I agree with Brian, I feel that the overwhelming majority in the news media have a "go for the throat" mentality, which I believe can be very harmful. I applaud all present in the meeting to respect the "off the record" requests of not only the President, but any who request it.

With the current administration's isolation towards the news media, it can seem alarming when the President does not allow direct quotation. If the press agree to listen 'off the record', and someone betrays that respect and reports what has been said, I can assure you that any further opportunities to "learn the motivation of a public official" will not be with this current Administration.

Finally, all who are upset by this apparent 'cheerleading' session do not have their facts straight. What do you honestly believe Brian Williams and the other reporters heard in this meeting. Does anyone honestly envision Bush sitting in a room with a cigar talking and laughing about all the lies he has told, the truth about 9/11, or why no one knows where Osama Bin Laden is? And when it occurs to President Bush that he has said too much, causally mention, "You all know this here is off the record, right?" Doubtful. For all of you who have mentioned NBC's and Mr. William's political bias, I can assure you that if they were as bias as you say, You would hear all about it. Mr. Williams was entirely correct when he stated you are looking in the wrong place for something sinister or partisan, there is really nothing there.

Besides, the Bush Administration has had their fair share of leaks, if the news didn't report anything "off the record", I can assure you all, someone would eventually. Just ask Scooter.

Relax Michael Moore fans, there is still two more years to analyze every little word that comes out of the President's mouth.

Brian,

What good and honest news outlets do is report the news. They don't make it, bend it, inflate it, twist it, delay it, OP ED it, or fake it.

I am uneasy and suspect when my Government turns to news agencies behind closed doors to inform us indirectly of policy change in an upcoming speech or to selectively share "tactical" information. World War II used the print and screen media to provide propoganda in our war efforts. You have stated it is new to quote the President, but it wasn't new to quote the Govenrment as far back as the early 1940's so whether it is a State department official, a cabinet member or the President of the United States it speaks to Government policy your are quoting or speculating on.

I also question your need to defend your actions because most informed citizens understand the bias of news media today and have chosen their allegiance to a specific news broadcast based on its political slant.

I do not believe you've "curtail anyone's Constitutional freedoms" but you certainly have secured your base. Sound familar? So the next time you get called to the White House be sure to inform us all because nothing makes the news more noteworthy then explaining how it was obtained and nothing fact checks better than hearing it first hand from our President. Although I believe your ratings are a little higher than our Presidents.

Brian, I'll start this off by saying you have more credibilty with me than most journalists and that I understand the need for background briefings but I ask you this: If a German reporter knew Hitler was planning to invade Poland in 1939 and they found out at a background meeting, which is the higher duty? The duty to leader and the utility of such briefings to both your job and the political process or the duty to humanity to prevent wars? It seems to me that when a man has acted as dangerous, irresponsible, unconstitutioanlly criminal and yes, insane, manner as Bush has acted, is your resposibility to your job and the processes of information forced upon you by [any] sitting Presidents or to the audience - the people who pay for Bush's arrogance and sociopathic behavior with thier lives and the lives of their children? At some point Brian all of you in the media need to ask that question. If more of you had asked that, I am convinced more of you would be calling for impeachment and criminal prosecution of the fascists who stole are military from the real job at hand [OBL, Al-Quaeda and the Saudis responsible for 9-11] and have been doing everything they can to destroy the Constitution from the inside out.

