What do you think of Brian Williams and his mistake?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
    I think his salary is most definitely relevant. It confirms that his position is one of privilege, and not a right. It also, in equity, makes him less sympathetic. It's fine for you to maintain that a person's ability to survive and care for their family is not a factor in a termination decision, but I think it is with most terminations.

    Here, Mr. Williams has more than enough money. So while he will take a financial hit, it's not like he'll be drawing unemployment and wondering where his and his family's next meal is coming from. I mentioned it because a lot of the sentiment seems to come from the standard, "oh no, don't fire anyone," when that rightly applies to most people and shouldn't apply to "super positions" in journalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 10:24 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    thadjock saidI think it's a total chicken-shit move to "remove himself from his daily broadcast , because he's become too much a part of the news" yeah he gets caught in a major lie and runs and hides. take your billion dollar contract buy-out NBC will offer u and get the FUCK OFF MY SCREEN YOU PATHOLIGICAL LIAR.

    anybody that thinks the "News" is News is a fool,

    ALL of it is entertainment, it's written, edited, and performed for ratings. Period. every story is manipulated through narrative to "grab" the viewer, and that's the way the consumer wants it. They never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    Williams is a talking head, he doesn't have a college degree, he was selected to be the face of NBC news because marketing focus groups liked him best, (he doesn't scare grandma, and doesn't threaten the masculinity of male viewers in key demographics) not because of his journalism creds.

    narcissistic psychopaths will always lie, even about things they don't need to, just to draw more attention to themselves. By and large the public embraces these types.

    Agree completely. Also commend you for not doing what others here have done: 1) Given him a pass because of his politics, and 2) Blaming people with unliked politics for making this a false scandal. Those who make everything into a political debate don't effectively support their position.


    Well that's nice Socal, now how about those who are castigating him BECAUSE of his politics?

    Pinnochio Brian will have to quit, or be canned.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 10:35 PM GMT
    pazzy saidi understand that he lied about something very serious BUT what's with some of these guys in here on their soapbox acting like they never lied before in their lives? icon_rolleyes.gif seriously... everybody lies about something to someone at some point of their lives. some people lie more than others. some people tell small lies and some people tell big ones. regardless, i don't see why folks are getting upset at him for doing the same exact shit they've done.


    There's a difference between lying in your personal life (social lies, white lies, or, yes, sometimes real dark lies), and lies in your professional life.

    I have NEVER lied professionally as a lawyer, to a client, to a court, or to opposing counsel. Most other professionals I know are the same, despite the "lawyers are liar" jokes. There is much room for interpretation of the law, but no room for doubt or liars.

    We're discussing Mr. Williams lying as a professional matter, not what he said drunk in a bar to a group of friends. He was sober and on camera and acting in his professional "persona," when he made these lies. It's unacceptable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 10:56 PM GMT
    @Pazzy

    I have NEVER lied or "twisted the truth" to win a case. Misrepresentation of a material fact to opposing counsel or a court is against every state bar (aka, the governing "law" for lawyers).

    In fact, there are a surprisingly large amount of required disclosures (unless you stipulate to waive them) that HAVE TO occur. And believe me, discovery is so thorough, and the opposing counsel comes at it every which way and the other, that any attempt to lie or "twist the truth" would be outed by the extensive vetting process.

    In addition, attempting to get a person to lie under oath is called the subornation of perjury, and is criminal if I'm not mistaken. At the very least, a lawyer would likely lose their license.

    While some scum lawyers at the bottom of the dog pile might outright lie, any practicing attorney cannot afford to lie they'll get outed. It might work in one case, but by the 30th, 60th and 70th case the pattern will become apparent. Not to mention, it's simply "illegal" for lawyers to do that.

    Please do not believe what Law and Order or other commentary would have you believe. Lawyers are, by and large, non-liars. What gets most people is that lawyers CAN be tricky. If you equivocate tricky to a liar, then there you are. But lies? Lawyers don't engage in that.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 08, 2015 11:19 PM GMT
    pazzy said
    i'm not going to get at someone for lying BUT if their lie ends up getting somebody hurt or ruining someone's life or whatever... then okay.



    Where he stepped in the shit, is that this story (lie) involved the military. some fuking tool who reads the news on tv flapping his lips, trying to give the false impression he was shot down in a helicopter, rubs the guys in uniform who really were shot down in a helicopter the wrong way. they would have done him a favour by busting him earlier, but it's cool that he dug his own hole even deeper.

    If he was telling a story (lie) about getting shot at driving out to westchester in a limo, i don't think anybody would give a rats ass.

    NBC needs to donate the remainder of Brian Williams contract to Wounded Warriors Project, and maybe hire a vet to replace him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 11:21 PM GMT
    @Pazzy, using a procedural or judge created rule to better your client's position is NOT lying.

    If I'm able to win a motion in limine that says the other side cannot admit XYZ evidence, then that is a "trick" in a sense, but it is NOT lying.

