you for taking the time to write this, and keep in mind that the comments you are getting are directed at the media *as a whole*, and that you're the focus right now, because you have responded.

So, don't feel too bad about that, but also think deeply about how your organization approached this.

Your defense seems to be "they must objective because they weren't following the party line". But all that can show is that they are likely to be more objective than the party line, not that they are actually objective.

My observation is that the vast majority of the military analysts are not against the war per-se, but against the way the war was run. That may make them objective (and expert) analysts on that topic, but it seems that you are assuming that that makes them objective on any subject related to the war.

And the information that they get on fact-finding missions is - to the extent that the pentagon can control what they do/see - *exactly* what the pentagon wants them to get. Given that it's not safe for Americans to travel through Iraq without military escorts and that DoD decides who goes where with which escorts, that's what they end up with.

By their very nature, retired generals are going to be reticent to be critical about the current military and be very circumspect about the things that they do say.

NBC has a duty to do a few things:

1) To disclose relationships that their analysts have with groups that might want to influence them a specific way.
2) To look for other sources of information (non-militiary analysts, foreign press, etc.) to provide a more reasoned approach.

Here's another way to look at it. The goal of news organization should be to find a place where an unbiased observer would be and try to land somewhere in that region. If, for sake of argument, the reports from the pentagon are 75% false, having analysts on that go against the pentagon on some things (say, 5% of them) does not mean that what the pentagon is saying is therefore 100% true. Really far right complaining about what right-leaning says about the party line does not make that right-leaning person objective.

My final thought:

It's a widespread feeling that the media was very complicit in the run-up to the war. If you want to get credibility back, you have to bend over backwards in how seriously you treat *anything* like this. Ignoring it for a number of days and then writing a blog post like you did makes you look out of touch, *regardless* of whether your organization was well behaved or not.

Different Times

Peter Rosenfeld, Collingswood, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:21:03 GMT

Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing were, at the time they were being used as Iraq analysts by NBC, founding members of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization dedicated to war in Iraq. I don't care how honorable and patriotic these men were, the fact that NBC never disclosed their membership in this organization is incredible. There is no way that these men could be considered unbiased on the subject of whether the US should go to war in Iraq.

Shame on NBC. They became a propaganda machine and deserve part of the blame for this misguided adventure.

If Brian Williams wants to maintain any credibility, he needs to address this issue in a serious manner.

Different Times

Michael, San Francisco, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:23:55 GMT

Your "explanation" of your unprofessional behavior in uncritically abetting the unlawful spread of Pentagon propaganda is unconvincing, though revealing. Your personal credibility has been seriously damaged by these events, and especially by your response. It's not up to you to decide if a conflict of interest (to say nothing of a criminal conspiracy) should be DISCLOSED. You have an obligation as an alleged journalist to disclose conflicts of interest. This story should have been your lead days ago. You should be investigating who at NBC was aware of this situation and when, and reporting on what disciplinary action is being taken to ensure that this never happens again. Criminal prosecution should be considered. You OWE us a public apology, and a thorough investigation.

People have died as a result of YOUR failure to do your job -- this is not a joke.

Different Times

E Danler — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:24:21 GMT

Your answer is simply not satisfactory. The Pentagon's use of propagandists in the midst of a "legitimate" news programs certainly raises ethical issues and potentially legal issues. You cannot merely write off the legitimate concerns of many of your viewers because you like the cut of McCaffrey's gib. Come clean.

Different Times

Alfred Schreiber, Worden, Illinois — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:30:32 GMT

Bryan-
Your statements regarding the use of U.S. Government paid military analysts don't really answer the real question. Are you such a poor journalist that you don't investigate your sources or you, as most of us think, a news reader who is so impressed with himself and his access to the powers that be that you could care less about personal integrity. You should resign in shame.

Different Times

Tracy Vogel, Pasadena, MD — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:35:21 GMT

You were either unwitting or uncaring dupes in a domestic propaganda campaign and your response is that your network is "better than that?"

Oh, well, that makes it all OK then. I mean, since your network is better than that. No need to address it on television or anything, certainly.

No wonder you were all such failures covering the Iraq war run-up. You even sound like the administration. (ie: America is good and does not torture, therefore controlled drowning of helpless captives is not torture.)

Oh, and the two men of principle you cite? They were founding members of a pro-Iraq invasion "education" group and had military contractor ties. So at this point, are you just lying, or are you really that ignorant of the people on your own show?

I'd like to say, as a taxpayer, I deeply resent my government using my tax dollars to organize people feeding lies to me. Seems like it should be a big story. But NBC is too cowardly to address it or its complicity.

Different Times

Jonathan, San Mateo, ca — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:35:41 GMT

How pathetic.
You ignore mountains of evidence showing that these two men, among others, have serious conflicts of interest and you _choose_ to withhold that evidence from your viewers because "you know better". Did you even take a journalism class?
Of course, this is what I've come to expect of such a rightwing hack as yourself. Peggy Noonan for a pulitzer! What a f'ing joke.

Different Times

Robert Belknap, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:40:48 GMT

It's not all that surprising that NBC News doesn't consider these conflicts worth noting given that, as a subsidiary of General Electric, a corporation that also profits greatly from increased defense spending and wars, NBC News is plagued by the very same conflicts in its reporting on the Government's military policies.

Different Times

tmalevizos, minneapolis, minnesota — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:41:16 GMT

Brian, your response to Greenwald was utterly inadequate. Don't you see how pompous and self-serving you come off in this matter? This is a BIG story and you're doing huge harm to your reputation. But you don't even see it. Instead you focus on the unmitigated temerity of a puny writer calling you -- YOU, the NBC News lead anchor! -- to account. I think you're going to regret your failure to come clean on this, Brian. You acknowledge your mistakes and arrogance now, because they become the principal qualities for which you are known.

Different Times

Dr. H. Dale Lilly — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:45:06 GMT

Holy cow, Brian ... how do you read this drivel. Many of these folks are so thoroughly 'indoctrinated' [sheep folks occupants?] that they cannot possibly analyze anything. Just ignore this whole mess an do your job expertly as you always have. Love ya, guy!

Different Times

Gary W Salt Lake City, UT — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:47:15 GMT

Mr. Williams

It has already been said in so many different ways here today, but allow me to add my own take.

You have betrayed your profession and the American people. Please apologize and then go far, far away and live with this shame you have brought on upon yourself.

Different Times

Tom Paulk, Decatur, Alabama — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:52:25 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams:

I have been saddened to see you tear down the long, proud tradition of NBC News--a tradition of unbiased, objective reporting, no matter the issue, no matter the personalities involved. Your refusal to air the shocking story of retired military "experts" appearing on your program and others without disclosure of their serious conflict of interest constitutes a serious conflict of interest on your part as well. By describing Rush Limbaugh as "our friend" and by recommending Peggy Noonan for a Pulitzer, you have shown your own right-wing bias. Now you have compromised not only your own professionalism, but that of a great news organization. Your actions dwarf the incident for which CBS fired their anchor. You should resign in shame.

Different Times

Harry G., Sacramento, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:54:38 GMT

John C Doe commented: "Brian, if your program isn't a pain to the government then you are a stooge. It's that simple."

Right on, John! It is that simple. The free press in America is [was] supposed to be on the side of the public against the government. The free press is supposed to stick up for us.

As Justice Douglas put it: "The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information."

Yeah, right. Those were the days. . . .

Different Times

Tobias King, Centralia, PN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:57:32 GMT

I only skimmed through this article, reading only what I wanted to read, but I think it's very clear that you didn't say exactly what I wanted to hear, which makes you a neo-con mouthpiece! This is just more government propaganda from the administration's favorite tool, Fox Ne- I mean, MSNBC! And you know what else? I don't you wearing a flag lapel pin in your avatar. What, America isn't good enough to stick a pin in maybe your cheek or forehead? Are we to believe you're a tool of propaganda who hates America because you don't say what I want to hear and refuse to stick pins into your face, Mr. Williams?

Different Times

Philolakia, Philadelphia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:01:51 GMT

Hi Brian,

You must not have been such close friends with the generals, because you say you're unaware of their conflicts of interest. At the very least, they might have given you some stock tips. Where is professional courtesy?

If you were indeed duped as you seem to claim, then surely THAT is news worthy of reporting on screen. But then I don't know much about all of this. I'm just one of those suckers who depends on reporters for his news...

Different Times

John, Phoenix — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:04:00 GMT

If NBC was so bias how come they are approving the comments where people are disagreeing with them and calling NBC bias? I think that shows they are truly trying to show both sides, dont bother going to Fox's comment boards.

Different Times

Drew, San Francisco, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:13:27 GMT

Dear Mister Williams,
The fact that those generals were swell fellows and became good friends of yours is such a pathetic dodge of the actual issues you should be a ashamed of yourself.

I know you most likely cannot take on this issue head on due to pressure from above and the obvious stonewalling campaign from all news networks . . . but really, hiding behind a "personal" relationship with them. How pathetic. It was better when you just continued to stonewall . . . at least then you couldn't be damned by your own words.

Sincerely,

Drew

Different Times

John Doe, Seattle Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:14:48 GMT

Williams - you're a hack and a shill for the military industrial complex. Apologize to America and resign!!

Different Times

hill s. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:16:06 GMT

How in the world could anyone expect Brian Williams to assess the credibility and intellectual honesty of two retired generals, when he still hasn't figured out that Peggy Noonan and Rush Limbaugh are paid propagandists for the richest and most powerful people in the world, including his employer and Williams himself?

And while we've learned that Brian samples the far right wing on a daily basis, how far left does he go? It's clear he doesn't read The Nation, and it's highly unlikely he's a fan of Noam Chomsky.

So where is he getting his non-right wing views? Or does he consider Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd "leftists"?

Alas, that diet of Time, Newsweek, Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan sounds would just about account for his view of the world

Different Times

Christopher C. Mills — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:18:24 GMT

"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"

Why, Mr. Williams, does this aphorism of Samuel Johnson's not apply directly to this post? This is not a quote that indicts patriotism. This is a quote that indicts individuals that engage in the kind of behavior that you display in this dissembling explanation of your journalistic practices. You use patriotism in this post as a sleight-of-hand, to deflect the real issues.

The Times article did question the patriotism of General McCaffrey or General Downing. This isn't the issue. What is at issue is your journalistic behavior in how you represented them to your viewers.

Let's start with the following assumptions: I am a patriot, you are a patriot, and McCaffrey and Downing are patriots. Further, let's assume that you and I are confident that General McCafferty and General Downing were motivated by nothing but their pure patriotic beliefs. Now, given all this, you still need to provide an answer to the following:

Why did you consistently never explain to your viewers the ties these generals had to this Pentagon propaganda arm, the general's ties to industries that stood to gain financially with the Iraq war effort, and their ties to "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?"

It is irrelevant to your viewing audience-- in regard to the accusations enumerated in the NYT article-- what you believe about these generals, or what I believe about these generals. What is relevant is that when you present these analysts as independent to your viewers-- and you back this characterization up with a description of their current activities-- that you include *all* of their relevant current activities. This is necessary because, regardless of our views, your viewers must be given all this relevant information to form their own opinions.

Patriotism has nothing to do with this issue. Your personal view of the general's integrity has nothing to do with it either. If you present yourself as an independent journalist, all that matters is what is true and that you provide your audience the complete picture-- that you not dissemble. This is your duty. Of course maybe you aren't actually an independent journalist. Maybe this is the issue. This would be another issue that your viewers should decide... that is if they were ever to be exposed to the actual story.

Different Times

bushbasher — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:23:36 GMT

your big head may appear on the daily show, but you're just another corporate shill.

Different Times

Theo, Greenbelt, MD — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:30:37 GMT

The issue at hand, Mr. Williams, is not whether these men criticized how the Iraq war was fought. The real issue is whether these analysts (and your network) knowingly colluded with the Bush administration to sell the American people on that war using false pretenses. They have not answered that question, nor have you.

There is also the matter of the law, as in "the rule of", or simply "respect for". There are many anti-propaganda laws on the books, any and all of which may have been violated by your good friends, the former generals. Neither you nor they have addressed the potential criminality of their involvement as "message force multipliers" (that is what the pentagon called them) in the pentagon's propaganda program.

Different Times

Jody, Wausau, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:31:55 GMT

A co-worker pointed me to the Glenn Greenwald article and the Nation article detailing how the military analysts you trust so implicitly had moneyed interests in promoting war. I don't really understand why you are still defending them, as well as your lack of response to this story. It has nothing to do with right wing vs. left wing - it has to do with responsible reporting vs. well, the kind of reporting you are engaging in right now, I suppose. I sure don't trust you, or your network anymore.

