Posted on

What to Make of Brian Williams

Brian Williams Fiasco Should Brian Williams be able to report news to America in the future?

Ruth Marcus from the Washington Posts makes her case:

“I doubt that the six-month suspension the network announced Tuesday night is enough, and I think he needs to step down.”

…”This analysis misperceives the role of news anchor — as NBC itself recognized: “As Managing Editor and Anchor of ‘Nightly News,’ Brian has a responsibility to be truthful and to uphold the high standards of the news division at all times,” Deborah Turness, the president of NBC News, said in a statement.

To the extent that the job is more than merely reading words off a teleprompter, it is to be the institutional voice of trust and reason, reassuring in a crisis, the ultimate reliable narrator. When issues of trustworthiness become a distraction, the anchor loses his credibility, and therefore his perch.”

Verne Gay for NewsDay.com has come to the conclusion that she can not trust Williams again, and neither should NBC:

“In fact, the one hard, undissolvable core value that an anchorman or woman must have is trust. Of course, anchormen and women, being humans, will err, and they will make mistakes and they will be imperfect.

But viewers know that. What they won’t tolerate is a lie. When trust is shattered, it is impossible to reassemble the pieces. Something else then replaces that badge of “trust.” It’s called “doubt.” In its own strange way, “doubt” is as powerful as “trust,” but impossible to shake. For a professional anchor, it’s a scarlet letter.”

Manuel Roig-Franzia, Scott Higham and Paul Farhi, also from the Washington post, reported that the pulse among peers he was known for embellishing stories:

“NBC officials were suspicious of the on-air apology, particularly the anchor’s statement that he had “made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago,” a network source said.

“Ninety percent of the people knew it was not misremembering, it was making it up,” the source said.

..But inside NBC, the Iraq fabrication was seen as the most damaging. “When helicopter crew members get shot down and you attach yourself to what they went through, it’s pretty outrageous,” a person familiar with internal discussions said.

“It kept piling up, and his story seemed less and less credible,” a network official said.

…”They also said they were not surprised by the allegations that Williams had inflated his involvement in news stories and what he supposedly witnessed while on assignment. They said his exaggerations were an open secret at 30 Rockefeller Plaza and became an inside joke, mostly because they were not made on “Nightly News.”

…NBC reporters and producers said:

“There are few people who talk to Brian in an authoritative way,” a former top NBC news manager said. “There really wasn’t anyone over him to say anything to him or to question his facts. There was no one managing him. There was constant changing to his whims.

“No one said, ‘No.’ ”

John Gruber from Daring Fireball doesn’t seem to give any sympathy:

“Not sure how he recovers from this. Humiliating, but he has only himself to blame.”

Not everyone is out to see Brian Williams banished from the news media.  There are plenty that recognize the mistake and think the media are making too big of a deal out of it.

Paul Waldman writing for TheWeek.com sees it as a misstep not a career ender:

It should be noted that Williams’ inaccurate stories weren’t failures of his journalism, but failures in how he talked about his journalism off-camera.

…That’s an important distinction, but it may not be enough to exonerate him.

Roger Simon for Politico thinks people are over reacting:

Williams falsely claimed he was in a helicopter that was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq a dozen years ago. In reality, he was in a different helicopter that could have been shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade, but wasn’t.

…So I think we should just chill about Brian Williams. Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.

Bill O’Reilly on Jimmy Kimmel thinks the outrage is not a concern for integrity in news but in the delight of the fallen:

“Every public person in this country is a target,” he said. “With the Internet — you know what it is, it’s a sewer. And these people delight in seeing famous people being taken apart.

I just think it’s wrong. I mean, we’re human beings just like everybody else.””I don’t like this taking and destroying people for sport business,” he said. “I don’t like it.”

Joe Scarborough also throws in defending Williams:

“If he exaggerated, if he puffed his chest out a little bit — news people do that,” Scarborough said, after quoting scripture about casting the first stone. “Politicians do that. Guys do that. We’ve all done that at times. You have to ask the question, where was it done? Was it done at David Letterman, or was it done when he was reporting the news?”

Jon Stewart seems to think it was merely an indiscretion:

It’s more sin that crime, don’t’ you agree?”

Stewart also points out the irony of the media’s coverage:

“Now, this may seem like overkill, but for me, no, it is not overkill, because I am happy, finally, someone is being held to account for misleading America about the Iraq War, finally it might not necessarily be the 1st person you’d want held accountable on that list…”

So where do we stand on this?  Is this a career mistake or an indiscretion?  The questions hinge on what our standard is for our news anchors.

Colin Cowherd made a case on his radio show that news anchors have changed.  America wants to enjoy watching the news, not just getting the news.  Brian Williams did that better than anyone else.