    Again, the use of procedural rules and lying might APPEAR to be the same thing to you, but I can guarantee you to a lawyer or judge we can smell the difference a mile away. That's little comfort when a killer goes free, or Enron doesn't have to pay its debt, but it's a critical distinction to practitioners and one can we do not take lightly.

    I cannot say it any other way: lawyers do not lie. We position our client's for legal and favorable treatment, but we do not lie. Conflating a good lawyer to a liar is cheap, unfair and outright wrong. Rich man's justice DOES exist, but it's not procured with a lie. It's procured by getting the best, ethical and brightest lawyer who can legally use the rules to favorably position you under the law. Lying doesn't come into play.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 08, 2015 11:31 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    I cannot say it any other way: lawyers do not lie. We position our client's for legal and favorable treatment, but we do not lie. Conflating a good lawyer to a liar is cheap, unfair and outright wrong. Rich man's justice DOES exist, but it's not procured with a lie. It's procured by getting the best, ethical and brightest lawyer who can legally use the rules to favorably position you under the law. Lying doesn't come into play.


    next thing you'll be selling is that there's no racial bias in the courts or corrections system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 11:35 PM GMT
    thadjock said
    Svnw688 said
    I cannot say it any other way: lawyers do not lie. We position our client's for legal and favorable treatment, but we do not lie. Conflating a good lawyer to a liar is cheap, unfair and outright wrong. Rich man's justice DOES exist, but it's not procured with a lie. It's procured by getting the best, ethical and brightest lawyer who can legally use the rules to favorably position you under the law. Lying doesn't come into play.


    next thing you'll be selling is that there's no racial bias in the courts or corrections system.


    Your comment is made all the more glaringly ignorant by the simple fact that I'm a mother f*cking civil rights attorney. Check your facts. And again, lawyers don't lie. If you disagree with the system (or "the game"), fine. If you disagree with the results, guess what, 50% of people (e.g., the side who just lost their case) is on your side. But don't take your hatred of the game and cast that upon the players (lawyers). That's not fair, it's sloppy, and it shows a lack of understanding of the proper role of the lawyer in the legal system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2015 11:53 PM GMT
    @Pazzy, the difference is that the former trickery is legal and the latter, a lie, is illegal.

    Anytime you have a legal dispute, you, by definition have two parties at logger heads. While I agree OJ should have been found guilty, I respect the jury's decision. I also think every defendant deserves his day in court, and it's the state's burden to prove his guilt.

    Your problems seem to stem with systematic issues and a disagreement with the current rules of evidence and civil and criminal procedure. That has nothing to do with any lawyer lying. Evidence is a hotly ocntested issue in criminal and civil trials, and forcing disclosure or omitting certain pieces of evidence are completely different than hiding the existence of that evidence from the court. Sometimes courts rule against your client. It happens.

    And the system can't be judged after the fact. The fact that you and I believe OJ is guilty cannot be grounds to criticize the system or its rules without a thorough analysis. Making policy on "outlier" cases is doomed from the outset. In my opinion, the jury simply got it wrong in the OJ trial. Nobody lied. In fact, Furman admitted to using the N word. There wasn't any lying in that case.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 08, 2015 11:56 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    Your comment is made all the more glaringly ignorant by the simple fact that I'm a mother f*cking civil rights attorney.


    got it, nobody ever lies, there's never any impropriety, all attornies share and play fair, and the justice system works 100% according to your textbook case theory.

    thanks for realigning my world view.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 12:03 AM GMT
    @ThadJock, if you are aware, in fact, of any attorney who is lying to the court or opposing counsel, you should report them (anonymously if you like) to their bar association and lodge a formal complaint.

    Until then, you have wild speculation, fed by media perception, baseless allegations, conjecture and otherwise a hot steaming pile of nothing but your misaligned "worldview" where, apparently, lawyers are liars. Have fun with that. Mass villification never gets old.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 09, 2015 12:13 AM GMT
    "trickery is legal"

    there's the t-shirt
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 12:17 AM GMT
    and yet somehow the world still continues to spin.... how come people don't get this fucking outraged when a politician lies and goes back on all the promises he/she/it makes on the campaign trail and then does sweet fuck all when they make it into office. now THAT is something to be pissed and outraged over,
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 09, 2015 12:36 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    People do - in the party that opposes said politician. Those in that politician's party turn a blind eye.

    Example: None of the Obama supporters here have condemned Obama for his whopper "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Nobody is going to take that away from you."


    example: Yellow Cake & WMDs

    but anyway, you're off your game responding to art deco's posts...i miss your light satirical touch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 12:37 AM GMT
    Toastvenom saidand yet somehow the world still continues to spin.... how come people don't get this fucking outraged when a politician lies and goes back on all the promises he/she/it makes on the campaign trail and then does sweet fuck all when they make it into office. now THAT is something to be pissed and outraged over,


    one runs counter expectation.

    It would be like the difference between a lawyer mischaracterizing, say, a lawyer characterizing someone as being lame brained to try and distract from the facts that the person being mischaracterized actually was speaking verifiable truth and even drawing on some horseshit technicality when the lawyer knows he's losing on substance, those sorts of not quite the truths, and a fair witness of Heinlein fame misreporting even if simply accidentally or by brain fart.