Different Times

Jack H, Washington, DC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:34:18 GMT

Mr. Williams, your post about the two generals demonstrates how deeply the Pentagon has corrupted you. I think you, in good faith, don't even realize you have been corrupted. You seem to think the fact that the generals are honest patriots makes what you did (rather, failed to do) acceptable.

Different Times

James Karmel — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:35:22 GMT

This is just bizarre-- I am totally shocked that you fail to acknowledge the incredible conflict of interest involving military 'analysts' who have financial interests in the war. It seems like journalism 101 -- I have totally lost my respect for NBC news and will not watch it again. You've lost another viewer.

Different Times

Mark Guarino, Hartford, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:41:18 GMT

Mr. Williams, it may be comforting to you and some others that you "think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that" but what you think and believe is not the point. And you know it is not the point. You falsely identified employees and agents of the federal government as "independent" analysts. There is nothing wrong with providing the opinion of government agents. But there is plenty wrong in willfully refusing to identofy them as such, and falsley implying that they are not. Please be responsive to the subject at hand and not so disingenuous in your postings in the future.

Different Times

Paula Apynys, Akron, Ohio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:41:56 GMT

Mr. William's attempt to defend his network's failure to adequately screen their "experts" for potential conflicts of interest and/or bias is not surprising. The fact that this is the age of "No-Accountability" for the rich and powerful is part of the equation, but I think there is a deeper motivation at work, one that Mr. Williams shares with his fellows throughout the traditional media who have likewise failed us so abysmally, and it is this: to admit their complicity with this administration - whether active or by omission, is to start down that slippery slope of responsibility.

In an article by Ted Rall that I read today, he quoted the following: "On the day of his death,” reported The New York Times on May 22, 2005, “Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend… Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time."

Brian William's failures, like the failures of so many others, are directly responsible for the death of Mr. Dilawar, for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, for the deaths of over 4000 American troops and the maiming of thousands more, for the poisoning of the environment in Iraq, and on and on.

However he tries to rationalize it the bottom line is that this stain is upon him. He may die without ever admitting his culpability, to the world, or to himself, but he is culpable nevertheless.

Different Times

Mark Guarino, Hartford, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:41:58 GMT

Mr. Williams, it may be comforting to you and some others that you "think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that" but what you think and believe is not the point. And you know it is not the point. You falsely identified employees and agents of the federal government as "independent" analysts. There is nothing wrong with providing the opinion of government agents. But there is plenty wrong in willfully refusing to identify them as such, and falsely implying that they are not. Please be responsive to the subject at hand and not so disingenuous in your postings in the future.

Different Times

Dave, allentown, pa — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:44:17 GMT

Check out this piece in Salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/

It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Williams and NBC knew of the tangled ties NBC's "independent analysts" had to the government, defense industry, and ideological groups which gave them vested interest in vigorous pro-war advocacy...ties Williams and NBC think are of no consequence to their viewers and of no importance in the pursuit of independent journalism.

Different Times

Kyle Michel Sullivan, Los Angeles, Ca. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:51:19 GMT

Liar. Hypocrite. I guess we should just change the name NBC to NB-GOP.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/index.html
You're a disgrace to even the idea of journalism.

Different Times

K. Gowenlock, Vancouver, British Columbia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:52:21 GMT

Sir,

You do a disservice to journalism by continually neglecting to inform your viewers (and readers) about the economic ties of these retired Generals. They have private economic interests directly related to the matters they are "analyzing." Your own personal judgment of their character is no substitute for full disclosure to your audience. Any first year journalism student knows these standards.

I guess this is a sign of just how far NBC has fallen.

Different Times

Shirley Wells — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:01:07 GMT

I taught and lived in China recently for five years and their government did just what our Pentegon did, but at least they did it through their "Department of Propoganda."

Different Times

Andy Olsen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:07:18 GMT

"Mr. Williams, considering how rapidly Mr. Rather was removed from his position for a much less serious journalistic lapse of judgment, I believe it's time for you to step down."

This is a very good point! Please do the honorable thing and resign. A grateful nation thanks you.

Different Times

john coslevy baton rough la, — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:07:49 GMT

This is truly disgusting.I hope you ashamed of yourself Brian.I think that this is a wake-up call to the american people.The news is not news just drivel Hanna Montana crap is more important than real NEWS. First ABC with Geo.S and buddy with pure crap at the so called debate now all of you rotten apples

Different Times

Nima, Berkeley, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:23:58 GMT

I used to respect you more than any of the news anchors. You upheld the great tradition that Tom Brokaw left you. But I have lost ALL respect for you after this. Pathetic....

Different Times

IdDem, Hagerman, Idaho — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:25:08 GMT

Wow, Greenwald just took you behind the woodshed on this one.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

A point-by-point rebuttal of every claim you conjured up in this piece.

That has to hurt.

Different Times

John Doe Seattle Wa — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:25:53 GMT

Journalist? HaHaHaHaHa

Lacky? YeaYeaYea

Different Times

John Marston, Sterling, Va. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:26:54 GMT

So your defense is, Mr. Williams, that you allow "friendship" to get in the way of being a responsibly skeptical journalist in search of the truth whereever it lies. Way to be an advocate for your viewers. No wonder it's so hard to get the truth out of your clubby, elitist, insular little world of wealth and privilege. No wonder you thought Peggy Noonan's op-ed was brilliant.

Why should I trust your report if you willingly allow yourself to be conned, and you remain in denial about it because you can't believe your military "friends" would do that to you? Do you really believe those analyst-"friends" were totally above-board with you and didn't have any hidden agendas? These are men who got to be top generals because they are master strategists. Should I trust a newsman who is either incredibly naive or fails to see how his journalism is substandard due to misplaced priorities?

Different Times

Hope, Seattle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:33:09 GMT

During the coverage of hurrican Katrina, I found your outrage and your appearance on other talk shows to disclose it heartening. It gave me a glimmer of hope for our sagging and useless news media.

But this - these posts, these facts you are choosing to throw away, this criticism of those who criticize you as though they were simply too dim or too angry to too - what, exactly? - to understand your "friendship" and your trust in these people who have been employed in a way that actually breaks the law - this has just confirmed to me that the media are as lost, arrogant, condescending and blind as the current administration. We're not stupid, sir. And you are not a reporter. Reporters actually want the truth to be told.

Different Times

Dean Booth, Columbus, Ohio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:37:31 GMT

Mr. Williams,
I strongly recommend that you read Glenn Greenwald's critique of your post on military analysts on NBC. It contains actual reporting about the matter not just musing on feelings after looking into the generals' eyes. You could learn alot from Glenn G.

Different Times

Paul Seymour, Aptos, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:40:37 GMT

Mr. Williams,

Your response to this controversy is as dishonest as the original practice. Most glaring is the fact that, while you go to lengths to explain how your general friends are both good guys (which you would obviously think, considering they're your friends), you omitted the most crucial aspect of all:

Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing were 2 of the 25 founding members of "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", an organization which states, as one of its objectives, is to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny."

In other words, you've interviewed two people with a deep, vested interest in the war having a positive perception in the US, and rather than disclose this obvious conflict of interest, you've hidden it under the general assurance that they're "good guys."

Do you still wonder why mainstream media is losing its credibility?

Different Times

Lance - Eureka, Ca. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:44:49 GMT

Unfortunately, NBC is the only nightly news I can receive in my rural area. So having waded through many of your, Brokaw's and Team NBC's editions of the news for the past few years I still am wondering if and when you guys will ever get around to asking a few fundamental questions of this administration. Like:
1. When Paul O'Neil revealed Pres.Bush's directive to,"find me a way to get into Iraq" ten days after taking office. Lisa Myers covered that story which then immediately took a turn, lock step with the rest of corporate media news, by attacking the messenger. O'Neil was said to be ineffectual, not a team player, etc, etc. but nobody, not Ms Myers, or you, Brian, has yet to ask the President the simple question: Why did you say that Mr. President? I believe Helen Thomas came the closest to being a real reporter/journalist when she asked him;"What were the real reasons why you invaded Iraq, Mr. President". Sorry to say that woman has more guts than anyone at NBC has ever had.
2. When the story broke about John McCain's campaign's ties to K Street lobbyists, all 59 of them, again, Lisa Myers covered the story - sort of - and promptly stated that NBC has one of those lobbyists working for him and your company at the same time. Period. End of story.
Well, no it isn't, Brian. Ms Myers in effect openly admitted that NBC has a horse in this race and his name is John McCain and that means that, NBC & MSNBC, house organs of NBC/Universal, a wholly owned subsidiary of GE, have an inherent conflict of interest. NBC pays all of you your, very nice, I'm sure, pay checks.
The question is, how do you at NBC News deal with that charge? So far, silence.
3. This present problem with pentagon shills with lots of brass and salad on their chests is little more than the same old same old with your, and the other networks. You have become propaganda agents for this administration and have forgotten the job of independent journalism.
BTW, I am a former Marine Nam era vet and I'm not as impressed by stars and chest ribbons as you obviously are, Brian. To hold such awe of some who have served is a dis-service to others who have served also. I expect the news to hold whatever administration that is in power's feet to the flame of public scrutiny and inquiry. It used to be the job description of network news. Now apparently, you're all just sales personnel. How sad for America.

Different Times

Bill Larson, Cape Canaveral, Florida..... — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:02:12 GMT

Dear Mr. Williams: Remember....it is always easier to be the shooter than the target. The hunter can shoot because he will never be shot at....and there are a lot more hunters out there than targets. Journalists choose to be targets by virtue of their profession...as did I. It's nice being retired. I don't have to dodge the bullets.

Different Times

P. Sage — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:03:12 GMT

Dear Brian,
I think the point was not that these are good or bad generals or nice men--or whether you found them critical of the Executive or the Pentagon. The Conflict-of-interest forms I sometimes must fill out do not ask me whether I would be biased--that is not for me to decide. I must simply fully divulge _potential_ conflicts.
If your ex-wife were a judge in a court in which you were being tried, would it be fair for her to say, oh, don't worry, I am not angry at you anymore? It's not up to her to decide. It's her responsibility to report what her connection to you is.
This is the kind of information that we your public deserve to know. Your station is far from the only one to make such mistakes. But to regain my trust, it would help for you to simply acknowledge and apologize, so that we all feel that you understand what is wrong with officials paid by the Pentagon appearing on your program as experts.
Thanks a lot and all the best.

Different Times

bg, san diego, ca — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:03:17 GMT

So you expect us to just trust these guys because you hang out with them and have a beer or two? I trust you even less because of your cozy relationship with war cheerleaders.

Different Times

Mary B Devine — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:20:00 GMT

Brian -- FYI -- my first time posting here. I'm incredibly disappointed with the lead-in to your clearly non-objective apologist statements: "All I can say is this . . . ." That's all? The only thing you can do is tell us what great guys you think these people are? What about answering the questions that Troy of San Jose, CA posed to you? How about responding to Karen C. of Auburn, GA, regarding the 2003 The Nation article about McCaffrey and Downing, as well as current news that reflects on their apparent conflicts of interest? Please be a real journalist -- please say more. PLease investigate and comments on the FACTS.

Different Times

Katharine, Illinois — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:27:25 GMT

SInce you've had "exposure" to these retired Generals, these "guys", and you say they're honest- we should just stop reading real news and listen to you! The contempt with which you hold your audience is breathtaking as is your self-serving response. The point is that these men had huge conflicts of interest, had signed on with the Pentagon to push the war, (which they did) and you foisted them off on America as unbiased "analysts". That you won't even pretend to find that disturbing speaks volumes about the corrupt and degraded state of tv news today.

Different Times

Wes Shirley, Eugene, Oregon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:11 GMT

This is the reason that I don't take TV news seriously anymore. I don't watch the cable news channels, and only rarely watch a network news broadcast (generally when I'm bored). No one I know watches nightly news to be more informed anymore, and Williams' response only justifies it.

Different Times

Jesse Corum — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:35:56 GMT

What part of "conflict of interest" do you not understand.

You have lost a viewer. Forever.

