Last Friday’s standing-room only hearing before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission was among the most dramatic I’ve witnessed. There was outrage – outrage not just from me as I declared the State Department “AWOL” in our quest to free an American Pastor, Saeed Abedini — a U.S. citizen — captured by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard […]
For the second time, NBC has issued what it says is an apology for editing out the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (twice) in a televised tribute at the U.S. Open golf championship outside our nation’s capital. I first reported about this on Monday.
The problem: this apology raises more questions than it answers. This time, NBC admits that the deliberate editing was a “bad decision” that was made by a “small group of people.” What? Bad decision? That’s an understatement. Removing the words “under God” from the Pledge approved by a “small group of people.” Who? Why?
Instead of admitting that the network made a mistake and announcing that it is putting in place a new policy to prevent this from ever happening again, NBC’s new apology really rings hollow.
For the second time, NBC even refuses to use the words “under God” in its apology, which we now know were deliberately edited out of the segment.
Within hours after NBC committed this on-air gaffe, we mobilized and crafted a Letter of Protest to NBC – demanding answers and urging the network to put a corrective policy in place – a Letter of Protest that has been well covered by the media and attracted more than 35,000 signatures from Americans in just a couple of days.
And, now another call for an explanation – this time from a U.S. Senator. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana) has sent a letter to NBC requesting much of the same information that we’re asking for. Sen. Coats is asking NBC to provide a written account of its decision-making process and what actions the network will take to prevent a similar occurrence from happening in the future. His complete letter is posted here.
As Sen. Coats puts it, “I am disturbed with NBC’s decision to modify the Pledge. . .I remain concerned that such a decision to selectively edit the Pledge could be made in the first place. . .”