Txdigest.com

One NBC News staffer said, “We felt forced to sign the letter supporting Brokaw. We had no choice, particularly the lower level staffers. The letter was being handed around the office and the unspoken threat was that if your name was not on it, there would be some repercussion down the road. Execs are watching to see who signed and who didn’t. This was all about coming out in force to protect NBC’s golden boy; the network’s reputation is tied to Brokaw . . . If more women come forward, that’s a big problem.”

Another insider said the powerful names on the letter could intimidate other victims. “When you have over 100 women like Andrea Mitchell signing a letter of support without knowing the facts, it’s pretty scary . . . The letter will have a chilling effect on other women coming forward.”

On Monday, NBC News staffers received a memo with guidance from the network’s standards and practices on how to handle reporting a sensitive story about sexual harassment allegations against Tom Brokaw.

The note, which Variety has obtained, stated: “As always in cases where sexual misconduct is alleged, we should be scrupulous in reflecting all sides.”

The network went on to enumerate, in great detail, exactly how on-air reporters should frame Brokaw’s side of the story. “Include relevant portions of Brokaw’s denial, his email and the email in support of him, signed by more than 60 colleagues,” read the instructions, which appeared in a company-wide system that producers and talent can access.

That mandate raised eyebrows among some staffers because it urged anchors to report on a document that has been the source of controversy in the newsroom. NBC News declined to comment.

planosteve wrote:"Unspoken threat" What the hell does that mean? There is no such thing. She was imagining it. Rumors and induendos. Coffee room gossip. That's all this is.

planosteve wrote:"Unspoken threat" What the hell does that mean? There is no such thing. She was imagining it. Rumors and induendos. Coffee room gossip. That's all this is.

Ric wrote:

planosteve wrote:"Unspoken threat" What the hell does that mean? There is no such thing. She was imagining it. Rumors and induendos. Coffee room gossip. That's all this is.

It means that it was an unspoken threat. Just before I retired, I was given a letter with all the virtuous things the company would do for me should I decide to retire. Then was told.. I think you should retire. It was an unspoken threat. Just like this was unspoken threats to livelihoods. What's not to understand. The Loony Left is not beneath threats.

planosteve wrote:"Unspoken threat" What the hell does that mean? There is no such thing. She was imagining it. Rumors and induendos. Coffee room gossip. That's all this is.

planosteve wrote:

Ric wrote:

planosteve wrote:"Unspoken threat" What the hell does that mean? There is no such thing. She was imagining it. Rumors and induendos. Coffee room gossip. That's all this is.

It means that it was an unspoken threat. Just before I retired, I was given a letter with all the virtuous things the company would do for me should I decide to retire. Then was told.. I think you should retire. It was an unspoken threat. Just like this was unspoken threats to livelihoods. What's not to understand. The Loony Left is not beneath threats.

In your mind.
Try taking someone to court and charge them with intimidation because you believe they directed an unspoken threat at you. It will be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

jellowrestling wrote:

planosteve wrote:

Ric wrote:
It means that it was an unspoken threat. Just before I retired, I was given a letter with all the virtuous things the company would do for me should I decide to retire. Then was told.. I think you should retire. It was an unspoken threat. Just like this was unspoken threats to livelihoods. What's not to understand. The Loony Left is not beneath threats.

In your mind.
Try taking someone to court and charge them with intimidation because you believe they directed an unspoken threat at you. It will be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

Ric gives a real, personal example of an unspoken threat, and you dismiss it, because....?
Ridiculous. Everyone else is looking at this and saying, "WTF is planosteve talking about? Anyone with at least half a brain can see that Ric was given the unspoken message that if he didn't retire, he would be let go and get nothing." And it's entirely plausible that NBC colleagues of Brokaw felt pressure under implied threat to sign the "support" letter. Further, I think that you are entirely wrong that a court would throw out for lack of evidence a claim by an employee that she was forced to sign such a letter by her superior, if several others corroborated her concern.

planosteve wrote:Is there another discussion group behind the discussion group to discuss the discussion group? I didn't know about that.

LibraryLady2 wrote:I was out of the country last week, away from news.

Apparently a woman claimed Brokaw did ??
..and then others submitted a letter saying, "Nope, didn't happen"--
Now some who signed letter say they were coerced into signing.

Is that the correct short version?

My question: Have any others stepped up to say, "Yes, he is a horn dog?"

If not, then my summary is
1. Perhaps he did/perhaps he did not. If he was not saying, "You better or else you lose your job" then it is a flirtation, not harassment.
2. If others are not saying it was his MO, then, I'm going with flirtation.

moving along, as there is nothing to see.............