Different Times

Stephen J. Goldberg, Los Angeles — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:48:11 GMT

Since I was the first to comment on your original piece with the the response that you seemed to ignore the military analyst story in the Sun. NYT, let me thank you for at least addressing the issue in this forum, however, NBC needs to respond to this vital issue ON THE AIR; why not put Lisa Meyers and Mic on the story? Yes, NBC had two of the generals with the most integrity - we know that - but many nets did not. 75 generals were in this program conducted by the Pentagon (many with conflicts of interest through involvement with war profiteers)U.S. law and the Constitution make it illegal for the government to propagandize. This was a blatant violation which continued for at least five years until Mon. when the Pentagon said they would put the program on hold. Does anyone believe they will?? The damage this administration has done to the integrity of the federal government will take years to reverse, if ever. The broadcast news media waved the bloody shirt, and embedded reporters many of whom lost all objectivity (and even their lives -- I still miss David Bloom). They owe it to the American people who own the broadcast airwaves to look into this secret massive Pentagon program which we the people paid for with tax dollars to propagandize ourselves. This is an Orwellian spector, if ever there was one. Stephen J. Goldberg, Esq.

Different Times

sandra, Spokane, Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:49:46 GMT

This completely misses the point. Have you guys learned NOTHING about the last 8 years. You are supposed to be our (democracy) eyes and ears - the media did such a terrible job questioning the case for war, and still appear to be avoiding facing up to the fact that the media as much as the Bush administration is responsible for this war.

Nobody is saying these people aren't patriots. But that is perhaps exactly the sort of person you DON'T want analyzing the situation.

I was in the UK in the run up to the war, and I've got to say they did a lot better job asking the most important questions - and it was helpful having a third party that was opposed to the war. When I got back to the US, it was laughable. It was like being in North Korea - critics were labelled unpatriotic. You guys failed, you continue to fail, and you fell for this.

In addition saying "I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men" - THAT'S A BAD THING NOT A GOOD ONE. I don't care if you personally hate your analysts, I just care if they have some capacity for critical thinking.

You and the rest of the press owe us an apology. You were our voice, our ability to question authority and you FAILED and continue to FAIL. It's like a 2 year old child "watch the shiny toy (Rev Wright, sex scandals etc", rather than the actual things we care about - our jobs, gas at $4, a pointless never ending war. You're no better than that horrible CBS debate the other night.

Grow the hell up, admit you were wrong and apologize on air. You're always asking politicians when they are going to apologize - why can't you guys.

Sandra

Different Times

Leigh R. Baltimore, MD — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:56:06 GMT

This debate isn't about Brian Williams or his "independent generals". It's about television journalism. Anyone who reads Glen Greenwood at Salon.com today (even though his article was confined and circumscribed to Brian Williams, NBC and the conflicts of interest it failed to disclose to its viewers) must, if they have an IQ higher than 69 (which is my age) realize that this happens constantly on all the networks. NBC has left us with no legitimate excuse any longer for giving the benefit of the doubt to the network's version of "truth". It is reasonable to form a working hypothesis that if NBC and its lead anchor fail to disclose such blatant conflicts of interest, most television networks probably do the same thing.

Until proven otherwise, NBC has dumped its toxic waste of deception and concealment on television at large; a very small body of water. In doing so they have abused their freedoms and our reason to protect those freedoms from infringement. I wonder how hard anyone would fight for Freedom of the Press at a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia tomorrow if they read Glenn Greenwald's column on Salon.com today.

This is not about a mere bias or a "slant". We all take that for granted. It's hard to write anything which doesn't have the perspective of its author included. This is different. It's about a vital and major television news source having both a conflict of interest and the perception of a conflict of interest without disclosing it. Worse still, it is reasonable to suspect that if it happens on NBC and it is done knowingly by its lead news anchor, it happens throughout broadcast journalism.

I have been interviewed multiple times by network news programs, including NBC's Nightly News and rarely have I been asked whether I had a bought and paid "point of view" I was introduced as an expert in my field (unless, on my own initiative), I was able to squeeze in the information that I was not completely unbiased in responding to a question. In any event that kind of thing makes for a poor sound bite and will surely be edited out.

To be fair I have had similar experiences with reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Science Magazine, Fortune, the AP and too many others to count. But when the print media does an interview they usually take more time and ask more questions. The truth is more likely to emerge.

But with television, it is not unusual to get a call from CBS at 4:00 PM, see a camera crew in your office at 4:30 PM and be on the air at 6:30 PM.

It's late. But it's not too late for NBC to swear off this practice and say so publicly. Doing so might be a contribution to our devotion to the freedoms we cherish for journalists and for ourselves. After all, we need to trust someone to inform us truthfully.

In my view anyone who uses the public's airways has an obligation to all of us to tell the truth as he sees it and disclose any possible perception of a conflict of interest if he is relying on a source. This is no less an obligation than the fiduciary obligations of a lawyer to his client or the obligations of a doctor to his patient's rights of privacy and a truthful diagnosis. The only clear difference I can see between Doctors, Lawyers and Journalists is that the first two professions cannot offer their services to the public without a license which can be taken away. We have no similar protection from dishonesty in journalism. We must trust our journalists. Thus they bear a heavy responsibility in exchange for the protection they are given by our constitution.

Different Times

Rich, Atlanta, Georgia — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:01:02 GMT

Don't you understand that it's not good propaganda if there isn't some (mild) criticism so it seems realistic. Did any of these guys ask in 2002 (not 3 years after invading) "Does Iraq really have WMD", "is this enough troops", "do we have a plan", "are there really terrorists in Iraq", "does it take away our focus on Afganistan", "will this strengthen Iran", "how will we pay for it"???

Unless you can point to these criticisms Mr Williams, your arguments are not worth the paper they're written on (oh wait they're not).

Yes they are patriots, but they were biased, and you didn't have non-biased analysts who were critics of the administration and the execution of the war.

It is not a question of patriotism, nor whether they asked some (mildly) critical questions. It is whether they were BIASED. Whether they properly represented their relationships to you and to us the public. They didn't and you didn't do your job protecting us the American public - and it is something the journalism profession should hang it's head in shame over.

You had access to these guys, you had access to research, to overseas outlets, to sources inside the Pentagon.

If I sound angry it is because my gut was telling me there was something very wrong with what we were doing in 2002, but I couldn't ask any questions, so a part of me said "if the Democrats, the media, and the Govt all say the same thing, I'm not sure what else I can do". Shame on me, but shame on you - I have to work and can't go and read defense estimates - but it's YOUR job!

Another disgrace, and another media outlet pretending they've been objective.

Weren't you just scared of being called "liberal" or "unpatriotic" in 2002? Isn't that the real reason when you wake in the middle of the night?

Different Times

Christina Gellman, Philadlphia, PA — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:12:47 GMT

Dear Brian,

Your response unintentionally reveals how corruptly the news media has acted regarding the Iraq War. I'm sure these generals were very nice men and loved their country but if they are receiving tax payers dollars as part of the Pentagon's efforts to create support for the invasion, then that is something NBC should have disclosed. In other words, it's not your call!!! Your viewers should have been informed. And the fact that the story is being swept under the rug by the major news outlets only makes it more appalling. I know to you Brian, I'm only a lowly average American who doesn't get to socialize with high-ranking generals and Washington elites but I think news outlets should have enough respect for their viewers to let them know when a Pentagon propagandist is sharing their "analysis".

Different Times

USXPat, Canberra,ACT — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:17:04 GMT

Hi,

I wish I could say I have been surprised by the US's lack of success in Iraq. I read Noam Chomski and therefore I'm not. I've also read his masterpiece "Manufacturing Consent". He has understood you idiots for years, better than you understand yourselves.

I'm proud you read the New York Times. Congratulations. I refuse to buy the paper. After Judith Miller, why would I bother. Her conflicts of interest were apparent to a moron real-time. and it went on. I shut off the TV news. It's crap that offers entertainment 24 hours a day with very little verifiable information. It doesn't begin provide a thoughtful analysis of anything. And the Times is little better.

About the time of the war there ware a couple of historians running around talking about the starts of previous wars. It was obvious they had an idea what was coming. The Maine blowing up, as covered by the Hearst newspapers is now thought to be a good old fashioned boiler explosion. I suggest you read up on the current thoughts about the gulf of Tonkin incident ... and the story goes on. It's not the first time the American people have been gamed and it won't be the last.

Let me conclude with a story about my next door neighbor Milton Burg. He's dead now. You probably don't know him but you've heard his writing. He wrote for Walter Cronkite. I told him about how good I was listening to newsradio in New York, he responded that it was a business like any other and not to treat what I was hearing as the truth because businesses freqently lie in order to make more money. He used the work skeptical as in treat what I hear with skepticism.

May I respectfully suggest that you suffer from a lack of skepticism even today as evidenced by your current writing.

I have left the country in large part because of its miltaristic impulses. I currently track Tsunamis in Australia and can hopefully save thousands of lives in a matter of minutes. It is estimated the last Tsunami killed around 250,000 Indonesians in a matter of minutes on Boxing Day. The US was shamed into donating development money. How does that compare to The World Trade Center? But no one invaded any countries or started a "War on Tsunamis". But Tsunamis can't be stopped by fancy weapons systems ... so who cares.

A last question. One of my friends said that if were to see all the military uniforms around the White house it would look like an armed camp. And that therefore a president by his very nature would be provided with military solutions to problems in part because ofthe nature of his advisors. Base on your experience, is this viewpoint true?

Different Times

lissa, Indianapolis, IN — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:24:12 GMT

You say you trusted these two generals. Did they tell you they were being briefed by the Pentagon, and that they were being paid by defense contractors? If they did, why do you think that disclosing that to your viewers isn't required? And if they didn't tell you, why do you still trust them?

You want us to trust you, and yet you, like them, are withholding crucial information. You might be so naive you go on trusting people who refuse to tell you what you need to know, but we're not quite that gullible. Your viewers have the right to know the conflicts of interest your analysts have. We need to know that to factor that into our judgement of their credibility. YOU saying they're credible, especially when you didn't know or didn't tell all, just isn't enough, and your inability to understand that doesn't say much for your knowledge of journalistic ethics.

Different Times

Thomas Kelley, Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:44:25 GMT

I'm sorry but your response is way too dismissive. You did not answer the clear conflict of interest of these so-called "independent" analysts. In fact, you are complicit and continue to be complicit as long as you fail to acknowledge the troubling, unethical relationship you had with these sources on the air. That they are great patriots tells us nothing about their ability to remain independent journalistically. I am a journalist myself and got my master's in journalism a few years ago. As a young journalist, I expect more from my elders.

Different Times

Thomas Kelley, Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:46:43 GMT

Does your silence have to do with your ego or NBC's parent company, GE, which certainly has it's fingers in all sorts of technology markets, military weaponry being one of them I'd imagine?

Different Times

T. Clark — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:00:20 GMT

Mr. Williams -- Your admitted close personal relationship with the generals/analysts who appeared on your network clearly demonstrates your inability to act responsibly as managing editor. You should resign that important role and stick with reading the teleprompter.

Different Times

Jane, Fort Worth — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:03:18 GMT

Brian, unfortunately you are blogging on the internet, and this is a different medium. You can no longer just say that people are "good patriots" and friends of yours and be done with it. Them being patriots has absolutely nothing to do with it. It has to do with you and your network being forthright and objective with the viewers, which you clearly have not been. It's fine for the Generals to agree with Bush, but employing two of them that explicitly advocated more war is certainly leaning in one direction.

Go read Glenn Greenwald's column today. Some people do research.

Different Times

Charles Anderson — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:20:46 GMT

Brain,
You got them librels rilled up and all I says' go get them! Macaffery and Downing are American heros, unlike Bill Clinton, who dodged the draft. Sense when do we have presidents who dodge the draft. The New York Times' is for sissies. They are always stiring up trouble with their bellyaching and gripping about torture. (Did the Moslems not torture us on 911?) Anyway your my hero, Brian; keep speaking truth to the powerful, that is the elitist librels who want to kill our babies and marry all the gays.

Sincerely,

Chuck

Different Times

Randy, Anchorage, AK — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:31:45 GMT

This controversy illustrates how astonishingly far we are from receiving unbiased reporting about the war in Iraq. The truth is without doubt the first casualty in a war. NBC and other news networks do a disservice by not only failing to provide balanced reporting, but actually facilitating propaganda from the military under the guise of news reports. The purpose of a news program is not to provide some sort of jinogistic support for a war, it is instead to give viewers all sides of an issue so they can decide for themselves.

Different Times

Binx, Boston, MA — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:41:19 GMT

The only thing that gives me hope is the outrage of the posters here. And remember it's not just NBC. All the networks used these shills/honorable men/patriots... only those networks' "experts" might not have been written up in The Nation as being on the "Committee to Depose That Bastard Saddam". Their unethical connections are one step removed and more easily obscured. Everything that is wrong with NBC, Williams, McCaffery and Downing is wrong with ABC, and CBS and Fox News and MSNBC and all the networks who knowingly used these Pentagon surrogates. Remember and vote. For whomever. Just vote.

