Michelle Malkin » NBC Apologizes for Omitting ‘a Portion’ of the Pledge of Allegiance

NBC Apologizes for Omitting ‘a Portion’ of the Pledge of Allegiance

By Doug Powers • June 19, 2011 07:19 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

Which portion was edited out… twice? You probably guessed it already.

NBC on Sunday decided to cut the words “under God” from the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance that accompanied the beginning of its coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship.

In fact, this happened twice during the show’s introduction…

NBC must have gotten a few calls from people who didn’t like the omission, because three hours later an on-air apology was issued without mentioning what was omitted:

NBC ANNOUNCER: We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago. When we did, it was our intent to begin our coverage of this US Open championship wiht a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship, held in our nation’s capital for the third time. Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone, and we’d like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it.

They should have said, “sorry, we accidentally used Harry Reid’s version” and it would have been a little more understandable.

The opening segment is first followed by the apology:

*****

Defenders of NBC are reminding people of the fact that “under God” wasn’t added to the Pledge until 1954, which everyone should consider and acceptable excuse… provided the above segment aired during The Dennis Day Show.

Talking about “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the few ways to get select media progressives to long for early 1950′s America.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Media

Printer Friendly

comments (202)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#201

On June 21st, 2011 at 1:28 pm, Roland said:

No, it is a conclusion based on looking at the evidence.

We seem to be discussing different things, here. I am saying an atheist can be perfectly rational and consistent to posit the existence of Natural Law within the Universe as the atheist sees it, one without the need for a Creator for the existence of things like complex organisms and the Laws of Physics.

I am not arguing there is no God. Take that one up with the atheists.

Think of someone who walks out of a building carrying a hose. Is that morally right or wrong? If you think through the answers to that question, you will see an example of how a mind is required to establish morality.

You seem to assume the only moral context that can exist must come from the top down, the same as you seem to do with all of the matters of complexity in Creation.

The atheist sees evolution as a bottom up way creation can occur. The same thing can work with morality, with moral beings having evolved, and with those beings developing cultures that build rules of morality, some of which work better, and some of which naturally lead to misery.

The rules that tend to work better were more likely done “right,” within Natural Law, and the ones that work poorly were probably “wrong.”

We can go round and round on this and get nowhere, especially since I am not an atheist and my heart is not in the argument.

My orginal statement was that in my opinion God did not create Natural Law.

Koukl agrees with me.

So what are we arguing about?
#202

On June 21st, 2011 at 1:54 pm, Roland said:

BTW, thank you for linking Koukl’s article. It was very interesting.

I could not agree with him more strongly that Natural Law is an aspect of God.