What Will Become of Brian?
Spero Canton
Adjunct Professor of Journalism at FIU, Author, Consultant and Public Speaker
In December of 2004, NBC News welcomed Brian Williams to the Nightly News anchor chair. This was big deal! Through the years, the role of the Network News anchor has been revered. Due to their responsibility of relating the day’s news events from here and around the world to the majority of people who live in this country, these select few have become icons and among the most trusted people on the planet. In recent years that stature has diminished a bit due to multiple 24 hour news channels and online platforms, which are always available to give the public all the latest information.
Williams is in the middle of a six-month suspension, from which many think he will never return — not for giving false information about actual news stories — but for exaggerating his personal experiences while he covered these events.
Yes, he lied about how much danger he was in during a 2003 helicopter ride in Iran.
Lying about events relating to your job is egregious regardless what line of work you’re in, but for a high profile, trusted national news anchor, it’s reprehensible.
But here is the dilemma NBC and its parent company, Comcast, finds themselves in; people LIKE Williams!
According to a recent Rassumsen poll among TV viewers who watch one of the traditional networks for news, 63% of those surveyed still have a favorable opinion of Williams. This is nearly identical to the attitudes those surveyed have about ABC News anchor George Stephanopolous and well ahead of how they feel about CBS anchor Scott Pelley. Even with all that’s happened to his credibility, and not being on the air for three months, Williams is still looked upon favorably by a majority of those who watch the evening news on one of the major broadcast networks and this is creating a bit of a quandary for NBC executives.
My favorite leadership quote is by philosopher and publisher Elbert Hubbard, who said, “To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.” Regardless what they decide, some critics and viewers will disagree with the outcome.
The path of least resistance is to dismiss Williams. His replacement, Lester Holt has proven his worth to the network by maintaining NBC’s #1 evening news ratings in the midst of this ethical turmoil and, as it turns out, not only did Williams “exaggerate” about the Iranian incident but NBC found 11 other “embellishments” during his broadcast career that usually happened when Williams was relating his experiences in the field while appearing on entertainment talk shows.
Williams’ ongoing popularity, despite his latest venture into the fiction genre, tells NBC News President Andrew Lack and NBCU Chairman Steve Burke that he still possesses mass appeal. That sort of audience loyalty is elusive and is never taken for granted by the network brass and Williams hopes it’s enough to save his bacon.
The alternative of reinstating Williams to his anchor chair on the Nightly News, gives someone who is liked a second (or, depending on your perspective ) 13th chance. His return would also say volumes about the empathy and support NBCU/Comcast gives to those who have built the NBC brand over the years. That decision also comes with some repercussions, not only to the credibility of NBC News but the importance and viability of the broadcast network’s evening news program.
For the past few years, there has been speculation that these nightly network news programs have lost the importance they have had in the past, mostly due to the rise in popularity of the 24 hour news and information channels on the net, cable and satellite TV. Additionally, network news, which for years was known for its unwavering fairness and unbiased approach to conveying the news of the day to the nation, has justifiably been under fire recently concerning their story selection and political leanings.
Williams and NBC have been identified as leaning to the left but because of his likability many on the right still watched his newscast every night.
Usually, in corporate America, a mistake that causes your employer a high profile embarrassment would quickly lead to an unequivocal dismissal. But this is no average employee, and no average job. The jury deciding upon William’s job is still out but speculation is going wild.
Whatever the outcome, it might be a good habit from now on that network anchors avoid appearances on entertainment talk shows, where there is an expectation he or she will relate anecdotes that the viewing public would find “entertaining.” I believe it was this setting that got Williams in trouble.
News is serious business, especially for those who are in the crosshairs of a news story. Williams tried to convey a more intriguing version to serious events he experienced — and those he shared those experiences with called him out.
I am probably in the minority, but I hope Williams comes back to the anchor chair. I think because of this suspension, Williams would never want to revisit the experience again and upon returning to the Nightly News, he’d likely be the most truthful, honest person on the air.