Different Times

John A. Elliott, Neotsu, OR — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:53:08 GMT

(not for printing but for screeners for future topic suggestions on air)

Dear Brian,

This letter is in reaction to your brief piece yesterday about the horrible state of affairs that rules the U.S. railroads--a topic long overdue. Someone with your connections, it seems to me, could help establish a foundation in a national movement to get railroads rebuilt and extended for use to all areas of this country. This should be a national priority.

Passenger service is largely non-existent presently except for the Northeast corridor. What service does exist elsewhere is continually eroding. Bus service shrinks. Airlines ail badly. Cars are the only means of transportation for people in most areas of the country.

Freight service is clogged around the country because of single tracks in the wide-open spaces (which, believe it or not, is the vast majority of our country), and there is a serious lack of multiple tracks in most urban areas today. A helicopter ride above the Union Pacific tracks through Wyoming, for example, would reveal mile-long freights waiting on sidings for oncoming freights to pass them. Their progress is severely impeded, causing shipped goods to take considerably longer to get to their destinations and shippers to choose the highways.

The railroads are needed to ease the congestion at our ports as well as on our highways and to keep highways and bridges from crumbling under the heavy pounding of big trucks. Semis now outnumber all other vehicles combined on the vast majority of our Interstates, chewing up those roads with their overloads. It so relatively inexpensive for a company to pay the overload fine that they actually make substantial profit with the overload goods even after paying the fine. Escalating diesel fuel prices will probably exacerbate that problem.

Here's the BIG rub in expanding railroads: Not only do we have to lay new tracks but most that exist are in very sorry shape, too dangerous to carry fast trains. How can we reasonably overcome this costly dilemma we have allowed to happen? How were our early railroads built? How was a good portion of U.S. Highway 101 built along the West Coast many decades ago?

A solution (plaguing my mind since the '60s) is to use convict labor. I heard of such an idea when I was a young man, but the unions quickly beat that down as an encroachment on their territory. However, I believe we no longer have a choice; and certainly we have the brainpower in corrections, business,labor management, and psychology to put a workable plan with reasonable labor costs into shape. Not only would we eventually have the railroads but we probably would also be building character and self-esteem as well as teaching some simple skills and the ability to work alongside one another in the majority of convicts whom we now support sitting idly in jail, swallowed up in their self-pity and apparent worthlessness. Absent the killers, the violent, and other serious mental problems, I think there will be more than enough to get the job done. Idle time is the devil's playground and he certainly is having a hay day in America now. Could railroads and convicts be a win-win situation?

Sincerely,
John

Different Times

Greg Kelly — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:56:29 GMT

Why can't you even mention the NYT article on the generals on the air?

Different Times

Ron Barth, Jr. — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:06:32 GMT

Mr. Williams:
Like George Bush looking into Vladimir Putin's eyes, and discerning the benevolence of his soul therein, I am leery of your assertions regarding the unimpeachable integrity of your admittedly close friends and the objectivity of their pre-war analysis, given their long-known and deep conflicts of interest (which, of course, were never disclosed by NBC).
As an agnostic, my only regret is that I am highly dubious that those like you and the generals in question will burn in hell -- as you should -- for sacrificing all the lives lost in this fiasco of a war. By propagandizing shamelessly on behalf of a fraudulently promoted war that would further enrich you, them and your various respective employers, the blood of hundreds of thousands is on all your hands, to say nothing of the sacrifice of the American Constitution on the altar of Bush corporatist warmongering.

Different Times

Joseph Decker — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:31:58 GMT

So you did not think it was relevant to your viewers that these generals were fouding members of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a neocon group agitating for war?

The basis for a healthy democracy is a well-educated populace. No wonder America is in such sorry shape. Thanks for all the Miley Cyrus stories.

Different Times

Mike, Broomfield, Colorado — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:38:08 GMT

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Too many unanswered questions and too many links to money, power and income. At it's very very best it's a simple case of a Conflict of Interest; at it's worst is yet another day in the life of the Bush administration screwing the American people out of Democracy.

Different Times

AlanDownunder — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:39:39 GMT

Pay no attention to these rabid lefties, Brian. You're way more telegenic than any of them.

Different Times

Bill La Ronde — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:41:06 GMT

I for one do not want my news chopped, seasoned and cooked to a recipe. I have heard both NBC military analysts and have considered what they have said. I have agreed with some opinions and not with others. But I always have learned something, and found that soemtimes what I wanted to be true wasn't.

Different Times

John Parker, Burlingame, CA — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:43:41 GMT

I've never read this blog before. I was directed here by a source that is a bit critical of your work.

I must say, the thing that stands out upon reading the comments is the really friendly, supportive writers. Are all of these screened to make you look good? I get the feeling that there are a bunch of 50 or 60 somethings that love every word you say and wish that they could invite you over for dinner.

Apparently you make a lot of friends, as evidenced by your comment about how quickly you became close friends with the generals that you relied on to give you objective information.

Have you ever really considered becoming a journalist, or will you always be an entertainer pretending to be a newsman?

Your very weak justification for not addressing the issue described by the NYT more thoroughly really paints a picture of your as a pretty boy with a crooked face that has no clue of what is really going on in America

Different Times

Bennett Gilbert — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:50:42 GMT

Speaking of the "Mission Accomplished" spectacle, you said on 1 May '03:
"...It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing...."
Perhaps you can pause a moment to consider how deeply militarized your view of this country is---& how extensively our politics & culture have been militarized since the 1980's. Your participation in this propaganda driven by your own warmongering views, is one of the reasons we no longer are more thrilled by great bridges or airports or schools or rails, built by public investment in our national life, as we are by cheap fascistic displays of guns. Bush on that carrier was no different than a Hapsburg emperor strutting around in a feathered helmet. It's the same old lie of war & greed that excites you so much that you help them lead people to exchange our peaceful and prosperous democracy for a war-ridden miserable failing empire. How can you look yourself in the mirror?

Different Times

Kyle Moss, Portland, Or — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:57:24 GMT

Hi Brian,

Do you really think it's a good idea to become good close friends with "independent" analysts? I would think that as an objective anchor, it might not be good to be buddy - buddy with those you are questioning. I believe that is one of the biggest problems in the political media relationship. The correspondants dinner for example, it never seems quite appropriate. It's difficult to be a dogged interogater when you know that next week you'll be socializing with that person at a party.

Different Times

Christina Atlee, Camden — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:00:17 GMT

"I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

I'll tell you who are better men by far - those fighting this war. They deserve better than this, and they deserve a journalist with a spine.

Different Times

Bill — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:28:24 GMT

The military has to hire civilian aircraft mechanics because the military aircraft mechanics are too busy picking up cigarette butts, cutting grass or painting something that doesn't work to make it look functional.

Different Times

jim, Albany, NY — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:31:43 GMT

It is truly amazing that a story of this magnitude, which goes to the core of why this country is in the midst of the biggest foreign policy disaster in its history, has been completely ignored by all of the networks. Oh, expect Brian here, who deigned to address it in a dismissive, counter-factual BLOG POST. What this episode makes crystal clear is that the media in this country have ZERO integrity or concern for the Republic. And that is why we are in this mess in the first place.

But Brian watches NASCAR and loves Drudge and "regular Americans." Hate to break it to you, Brian, you screwed over 4,000+ regular Americans in Iraq.

Different Times

James Gardner — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:03:18 GMT

Brian, you really don't understand the entire purpose of a free press to begin with, do you? I'm sure all of these military and government officials are fine, upstanding, patriotic, NASCAR watching Regular Americans. So why do we need a free press? Shouldn't we trust them? As we should trust a fine, patriotic American like you?

Move to China.

Different Times

Max Thrax — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:18:58 GMT

" This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
-Dwight Eisenhower

Different Times

James Auburn, Ca. — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:17:15 GMT

Thomas Jefferson said,"never believe what you read in the newspaper". I'm sure that would apply to news anchors. Be honest with yourself.

Different Times

Dick Schladen, Aurora IN — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:06:16 GMT

I worked for GE too. Back then they made a large chunk of their money from making the tools of war. I had hoped that the heavy hand of corporate had lost some of it's power to control GE's version of the truth. Perhaps I was wrong.

Different Times

Kyron Huigens, New York, NY — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:29:54 GMT

Mr Williams and Commenters

Please read Glenn Greenwald on the generals' propaganda and conflicts of interest.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/index.html

If Mr Williams has anything like Glenn's detailed, well documented arguments to present, I would certainly welcome them. In the absence of an adequate defense, one has to conclude that Glenn is right.

But I doubt I will ever see this comment posted to Mr. Williams's blog. Glenn's post has been up for some time and I see no mention of it here. Another commenter must have referred to it by now. I challenge whoever monitors this blog to prove NBC's journalistic professionalism and good faith by posting this comment.

Thank you.

Different Times

Jeremy Weiland, Richmond, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:47:20 GMT

You defend your integrity and those of your commentators. That's great. But you're still not *reporting the story*.

If you've got nothing to hide, if your network's credentials and honesty are beyond reproach, what's the problem?

It's the norm for people who occupy positions of influence and responsibility in our institutions to claim that they have the highest integrity, and how dare we question their actions. But basically what you're saying is "just trust me. Ignore the evidence, and just trust me." And that is a pathetic attitude for a journalist.

Different Times

ParaTrooper — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:09:39 GMT

I don't believe those 2 generals were lying, misleading or spinning anything. War on the cheap-that about says it all. This Administration, from the top, down has been inept, stubborn, inflexible and GREEDY. The supply train was only guarded after Army brass realized this was where we were vulnerable. So, the plan was modified, and the 101st and 82nd were tasked with clearing towns along the way. Does anyone wonder why Gen. Franks, along with most of the top brass running the war quit not long after we seized Baghdad? They KNEW it was going south. There is a civil war going on, Bush&Co don't want to admit it. While US troops fight and die, Halliburton makes BILLIONS. Supply everything from fuel to french fries. Yeah, they feed us too-at 35.00 dollars a plate. You people have the wrong men in the crosshairs. Shame on you Ohio and Florida, for giving this inept, stubborn guy who surrounds himself with "yes men" another term. How many people lost jobs in Ohio? IDIOTS.

Different Times

C. Joseph — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:33:43 GMT

The only way you are going to get an honest story in the news today is to have Keith Obermann tell it!

Different Times

Stephen Thurston, Baltimore MD — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:54:48 GMT

Mr Williams:

I've just finished reading Glenn Greenwald's detailed rebuttal to the above piece. He slices it apart with precision surgery. I have nothing but contempt for NBC's failure to air the NYT story or respond to it any meaningful way.

Different Times

Joyce Clark, Grand Rapids MI — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:23:24 GMT

I'm a long time viewer of NBC's nightly news but lately I've been a little bemused over your choice of news stories. Are Google's Earth Day letters, text messaging, or Hannah Montana pics important news? For you to criticize the NYT is truly amazing. Where is your on air response to the Times military analyst story? Weren't McCaffrey and Downing on "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq"? That would hardly make them independent. I'm truly thinking of switching to PBS for my news.

Different Times

Phil Pressly — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:32:03 GMT

Dear Brain,
I'm 59 years old, I'm a commercial banker, I live in Greenville, South Carolina and I'm a polictical independent, never really having given any significant contributions to either party.

I have unfortunately never served in the military, fortunately I had a high draft number. I try and vote in every election local, state, and national.I'm a member of the Mayflower Society, so I take the responsibility of voting very seriously.

I have watched the NBC Nightly news from Huntley-Brinkley, to John Chanceller, to Tom Brakow, to you; however, I need to tell you that your company has lost my trust and I no longer watch your news show. It's way to negative and way to liberal, it's not the news any more it's NBCs version of the news.

I was wondering however if the news media could do us consumers a favor out here. About a month ago I sold my land barg and bought a 4 cylinder Chevy 4 door. My teenage daughter calls it a gay mobile, I tell her it's a muscle car.

With gas consumtion down 1% and prices still going up, the news media has taken the stand that because of China and India prices are being driven up.

I don't think the oil companies are reinvesting hugh profits in exploration or refineries. There is one way you can put the fear of God into them and that is by floating out the idea of wage and price controls for the oil industry.