Gone are the days where we choose our news anchors based on their journalistic credibility.  Originally, there were 5 channels and anchors could afford to be reporters of news and not personalities.  Now days we watch the news that caters to us.  So we enjoy Brian Williams the personality, he won’t be as straight laced as the boring guy full of standards and journalistic integrity.  That guy is respected, but not adored.  He is for a place where substance is more important that show.  That is not TV, maybe a documentary.

You think Walter Cronkite, the standard bearer, would be leading the news in ratings in 2015?  His key demographic is 70+ and would have been canned as fast as Conan’s stint on the tonight show.

Fabricating stories for more viewers is one thing, embellishing your story for entertainment is another.  What Dan Rather did is unforgivable, what Brian Williams did is forgettable.

We shouldn’t make this bigger than it is.  Lets get past the facade of what we think the nightly news is and call it for what it is.  Brian Williams was hired for ratings, not credibility.  We now know what colleagues have known for years—he likes to embellish stories to entertain those around him.  He is still the same guy.  Until he pulls a “Dan Rather” this indiscretion is far from irreparable.  I say let him continue, if America still enjoys the brand despite the imperfections, ratings will show.  If it is irrepairable, ratings will show.

Posted on

Horse Racing has a Rivalry

California Chrome loses to shared beliefShared Belief’s Jockey, Mike Smith:

“I can’t even describe that performance,” Smith said. “He ranks right up there with the top five horses I have ever been on, with room to grow. It really was so impressive. There’s no telling what this horse can do or the potential that he can reach. I think he still has room to grow.”

Horses, California Chrome and Shared Belief clashed last Saturday at Santa Anita and the race lived up to the hype.  California Chrome was winning coming off the last turn but was passed by Shared Belief in the last stretch making an exciting finish.  It was great to see the matchup after the last race was spoiled at the Breeder’s Cup Classic.  View the race here.

I understand it is February, but Horse racing was the best in sports entertainment this weekend.  It’s great when rivalry match ups deliver, and it did.

*Fyi— Radio Great, Jim Rome, is part owner of Shared Belief.

Posted on

Apple approved ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ released today

‘Becoming Steve Jobs ‘ was released today and authors Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli claim to have written an accurate depiction of the tech icon. The Official Steve Jobs book by Walter Isaacson wasn’t well received in the blogosphere nor by the people that knew Steve Jobs most intimately. Brian X. Chen and Alexander Alter of the New York Times reported ,

“Mr. Isaacson’s best seller did a tremendous disservice; to the Apple chief, Mr. Cook said in the new book, written by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli, and excerpted in the April issue of Fast Company. It didn’t capture the person,” Mr. Cook said. “The person I read about there is somebody I would never have wanted to work with over all this time.”

Jony Ive, Apple’s longtime design chief, added his criticism of Mr. Isaacson’s biography last month in a New Yorker profile. “My regard couldn’t be any lower” for the book, he said, noting that he had read only parts of it.

Eddy Cue, Apple’s chief of software and Internet services, endorsed the new book on Mr. Jobs on Twitter last week: “Best portrayal is about to be released — Becoming Steve Jobs (book). Well done and first to get it right.” Apple’s iBooks account also tweeted last week that “ ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ is the only book about Steve recommended by the people who knew him best.”

Not only are Apple executives praising the book, but Daring Fireball’s John Gruber who got an advance copy of the Book wrote:

“The book is smart, accurate, informative, insightful, and at times, utterly heartbreaking. Schlender and Tetzeli paint a vivid picture of Jobs the man, and also clearly understand the industry in which he worked. They also got an astonishing amount of cooperation from the people who knew Jobs best: colleagues past and present from Apple and Pixar — particularly Tim Cook — and his widow, Laurene Powell Jobs.”

I have read the Watler Isaacson book and am currently reading ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’. Already it seems to have given more insight into the man and the reason Steve Jobs was successful, not just the controversial. Walter Isaacson’s biography of ‘Steve Jobs’ big failure was that it didn’t capture the reasons why Steve Jobs was so successful.  It focused on his outrageous stories and personality quirks; not his strength.  The podcast Hypercritical Espisode #42, by John Siracusa does a good job explaining why that first book was such a disappointment. There are a lot of smart people that seem to think that this book got it right. I hope so and look forward to finishing it.  Look forward to my review.

Posted on

The Heads and Tails of Pete Carroll’s decision

HeadsMichael Silver NFL.com

Carroll, with one remaining timeout, did the math and erred on the side of ensuring a maximum amount of chances to get the ball across the goal line while limiting the chances that the Pats would have enough time to counter.

