Was NBC News' Brian Williams Avoiding "Divisive" Stories or Anti-Obama Ones?


New York magazine

Writing in New York, Gabriel Sherman has penned a great piece about how the entire news division at NBC has been circling the drain for a long time. There is most recently and publicly the suspension of news achor Brian Williams for making shit up about his brushes with death in far-flung places such as Iraq and post-Katrina New Orleans, but there's also the ratings-and-relevancy slides of other major shows such as Today and Meet The Press.

It's a great behind-the-scenes look at how the mainstream TV news gets made and is only slightly less filled with bone, gristle, and burnt feathers than those PETA videos about how chicken McNuggets end up on your plate. The not-secret-at-all fact is that broadcast news ratings have been declining for ever and Sherman documents at least part of the reason when he cites critics of story selection by Williams, who was also the network's "managing editor" and thus exerted huge influence over both his show and Peacock Network coverage more broadly:

Multiple sources told me that former NBC investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Lisa Myers battled with Williams over stories. In February 2013, Isikoff failed to interest Williams in a piece about a confidential Justice Department memo that justified killing American citizens with drones. He instead broke the story on Rachel Maddow. That October, Myers couldn't get Williams to air a segment about how the White House knew as far back as 2010 that some people would lose their insurance policies under Obama­care. Frustrated, Myers posted the article on NBC's website, where it immediately went viral. Williams relented and ran it the next night. "He didn't want to put stories on the air that would be divisive," a senior NBC journalist told me. According to a source, Myers wrote a series of scathing memos to then–NBC senior vice-president Antoine Sanfuentes documenting how Williams suppressed her stories. ­Myers and Isikoff eventually left the network (and both declined to comment).


Whole piece.

Divisive is one term for either of those stories. Critical of President Obama and state power more broadly is another. I think it's actually the latter that is more important and helps to explain part of the evacuation of broadcast news by viewers.

The stories that Williams passed on—one about secret rules justifying killing Americans and one about fallout from Obamacare—weren't simply divisive, they also demonstrate the abuse of state power and its limits to reshape the world in its image.

While passing on them may well reflect a pro-Obama bias on Williams' part, I think they even more importantly represent a pro-establishment point of view. Williams is (or was) arguably the last of the mainstream guys, not overtly political but wanting to be everybody's pal (Sherman's article notes Williams' dream of getting a late-night TV show). This was a guy with no edge, no strong character, no obvious oddness. His problem was that he was born too late. Viewers want the news, it turns out, even from mainstream broadcasts. We may not want hard and obvious ideology from the broadcast networks (that we get from MSNBC and Fox News), but if you're initially passing on stories like these, you're living in happy place that nobody inhabits anymore.

You're not curating the news, baby, you're cozying up to power. Period. And nobody's into that anymore.

Unlike cable shows, which we expect to be ideological, viewers do want some semblance of objectivity from NBC, CBS, and ABC. But we also don't want bullshit, either. We want hard-hitting, tough-but-fair evaluations of what's going on in the world. Check out that chart of press coverage of recent presidents in their first years. Obama started off with the greatest honeymoon possible but even his positives slid. George W. Bush's rose, especially after 9/11. Note though that with the exception of Bush, all ended lower than they started, which is a sign that broadcast news was at least doing some of its watchdog act.

As someone with loyalty to neither major party, I care less about partisanship in news coverage than whether journalists are bringing their best critical analysis to far more important issues than what's good for the Democrats or the Republicans while in office. These issues include the relationship of the state to the individual and whether policies are addressing real issues in the first place and what their effects will likely be.

Two decades ago, my views might have been somewhat outside the mainstream. But we are living in the "Libertarian Moment," aren't we, friends? A big part of that is a general rise in skepticism toward concentrated power, especially government and state power. That's even more mainstream than accepting gay marriage or pot legalization or that markets are generally better than command economies.

Williams showed horrible news sense but so do other broadcast channels, too. But not just with Obama. In the wake of 9/11 and certainly in the run-up to Iraq in 2003 (and for a long while after), I don't recall the networks being skpetical of the administration's plans. Indeed, folks such as Williams seemed positively giddy over "embedding" with troops and getting to report while wearing field jackets and even Army helmets.

Broadcast news won't stop the bleeding until they get in touch with what used to be called "the reality-based community" that most Americans inhabit. And given the world in which people who make network news tend to live—pampered, elite, coastal, clubby, etc.—don't expect much to change anytime ever.

NEXT: Watch Anthony Fisher Talk Death Penalty Transparency on HuffPost Live's "Free Speech Zone" Today at 2:30p ET

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don’t watch/listen to network or local news – don’t care.


