Well, Brian Williams now has his comeuppance for having either accidentally conflated (his term), or purposely inflated, the details of his experience covering the Iraq war.
We may never know for sure which is true. I can in some ways credit the idea that his statement was an accident. At least from my perspective, there are lots of details from my experience of war some 40+ years ago that I feel certain are blurred or entirely forgotten. On the other hand, it really has not been all that many years since the incident Williams says he "conflated."
I also know that many, if not all, veterans suffer from a somewhat natural tendency to imagine - and report - their war years as more replete with derring-do than they were. But Williams is not himself a veteran. And finally, there's the fog of war - when things are happening fast, fear and just plain tension can mix up your later recall.
So, the "accident" defense may be credible.
On the other hand, my perspective is also colored by the very visible tendency these days for a prominent journalist to make him/herself a part of the story. When I heard the first part of this tale a week ago, the first thing to pop into my head was a case I recall from the war in Bosnia when I was in the area, in which I could tell a CNN reporter standing in a war-torn village [where I had stood myself just a few hours earlier] had clearly manufactured a story. So it's not at all difficult for me to think that Williams may have been seeking to enhance his credibility by edging into fiction territory.
It may not really matter, though. In the era of the instant news story, Williams became one himself. His sin as a journalist is twofold: his personal experience ought not have been brought into play; and when he did choose to do so, he ought to have been more careful than most to check the facts.
Some are saying that a six-month suspension is not penalty enough. I'm frankly a bit nonplussed by the outcry about his being such a "trusted" figure. Anchors deliver sound bites, and they all make their share of errors. So who really "trusts" them? The networks, perhaps, like to imagine that their chosen figureheads are revered by the hoi polloi.
And that's the reason, I suspect, that six months' suspension is enough, or perhaps in fact too severe, for it seems dubious that Williams will be allowed to return in the same role. That's OK by me - I seldom see Williams, but more often tune in NBC on weekends ... Lester Holt seems a good, solid anchor who may get his big break here.
I agree we'll probably never know for sure if Williams was confused, lying, or "embroidering the truth." But I think it appropriate that he's gone. And I suspect we'll never see him in the anchor chair again. Not sure he really valued it any more than any of his other "celebrity" appearances, other than as a means to an end.
Posted by: PiedType | February 12, 2015 at 10:51 AM