    One seems par for that dog pile course. The other an abomination of trust.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 1:05 AM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    socalfitness said Also commend you for not doing what others here have done: 1) Given him a pass because of his politics, and 2) Blaming people with unliked politics for making this a false scandal.

    Are you even on the same planet with the rest of us? His politics are CONSERVATIVE. He was a fan of Dubya. He was a big-ass cheerleader for the Iraq war.
    Seriously, is it just a reflex with you now? Do you even bother to think? Have you lost the capacity?

    It's all a matter of perspective. And from yours, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx are strongly conservative.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11557

    Feb 09, 2015 1:05 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidI think it's minor ethically speaking. He was telling a personal story and not being a reporter. His entire oeuvre is going to be scrutinized, and if little can be made of the veracity of his reporting, then he'll come out OK.

    And if he has a long history, then I can say we've been warning everyone about Howard Beale for a long time. Nobody listens. Now he's literally on every network. I would hope that incidents like these would motivate news organizations to do better, but it only seems to embolden them to push the envelope further.

    There's almost no conservative or liberal media, certainly not in the mainstream. It's all corporate media which has no agenda that includes the truth, unless it's profitable, and we all know that the truth is often bad for profits.

    "In advertising, there's no such thing as a lie. There's only expedient exaggeration." Roger Thornhill


    Agree. Fox Feaux News has continuously lied to unsuspecting "sheeple" views for 20-plus years and nobody calls THEM out for it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 1:14 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Toastvenom saidand yet somehow the world still continues to spin.... how come people don't get this fucking outraged when a politician lies and goes back on all the promises he/she/it makes on the campaign trail and then does sweet fuck all when they make it into office. now THAT is something to be pissed and outraged over,


    People do - in the party that opposes said politician. Those in that politician's party turn a blind eye.

    Example: None of the Obama supporters here have condemned Obama for his whopper "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Nobody is going to take that away from you."


    "people do??" really, other politicians are the "common people"? they all work for the same big business goons who funded them into their cushy positions. Those "people" don't give a fuck about another politicians BS cuz it would be like calling the kettle black, its why no real recourse is taken against these scum when they're busted for lying, cheating, stealing etc. That political inertia should be the fuel to piss US ALL OFF, buy hey, I hear a tv journalist told a lie.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 1:22 AM GMT
    In a criminal trial, a defense attorney is not proving his client is "innocent," he's opposing the state's burden, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his client is "guilty."

    If a client confesses to me, then I wouldn't be able to say "your honor, my client is innocent." But I could still oppose the state in its burden to convict. Because we have a presumption of innocence, and the state carries the burden.

    Civilly the situation is a little different, but we don't have to put too fine a point on it at this juncture.

    "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent." Cite OJ's winning the criminal trial, but losing the civil trial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 3:01 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@Pazzy

    I have NEVER lied or "twisted the truth" to win a case. Misrepresentation of a material fact to opposing counsel or a court is against every state bar (aka, the governing "law" for lawyers).

    In fact, there are a surprisingly large amount of required disclosures (unless you stipulate to waive them) that HAVE TO occur. And believe me, discovery is so thorough, and the opposing counsel comes at it every which way and the other, that any attempt to lie or "twist the truth" would be outed by the extensive vetting process.

    In addition, attempting to get a person to lie under oath is called the subornation of perjury, and is criminal if I'm not mistaken. At the very least, a lawyer would likely lose their license.

    While some scum lawyers at the bottom of the dog pile might outright lie, any practicing attorney cannot afford to lie they'll get outed. It might work in one case, but by the 30th, 60th and 70th case the pattern will become apparent. Not to mention, it's simply "illegal" for lawyers to do that.

    Please do not believe what Law and Order or other commentary would have you believe. Lawyers are, by and large, non-liars. What gets most people is that lawyers CAN be tricky. If you equivocate tricky to a liar, then there you are. But lies? Lawyers don't engage in that. [Emphases added.]


    Ti creo, counsel. What lawyers do in part has been described as "mastering the art of selective ambiguity." There's a huge difference between that and lying, and a good, professional lawyer skilled in x-examination and discovery will be able to get to the root of any hidden or disputed matter. I twice caught opponents lying, once in a federal court case, no less, and got each of them sanctioned and disciplined. I must confess to a certain Schadenfreud in one of the matters; the guy was a totally arrogant jerk from the get-go, and he used his young associates to cover his lies. He deserved to get caught, and I'm glad I was the one who caught him.

    BTW, I agree w/ your points about various legal tactics in crim cases, but I wouldn't describe motions in limine or other procedural devices to bar or admit evidence as "trickery." There's a sound logical basis for those rules of evidence and it's their application by the judge who rules on them that's open to question, not their mere, centuries-old existence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2015 4:34 AM GMT
    I can't stand his nasal voice. I never watch him. His awful voice should have prevented him from ever being a newsreader on a local level much less national.