What a pitiful excuse, whether it's true or not. What is the budget of this so-called news organization? With all the resources at their disposal they didn't have time to listen to that short phone call?

Even if we give NBC the benefit of the doubt, they are not pushing an agenda, but they are worthless as an information source. Worthless.

Guess we found one person that doesn't have to work under high pressure and extreme time constraints...;)

Visit a live network show someday while they are putting it together, it might change your opinion about how easy it would be for a human error like this to occur. Bunch of producers changing their minds at the last second, edits done on the fly to fit commercial breaks, it's a freakin zoo.

Who ever said that the Today Show was a legitimate news program anyway? It's not like this was run as a feature on the evening news.

Maybe that's part of our problem in this country, people lapping up whatever the TV tells them without doing any research of their own.

WWMMD?

I'm still not buying it. If this was an isolated incident, then they would be entitled to more leeway, but NBC has an important job which they do poorly. "Meet the Press" is a joke and has been for years. It's no coincidence that the late Tim Russert was Dick Cheney's favorite Sunday morning host. Cheney knew he could go on Russert's show in March 2003 and say, "We believe [Saddam] has in fact reconstitituted nuclear weapons," without worrying that the host would ask difficult follow up questions. David Gregory is even worse. So, please forgive my skepticism when they say that someone accidentally edited out such an important part of that very brief recording resulting in a version that completely distorted Zimmerman's comments. Their mistake, if that's what it was, happened to go right to the heart of the controversy. Imagine that. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but I am not convinced.

You cite the pressure cooker atmosphere as if it is an excuse. If they are going to slap together these reports, then they shouldn't hold themselves out as a news organization. They are more like a TV version of the Drudge Report.That's a huge part of the problem, no "maybe" about it. Another part of the problem is the worthless media.

I certainly can't say for sure, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Is The Today Show considered a news program?
I don't watch broadcast TV, so I'm not exactly an expert on what constitutes a news show. (Cancelled cable a number years ago, and don't miss a single thing about it;)) Only shows I've ever worked on were sports or entertainment, not news. I have witnessed them filming the news though, and it does not look like any kind of fun.

So, if it was an innocent mistake, it was an extremely unfortunate "Perfect Storm" kind of mistake...
If it was deliberate manipulation, then the perpetrator(s) are idiots for thinking they would get away with it, and deserve firing.

Citing this as an example of "evil left leaning media" is making a mountain out of a molehill. Stupid or unfortunate, sure.
There is no iceberg lurking under this story, no conspiracy to generate racial unrest. Those that believe NBC, as an organization, had nefarious reasons for altering that phone call should probably turn off Fox news and loosen the foil hat.

Canard-rich environment.

As I recall, it has some news segments. Whatever they call it, though, I think they hold themselves out as having at least some standards for accuracy when reporting on the sorts of issues at play in the Zimmerman matter.I don't doubt that for a minute.I don't see any left-versus-right angle to the unfortunate editing of the Zimmerman tape. It was either sloppy or an effort to add some pizzaz to their report, thereby pleasing the viewers. IMHO.

I have no problem seeing it as a thoughless reduction to fit a time segment.

I simply can't see it that way. The edit materially changes the entire context of the 911 call. If time was that critical, they could have cut out the " He is black" entirely. Including that w/o the intervening prompts from the 911 operator changes it too much to be classified as an "edit".

If they can't work under the pressure of the time constraints, they should be replaced with someone who can do the job.

Even if we give NBC the benefit of the doubt on that, they still aren't off the hook.

Matt Lauer makes $25 million a year. I assume that the other talent on the show is also paid well. I likewise assume that the corporation wouldn't be shelling out that kind of dough were they not making a rather obscene profit on the "Today Show." Good for them, but they are using our airwaves to do it. We provide those airwaves, I assume, because the media are supposed to provide a valuable service. It's time they started doing their job. This mistake, if that's what it was, is pretty egregious. Are we to just accept the idea that this multi-million-dollar enterprise can't even edit a very simple piece of audio concerning a matter of national interest?

I just don't see this as deserving so much attention and vitriol.
They made a mistake, they said they were sorry, fired the person responsible and we move on.
Even if it was deliberate, it's a daytime show on NBC... don't watch it. How hard is that?
I guess I am surprised that people take anything on TV so seriously...

The editing of audio is not done by a multi-million-dollar enterprise, it's done by a human.

I would bet that all this uproar has increased the Today Show's Neilson numbers....

If you really have a huge problem with NBC, don't tell us, tell their advertisers.

NBC's advertisers don't listen to me.

My problem is not so much with this edited tape. My problem is that the media could be so valuable, but they continue to let us down. I don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but Tim Russert is a perfect example of what I mean. He apparently did some tough interviews from time to time. That's how he got his reputation. What became abundantly clear, though, was that his show was about making money and not about informing the public. Think about what Dick Cheney said on "Meet the Press" in March 2003 as we were marching to war in Iraq (which I'm sure you agree is a matter of national interest):It was a monumental falsehood, yet Russert let it pass without comment. Now, perhaps a producer or somebody was talking in Russert's ear at the time, but isn't that the problem? Everything they do seems designed to perpetuate their enormous salaries. If they happen to pass on some important information now and then, that's great, but it is secondary to making huge profits. They could do so much better. And we would be better off if they did.

:D:D:D

I can see your point. Such a wonderful vehicle, television, yet it doesn't take us to the incredible places it could. Instead it is used to drive us where we should be walking, and of course to facilitate the occasional drive by...;)

BULL ****

Thinking at that time:

Could Tim Russert have known that Dick Cheney was lying or should he have expected Dick Cheney to be lying?

Would Tim Russert be responsible for verifying statements that Dick Cheney makes on live TV?

It's one thing to be an investigative reporter and be responsible to obtain all the facts on a given subject. It's quite another to simply hold interviews with various political individuals and allow the public to vet their responses.

Tim Russert might have his own opinions about Dick Cheney at that time. It shouldn't affect his interview with Cheney unless he has specific facts that could refute Cheney at the time of the interview.