BRIAN WILLIAMS: THE LYNCH MOB GATHERS
Jerry Harkins
“Crucify him! Crucify him!”
—Luke
23:21
Many years ago, the University of Kansas required
new graduate students in the sciences to take a course introducing them to the
research process. One of the
professors had a demonstration he conducted early every semester. One member of the class (a fellow named
Roy the year I took the course) burst in late, ranting, raving and acting in a
threatening manner as though he had suddenly gone berserk. After a minute or two, he left still
screaming. The professor,
obviously shaken, told the members of the class to write a description of what
had happened because the event was certain to have repercussions. It may not surprise you to learn that
the accounts varied widely. Some
thought Roy had waved a gun. One
said he threatened the professor with a knife. Some recognized Roy as a fellow student; others did
not. And so forth. It had all, of course, been staged to
make what now seems an obvious point.
Eye witness testimony is unreliable and the more involved the witness is
the less reliable the testimony.
Even highly intelligent graduate students cannot be counted on just
minutes after being eye witnesses to an event.
It is, as I say, obvious. So if I told you my story about the
night a mugger tried to rob me, you would do well to assume that something like
that happened but you wouldn’t want to hang for the details. If you heard the story again five years
later, you wouldn’t be surprised if some of the details had changed. Memory is capricious. My mother had a remarkable memory for
poetry. She could recite
Longfellow’s 1,399-line poem “Evangeline” in its entirety. But she always made tiny mistakes. In her memory, the first line was,
“This is the forest primeval.
These are the murmuring pines and the hemlocks.” There is no “These are” in Longfellow’s
version. The murmuring pines and
hemlocks are the subject of the second sentence which is 38 words long. They are eleven words removed from
their verb. Her memory was
distorted and she essentially re-punctuated a run-on sentence.
I
was in kindergarten when the Allies landed at Normandy. All I remember of the war are the air
raid sirens, the rationing and the collecting of old newspapers and aluminum
foil. But I also remember
emotions: the fear during air raid
sirens and blackouts, the sadness of watching veterans trying out their new
wooden legs on Fourth Avenue, the anxiety when my father was drafted and the
joy when he returned home the same day because of a new and more optimistic
rule about age and the number of children. I think I remember being sent once in a while to the corner
drugstore to buy two cigarettes for him. I think I remember encountering women crying in the
street. But, always, the line
between fact and fiction is indistinct and I know that my stories get better
and more entertaining as I repeat them.
Often I don’t know whether a memory is true or false.
It
all seems so obvious but it is something that has never occurred to the
editors, pundits and reporters of The New York Times. I have written elsewhere about their obsession with
plagiarism and their addiction to what they are convinced is the moral high
ground. The most recent example of
the latter is the vast amount of time and energy they are devoting to
destroying the reputation and career of Brian Williams, the NBC news anchor
(and, not incidentally, one of their principal competitors). Mr. Sulzberger and his minions will not
rest easily until Williams is branded with a scarlet L on his forehead, L as in
liar.
Now
given that smart people often do stupid things, I suppose it is possible that
Mr. Williams inflated his involvement in a military incident that happened a
dozen or so years ago. But in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is obviously more logical to
conclude that the inaccuracies, first reported by Williams himself, were
nothing more than quirks of memory, or what The Times’ health writer, Tara
Parker-Pope, called the “fallibility and malleability of human memory.” She wrote, “Mr. Williams has been
branded a liar for embellishing his role in the event, with critics saying that
as a newscaster he should be held to a higher standard…But memory experts see
the issue differently, noting that the well-documented story, told differently
many times by Mr. Williams, actually offers a compelling case study in how
memories can change and shift dramatically over time.”
Sadly,
hers is the only Timesean voice to take account of the obvious, never mind the views
of memory experts. Otherwise the
newspaper of record attacked with front page stories and punditry for more than
a week. Maureen Dowd, usually the
resident pit bull, was slightly less agitated than is her wont and David Brooks
came out for “rigorous forgiving” and “tough but healing love” following
“extreme self-abasement.” It all
sounded a bit like what Bishop Cauchon felt should be rendered to Joan
of Arc.
The
substance of the story is not really important. Mr. Williams did indeed embellish his role but he surely
wasn’t blowing his own horn. He
was where he said he was. There
were real bullets being fired in anger.
He said his helicopter got hit but that was the one ahead of his. He came out of his own story looking
frightened and grateful for the protection of others. It was a filler, a feel-good story about one of the soldiers
who had gotten them out of an antsy situation. But for the Times, it was another chance to drag out the
usual anonymous sources to certify that he is an ogre in the newsroom, disliked
and distrusted by all his right-thinking colleagues and by the off-camera
executives of the news division. While they were at it, they recycled every accusation anyone
ever made about their target du jour.
One expert said Williams may not have seen a dead body floating down
Canal Street during Hurricane Katrina.
Of course the expert wasn’t there.
In journalism they call this investigative reporting. In football, it’s called piling on and it
draws a fifteen yard penalty.
At
least the Times knows its story is trivial. It’s only point in telling it to death is that journalists
should be held to a higher standard than human beings. The NBC executives—the suits—on the
other hand do not know this. To
them the Williams brouhaha is a full
blown end-of-the-world crisis. These
are folks with a genetic predisposition to screwing things up. Their number is legion and their
stupidities are egregious: Barbara
Walters, Jane Pauley, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Ann Curry, all before nine in
the morning. And so as not to
slight the evening, one can think of their brilliant management of the Tonight
Show franchise: Jay Leno, David
Letterman, Conan O’Brien, Jay Leno.
They apparently got rid of the distinguished physician Nancy Snyderman
because she broke a self-imposed quarantine after it became clear she had not
been exposed to ebola. These
clowns are allergic to heat but are too young to remember Harry Truman’s advice
to get out of the kitchen. The
anonymous sources are probably right.
They probably do dislike their star anchor who gets all the credit for
their hard work and is paid more to boot.
The
entire Williams affair could be dismissed as a tempest in a teapot except that
it is so damned typical of what the world seems to be coming to. I get angry at the Times for being coarse,
self-interested and sanctimonious.
But attack journalism is no worse than the mendacity that characterizes
our politics or the power lust of our religious leaders or the greed that
virtually defines our business climate.
Our institutions are failing us and this means only one thing: we are failing ourselves.
A
politician—I think it was Mario Cuomo—once said America needs a new
constitutional convention but it would be dangerous to call one because the Bill
of Rights might very well fail to pass.
I remember joking that only nine of the ten amendments would be in
jeopardy but it is no longer a laughing matter. It is not just that we have become excessively contentious
but also that we seem unable to mount a civil or even intelligent debate. We cannot distinguish between the vital
and the pedestrian. What is at
stake is nothing less than the ability of a free people to freely govern
themselves.