Like other crucial issues facing the world, I have conducted my own unscientific random poll over the past two weeks on Brian Willams and what should happen to him. Last week, we introduced the topic in this column. This week, we’ll add some details from our poll, and comment on what it means about how we consume media, pay attention to the news (or not), and the generational changes in how we follow and perceive public issues. Let’s go.
Encountering people the past two weeks, I would frequently ask the question: “Pretend you are the head of NBC News. You have to decide what to do with Brian Williams. What is your decision?”
Oddly, many people had trouble wrapping their hands around the question. They meandered, talking about what they thought happened, but they wouldn’t make a decision until I stopped them and refocused their attention: “You have to make a decision about what to do with him. Pretend you are the NBC Chief and have all-encompassing power for the station. What are you going to do?”
This brought most people back to earth. The answers fell into three camps: 1) Fire him. 2) Give him some form of long suspension, with the opportunity to return, depending on circumstances. 3) Apply a small slap on the wrist, but let him continue after a short penalty (a fine and/or time-off without pay). Note that answers 2 and 3 are very similar and differ based on severity of the penalty (in direct relation to how much the respondent “liked” Williams; the more they liked him, the shorter and less severe was the penalty – big surprise there).
Twenty-seven people responded to my random question. Nine said “fire him” immediately (33% of respondents). Six didn’t know who Brian Williams was (22%). Four wanted strong penalties imposed (15%). Eight wanted lesser penalties imposed, and typically stated before responding, “I really like him” (30%). Percentage numbers are rounded. My intuition says these numbers reflect reality in the U.S.
Here are some additional incisive findings: Of those who didn’t know who Brian Williams was, all except one were under the age of 30. This led to multiple discussions about how people get the news today, particularly the Millenial Generation, which tends to use social media rather than watching the Evening News. Because people are on the go, in general, respondents were not well-versed on what actually Williams had done.
Fifteen years ago, it’s likely that 95% of the people you spoke with on the street would have known who Tom Brokaw (NBC), Peter Jennings (ABC) and Dan Rather (CBS) were: Nightly news anchors for those respective networks. Now, most people probably can’t name more than one major anchor.
In fact, in our follow-up poll, we asked random citizens if they knew who Lester Holt was (the immediate stand-in for Williams, who previously was the weekend news anchor for NBC). Going up to people on the street, it became clear that less than 25% of the population knew Mr. Holt, though that will obviously now change given his elevated status.
Those who deliver the news have a major responsibility to cover the issues fully and in-depth, while being as accurate as possible. We are a subjective species, which means there is no true “objective” reporting. We cannot expect perfection, but we can expect commitment to thorough and “responsible” coverage.
Wiilliams distorted and manipulated the news, at a minimum. For that he will pay a personal and professional price, one he may not recover from.
Encountering people the past two weeks, I would frequently ask the question: “Pretend you are the head of NBC News. You have to decide what to do with Brian Williams. What is your decision?”
Oddly, many people had trouble wrapping their hands around the question. They meandered, talking about what they thought happened, but they wouldn’t make a decision until I stopped them and refocused their attention: “You have to make a decision about what to do with him. Pretend you are the NBC Chief and have all-encompassing power for the station. What are you going to do?”
This brought most people back to earth. The answers fell into three camps: 1) Fire him. 2) Give him some form of long suspension, with the opportunity to return, depending on circumstances. 3) Apply a small slap on the wrist, but let him continue after a short penalty (a fine and/or time-off without pay). Note that answers 2 and 3 are very similar and differ based on severity of the penalty (in direct relation to how much the respondent “liked” Williams; the more they liked him, the shorter and less severe was the penalty – big surprise there).
Twenty-seven people responded to my random question. Nine said “fire him” immediately (33% of respondents). Six didn’t know who Brian Williams was (22%). Four wanted strong penalties imposed (15%). Eight wanted lesser penalties imposed, and typically stated before responding, “I really like him” (30%). Percentage numbers are rounded. My intuition says these numbers reflect reality in the U.S.
Here are some additional incisive findings: Of those who didn’t know who Brian Williams was, all except one were under the age of 30. This led to multiple discussions about how people get the news today, particularly the Millenial Generation, which tends to use social media rather than watching the Evening News. Because people are on the go, in general, respondents were not well-versed on what actually Williams had done.
Fifteen years ago, it’s likely that 95% of the people you spoke with on the street would have known who Tom Brokaw (NBC), Peter Jennings (ABC) and Dan Rather (CBS) were: Nightly news anchors for those respective networks. Now, most people probably can’t name more than one major anchor.
In fact, in our follow-up poll, we asked random citizens if they knew who Lester Holt was (the immediate stand-in for Williams, who previously was the weekend news anchor for NBC). Going up to people on the street, it became clear that less than 25% of the population knew Mr. Holt, though that will obviously now change given his elevated status.
Those who deliver the news have a major responsibility to cover the issues fully and in-depth, while being as accurate as possible. We are a subjective species, which means there is no true “objective” reporting. We cannot expect perfection, but we can expect commitment to thorough and “responsible” coverage.
Wiilliams distorted and manipulated the news, at a minimum. For that he will pay a personal and professional price, one he may not recover from.