It is my contention that neither the Dems or the Reps care about the average guy out on the street. Neither one are interested in coming up with real solutions,i.e. theirs a simple solution to imigration, give them all social security numbers and make them start paying for the infra structure they are building. Neither party wants to offend small businesses and have them have to pay payroll taxes, social securitey, etc.
The middle east and terriorism, get a state for the Palenstinians, produce our own oil, and let the Chinese and Indians deal with the high cost of middle east oil. And get focused on who the problem is Asama Bin Lauden.
The subprime mortgage crisis comes as no suprise, ambition has grown to greed and all checks and balances have been ignored, could easily been avoided.
Get spending under control at the federal level. These are not insovlable problems, but with seniority as a system, our elected officals are more concerned about themselves and re-election then helping the country. Where are the statesmen.
As a student of American history, I hate to say this but President Bush is probably going to be remembered as the worst president in American history and I'm sad to say I voted for him twice.
I would appreciate it if you would keep this between us.
We would appreciate any help the media could give us. Sincerely, Phil

Different Times

jamesd — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:48:59 GMT

This is truly marvelous. For the first time in Brian Williams' professional life, he's and the corporate culture of NBC are facing real criticism from real people -- the ones who have to live in the world NBC and its parent corporation perpetuate.

Bravo to NBC for allowing the comments of the Great Unwashed to stand. You'll ignore every word, but it's still a sign of hope. You may be hopelessly corrupt, but the rest of us are still thinking, despite your best efforts.

Different Times

Lisa Lucas, Sebring, Florida — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:52:41 GMT

Whenever I have heard "independent" associated with retired Generals, I have listened for a dissenting opinion on the war. Naively, I believed being long term military employees, the bias would always be pro-war so didn't expect much else.
Reading that these generals are both members of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (a decidedly pro-war group) certainly negates their "independent" label. The fact that both generals sit on the boards of corporations that have military contracts plainly shows that both stood to benefit financially from a pro-war. Maybe this is all "natural" for you and NBC, but it seems very wrong to me.

I am sorry to tell you that about six months ago I stopped watching your show for its decidedly pro-war and right wing slant on all issues. I am not surprised by the NYT article and all that has been disclosed on Glenn Greenwald's blog -- aren't you just a little embarrassed about promoting this deception? Just a little bit??

Different Times

Aaron, Brooklyn NY — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:39:44 GMT

That's really all well and good, but it still does not answer the question: WHY HASN'T THIS STORY RECEIVED ANY COVERAGE ON YOUR NEWS PROGRAM???

Different Times

Keith S., Rollinsville, CO — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:46:00 GMT

Oh please Brian. I'm sorry but your piede just does not wash. McCaffrey had deep ties to the Iraqi Liberation group. He was also deeply involved with the corporate arm of the war. these were well known fact in 2003; not that we'd have gotten them from the Nightly News. My god this is pathetic. Really awful.
you should ask yourself sometime how it is possible that so many average citizens in this country seem to know so much more about the news than you do?
We are ill served by this.

Different Times

Jrubin, Los angeles, ca — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:47:27 GMT

I am having a tough time reconciling what I have seen of your work in the past w/ what I now know is going on w/ the military analysts. I'm sure you were working in good faith, and I'm sure they are excellent people. But the main issue here is the level of cooperation they needed to exhibit in order to gain the access you needed. They were part of a state propaganda agenda headed by the White House, and the country's primary media outlets participated, knowingly or not. Now you know and your credibility has been damaged. It is so hard to find trustworthy sources for news these days and I want to trust you again. Please use your skills and access to fully investigate the NYT story.

Different Times

Jan, New Haven, CT — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:47:45 GMT

This explains so much. You've been a little too cozy to the establishment and elite to make you an objective voice in news.

Different Times

JB, Lake Forest, IL — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:47:54 GMT

Sorry Brian,
Your network has failed the Nation, and your failure to cover this story is even worse. The Network helped lead America into an un-necessary War and as such you, personally, and NBC has blood on it's corporate logo.

Different Times

Jan, New Haven, CT — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:55:16 GMT

This explains so much. You've been a little too cozy to the establishment and elite to make you an objective voice in news.

Different Times

Temperance, Lawrence KS — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:43:16 GMT

Bri -- Claiming that the generals are your friends does not remove the clouds of suspicion about your corrupt "reporting" -- it only deepens the suspicion. You -- yes, you -- are one of the reasons I stopped watching the nightly news. Criticize the NYT all you want, but you're losing credibility by the minute.

Different Times

Peter Brawley, McComb, MS — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:36:02 GMT

NBC military analysts were on the Committee to Liberate Iraq, stood to profit from the invasion, and provided biased and false information. Williams's response is pathetic. His coverage of the Iraq War has been a disgrace.

Different Times

seethelight, alexandria, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:42:47 GMT

So, Brian, now you know the truth about the generals and their conflict of interest, courtesy of the NYTimes. It doesn't matter (it certainly shouldn't) if they are your personal friends. Report the news .... and this is big news, and Americans need to know it. Don't shield NBC's military friends and your own personal military friends because you don't particularly like the facts. That's not your job. And writing about it on your blogsite is not a substitute for reporting it on the Nightly News.

Different Times

Stephen Weber, Arlington Heights, IL — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:56:05 GMT

This is very, very serious, Brian -- an extraordinary breach of the most fundamental journalistic ethics. Gen. McCaffrey is no doubt a great guy, and he's entitled to his opinion, and NBC has every right to present his opinion. However, I as a citizen watching your show am entitled to know that he has financial ties to defense contractors and is part of an advocacy group specifically established to push for that very war. It's very simple. It is not an arguable point. You are not entitled to make the judgment how important those connections are for me. This is easily a firing offense: you know it, General McCaffrey knows it, NBC management knows it, Jack Welch knows it. Getting flippant, smug and arrogant about it will only make it worse. You ought to have the integrity to fall on your sword and accept being fired for cause -- which means without the golden parachute you surely would try to get.

Different Times

Beth Cushing — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:26:54 GMT

Brian,
A few quick easily answered question. Did the network have complete knowledge of the paid relationships that your analysts had with military contractors such as what they promised to deliver? Because most retired senior level military advisor advertise access. Did your network ever question the veracity of the information your analyst were getting from their official sources. We know that this administration has taken "spin" to a new level. How did Gen McCaffrey fact checked the information he reported on. Because it seemed to me that I never heard anything different than what the Dept of Defense wanted me to hear. When did he dissent, when did he say that his sources had disagreed with the administations story. Easily illustrated. That is the story I am now waiting for.

Different Times

Lou, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:38:26 GMT

You just got schooled by Glenn Greenwald.

I suggest you go back and take a refresher course on the elements and responsibilities journalism.

Maybe you understand those to be different than I do - so let me spell it out for you... you can also start by doing your part to stop us from attacking Iran.

Different Times

Patric DeBusca Jr., Honolulu, Hawaii — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:45:11 GMT

Mr. Williams:

I suppose you could claim a right to "feel" that "at no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

And I could "feel" that the earth is flat.

But let's not confuse that with dereliction of duty. Representing shills and ideologues as "independent analysts" is wrong.

And not owning up to it is cowardly.

Your newscast no longer airs in this household.

Different Times

KO, Tokyo, Japan — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:49:40 GMT

It's really sad. One of the few news programs I thought was somewhat dependable turns out to be a total bogus.

Different Times

Dick de Seve, Gilmanton, NH — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:59:23 GMT

Mr. Williams: we're all still waiting, with actually little hope of success, for you and NBC to a) explain how these and other so-called experts regularly show up on ALL the news shows all over the airwaves, despite their massive conflicts of interest; and b) when any of the networks, including NBC, is going to start inviting REAL, non-military, non-defense contractor-connected experts on war and peace to discuss ALL aspects of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, including how incredibly blatant violations of settled international law they are, and how many times our troops have committed heinous war crimes through the use of banned weapons such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and how incredibly our actions violate the basic civil rights of those innocent civilians we kill, maim, torture and imprison in those nations and others on a daily basis. Or don't you and NBC have any stomach or courage at all to seek the truth and actually report it? Remember, the reason people are so angry with Rev. Wright over his comments conflating US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan with international terror is that they are true.

Different Times

Rich Plunkett, Toms River, NJ — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:05:50 GMT

You've lost/sold your integrity...the only thing a journalist should dear...McCaffreys' analytical opines are compromised by all of the financial ties he has invested in wars efforts. His not being objectivelly vetted TO THE VIEWERS by you...NBC totally disqualifies his objectivity.

Different Times

Blake, St Petersburg, FL — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:35:20 GMT

Brian,

I have been a long time viewer of NBC News and am shocked at how far you have gone to side with the current administration and its policies. It is disingenuous of you and NBC to ignore the content of the NYT article about Embedded Military Analysts at NBC as well as all other major networks. You helped them to lie us into a mess in Iraq and then are unapologetic about doing so. In fact, you claim to have done nothing wrong. Millions protested against this, yet your network and the Embedded Military Analyst hired to sell the war made sure that we went headlong into an unnecessary, destructive, and murderous war that has made us less safe than ever before....

To claim with a straight face that your Embedded Military Analysts Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey were impartial "analysts" shows your total lack of journalistic skill. It only takes an amateur to see that Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey have both profited by our invasion of Iraq since they both have substantial ties to the defense industry which gave them strong financial incentives to advocate for the war. In addition, both were founding members of a group named "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", which was devoted to advocating freedom and democracy in Iraq. Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis...

Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey had no financial or personal incentive to advocate against the war. NBC paid them to promote the war and ignore all justification against it. If amateur viewers can gather this information about your paid Embedded Military Analysts and reveal their lack of independence, how can you as a professional "journalist" look us in the face and claim that they were anything other than the war profiteers that they are???

Brian, you and NBC News, as well as all the other major Networks should be thoroughly embarrassed and apologetic about your recent behavior and should be reporting your mistakes and mia culpas on a nightly basis. Instead, you continue to defend the indefensible and continue misleading this country down an unnecessary and destructive path. Perhaps that's why John McCain is getting a pass by your network? I imagine that GE stands to make considerable profit by continuing and promoting the war and more of the Bush Agenda...

Different Times

SamB, sierra vista, az — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:56:52 GMT

Why don't you apply for Dana Perino's job? I'm sure your handsome, "independent" (wink) style would make you invaluable. The sky's the limit, Brian. Just don't be too obvious. Alberto probably stepped over a line there. They have need of independents like you. And as you point out, quid pro quo is beside the point. You could really clean up.

"The People" really are just stupid cattle, aren't we? Moo. Tell us more about Miley's pictures...

Different Times

Karen, St. Louis, MO — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:16:08 GMT

There's no reason to try to ask/plead/urge Brian Williams or any other news anchor to tell the truth. How often do you need to be lied to before you quit listening to the liars?

Different Times

Christopher, Little Rock, AR — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:21:16 GMT

If these retired patriots had been called to testify in a court of law with respect to their professional, military opinions about the lead up and conduct of the war, reckon their pnac allegiance and war-machine-financial interests would have been relevant on cross examination, Mr. Williams? I thought so.

Your opinion that Downing and McCaffrey are true-blue, swell guys and iron-jawed, patriotic Americans says something about you, but nothing about the respective objectivity or veracity of either of these men. You will note that many call themselves patriots, but have different notions on what that word means. To some it's the cut of the jib and flag decal, to others it's the desire to protect the sanctity of our Constitution. We the People deserve better.

Try harder, it's only our nation's future at stake. Maybe you figure you'll be comfortable in the end no matter what happens to the country at large? I'm sure many in the propaganda arm of the Nazi party thought the same thing during those heady days from '33 to '39. It's not too late to save your soul, Mr. Williams.

Different Times

Keith Hulett, Athens, GA — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:35:09 GMT

Sad but far from surprising. Another pretty face/no guts "news" anchor co-opted by the high life with all those "personal friend" generals. And a bad liar to boot.

Different Times

Rob Wendt — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:35:21 GMT

This sorry excuse for journalism is why network news is hemorrhaging viewers. Brian Williams and Barry McCaffrey should be subpoenaed to testify before Congress on their complicity in what appears to be a criminal domestic psy-ops and propaganda operation.

Different Times

HH, Oakland, CA — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:50:30 GMT

NBC news is negligent at best and culpable at worst for the US military fighting an illegal war of aggression in Iraq. The Bush administration will receive it's judgement once this is all investigated and NBC News should also be judged to have been guilty of doing there job, of reporting the truth and acknowledging when advisors they hire have conflicts of interests. The blood of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi people are on your hands.

