Why Do People Hold Brian Williams To A Higher Standard Than Hillary Clinton?

This just strikes me dumbfounded, and has since the incident first came to light.

I'm not the first to write about this question, The American Spectator is among several who already have.

But read it for yourselves, from the Washington Post (as liberal-leaning as they come) fact-checkers, in 2008:

"[Hillary] Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios."

That's as many as they give. The worst lie possible. And she has made up stuff that "sounds good" before, too.

So why is "An apology ...not enough" in Williams' case, who's now taking an undetermined leave of absence (I'm sure fully paid too)? Because he's a journalist?

Why is "Brian Williams' lost credibility" more grievous than Hillary's? The San Francisco Chronicle, also known and called out by at least one reader as a left-supporting newspaper, says Williams "must be fired" and that "He also took something that is precious to those in his profession: public trust."

Isn't an elected politician, a potential President, one whose profession even more so depends on public trust?

That writer summed it up rather well:

"Some scientists in the field of memory research have suggested that such distortions of memory are possible, especially in a traumatic event. In the Williams case, such a scenario would be more plausible if not for the fact that he told the forced-landing story so repeatedly over the years.

"Besides, this was no small detail. The difference between experiencing an emergency landing after being hit with heavy fire and landing on the scene an hour later is something that seemingly would be seared into the memory of even someone who was not trained in the profession of documenting events with precision."

Like, oh, maybe, a former First Lady turned politician?

Why, then, does Hillary still deserve our public trust? She lost her credibility long ago.

The answer lies in all those very mainstream media outlets who are either 1) enamored of Hillary as the anointed one and/or 2) in fear over the Hillary/Billary Clinton backlash they'd face over skewering her as they are skewering Williams now.

Want proof? In all the inital first few days of articles about Williams, I've seen only two slight mentions of Hillary's "sniper-fire" falsity. Just two. In passing. Quickly hush-hushed under the rug. Never to see the light of day again.

The New York Times gave Hillary a substantial pass, essentially burying it in paragraph 15 and using the words "exaggerate" and "misspoken" referencing her incident.

Did you even read that far into the NYT piece that day?

Will anyone likely to vote Democrat remember her "Four Pinocchios"?

Worse, will they even think it important in the least that a possible President of the United States should be held to a higher standard than a TV news anchor, whose only job is to report the news, instead of being the news?

For both Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton, it's business as usual: "I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear."

Don Henley - Dirty Laundry Live by rvdgu2006