Bill Barnwell presents the following case:

If you’re thinking about the game coming down to those three plays, you can also piece together a case that second down is the best time to throw the ball. As Wilson took that fateful second-down snap, there were 26 seconds left and Seattle had one timeout. Let’s pretend for a moment that the Seahawks decide to run the ball on second down. If they don’t get it, they have to call timeout, probably with about 22 seconds left. That means they’re stuck passing on third down with virtually no chance of running the ball, because it would be too difficult to line up after a failed run.

On the other hand, by throwing on second down, you could get two cracks at running the football while providing some semblance of doubt for the Patriots. If Wilson’s pass on second down is incomplete (and he avoids a sack, which seems likely given his ability to scramble), the clock stops with something like 20 seconds to go. That means you can run the ball on third down, use your final timeout, and then run the ball again on fourth down. All three plays come with the possibility of either throwing or running, which prevents the Patriots from selling out against one particular type of play.

…[Runs] scored 54.1 percent of the time and resulted in turnovers 1.5 percent of the time, while passes got the ball into the end zone 50.1 percent of the time and resulted in turnovers 1.9 percent of the time. In a vacuum, the decision between running and passing on the 1-yard line is hardly indefensible, because both the risk and the reward are roughly similar.

The key phrase there, of course, is “in a vacuum.” This wasn’t a vacuum.

Justin Wolfers, for the New York Times makes a case that Carroll did the right thing according to game theory.

The key insight of game theory for an N.F.L. coach is that when you think about what choice you should make, you need to also consider the response from the opposing coach, understanding that he is also thinking strategically. This line of thinking suggests that you should not necessarily call a run play, even if you’re blessed with a great running back.

Tails

Ian O’Connor from ESPN hammers Pete Carroll’s decision

Carroll just had to make a decision any Pop Warner coach worth his whistle and drill cones would have made. Lynch was in full you-know-what mode, barreling his way through the New England Patriots and carrying the Seahawks to the league’s first two-peat since Belichick and Tom Brady pulled it off in a different life. Lynch already had 102 rushing yards and a touchdown to his name, and he had just planted Seattle on the Patriots’ 1-yard line.

…Instead of notarizing his standing as Belichick’s equal, Peter Clay Carroll made the dumbest and most damaging call in Super Bowl history.

…Gregg Popovich had Tim Duncan on the bench near the end of that disastrous Game 6 loss to Miami a couple of years ago. Grady Little left Pedro Martinez on the mound in that Game 7 in 2003 at Yankee Stadium. Rick Pitino didn’t put a man on Grant Hill for that three-quarters-court pass to Christian Laettner that decided Duke-Kentucky in 1992 — maybe the greatest college game ever played.But this was the mother of all screwups. Pete Carroll, the successor to Dick Clark as the world’s oldest teenager, got all silly and reckless at the worst possible time.

He cost his team the Super Bowl, and there was nothing even remotely fun about it.

Michael Silver for Michael Silver for NFL.com

When I asked receiver Doug Baldwin, in a quiet conversation near his locker, if he was shocked by Carroll’s decision to throw, he shook his head and said, “Come on, man — you’ve got common sense, too. … We have nobody to blame but us. My first thought was that we were gonna run it in — but coaches, they’re the ones that they know it better than us.”

Seattle linebacker Bruce Irvin was even more pointed, telling me, “We beat ’em, bro. We beat ’em. … I’m speechless. Best back in the league, and the 1-yard-line? It wasn’t even the 1 — it was like half a yard. I will never understand that, bro. I will never understand it. I will never understand. …

“When Jermaine caught that ball, I felt it was meant to be for us. Oh, no doubt — we’re gonna score. Beast Mode. Beast Mode! Best back on the (expletive) planet. That’s crazy!”

You can present the arguments and reasons why Carroll called a pass that you want.  I, honestly, think that they make a lot of sense.  The arguments are well thought out and appear reasonable.  So why such the outrage?  After the most amazing catch since David Tyree, the entire world knew that game was over.  The inevitability of Marshawn Lynch scoring a touchdown with 4 consecutive run plays and giving Tom Brady three spectacular Super Bowl losses, left Patriot fans dead inside, because it was as sure as Kim Kardashian’s 3rd divorce.  Some thought they should let Lynch in the end zone and try to score again.  Nobody thought they should pass.  Everyone was right.  The coach was wrong.

This is the reason for the outrage.  This is the reason why Pete Carroll is getting blasted.  Keep it simple Coach.  Feed the beast.

Posted on

Is Tom Brady Lying?

Purpose:  To determine if Tom Brady had 11 of 12 footballs deflated below NFL regulations.

Why Tom Brady Is Guilty

The crux of this accusal is 11 of 12 footballs were deflated under the set NFL guidelines, after they were deemed at 12.5 psi by the games referees.  We don’t know how these footballs became deflated, but we do know that they registered below 12.5 psi when they were checked at halftime of the AFC championship game.