Different Times

p knox Montreal QC — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:53:59 GMT

Mmmmmm! That's some mighty fine parsing mr. williams. Your profession has sunk to lows I only imagined happening in the old soviet union. Heck, they did it for mother russia - McCaffery et al do it for cash... just like you. I guess you'll all share a laugh over this while injesting cocktail weenies at a beltway insiders party. You can snicker over the quaint provisions in the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention while you're at it. You helped sell the war Brian. You and your ilk have blood on your hands. I hope those good kids who volunteered to die for Bush's calumny visit you in your sleep.

Different Times

TC, Seattle — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:12:14 GMT

Liar!
Man up and take some responsibility. You have lost all credibility.

I wonder - when you write such complete nonsense, do you actually believe it or are you so pompous that you just think everyone else will believe it? You are starting to remind me of Bill O'Reilley. Maybe its time you move to Fox Noise where they seem to believe that you can "speak anything into reality"
Liar

Different Times

Ellen Johnson — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:28:28 GMT

Sorry, Brian. But this kind of spin is exactly why I don't watch network "news." And if I have to, I take whatever network "news" says with a grain of salt. Even the Pentagon admits these "military analysts" were paid stooges. Address the NYT story.

Different Times

sylvia gregory — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:34:06 GMT

Having read the comments of several of your astute readers, it is clear to me that they have a better and clearer understanding of the core principles of journalism - including independence from faction - than you do. I also found your use of the pharse " on my watch" rather instructive. Sir, you read the news from a telepromtor. Yes, of course, you play the role of "managing editor" and all the rest of the charade, but in the end you look into the camera and read what others have largely written for you. Your approriation of the inherently political phrase "on my watch" suggests that you think of yourself as playing a differnt role, akin to the "commander-in-chief" or "healer in chief." I've watched you adopting this role and it is cringe inducing. You're are not a politician and regretably, given your predictable and entirely unconvincing attempt to explain away your collusion with state-cleansed propogandists, you're not much of a journalist either.

Different Times

denning hill, new york, NY — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:35:04 GMT

Mr. Williams,
You open your reply by saying you "had a little fun with with the New York Times".
Why is the "anchor and managing editor" of a major news network having FUN at the expense of a leading newspaper? A week after that paper has accused you and your news division of being instruments/tools in disseminating government propaganda to the American people? Before you even address that charge directly? Are you sure it's all a coincidence and you were only having FUN? By the way, these days should not be "FUN" days for journalists who slept on the job as the country was taken to a pre-emptive war on false pretenses. We don't want our anchors having any more FUN. We want them to get to work, correct their mistakes, and help get us out of this mess. (and NO! It is no longer obvious to us that you and your friends "are better than that". )
Reminds me of the old Beach Boys song: "fun, fun, fun till [his] daddy takes the t-bird away ..."
Go ahead. Have fun, Brian till we, the people, take journalism back!

Different Times

Mike Costanza — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:35:43 GMT

Mr. Williams:
As a freelancer journalist, I spend more and more time and energy these days trying to convince concerned friends that reporters and editors work objectively--or at least, as much so as possible. This latest scandal has robbed my assertions of much of their substance--even to myself. If, this exerpt from The New Republic is correct, no one should have employed any of these men as news sources, period.

From The Nation, April 21, 2003:

McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to "engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein," and among its targets are the US and European media. The group is chaired by Bruce Jackson, former vice president of defense giant Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of the F-117 Nighthawk, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and other aircraft in use in Iraq), and includes such neocon luminaries as former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle. Downing has also served as an unpaid lobbyist and adviser to the Iraqi National Congress, an Administration-backed (and bankrolled) opposition group that stands to profit from regime change in Iraq.

If you knew of their roles outside of their service to NBC, you should either not have used them or have revealed their roles outside the job for which they were hired by the network. This is Journalism 101. Most of us, though paid an unmentionable fraction of your salary, would have known that.

It is time for you to quit.

Different Times

Jonnan West, Whitestown, IN — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:45:14 GMT

And Karen, near the beginning has it for the win.

You may respect these men Mr. Williams - nonetheless, at the same time they were giving you coverage that you think was unbiased, they were in the employ of a lobbying group formed to bolster support for the war.

There was a conflict of interest. Indeed, if you were receiving unbiased coverage from them and they were not bolstering support through you, then they were failing their duties to the lobbyist group that paid them for exactly that.

It is a common failing of smart people to believe that they cannot be played, that their instincts about people are good, that it's just not possible to be *that* wrong in their personal judgments. There's a good, simple reason for that - smart people usually have gained that confidence in their judgment by being right - a lot.

But in this case - in these *specific* cases - the evidence is that your judgment was wrong. You, and your compatriots at NBC, got played, by people that had agendas that you did not look closely enough at because your collective judgment was that they were honorable men that simply would not do that.

It is an understandable mistake to make. It is a fatal mistake to not acknowledge and learn from.

Different Times

Lynda, Jacksonville, FL — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:54:50 GMT

So the NYT has drawn back the curtain to reveal the ugly reality that the MSM news is lacking the basic journalistic credibility of truth and honesty, and now we all know that behind the curtain it's just another old man pulling levers to deceive. Manipulating the American public like this is more than carelyess, disgusting or unprofessional, it is downright unpatriotic. Now that we know your opinion about all this, we Gate 14 folks sure don't like it. And, by the way, you really don't know anything about the Gate 14 folks, nor does Peggy Noonan.

Different Times

Lucy, Kansas City , Mo — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:59:54 GMT

I just returned from a month in Europe and this was a much discussed story over there and Brian W. doesn't believe it merits airtime here? I weep for our country if media can't see how serious an issue state sponsored "message multipliers" should be.

Different Times

doug south orange NJ — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:27:20 GMT

You may not see it yet, but this story, and your cavalier response in print (and total lack of response on air) are probably a turning point in the public's understanding of you, NBC News, and your complicity in the Bush administration's misleading the American people throughout the Iraq War.. You have unwittingly revealed why you don't want to touch this story on air. But the story is getting out, regardless.

Different Times

Rex Hutcheson, Wauwatosa, WI — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:34:27 GMT

As a person responsible for collaboration with the administration on beginning and carrying on this war, you should give some attention to defending your own professional behavior in this respect, and not just that of your friends.

Different Times

Colleen, Bethlehem PA — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:36:19 GMT

I NEVER buy anything made by GE, the corporation that owns Williams and NBC.

Get the corporations out of America's news media. Corporations will consider their corporate interests above America's need for a free press.

Williams works for his corporation and was chosen because he says what they want.

The war in Iraq was for oil to keep transporation costs low for the multi national corporations that ship from China and other nations to the US and Europe.

Its all about money...and oil.

The Generals worked for the military industrial complex and GE is part of that. They said what they needed to say to make money.

Watch the BBC.

Different Times

VOReason, Portland, Oregon — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:20:50 GMT

Brian,

Wow, you are either a blatant liar, or a very very corrupt man.

Your two general friends are ideologically and financially invested in the war's beginning and continuation.

Your type really hurts our nation. Where's your patriotism? Why do you hate America? Why do you continue burying the truth? The two generals you mentioned both have huge financial interests in weapons companies that have tens of millions of dollars of contracts due to the war, and they both were on the 25-person board of the CLI, whose mission statement was to convince the nation to invade Iraq.

Are you kidding me? That's really just pathetic of you to hide this from the country. W

hy do you hate America?

Why do you hate America?

Liar, liar, pathetic corrupt liar.

Shame on you, brian Wilson, shame on you.

Different Times

Jim Bishop, Reno, NV — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:27:52 GMT

Brian,

Several commenters have already pointed this out, but I'd like to add my voice to the chorus. Why is it that you found the time to have "a little fun with the New York Times"--coincidentally the same newspaper that has revealed your network's complicity in distributing government propaganda about the Iraq War--but still haven't found the time, either in this space or on your news programs, to address the specific allegations made in the New York Times article? Your silence is deafening.

What did you--and the other people at NBC--know about McCaffrey's and Downing's connections to the Project for a New American Century? What did you and your network know about their financial ties to defense contractors? If you did know about these ties, why were they not disclosed to your viewers? And if you didn't know about them, how do you justify your failure to vet your sources--a process that could have been done with Google?

Until you and your network address these questions, you can expect your viewership to go the way of Fox News--it will be a core group of devoted followers who tune in because you tell them what they want to hear. The rest of us here at Gate 14 will be going elsewhere for our news.

Different Times

Matthew Chernov — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:51:29 GMT

Mr. Williams, your excuses don't cut it. You are supposed to report ALL THE NEWS, not just the news you agree with. Your opinions about the secret Pentagon program to manipulate the public are of no interest to me. Your job is simply to REPORT it. You failed at your job. This is an important story. Americans have the right to hear this story. It is not up to you to deny us info we have a right to. That makes you part of the problem, instead of part of the solution. You have sacrificed your integrity and whatever trust you've earned. Just report the news. ALL the news. Regardless of what you think about it. You are working for the public. You are supposed to let US decide what we think about the news. You are not supposed to keep info from us simply because you don't like what it says. WE get to decide, not you. I'm a regular news viewer, but I will no longer watch your program or your network because of this. Do your job! I'm doing my job, you do yours.

Different Times

jai Mansson, Honolulu — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:00:26 GMT

The military advisors lied to us for an audience with Rumsfeld and the CoS, and for some, a few pieces of gold. For that over 4000 Americans have died, and perhaps some 600,000 Iraqis.

They are forever damned. And you, Sir, for refusing to see anything wrong with the warmongering diet of lies they fed us on your watch, are complicit.

Shame on you.

Different Times

Mark, Cincinnati, OH — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:08:41 GMT

Brian Williams is in denial and not telling the truth. Not surprising. This is someone, afterall, who feels he has a "duty" to listen to his "good friend" Rush Limbaugh. Williams, along with his ABC competitor Charlie Gibson, is a GOP mole.

Different Times

Alex M., Indianapolis, IN — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:21:53 GMT

After reading Glenn Greenwald's updated piece on Salon.com, I think it's even more obvious now than before that you're acting out of self-preservation, not journalistic integrity. You need to do more than backpedal and pretend you did nothing wrong. You and your network owe the American people a lot more than an apology, but you can't even muster that.

Different Times

j. cordero, long beach, ca — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:39:58 GMT

to paraphrase somerby: a middle-class nation cannot depend on a millionaire press corp to hold our government (read: other millionaires) accountable. brian is a case in point.

Different Times

Evan, Lawrence, KS — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:43:55 GMT

Mr Williams,
You are shooting yourself in the foot on this. You are clearly wrong and you are only digging your own grave faster. Take a look at Glenn Greenwald's fabulous critique of this blog post, then get back to me. Edward Murrow would be turning in his grave....

Different Times

John R. Tkach, Bowie, MD — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:21:50 GMT

You are much worse than Judy Miller!

You are also delusional! Must be your huge ego.

Who did pay for your trips to Bagdahd with the MIC generals?

Different Times

Lee Baker, Greensboro, NC — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:48:06 GMT

It's pretty clear that you, Brian Williams, don't get it.

It's bad enough that we get General news all the time without any counterbalance from real critics. Now we learn that these Generals and ex-Generals were in collusion to present government propaganda. They were not giving us their objective views. In addition, these Generals have financial ties to the defense industry. They make money off the war profiteers.

And so does GE, which should release their license to own a media company. They are at the heart of the darkness enveloping this country.

It doesn't make any difference that you were friends with your Generals. In fact, it makes it worse. Your credibility as a fair and unbiased source of news is ruined.

And I bet you don't care.

Different Times

The Indy Voice - Wake Forest, NC — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:22:38 GMT

This is exactly the reason why the point of media bias is continually missed. First of all propaganda and bias are very subtle issues. It doesn't really matter what kind of critiques these generals made publicly, the issue is that they are starting from a point where the fundamental root of the problem is taken for granted.

Further, Brian Williams will surely claim that none of his check writers at GE, whose profits depend upon war (any war), have anything to do with his editorial content. The huge pink elephant is that these very people are the ones responsible for hiring those just inadequate enough to never truly challenge the positions of those in power. The point is Mr. Williams is that your check signers don't have to tell you what to say, they knew you well enough when they hired you that you wouldn't think to challenge conventional wisdom. Hence, you have not and certainly will not.

And the real problem is that you're surrounded by similar conventional thinkers.