Content Creator, Video Production/Emmy Award Winning Journalist
9 年Stephanopoulos Should Get Nothing Less Than Williams Got - How Is It That George Is Getting Away With What He Did - Which in this reporters opinion is much worse then Williams exaggerations! This article by Denny Dressman sums it up! Today's question before the court (of public opinion) involves network news anchors Brian Williams and George Stephanopoulos. Is one's crime against media credibility and public trust worse than the other's? Williams embellished (many would say lied about) the extent of his personal involvement in the coverage of major news events, most notably combat in Iraq. For these sins, Williams was suspended by NBC for six months without pay, and his future cast in doubt. His actions seriously damaged media credibility at a time when the decline of daily newspapers adds greatly to the importance of network and cable television serving the public reliably. It's about trust. Now comes Stephanopoulos, his unreported support of the Clinton Foundation (and participation in numerous Clinton Global Initiative programs), and his partisan grilling of Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash. Stephanopoulos so far has been allowed to apologize but remain on the air at ABC. Is his damage to media credibility at this critical time somehow less? Is trust any less an issue here? The focus in the Stephanopoulos case has been on his $75,000 in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. While a mistake, as he has conceded in his apologies, that's not the real issue. His blatantly partisan questioning when he interviewed Schweizer on ABC's Sunday morning news program bore a striking resemblance to the content of the attack on Schweizer and his book launched by John Podesta, chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton for President Campaign, a few weeks earlier. With the looming presidential race and the subject of the interview relating so directly to a declared candidate, it was incumbent upon Stephanopoulos to conduct an objective interview. Instead, he chose to carry water for his close friend. Anyone who reads Clinton Cash will see - in the first seven pages - that Schweizer acknowledges that he cannot offer hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Placing this book's investigative effort in the context of two previous books he has written detailing apparent Congressional insider trading and actions by members of Congress that seemed to amount to extortion of campaign contributions (Throw Them All Out , 2011 and Extortion, 2013), Schweizer writes: "In a legal sense I could not prove that insider trading had taken place . . . . "Was I able to prove intent or know why politicians were doing what they were doing (in reference to the premise of Extortion)? Of course not. . . . "Using publicly available sources, including financial records, tax records, government documents and more, my research team and I have uncovered a repeated pattern of financial transactions coinciding with official actions favorable to Clinton contributors that is troubling enough to warrant (in my opinion) further investigation by law enforcement officers. "Just as I couldn't prove that members of Congress were guilty of trading on inside information, I cannot say exactly why these financial tr5ansactions are taking place . . . ." For Stephanopolous to hammer away at the question of evidence as Podesta and other Clinton apologists had been doing since pre-publication promotion began - without even acknowledging Schweizer's disclaimer in the beginning of his book - is transparently disingenuous. He would have viewers believe that his questions were those of a hard-hitting investigative journalist. But Schweizer's disclaimers at the outset of his book expose that as a shallow fa?ade. A metro daily newspaper journalist myself for 43 years, I refused to sign even neighborhood petitions because I didn't want to compromise my appearance of objectivity and impartiality. If Stephanopoulos didn't learn that journalistic principle as he transitioned from Clinton confidant to newsman, I can excuse his contributions. But there's no way I can forgive him for using his position at ABC to echo the defense points that have constituted the response from Hillary Clinton loyalists. Not when a reading of the book provides so much material for a serious, probing interview. If Brian Williams gets a six-month sentence for misrepresenting his reporting role over and over, George Stephanopoulos deserves nothing less for masquerading as an objective journalist asking ostensibly tough questions.
Media Relations/Marketing Consultant—Real Estate Salesperson at BHHS/EWM
9 年Great editorial, Spero! I think you're right on the mark about Brian Williams. I think he still has the reputation of being a great broadcaster with high likeability ratings. His exaggerated recollections of his past should not condemn him to anonymity. I think he should be given a second chance.