A Lie Too Far

NBC News anchorman Brian Williams got in trouble for fibbing about a supposed close call while embedded with US soldiers occupying Iraq in 2003. Why didn’t he get in trouble for being embedded in the first place? Or for the bigger lies inherent in the way he and other news networks package US government and military propaganda?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

5 thoughts on “A Lie Too Far

  1. Williams would no more “get in trouble for being embedded” than for taking his next breath of air.

    “Embedding” was media+gov’t policy to afford even more effective propaganda for the greater policy of militarism & empire.

    And, who, exactly, would give Williams trouble for “the bigger lies inherent in the way he and other news networks package US government and military propaganda” since this simply describes the reason that embedding was conceived and implemented? Certainly not the networks nor the government!!! I know of no citizen commission with the authority to hold news media to the standards of the press in effect at the time, say, of the writing of the 1st amendment. The only relevant law of which I am aware is the FL supreme court ruling of the mid 1980’s case, brought by and decided in favor of FOX “News,” that said, essentially, that news media have NO obligation to insure what they present is connected to reality.

    It is a tribute to Williams’ massive stupidity or incredible arrogance, or both, that got him into trouble.
    That IS an achievement in the existing, totally corrupt system

    Generalissima Clinton could not get into trouble for her husband’s stated actions because those actions were, even according to his reich-wing detractors, the best thing he ever did, i.e. exercise the essential right of the US: to wage perpetual war on the rest of the world (including nature itself.)

    • Reasonable answers to both the question about Mr Williams and that concerning Ms Clinton, falco – under the assumption that «get[ting] in trouble» refers to having difficulties with the government or the legal system or the corporate media. But the underlying question – in a so-called «democracy» – why don’t individuals like Mr Williams and Ms Clinton «get in trouble» with the supposed final arbiters of public policy – the public itself – remains unanswered….

      Henri

      • The answer: the word “so-called” as in your “so-called ‘democracy’ ”

        Williams DID suffer, indirectly, form public opinion BUT, as usual, only through the filter of the network’s fear about how advertisers would react.

      • «Williams DID suffer, indirectly, form public opinion» Yes, indeed, but only, as Ted pointed out, for lying about his «heroic» role while embedded. not for the embedding itself, which the US public seems to accept as a matter or course, just as it accepts the type of foreign policy fronted by Ms Clinton’s hubby (which, of course, will be the same type of foreign policy fronted by Ms Clinton herself, should she get the opportunity after 20 January 2017 – pluc ça change, plus c’est la même chose….

        Henri

  2. «Why didn’t he [i e, Brian Williams] get in trouble for being embedded in the first place? Or for the bigger lies inherent in the way he and other news networks package US government and military propaganda?» And why didn’t Ms Clinton get into trouble for the policies of her husband’s administration which led to the civil war in Yugoslavia, rather than just for lying about dodging bullets at the aeroport in Tusla back in 1996 ?…

    Henri

Leave a Reply