Different Times

Reverend D. — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:32:07 GMT

Hitler employed some of the same multimedia propaganda as we have experienced over the past fifteen years. I stopped reading and watching MSM, mainstream media, years ago because of the obvious neocon bias. I'd had a belly full during the Clinton years media witch hunts. There were times I thought Starr was the love interest of more then a few journalists.

Mr. Williams, you have failed your country, your fellow citizens, and not so incidentally your own soul. Your arrogant reductionism of the *news* during these grim times, and your cowardice in the face of justifiable critique is not so remarkable as it is tedious and expected.

Those who still believe in you or that any major network journalist has credibility may deserve what they get. As for the rest of us, we are taking America back from you talking heads and all of those who are complicit: From the capitalist predators and government officials who are payed to legitimate the breaking of our military, the death and destruction of our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, the corruption of our Justice system, the breaking of our economy, to selling our future to China. You and they have brought so much shame to America through a false unjust preemptive war, the torturing and imprisoning young and old without due process and the attempt to cuckold American's through deceit and fear mongering.

You sir will be remembered for your part. You have been fiddling around while the Bush/Chaney administration burned our America and her citizens. You participate in a media that is little more then those emptied coliseums of Rome. Entertainment to mollify the citizens, *news* to deflect from the rape of reason.

Sincerely,

Different Times

John Doe — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:12:58 GMT

Mr.Williams, there was a time when I had the highest regard for your common sense and your integrity as a journalist. Your use of these so-called "analysts" in the course of this war has been a huge disappointment, and your dismissive post on this extremely important subject is the last nail in the coffin.

Either you are deliberately missing the point, or are so beholden to your employer and concerned about your position as an anchor that you cannot bring yourself to admit your errors.

The point is not about whether you knew or liked these men. The point is that you did not disclose their involvement in promoting the Iraq conflict prior to its starting, nor did you explain their interests and continuing involvement in the Pentagon.

The difference between a functioning democracy and a tinpot dictatorship is the difference between a FREE press and one that echoes and amplifies the government's propaganda. Your post establishes that you are now actively on the side of the propagandists.

Different Times

Gladys Schnoddbaugher — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:25:41 GMT

Sure, Williams. Go on the air and speak it. Don't blog it. I wanna see you go on the air and talk about your major journalistic mistakes.

That is the reason why my TV seldom leaves TNT and USA.
My news is gleaned over the internet, including the weather.

Think of TV news as out-of-date and way, way out of touch.

I just want you to know. If times get hard, and money is low, the TV and newspapers will be the first eliminated to save money. The internet will remain thru financial thick and thin. Got the solar panals to power it already.

Must be hard to know you are working on a medium that is rapidly becoming archaic.

Different Times

Dan Partridge, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 02 May 2008 06:18:58 GMT

Fascinating news that you'll defend these people who have financial interest in the very things they're reporting about.

All right, so they don't disclose it. But, uh, why don't YOU?

Next, these actions and their Pentagon backing is obviously illegal. Are you not going to report that?

And I mean REPORT IT; not bury it in a blog post.

Different Times

Floyd, Los Angeles — Fri, 02 May 2008 06:19:42 GMT

Orwell will have to update his book, we are living it. Survellance, torture, habeas corpus, the judiciary becomes the political right arm of the executive and the 4th estate becomes the propaganda arm of the ruling elite. Thank god we still have the internet (for awhile)

Different Times

Ethan Hallbeyer, Columbus, OH — Fri, 02 May 2008 06:45:39 GMT

The blood of dead young american soldiers, males and females, are on your hands, Brian Williams.

But it is doubtful that you care... for you live in a bubble... earn more money than the troops you've let down and betrayed will ever dream of making for themselves and their families, get to go home every night to your wife and kids, work for a corporate news network that enables you to massage your ego and make you feel like that important, serious, high-statured classical journalist that you believe you are... and it is clear that no one else could do a better job of that than you, Brian Williams.. would your grandparents be proud of you? the problem with so-called journalists/reporters/anchors like you, who are part of an elite group that view themselves oh-so-seriously, and tear apart lowly bloggers, is that you've become comfortable, lazy?, and happy with the establishment as it exists today... your hearts, pleasures, perks you enjoy, and sense of personal security are so intimately tied to the success of the establishment (including NBC/GE) that you inevitably fall into line with the establishment...

but real reporters, Mr. Williams, think, ask probing questions, investigate/dig, and report truth wherever they find it, regardless of results... while the posers live in a comfortable bubble under this grand delusion that it is they that are delivering the news that people truly need...

So next week, do what you do best and continue your real and serious reporting, as only you can, on trashing Lindsay Lohan, bloggers, NYT, Washington Post.. because that is what the people truly need, and why you get paid the big bucks and deserve great respect as a serious news man, sir.

Not only do i appreciate the great work you're doing... i'm sure the troops who have died in this war of choice that went horribly wrong because not enough of the right questions were asked going into it (and still aren't) and the troops still stuck there on 15-month cycles want you the ultimate serious news anchor...

Different Times

Jeremy C. Garland, Baton Rouge, Louisiana — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:07:11 GMT

Mr. Williams,

When you write "these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line" and describe Generals Downing and McCaffrey as "honest brokers" in your dealings with them, am I to simply take your word for it?

Should I simply believe NBC Nightly News Anchor and Managing Editor Brian Williams because he tells me that he thinks the generals were telling the truth?

The problem is that when I find out that General Downing and General McCaffrey were part of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and have financial stakes in the invasion, I don't believe you.

When you rail against the Sunday New York Times the week after they published a very accurate, thorough, and damaging story about your organization, all the while STILL ignoring that story on air, I don't believe you.

You have lost any hope of credibility with this post.

Different Times

Scott, Bronxville, NY — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:24:56 GMT

Stooge

Different Times

C L, Houston, TX — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:51:03 GMT

Mr. Williams
All the talking heads in mainstream media who faced the cameras during Shock and Awe were duplicitous in a war crime by helping disseminate the lies proffered by the White House that led the US into an illegal war.

I recall Tom Brokaw's sickening words "...soon we'll own this country..." uttered while he sat next to a military analyst in his adhoc studio somewhere in Kuwait during shock and awe.

It is because of the mainstream media's criminal duplicity in Shock and Awe that I now boycott all msm news and the products advertised on those shows.

I recommend that all truly patriotic Americans do the same. We need to boycott you and all the rest who refused to ask the questions that needed to be asked. You just went along to get along, and you still do today. You have no credibility and should be brought before a war crimes tribunal to answer for your failure to bring even a modicum of journalistic integrity at a time when your Country needed it the most.

Different Times

Luke, Philadelphia, PA — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:53:17 GMT

Your character witness testimony supporting Generals Downing and McCaffrey fails to answer the substantive charges against either they or NBC.

Were they in fact a part of a Pentagon propaganda operations--despite your belief in their good character? The New York Times makes a compelling case that they were. As far as your response goes in this blog, the charge seems left unanswered and carefully avoided.

Concerns about these and other generals are LONG-STANDING, and were ignored as inconvenient when first raised; it is clear that the concerns are still being ignored as inconvenient. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/interns ("McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to 'engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein,' and among its targets are the US and European media.").

Please address the actual substance. Saying these are good and honorable men that you respect says nothing about whether you were taken in by a wildly successful psy-ops program. It just means it was more successful on you than others.

Different Times

Steve, Philly, PA — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:03:09 GMT

"The Times article was about the whole lot of them"

Exactly; But still not a peep about this very important story from you or any other network! (excepting PBS) Brian this stinks very badly and YOU know it. I know you have to worry about who pays your salary and that is part of the problem. You're losing an awful lot of credibility.

Different Times

Steve, Philly, PA — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:20:11 GMT

Unbeknown to Peggy Noonan, gate 14 is very angry, Mr Williams. Gate 14 wants to know why the media continues to roll over for the people who duped us into this war.

Different Times

T. Johnson, Madison, WI — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:30:51 GMT

Brian,

I'm curious what you have to say about this http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/01/8638/

I know that you probably won't respond. Even though NBC and all the other networks exposed over the years for being part of an illegal pentagon propoganda project will never actually be tried for their wrongdoings...I'd still think you'd want to remain semi-credible by admitting to the faults of your 'independent' military analysts.

It's just disturbing everyday to find out more and more information about how corrupt this society is- government, media, corporations- at the cost of the taxpayers.

Different Times

Bill Dunn, Middleton, Wis. — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:57:38 GMT

Mr. Williams: You have the blood of several thousand Americans and countless (remember, we don't count them) Iraqis on your hands. You put your job with its million-dollar salary above the truth.
Corporate to the core: GE, we bring good things to life. Progress, our most important product.

Different Times

Nancy Sloop, Jackson, TN — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:11:50 GMT

Mr. Williams, you were my last broadcast news anchor, after having given up on ABC and CBS. Now, even you have moved beyond the pale. Too bad. And I'm not the only one out here in 'fly-over land' who feels this way. You corporate news mavens are shooting yourselves in the feet rapidly.

Different Times

Susan Habernan Amston CT — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:42:19 GMT

As of last night I no longer watch NBC news. I refuse to be Pravda'd and until or unless the fairness doctrine is reinstated I will get my news elsewhere, rather than from a Rush Limbaugh lover and an ethically challenged elitist(I'm talking about you, Mr Williams).

Different Times

Pat Tully, Jr. Elizabethtown, Kentucky — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:54:08 GMT

Way to go, Brian. With rationalizations like this one, you will soon be seen as just as 'fair and balanced'as Fox News.

Disgusting.

Different Times

Aron King, Oregon — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:17:39 GMT

Brian, you being buddies with the generals in question is exactly part of the problem. A mutual admiration society gladly pumping a war all the while back slapping each other for a job well done.

You mention that Wayne told you in Iraq that he was annoyed that they were not spending enough money on the war and thus 'doing it on the cheap'! You don't see that his connections to the military and the corporations behind it would drive that mindset? Are you that dense? That is the problem.

I don't care if they were nice guys. They are partly responsible for America's financial decline and the murder of thousands of people. You say that their military service discounts any questioning of their patriotism? Rev. Wright was in the military for several years, so....

Be a man about the situation and own up to your complete complicity in the Bush Co. propaganda scheme. At least be angry about the fact that you were used.

Different Times

stephen mccamman S.D, CA. — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:53:15 GMT

Greenwald just handed put your journalistic head on a platter over at slate...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/index.html

You guys were mouth pieces for the admin - admit it.

Different Times

Peter McQuaid, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:59:42 GMT

Mr. Williams,

I'm sure the Generals are all Really Nice Guys. I'm sure you're a Really Nice Guy, too. But c'mon! There are some serious conflicts of interest here that should be apparent to any first year Journalism student.

If I need to explain them, you need to start your career over and cover some Planning Board meetings in Queens.

The first conflict of interest is that NBC is owned by Defense Contractor GE. I know you can't do anything about that, but let's not exacerbate the situation by pretending we don't know why paying Pentagon shills to work as "analysts" isn't a problem.

Admit it; you guys blew it. At best, you were sloppy, at worst, well, never mind.

Why doesn't someone over there float the idea of having a "real" news program every evening and then follow up with a "GE Infotainment Hour," in which "correspondents" and "analysts" can breathlessly rebut reality and present a more "balanced" point of view.

Maybe a whole half hour can be devoted to Peggy Noonan waxing rapturously on as we watch her construct new and exciting moral dilemmas such as Gone and Forgotten: Debbie Downer Democrats Ignore Successful Dead White Guys And the Country that Made Them Possible.

If Peggy Noonan gets a Newberry Award for that vapid drivel, she should consider herself very lucky.

Different Times

dan thomas, springfield, virginia — Sat, 03 May 2008 05:52:35 GMT

I cannot believe that the news networks go on and on about Obama's flag pin and his nutty pastor while completely ignoring this story!!!!...a story that suggested retired military brass and the pentagon were actively manipulating the psychology of the american people during a time of war.

Different Times

Bill Steen, Pittsburgh, PA — Sat, 03 May 2008 07:19:32 GMT

As I've said before Brian, you may make boatloads of money but you're absolutely worthless to the citizens of this endangered Republic.

Different Times

Ignatov — Sat, 03 May 2008 11:06:24 GMT

You conspired with the gov't and military to lie us into invading a country. Wben did America turn into Nazi Germany? Thanks a lot, tool.

Different Times

Jay Rubenstein — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:55:34 GMT

Given how the Pentagon and the administration played every network, NBC included, like a fiddle in order to get us into this war, I hope you will understand why many of us do not take comfort in this statement:
"At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers." A little less self-assurance and a little more soul-searching would be appreciated.