I must make the time to respond to the discussion regarding the "menue of Nightly" and journalistic responsibilty, integrety and motivation or to some the lack thereof. Some interesting points are made in earlier posts. I did obseve that one postee was a ploy sci student. Undoubtedly has some excellent instructors that have awakened the mind. I appluad the questions and the motivations as I am confident others do also. This is a very dangerous time to be indecisive and polarised. Examining and quaterbacking what has been done does not address options and solutions. Some qustions that should be focused on like; what exactly is the mission we are dispatching our troops to? Is clearing and holding an attainable goal, if so, than what? What are the details getting a reconsruction employment inniative operational, without commercial investment, to begin? Speaking of cooperation what is the strategy for our staunchest allie to announce their withdrawl? Could they be redeploying to Afghanistan where help is badly needed and letting us handle the wildfire in Iraq? Whatever is taking place, thinking minds must stop and do just that. Think. The time to protest has long past, like, hate, distrust, 43, we know must all stand up with him and face what we have ignored for so long. This is an extremely challenging world game of chess for all the marbles. This must be understood and when it is, it will be understood that the time for voicing dissent at this late stage is a clear message that most folks still have no clear understanding of what is taking place before our eyes. There is no pulling out, there is no going back. How this is even discussed at the higher offices of our elected officials is also a clear statement that the facts are misunderstood or ignored or worse, used as reverse spin as payback.
It would be fantastic for some journalist somewhere to follow exactly where one of our dollars travels. To understand the global dynamics and see that the dollar we earn sends our soldiers to combat to battle against weapons our dollar purchased and delivered by rebels insane with starvation and thought control, paid by our dollars. What this deal all boils down to is if we dont step up to the plate here, we and our children and our childrens children will lose what ever chance there may be of a peace properous future and we all shall become pawns and puppets or perrish. 43 may not think things all the way through but he is correct that we have no alternative. If one of thought would like to devote time and energy than perhaps solutions would be beneficial at this point. Legislation to address national energy policy could be a light at the end of the tunnel. Some nordic countries are making huge strides harnessing natural renewable resources in generating energy as well as changing to alternative fuel engines in their vehicles. The issue here is oil, this is no secret. We are making others filthy rich while are own starve. These people that we are making filthy rich want more power. We are being manipulated, yes, and not just as individuals but also as a nation, by our enemies that understand our vulnerabilities. And what precisily are our vulnerabilities? Our we easily manipulated? Our we easily divided since our nation is such diverse society? Can Americans have vision beyond a 24 hour news cycle? Constitution crisis? Hell yes! What should be done? What can be done? How should it be done? To question authority is always good for democracy. It must be understood that not always is the democracy listening or prepared to hear. Can a democracy handle the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Being a journalist is about undersatnding the story so you can interview the right people with the right questions and present the story in an unbiased format. Unbiased? How can a human beng truly be unbiased?

Unlike some others, I have no problem with you attending the "background briefing" you write about, but I do have a problem with your comments about it on MSNBC after the president's speech. I felt like I had lost my trusted newscaster, and instead was listening to a newly anointed cheerleader for the Bush administration. Between you and Tim Russert, I came away thinking you both now fully supported Bush and agreed with his supposed long term thinking and expectation for an ultimate proof that he is right. Please say it isn't so!

Brian, as a Political Science major in college, I do indeed understand about the need for briefings off the record. However, I do think that what bothers most people about these briefings is that they are behind closed doors. The best analogy would be the Watergate era, and earlier where everything was done behind closed doors. This was because not one of the Presidents of that era trusted the American People. It has gotten better of late but I completely understand. What the rest of the bloggers fail to understand is that if something is classified, and briefed to the reporter as classified and is also national security information, if the journalist should even accidently leak the information that they can be tried. I know for a fact that I would not want the latter(a trial) to happen to you, so I am thankful that you are so careful. You handle the news and everything else that you do for the network with grace and a good dose of humility. Deborah Maness

Brian, I only have one quick thing to say.

It's generally very hard to trust any member of the media with their general bias and political motivations. This is especially true at this point in time, considering our political and global climate of tension.

Through your exhibitions of candor and honesty with your viewers, just speaking for myself now, it's easy for me to trust you. Just as Tom Brokaw accomplished, you're clearly the guy everyone else is chasing, the best in your business.

A heartfelt thank you for being honest with your audience.

You state that "briefings are designed to benefit the briefing party in some way...."

Exactly. Where was the coverage of the MAJORITY dissenting opinion in the House, the Senate, the military, the Iraq Study Group and the others supposedly consulted relative to the President's already operationalized escalation?

Where was this tardy explanation of the conditions of the briefing?

