Yesterday NBC News dropped this crazy report which appeared to call into question the entire police narrative of the San Francisco attack against Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul:
According to NBC's informants, after opening the door Pelosi began "walking several feet back" toward his alleged assailant just prior to the violent attack.
In both affidavits, however, law enforcement indicate that at the moment the police opened the door, the two men were standing by each other, with Pelosi's alleged assailant "holding onto Pelosi's forearm."
You can't really reconcile these two claims with each other. Either Pelosi's assailant was standing "several feet" away from him, or he was standing directly next to him "holding onto his forearm."
That's pretty wild stuff. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the network very quickly yanked that report. But nearly 24 hours later, they're still not saying why:
NBC News on Friday pulled a report about the attack on Paul Pelosi that the network said did not meet its standards.
"The piece should not have aired because it did not meet NBC News reporting standards," an editor's note said in place of the story online after it aired Friday on its highly-rated "Today" show.
But why? What standards were those? How did the report "not meet" them? Who was the source who gave NBC this scoop? Where did the source get his information from?
Why don't we have any answers to these incredibly important questions?
Oohh wait, CNN has the scoop:
A network source told CNN it pulled the segment after the source of the report's information was found to be unreliable.
"The decision was made to remove the segment after it was determined, shortly after it aired, that the main source for the information was unreliable regarding the question of the circumstances that the police encountered when they arrived at the house, specifically what the police saw and how far the attacker was from the door," the source said.
Oookay. So an unnamed source has explained that unnamed network executives and editors approved the scoop of another unnamed source but we still have no concrete explanation for just what was incorrect/unreliable about the whole thing.