Different Times

Steven R. Rochlin Keene, NH — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:10:01 GMT

Hi Brian,

Over the years have become less enthusiastic at believing what you (or NBC) report as the truth and there is proof about NBC's possible lack of concern and excuse making when they are found out. Your proclaimed experts may have conflict of interest issues coming into play and as a fellow journalist the bottom line falls on YOU to report the truth no matter what company you may work for or the consequences thereof. Am sure you realize your reputation should come first and foremost in reporting the truth over saying what the network or other entities may find more to their liking.

Perhaps NBC is to blame and you are merely unaware or lack the time to seek out other experts to then decide the truth for yourself and report accordingly? NBC has been found to be at fault various times, and one small example can be seen at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3110-2005Apr19.html . There are others if you take the time, as a reporter should, to fact check and seek out the truth. This including you simply parroting whatever the United States Government may say as their official line versus you taking the time to seek out the truth.

Am sorry to say that your 'reporting' is becoming less believable by some people, myself included. Perhaps another media company would allow you better access to fact find and report accordingly?

So my questions to you sir is, is NBC or any other entity having you report in such a way that you know to be less than honest? Moreover, if so, please feel free to inform us here about one or two examples. Thanks for your time.

Different Times

Buster, Cumberland, WI — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:44:01 GMT

Brian . . . We understand that you liked the Generals and they served patriotically. . . However, the issue is that they supported the attack on Iraq while seemingly acting as private citizens (albeit with significant military experience.) . . . The fact that they were being manipulated by the Defense Department as cheerleaders and that they were - in a way - lobbyists for defense contractors should have been divulged to the viewers. . . What is most upsetting, as a long time viewer of yours, is that this new story seemingly has no effect on you to even question your role or the journalistic ethics involved.

Different Times

Jen, Chicago, IL — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:38:38 GMT

You "had a little fun" with that blog entry? Well, I'm glad someone did. Because reading it was about as pleasant as watching reptiles mate.

In fact (speaking of which), I don't think I could have been more nauseated if you'd just posted YouTube clips of yourself making out with Noonan and Cheney.

So glad I don't watch NBC very often. And let me tell you, it'll be a frigid day in Dubai before I bother to do so again, as long as it continues to be run by people capable of writing tripe like this with a straight face.

Say what you will about my generation's overwhelming preference for Stewart and Colbert; at least they're straightforward about offering "fake news." At least theirs is witty and insightful... not *ahem* so cloying and lame that audiences go looking for a wall to beat their heads against.

Different Times

Noah Vail — Sat, 03 May 2008 23:23:54 GMT

Government sponsored pro-war propaganda... and you think that's OK Mr. Williams? Sounds like fascism to me.

Different Times

Carol Anderson, Springfield, VA — Sun, 04 May 2008 02:50:00 GMT

Liar! Brian how old are your children? Are they in the military fighting in Iraq or Afganistan?

Different Times

blake reede — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:50:14 GMT

Brian,

Seems like you should mention when these military experts are making money in the defense industry ... for context, etc.

Also, you should interview anti-war experts on your show as well as the pro war for balance.

Thanks,

Different Times

Oxford, Mississippi — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:02:32 GMT

Dear Sir,

The core of good journalism is the truth. And that means first and foremost that any potential conflict of interest by the journalist or expert who is talking to the viewer/reader be revealed.

The NYT revealed a significant conflict of interest at NBC/MSNBC and other broadcasters regarding the use of Military "experts" who were in reality pushing for a war that was to bring them big bucks. People are good at rationalizing their motives and perhaps these men really thought this disastrous war in Iraq was a good idea despite their monetary conflict of interest.

But the fact is they did make money. A lot of it. How can you glibly claim that money didn't influence their "expert" commentary, based on no other "fact" than your opinion that they are good and patriotic men?

What does that even mean? These generals helped push us into a war that has cost over 4000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and over a trillion dollars and counting. And has cost the US its reputation in the world.

And the Generals were not critical of the Pentagon until things started going south. In case you need a refresher course in what they said, read Glenn Greenwald in Slate for the quotes:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/index.html

I guess from now on I'll believe an NBC story only if I find other reputable print sources that confirm it. (Same goes for your broadcasting brethern -- you were all equally guilty).

But you could at least try to redeem yourselves by covering this very newsworthy story on your broadcast and coming clean about about you did -- instead of offering pathetic defenses in blog-form.

Sincerely, Kent Moorhead

Different Times

Teresa P., Northridge, CA — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:54:53 GMT

I am very disappointed by your response to this issue (and the lack of attention to it by the other networks), though I can't say that I am surprised.

I have witnessed the deterioration of the network news over the years and I can't believe the stories that seem to take up so much space (Jeremiah Wright, Bittergate, Bosnian airport) and the real issues that affect our democracy that are barely covered (including networks using generals that are profiting from the war as "independent military consultants" to convince America that the war is justified).

I understand that not only were McCaffrey and Downing part of an organization pushing for the war in Iraq, but that McCaffrey was on the board of defense companies that would profit from such a war. Did NBC know this? Did NBC even bother to ask this? In the future, what information will NBC ask about before presenting more "independent military consultants?"

This war was sold to the American people -- and NBC and the other networks bear much of the responsibility for that. This is another reason that I rarely listen to network news -- except on PBS, where multiple viewpoints are usually presented.

Different Times

andrew san jose, ca — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:34:42 GMT

if anyone reads noam chomsky or watches bill moyers on pbs (the two aren't associated with eachother, by the way) all this stuff about pentagon propaganda on mainstream news becomes pretty obvious. just turn off fox, cnn, msnbc, abc, and all that other rubbish and go to democracynow.org. that's where the good stuff is. the mainstream programs (including this site) are so shallow and superficial in their coverage.

Different Times

Sally, Chicago, Il — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:48:05 GMT

I used to like Brian Williams a couple years ago. He "looks" and "sound" like what a newsanchor should. He has a great wit and sense of humor. However, I now have to reevaluate my earlier impression. A few months ago I read Mr. Williams is President Bushes FAVORITE choice for an interviewer. That made me wonder if he asks the hard questions. In contract, Katie Couric, was cut off from White House interviews, until recently, due to her more critical coverage. Brian has now told us his leanings and my choice now is to lean away and switch channels. How can he endorse his stations refusal to cover the Pentagon generals story because he tells us he developed deep relationships with these generals. He no longer acts as journalist but as defender of his "friends." Nice to have friends in high places with no(supposed) agenda. Right!

Different Times

Keith Miller — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:35:34 GMT

So the media and the military are in bed together. Theres a news story, not. They profit from wars so the truth will always be slanted for profits sake. You must be proud Brian.

Different Times

Mark, Hanover, Pa — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:40:51 GMT

This is tragic. It's worse than the blind leading the blind. You are helping to spread damaging propaganda, and then dodging accountability thru feigned ignorance.

Shame on you NBC and Brian Williams.

Different Times

Bogie Bog — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:04:26 GMT

Brian:
I hope your next stop in your career is Fox News to sit alongside Brit Hume. That is where you belong. That should be your destiny.

NBC News was once a fine journalistic organization. Now it, along with you, is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece trying to guide the unwashed sheeple listeners to your promised land, wherever that is. I am not going there.

Independent Military Analysts. Nice try.

Different Times

bob kelton miami fl — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:22:05 GMT

lol A MUST READ ABOUT THIS IS AT MEDIAMATTERS.ORG
As Mr Williams has pointed out that the NY TIMES is out of touch due to the fact that is losing readers.
Well NBC News is losing viewers are they also out of touch?
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200805070004?f=h_top

Different Times

David Studhalter — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:45:54 GMT

I am sure I'm not alone among Nightly News viewers in DEMANDING that this issue be dealt with on the show itself. Anyone who does not understand that evidence unequivocally showing that military analysts, coached by the Pentagon and with clear conflicts of interest, pose on your network as "independent" experts is a breach of journalistic ethics doesn't deserve to remain on the air. We're waiting for an explanation, and unless there's something not apparent here, an apology. There's just no excuse; if you "didn't know," it's because you didn't ask. Brian Williams's comments on this are just plain asinine in their complete lack of grasp of the ethics involved. I am about to give up on NBC News entirely, since it has repeatedly shown a pro-government bias that is simply unacceptable in the United States.

Different Times

Ron Ibach, Memphis, TN — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:19:30 GMT

Mr Williams, sadly enough, you still fail to acknowledge the bias of your experts. Secret briefings from the Pentagon to only loyal supporters of the war. Open conflict of interest by these same "independent" commenters by their involvement in defense contracts. Your network's failure to divulge the hidden connections to the Bush War Machine. Your network's continuing blackout of any reference to this secret corruption of "honest" reporting. Your protestations of good faith are hollow at best. Your countenance of this situation further confirms your lack of honesty and commitment to accurate reporting. You are a dupe of the Bush Pentagon.

Different Times

mike valentine, spring valley. ca — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:05:19 GMT

Brian Williams, you sir are a tool of the establishment.

Different Times

Mick Fowler — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:43:26 GMT

Corporate broadcast and cable television is nothing if it is not corporate/government propaganda. There is no such thing as "television news." This is why I joined the thousands who have stopped watching TV over the years. I can view numerous sources and opinions on the web and instantly fact check the sources. I am done with the television. Buh - bye...

Different Times

Michael Fury — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:25:11 GMT

May 1, 2003

"WILLIAMS: With us tonight to look back at the military operation and perhaps what today means as a media event and a significant event in the lives of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey who, of course, commanded the 24th Mechanized during the first Gulf War. He is an NBC News analyst on military affairs.

General, let's start with today. The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.

General BARRY McCAFFREY (US Army): Oh, yeah, I think it's a huge shot in the arm to the morale of--of the entire armed forces, never mind to remind Americans why we pay for these 10-carrier battle groups. I mean, this is a -- just an enormous source of military power and the ability to influence events sometimes without fighting."

Pitiful.

You are a cheerleader for fascists, Mr. Williams.

Maybe you sit around the CFR laughing about the power face-men like you and Gibson have over the public mind, but I can assure you that millions of angry citizens are not laughing.

And even your $10 million pieces of silver cannot scrub that spot off your hand.

Different Times

Ruth McKendry, Lake Oswego, OR — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:10:18 GMT

I guess it is possible that you sincerely believe that it is not important to know about the ties your "advisors" have to the military-industrial complex, or the profits they receive from their lobbying efforts,but I disagree. I have watched your news program for years, but you have lost your credibility and I won't be watching any more.

Different Times

deborah — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:11:52 GMT

Williams' blog on the NY Times article speaks volumes about why T.V. reporting in the U.S. has gone into the toilet. "Trust us" is a flaccid response to the Times article as well as the reporting done by The Nation. There are substantive issues to be addressed about disclosure of interests by "military analysts," and the "they are men of integrity" excuse does not begin to do so.

Different Times

Joe the Canadian — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:51:40 GMT

Wow. Pretty pathetic, Mr. Williams. Not linking to the Times article was a subtle but knowing way of admitting how wrong you've been in your journey from journalist to establishment mouthpiece.

Disgusting.

Different Times

David H. Austin, TX — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:37:51 GMT

Lies lies and more lies, Brian. Not surprising considering who your bosses are. The least you could do is not act so utterly shameless about it. Just because you got to know personally two of these men who collaborated with the Pentagon to push the party line does not mean they did not push the party line. They obviously did, they obviously are well-paid to do so and you obviously are either lying about it or are so naive as to beggar credulity.

Different Times

Dick de Seve, Gilmanton, NH — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:02:58 GMT

Mr. Williams: despite your blithe attempt to gloss over this issue, you have failed miserably at it. You have, time and time and time again, used Gen. McCaffrey even though you knew, you knew, that he had massive personal and business conflicts of interest, and would do nothing but be a cheerleader for the war. Don't give us this nonsense that these two men were tough, even-handed critics of the war. They were not, and Gen. McCaffrey continues to cheerlead for both the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day. We wonder how much he is paid to lobby on behalf of these illegal, immoral actions that so well pad the coffers of his corporate contacts?

Different Times

Joe Acuna Dallas Texas — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:47:24 GMT

I see it was not just Brian that noticed the cocktail party going on during your reporting on the floor of the NYSE. Im not sure if it bothered you as much as it did me. Recently laid off from a major financial organization because of the most recent market meltdown i struggule with that image. President Obama please stop this abuse in America, maybe you can recomend the auto giants and NYSE afterhours party crew to a class on class. We Americans are tired of our tax dollars and hard earned money pampering these so called Giants.