Why the absence of reporting about the failure of the president to quantify the supposed benchmarks? Why were the House Speaker and the Senate Speaker not consulted? Sen Reid stated that the President "informed" him and Speaker of the House Pelosi of the escalation - which began last night.

And already today, Secretary of Defense Gates is proposing to add another 92,000 soldiers and marines? Where is the proposed funding for that? What will the recruiting qualifications be? In fact, where is the funding to provide for paying the utility bill at army bases across this country, let alone the body armor and protective equipment needed for the troops in Iraq? Why no coverage of pulling troops from Afghanistan, already undermanned and losing the ground there with the resurgance of the Taliban?

Why give over precious air time to the death of a B list TV actress when the country is in real crisis?

As the commenter who alluded to the response of Germans to the actions of the Nazis, it was used carefully - to remind Americans - or to educate them - about the lack of awareness of the general population to the events occurring in earshot and in the direct paths of that population - if only they had a collective conscience to hear and to see.

NBC News, as well as the other "major" mainstream news venues, is failing in its role to serve as the objective investigator and reporter of events which impact its viewers. Instead, viewers are subjected to the advertisers' controlled menu of a major news story lead with attendant 30 second sound bites, followed by a human interest story and wrapped up with an entertainment piece. Get rid of Nancy Snyderman's feel good chat. Eliminate political commentary, and focus on reporters' investigative findings and coverage of news-worthy events. Three climbers stranded on Mt. Hood do not qualify. The death watch on Sen. Johnson does not qualify. 21,500 more soldiers being insertedinto a foreign civil war qualifies.

For the sake of us all, eliminate all but the strictly news stories, and report them comprehensively. There isn't time to dither in the land of entertainment while a real Constitutional crisis unfolds around us.

To take the tired three word bumper sticker phrases that issue from the President and use them in broadcasts does a grave disservice to those who aren't educated to understand the manipulation of the message.

Brian,

I think the media should stop anylizing the war like sports writers anylize a game. This is more than an objective appraisal of winning or losing, and when to take our ball and go home.

Most Americans, particularly those that lived through the Vietnam era, know that if the US pulls out of Iraq the loss of life will be tremendous. The US experienced it in Southeast Asia, and it happened in in Eastern Europe with the loss of influence by the Soviet Union.

If we walk away without one more attempt to get things right, ot only will America have lost a war, threatened its own safety, and lost its prestige as a global power, but it will have lost its moral compass.

The Iraq war was a mistake not only in execution, but in its very inception. America made that mistake. Americans wants and needs to own up to that mistake and make it right. If the USA has a collective conscience ( and I believe it does)it can't walk out, not without one last effort.

Leave the win/loss mentality to the sports people. This war, more than any other factor, is a moral burden. The threat of loss of our moral compass is more dangerous than anything Osama Bin Laden, Iraq and Syria and anyone of their ilk can bring to bear. It in fact represents losing the American soul.

That's just not us.

I have to agree that these background briefings are important and completely constitutional. The war in Iraq, along with many other topics in today's news, is a deep, convoluted story with a long history and many players. Newscasters must fully understand the situation and the intent and thought process of the players in order to portray the information to the people. It's the newscaster's job to make the complicated understandable.

Brian,

The extreme and limitless demands of your profession has clearly been made evident in the past several years and I have seen few handle it with the grace and dignity than that of the Nightly News crew.
Thank you always for your candor, insight and dedication to your work and to your viewers; Nightly News sets a real benchmark for the rest in the industry.

Brian thank you for allowing the bloggers give their opinions. You got the chance to speak directly to the President. We trust your opinion but all of us have our own. You allow people like me who sometimes goes over the top because my daughter is in the war zone. Thanks for letting Richard Engel report from Iraq as it give first hand information not for the White House spin factory. We so need the truth as Bush hasn't been giving it for 6 years. Your up to date information allows Americans to make their own judgement as we see that we're now invaded Iran. Please continue to do the work of the people and don't fall into the trap of others by following the spin machine. With the truth Americans can stand strong to bring our troops home and stop this Administration for invading another country illegally.