  2. You’re not curating the news, baby, you’re cozying up to power. Period. And nobody’s into that anymore.

    Nobody? Really?

    1. Well, based on the ratings, nobody outside of power’s immediate family members.

  3. The self-glorifying lies weren’t even the worst things Williams did. So, by ignoring such prosaic issues as ratings and truth, does NBC simply not care about remaining in business, or are they counting on a friendly administration to bail them out like Chrysler and GM?

    1. I think the bailout might be the reason. They have to know that their business model is fatally compromised and that a bailout is their only hope to keep the good times rolling. There is almost no chance the Republicans would ever give them a bailout. The Democrats, however might. And these people would happily trade their freedom and become state media in return for a paycheck.

      1. Would? That ship already sailed.

    2. NBC is owned by Comcast. There’s little danger of them going out of business.

      1. But Net Neutrality put Comcast out of business! Right?

  4. Die NBC news, die already.

  5. But we are living in the “Libertarian Moment,” aren’t we, friends?

    A moment is like the blink of an eye. By the time you recognize you’re living in it it’s already gone.

  6. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ???????????????

  7. I had no idea that Network News was one big Pro-Government Infomercial? Shocked, I am.


    no, really. this story was ‘old’ back in the 1990s. “network news” has been extinct so long that its corpse doesn’t even stink anymore.

  8. And given the world in which people who make network news tend to live?pampered, elite, coastal, clubby, etc.?don’t expect much to change anytime ever.

    These are the folks that think The Middle is a reality show.

  9. Chuck Todd on MTP is unwatchable. I don’t think he has the capability to be objective or impartial.

    1. It’s bizarre watching an “anchor” who mugs for the camera more than Jimmy Fallon.

  10. “Writing in New York, Gabriel Sherman has penned a great piece about how the entire news division at NBC has been circling the drain for a long time.”

    I’m not convinced it wasn’t always this way.

    It’s just that now there are more than three news channels to choose from.

    Dinosaurs weren’t only “dinosaurs” in retrospect.

    Maybe the world evolved and Brian Williams didn’t. He’s a dinosaur now, but he wasn’t he always a dinosaur?

    Wasn’t Cronkite a dinosaur, too? Maybe Cronkite acted like this, too. If he did act like that, how would we have known?

    1. Re: Ken Shultz,

      It’s just that now there are more than three news channels to choose from.

      The networks do not see cable news as real threats to their hegemony. What they fear and despise are talk radio and internet news.

      Cable news is very schedule-oriented. You have to see 4 hours of Fox and Friends to get, maybe, 1/2 of hard and soft news you find relevant. Commentary is mostly reserved to a few prime-time shows. The ratings of all cable news networks combined maybe amount to 2-3 million people at any given time. That is not enough to really affect public opinion like network news can..

      Instead, the internet provides you with the news information you want to see faster and at any time you want, which means you don’t have to rely on incompetent buffoons to read the news for you from a teleprompter. Talk radio (or internet radio) already provides the political commentary people crave. Both the Internet and talk radio have ratings that rival the three big networks, which makes it obvious why there has been so many attempts by the networks at bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine”.

  11. I recounted before the story of caring for my old man after his heart attack and being forced to sit through NBC Nightly News during The Sequester. It was intolerable. The doomsayers’ accounts of what chaos was to come was reported unchallenged.

  12. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $63 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for 6 months but last month her payment was $16955 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to the website…….


    1. 269 hours a month? That’s not just a few hours, marsha.

  13. The NEW Oxford Dictionary:
    Journalist: Progressive activists with Bylines.
    Media: Propaganda outlets for the Democrat National Committee.

  14. Brian Williams failure was pretending he had a job that was supposed to convey factual information at all. Unlike sister network MSNBC which simply ignores reality and facts and spouts opinion to the skies as if. If Brian Williams had a show on MSNBC where every day he practiced the correct form of kneeling in prayer to Obama he’d still be on the air. If he dedicated himself, like MSNBC that there is no Democratic president and no elected officials who are members of the Democratic party and instead heaped abuse on the GOP every second of every minute around the clock every day even if he had to scour the tiniest local government news from Guam he could find, he’d still have a job. But like being on the witness stand, once you open the door that a fact is a fact, you leave yourself exposed. Instead of saying his helicopter was shot down he should have the GOP is the sole reason my helicopter was shot at.

  15. Nobody’s into that anymore? (Still in) The Libertarian Moment, too, eh? Methinks Gillespie doth reside in an even happier place than Williams.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.