You guys have cut back on your foreign correspondents and the number of foreign bureaus, it's no wonder that stories like the Pakistani earthquake have gone 'under-reported'. Heck the entire continent of Africa receives vastly inferior converage as compared to the Hamas election, for example, in Palestine. You'd think that Brazil, Zaire and Burma, for example, don't exist. Spend less money on paying Katie and Matt 20M a year and more on the worldwide reporting and you'll see improvement I am very very sure.

You have to admit that with the overpopulation of 24 hr. news networks field reporting has become somewhat gimmicky. Of course the viewing public raises their collective eyebrow seeing 20 reporters all standing within 20 feet of each other in the Dire Circumstance of the Month.

But that doesn't make it any less necessary. I agree with Brian that one of the most salient elements of journalism is just being there. Being there to talk to the right people without having to chase them down over the phone or via email. Being there to talk to someone who can offer the perspective of their years living wherever you are. Being there to see just what happened, rather than rely on third (or fourth) parties.

Does this mean you have to actually stand IN the wind of a hurricane? No. That's news as entertainment. But 'being there' in the Superdome or on the shores of Indonesia is a vital part of reporting the news, and shouldn't be terminated because other less-restrained anchors want to stand outside in a hurricane all day.

It is not the job of the US military to babysit journalists. The military needs to focus 100% of it's effort on the mission at hand, and if a journalist requires 1% of attention, then that is 1% less attention being paid to the mission. If a journalist wishes to put themselves in harms way, then they need to be fully responsible for thier protection & fate. I have no sympathy for journalists injured or kidnapped in a hostile theatre of operations. They are by no means hero's, to the contrary, they are fools.

Brian - thank you for an extraordinary look into the person who is the anchor. Bless you for your intelligence and introspection and I hope you continue to do what you do so well.
Joan Chapman, Cheshire, CT.

No reporters need to be in these dangerous situations. It's only done to boost egos, and to get ones name out there for monetary purposes. It's self serving, and not fair to your familys.

Brian we the viewers look closely at all reporters thats why some stand out more then others. Mr. Woodruff is one of those good guys who stays in the middle of the story and he doesn't take sides. You know what I mean. Its nice that you speak fondly of your fellow reporters but we see reporters differently. Your job is hard because the people have to learn to trust a reporter and its takes time for that to happen. We look closely at everything you say.
If a reporter picks sides and supports one group while reporting people will be upset. Thats how the reporters that became famous just told the story but didn't side with anyone. We have always had the few honest, trustfull reporters that only told us the facts, some even cried with us during bad events but they never never took anyones side. I pray everyday for a speedy recovery for Mr. Woodruff and that the good reporters hang in there and not take the bit as others have done.

It is understandable when viewers expect network anchors to be out of positions that involve danger and risk. Perhaps this is because all of us want to listen from the best in the business and of course, we always wish the very best for them. Even though, journalists say that they are trained and are aware of the dangers they might have to encounter, we as viewers are still concerned. Whether you cover it on a continuous basis or on a per story basis, risks exist. When military personnel who are exclusively so well trained for this are facing immense dangers, how is that a journalist who has received far less training than them, can be expected to be safe. Therefore, when something untoward happens, emotions run high and so they write what they write. Yes, we do realize that you would have a better report if you were in the ground, but at what costs? I recall, while you were reporting from Delhi and Kashmir on the “nuclear brink” between India and Pakistan, I was watching it from US and instantly yelled loud “Come back”. This was because I was completely aware of the high tensions between the two nations and that it could go either way. It was as if saying that we suffer because our country was facing the crisis, but why you? I do not mean that journalists should not take risks, but just want to let you know that viewers would always be concerned no matter how best you defend it. My prayers for the safety of all the journalists who are out there reporting from the most dangerous zones and my wishes for them to continue to do what they would love to do the most- reporting from hotspots, safely indeed!

Thank you for your intelligence and integrity. In the last few days since the tragedy that befell Bob Woodruff, another so-called journalist has questioned whether the media was spending too much time covering the Bob Woodruff story. I believe this so-called journalist's real problem is that the tragedy brought renewed focus on the danger facing our troops in Iraq. The current administration is attempting to control public opinion on the war by suppressing news about problems faced by our troops, the number of wounded and maimed, preventing photos of caskets and funerals, we really need reporters who will report unbiased accounts of the war and investigate abuses by our own government. Keep up the good work.

Brian Williams - Thank you for your excelent reminder of what news reporting is about - and the importance of being able to describe it from first hand experience. I think it is easy to forget about things like that after a week like this, a war that has gone on so long, and so many changing events in the world. People do not think of the importance of first hand knowledge and experience anymore. I have had limited worldy travel - but every bit I value - because it gives me a deeper understanding of the world around me - and someone that is portraying that to the nation definatley needs to be in and around those plances the news is taking place. Thank you for all your work I was impressed with your coverage of the huricane Katrina - you have the ability to conect with the people and the ability to make the viewer understand what they are going through. You had me captivated.

Brian-

That was extremely well put and I agree that as long as risk/reward assessment remain the operative words, reporting on location IS the only option for responsible and effective journalism.

You got it exactly right when you noted personalizing a story can make a big difference in the public's understanding of it. It is why I so look forward to Richard Engel's reports and blogs from Baghdad. His reports give new insight because his words engender empathy for the people and situation he is describing.

Your audience understands that you need to go--but we always feel the need to caution you to take care, be safe. We can't help but worry and events show we have reason to. But at the same time, we are enormously appreciative of the extraordinary efforts on our behalf made by you, the correspondents, and all the NBC staff.

On a lighter note--would you please share with us the trick of forcing yourself to fall asleep even if you are in difficult circumstances. I travel the world, but can't sleep on planes. Help! How do you do it? I need to know. I'm going to Australia this summer and I'm afraid I'll be beyond even the zombie state on arrival!

Mr. Williams, I take off my hat to you and all the reporters on the grounds of Iraq right now. Thank you for all you are doing to cover American life in Baghdad, as well as reporting what's going on in Iraq. You risked kidnapping, and injurys of American reporters, and yet you are still proud to stand up and accept the job. May god be with you and your travels.

Would that more of our elected leaders had just a few of the first hand experiences - especially the horrifying ones - in such a variety of places and circumstances as you have described. Just as your reporting is better because of your experiences outside the TV studio, I have to think our policies and laws would be much better if politicians had to spend time outside Washington and in the real worlds of Katrina, Iraq, hospitals, food banks, etc. Thanks for your thoughtful and passionate commentary.

I beg to differ with you, Brian, on the matter of anchors, reporters or photographers being in war zones. Your job is to report news, not necessarily going to war to do it. Our military is put in the position of watching out for civilians which deters them from THEIR job! Perhaps your ego has something to do with your opinion.

Love this site!!!

Seriously excellent blog, Brian. Everyone should have a sincere appreciation for what reporters are doing in the field. Of course, nobody HAS to do it. But I'm fairly confident most WANT to do it and that you, your co-workers and colleagues have a complete and keen understanding of the risks that are taken. But without you, the countless others that risk their lives every day and those who have paid the ultimate price, in combat or otherwise, our understanding of world events would be much less.

You and your families each have my absolute respect and thanks.

Very well put. A good way to describe the sacrifices and determination a news reporters has. Brain Williams is the epitome of a fantastic news reporter. Job well done!

very well put!