The fact that Tom Brady benefits the most by having the football under regulated psi, he is under the most scrutiny.  It would affect him the most and he would gain the greatest advantage with an under inflated football.   To suggest somehow that someone else would deflate the footballs without the order from Tom Brady would venture into conspiracy theory.  While Tom Brady had a press conference and denied that he had anything to do with the deflated footballs, these are the reasons we don’t believe him.

According to a report by Sharp Football Analysis says the Average team fumbles every 105 plays.  The Patriots average 187, the next closest team is 140.  Colin Cowherd tells us that if you listen to Vegas they will tell you that turnovers are very often arbitrary and if a team has a lot of turnovers the previous year, it will likely equal themselves out the next year.  For an outdoor team that often plays in inclement weather the deflated football is the reason for the outlier.

Tom Brady is notorious for his attention to detail.  Like his coach, he spends countless hours watching tape and preparing to play his best.  He commits himself to perform to the best of his ability and tactics that help him he implements.  In his press conference he stated he preferred his football at 12.5 psi, he said it is perfect.  Clearly the game footballs used in the 1st half were under inflated.  If he preferred an exact 12.5 psi than he would have said something when he handled the football and it wasn’t “perfect”.  An artist likes his tools a certain way and when they aren’t he is the first one to notice.  If 12.5 psi is perfect, why wouldn’t he notice and demand a ball at 12.5 psi.

To believe that Tom Brady’s perfect ball is 12.5 psi it would fly in the face of an interview he had earlier when he admitted he likes a deflated football.  “When Gronk scores… he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball. I love that, because I like the deflated ball.

A football attendant was seen going into a bathroom with the footballs and 90 seconds later was leaving the bathroom.  A bathroom is the only secure place that a ball boy could go without cameras.  Also, as has been proven, this is more than enough time to deflate 11 footballs, with a bag and all.

Multiple QB’s have all said that the footballs are only going to be prepared the way that the QB wants them prepared.   No one is going to change them.  There is a long line of all ex-NFL players that believe that he isn’t being honest.  Some of these include Joe Montana, Mark Brunnell, Troy Aikman, Jerome Bettis, Brian Dawkins, Chris Canni, and Frank Tarkelton.

In short Brady is lying and had something to do with the deflation of the 11 footballs in the AFC Championship.

Why Tom Brady Is Telling the Truth

There are a lot of people claiming that Tom Brady is lying.  There has yet to be anyone that has produced evidence that is more than circumstantial.  We know that 11 of 12 footballs were deflated.  But, exactly by how much and the criteria in which they were deflated we still don’t know.  All evidence seems pretty circumstantial and there is no “smoking” gun.

It is a fact that you use a formula to figure out pressure.  One of these variables is temperature and a change in temperature will in fact change the pressure.  If is scientifically evident that the pressure in the footballs can change due to a change in temperature.  Brady likes his footballs at 12.5 psi.  Andrew Luck may in fact like his footballs more than the 12.5 psi.  If this is the case that it would make sense why the footballs for the Colts weren’t deflated under the regulated pressure.

The NFL has a procedure to check the footballs before the game.  They inspect and check the pressure of the footballs to see if they are regulation.  It isn’t the quarterbacks job to make sure that the pressure in the football is regulation.  It is the referee’s job to make sure that the footballs are qualified.  They have procedures to prevent people from messing with the footballs.

Also, Tom Brady has given a press conference stating that he didn’t do anything to the footballs to deflate them.  He stated that he had nothing to do with the deflation of footballs.  His word should count for something.   Bill Belichick and Bob Kraft came out strong defying the league to prove that they did something wrong.  The fact that they have drawn a line in the sand and challenged the league to find wrong doing, shows that they in fact haven’t done anything wrong and support the fact that Tom Brady isn’t lying.

Opinon

I think that the way that footballs are prepared has been pretty loose in the league.  Tom Brady likes his footballs a little lower than regulated psi.  I think that the Patriots had their footballs prepared like they always do and that they normally have them a little lower in psi.  I think the referees checked the footballs by squeezing them and not by actually testing them with a psi monitor.  I think the temperature changes the psi.  Maybe not lbs of psi, but enough to be able to test a difference.  I think this is the case of the NFL not managing the process close enough, and getting caught when the public has an outrage.  It’s the referees job to make sure that balls are at 12.5 psi.  If they don’t do their job then maybe the Patriots were able to have a football a little lower in psi.  This isn’t a case where the Patriots are taking corners, but the NFL taking corners.

Research

Charles P. Pierce;   Felice J. Freyer; Ben Volin; John Breech; Paul Newberry; Roxanne Jones; Colin Cowherd; Bill Simmons