How extraordinary that Emily chose this evening to post about Peter J. Boyer. I, too, listened to that podcast today, and I, too, enjoyed it.

I found one aspect of the interview puzzling. The subject of the article is the phenomenon of Keith Olbermann as an outlet for liberal rage, and what that phenomenon is doing to MSNBC and, by extension, NBC News. In no way do I mean it as a criticism of Boyer or The New Yorker to wonder how it was that the name "Brian Williams" wasn't mentioned once in the podcast.

I like Williams--I think he's my "favorite" anchor--but, as a category, that has about as much meaning these days as a preference for Ann Landers over Dear Abby. But it's a curious testimony to ... the newfound irrelevance of anchors? the ineffectual tenure of Williams himself? I'm not sure.

I went back and looked at the article. Sure enough, there's plenty of stuff about Brokaw, the "hall monitor" of the sprawl—the entire story is structured as the battle between Olbermann and Brokaw for the very soul of NBC News—but just a few bland references to Williams.

I guess Williams has a tough job; he's angling for attention smack in the middle of a gaggle of on-air personalities that, on all of those recent primary election nights anyway, included Brokaw, Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Chuck Todd, and who knows who else. I admire Williams's stated commitment to making NBC News more "transparent"; perhaps, in the rush for Keith's ratings, that directive has not gotten the attention it ought; such, anyway, appears to be Boyer's thesis. Or maybe for all of Williams's persuasive suavity, he's not so good at being the center of attention—odd trait, for an anchorman.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment!