I do not see why this story has been criticized. If the press was supposed to serve as an uncritical cheerleader of the government, it could save time by having interns read White House press releases instead of paying reporters.

I am not a journalist. It is my opinion that the press is doing its job when it shines a spotlight on things the government is trying to hide or is showing what goes on behind the curtain. Clearly, the Administration was using those soldiers not so that the president could find out what was going on in Iraq, but to manipulate public opinion at home.

Brian, kudos for being so responsive, but I hope you don't begin to get beffeted around by viewer reaction. Beware of organized campaigns that smack of astroturf politics. At the end of the day, trust your own editorial judgement, and don't be reactive. You're a great journalist and that's why we watch. Use viewer response only as far as it goes. It's only one imprecise measuring stick. The real test is your committment to calling the news as you see it.

The decision to lead a broadcast with a particular story should be based on news value and public interest. This story clearly passed both tests. The event - the president speaking with troops stationed in Iraq - is news. Its value as news was enhanced by the revelation that the thing was essentially scripted. Public interest? Compared to the rest of the news of the day, yes. You have a president who stage-managed New Orleans doing the same thing to our troops in Iraq. This raises legitimate credibility concerns that tend to cause us to view this administration's approach to other issues with a more critical eye. It was a good story, and a good call. And when they stop complaining, it's really time to be concerned.

I don't get why this was a story. Aren't all events connected with POTUS staged to some degree? Is it any different then any other meet and greet? From what I saw the soldiers were not being instructed what to say, just rehearsing how they would answer the president. Isn't that just standard for an event like this? Those soldiers were going to be talking to the Commander in Chief, on national TV. I'm sure they wanted to seem cognizant, well-spoken and calm. I fail to see how this constitutes news, especially in light of all the disaster around us.

Please don't be swayed by any comments against your coverage of the staged "photo-op" set up by the White House. You did exactly the right thing. I believe the public has a right to know when a thing is not what is seems. It now appears that one of the servicewomen who spoke is actually a PR person for the Army. Not exactly a typical soldier. Please keep up the fine work; we need to be kept informed.

A lot of people have been critiquing NBC News for their top story tonight but the important thing to remember is that the media event happened, and it's the responsibility of the network to cover government at its highest level (the president). Is is that bad that the White House media event was FIRST in the A-block? If it wasn't first, where then, should it be? Third? It is uncommon to find a "Nightly" broadcast that doesn't have a Washington or other government-related story in it. Keep up the good work everyone...remember to seek the truth and report it. In this case, it wasn't that hard to seek anything...

Do the current political challenges mandate " a different set of standards" than previous journalistic policy? Or at least that is how I interpeted the excellent question.

The kids are down for the night, the chores are completed for the day and I have now a moment to ponder Brian's question.

Standards, policy? Truth, justice? Pairs of very simple words of our language yet like our constitution can be interepeted any number of ways depending upon many influences the least NOT of which is WHO is doing the interpeting. This of course is why the lifetime appointments to the ultimate INTERPERTERS is so vital to the columns that support our constitution.

Bottom line is, who pays at at what price?.

Brian's question of "should we change our standards" impresses upon all our consciousness that the standards and policy's of yestercentury are morphing into uncharted routes, to pursue our charted roots, right before our eyes on our little "in living color" tv screens we carry in our vest pockets next to our hearts.

I choose to believe that with the advent of global instant communications mankinds saviour has arrived. We now can talk and listen to each other rather than someone interepeting for us the language of self interest. The policy's and standards that we had are from another era in history.

As I sit here attempting to juggle, not balance, my checkbook and desperately try to plan a future for my children, as a single parent on a fixed income, like millions of others, I must ask Brian, can we afford not to?