That's because he works for liars that have to make stuff up instead of reporting the treasonous activities beyond count of his bosses and the Bush mob.

OH, please. Learn how to pronounce your L's then we'll talk.

Both Brokaw and Williams showed why they are anchors, they do not let their emotions get in the way of their judgment.

It seems very strange to me that Brokaw's profited from this system for many years. And NOW he finaly has the courage to speak up? What's wrong with this picture?

Tom is so right. With hours and hours to "fill" the news of the election they regurgitate the same things over and over then the bring in someone else to do the same with the guests coming and going saying the same things different faces. They do need to inform us as the polls go on but the pounding into the brain the same opinions and nonsense makes me change the channel and come back when my head is clear.There has to be new fresh ways to tell the whole story about the candidates and what they believe and how in that section of the country might be affected. If they "filled" up the time with previous speechs by the candidates and picked them apart it would be easier to deal with than the crap they have going on now. The other thing that disgusts me is that the world can be falling apart and soldiers die but they still talk on and on like they are all that exist.

So what's the harm in television news reporters making election return predictions, aside from the viewer turn off at the pompous statement that "CNN is declaring the election for ______"? Who cares if newspeople make fools of theselves this way?

My answer is that there is an important role for the press if our democratic system is to be successful. The role is to bring the facts to the fore so citizens and elected officials can make rational decisions. The arrogant predictive role the press has taken on detracts from that role because their credibility is at stake. If citizens cannot view the press as credible, what good is it even when it turns out they have their facts right. How do citizens know when the reported facts are right? They don't. They rely on the credibility of the reporter. A reporter who has stupidly been shown as wildly wrong in this predictive role has no right to expect the public will consider him credible in other reporting, and rightly so.