Not to pile on, but you'd think with five months to think about it, Brian Williams would have been better prepared for his inevitable apology tour. Based on his interview with Matt Lauer, it will probably be a one-stop event.
The New York Times was just one among a host of the un-impressed, noting the verbal gymnastics Williams used to avoid uttering the "L word" -- I lied. Instead, he repeatedlty admitted, "I didn't tell the truth" as if his transgression was one of ommission, withholding facts rather than saying falsehoods.
I understand. For a journalist to admit he lied is second in seriousness only to plagiarism (another form of lying). But as my colleague and friend Mike Paul noted, "“There are no ifs or buts in a true apology.” What Williams attempted was a "non-apology apology.”
So should he admit he lied? Yes, but he should put it in context.
"Yes, I'm ashamed to admit it, but I lied. The helicopter story started with small exaggerations that grew larger in repeated telling until I reached the point that I actually believed what I was saying. So in that sense I wasn't trying to mislead people; I was trying to entertain them and, deep down, trying to make myself look more heroic. But what I said wasn't true. It was a lie.
"If anything good can come of this, it's that I now understand myself better, I know I've lost the trust of many colleagues, I've embarrassed a news organization I love, as well as my family, and I've given the public another reason not to trust the media. For all that, I'm deeply sorry and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity I've been given to regain the public's trust."
That, I think, would have been a real apology. And from all that I have read and seen, is much closer to the real truth.