Ashleigh Banfield Lashes out at Own Network [Attacks Savage, NBC Distances Themselves from Comments]

Reuters Wire ^ | April 28, 2003 | Andrew Grossman

[ewing]

NBC News correspondant Ashleigh Banfield has ripped television news networks, including her own, for their 'glorious' coverage of the Iraq war and lack of focus on international news overall.

In a speech Thursday at Kansas State University, she also attacked NBC News for hiring right wing radio talk show host Michael Savage to do a show on MSNBC. Savage recently called Banfield a 'slut' after her reports portraying the radical Arab point of view.

Banfield, who first won notoriety for her coverage from the World Trade Center on 9/11, might be in some trouble for her comments.

In a statement issued in Friday, NBC News said, 'Ms. Banfield does not speak for NBC News. We are deeply disappointed and troubled by her remarks, and will review her comments with her. In the meantime we want to emphasize how proud we are of the journalism produced by NBC News and of the men and women who worked around the clock, even risking their lives, to bring this story to the American public.'

[txlurker]

I wish you would go away.

[finnman69]

Big Barbee the troll bites the dust....deservedly so.

[finnman69]

"He's dead Jim." LOL

[Sir_Ed]

"Anyone who signs up and creates this much intentional mayhem in one thread is disrptive. Many otheres feel the same."

Not neccesarily. I know many conservatives, and the large majority of them can't stand Michael Savage. I, myself, can only take him in small doses, whereas I could listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and other conservatives for hours, yet one of my closest friends LOVES Savage and thinks the other conservatives are too mild-mannered and too afraid to offend!

Ed

[ewing]

I believe Rush moved to Pittsburgh and was just another faceless radio DJ by the name of Jeff Chanlder. (who occasionally did commentary)

Rush may have had a chance to listen to Bob Grant then, and a legend was born.

[ewing]

It is possible the mind does play tricks on the memory, but I remember Rush as much more volitile and quick on the anger trigger. (from the pre-golf days)

[_Jim]

UNTIL the next 'Genesis'/incarnation anyway!

[finnman69]

Not neccesarily. I know many conservatives, and the large majority of them can't stand Michael Savage. I, myself, can only take him in small doses, whereas I could listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and other conservatives for hours, yet one of my closest friends LOVES Savage and thinks the other conservatives are too mild-mannered and too afraid to offend!

That's fine and I have no problem with that. But to make the kind of disruptive posts the zotted Big Barbee made is unneccessary. You admit yourself (as do I) that Savage is an aquired taste and its easy to overdose on him, but you expressed your opinion without screaming he is a racist vile hatemonger.

[_Jim]

believe Rush moved to Pittsburgh and was just another faceless radio DJ by the name of

Ahh the memoryless ... you *truly* don't remember Rush desribing the way his Dad would analyze politics, the impact that his grandfather (who just died in the last few years) had on him either?

Rush has a firm foundation in what he does - compared to the 'johny come latelys' that try to imitate him - what HE has was ingrained in his a LONG time ago in his youth ...

[Sir_Ed]

The early Sac'to Rush was the funniest. He'd do this thing called "Caller Abortions" where, if someone was boring or spouting absurdities, he'd say "Caller Abortion!" and you'd hear the sound of a vaccum cleaner whirring up, and then the caller'd be gone!

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

I caught the last 15 minutes of Savage's MSNBC show, and it's gotten a LOT better than his first one.

Ed

[_Jim]

but I remember Rush as much more volitile and quick on the anger trigger.

Perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps a blurring of the memory with what was with Michael Savages program today - whatever the root cause, it ain't true.

I GUESS you forgot about all those pranks that Rush has described on occasion, pranks he used to pull as a kid - he has known what it takes to be a consumate professional for QUITE some time now and part of that was growing 'up and out' of that stage ...

[_Jim]

He'd do this thing called "Caller Abortions" where,

"Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd" - that's Rush.

I've got one of those on tape too ...

[Sir_Ed]

"But to make the kind of disruptive posts the zotted Big Barbee made is unneccessary."

I dunno...I've always had a problem with the bannings and "disruptor" ID given towards people. It's too easy too use the "Disruptor" label, then banning said "disruptor" as the quick fix. But that has a tendency to squelch the free and easy exchange of ideas. I believe that if debate isn't squelched, the truth will always out, even if there's some harsh badinage and wounded feelings. When people are quick to ban and label "disruptors" I think it's sorta like the "chilling effect" the ACLU likes to bandy about, and in my opinion it hurts the dialogue.

Not that I'm a liberal, though...I'm far from it! It's just that I see that same paradigm in other areas. At work, at our monthly meetings, the managers always try to keep people's opinion at bay, silent. They want to hear the glad-handing "Attbaoy's!" even if the majority of the workers think a new policy is senseless and/or counter-productive. I always voice my opinion, and, even if it's contrary to stated policy, and isn't what the management wants to hear, my opinions usually bring up agreeing, if reluctant, viewpoints, and the issue gets talked about in greater depth than if the "Disruptors" (i.e. ME!) had been asked to stop speaking.

I can even see the same effect on the emailing lists I'm on. I collect Glocks, and there's two lists out there that have a lot of subscribers. One of them allows NO "disruptors" i.e. if anyone express an opinion outside what the list moderator wants, the subject is censored and the person told "we don't talk about this." Now the other list basically allows anyone who wants to give an opinion, gun-related or not, to give their opinion! Sometimes this brings rancor, but not usually. And that list is by FAR the better list, the more popular list and the one where the real experts convene.

In essence, I would much rather have people of opposing viewpoints be able to give their opinions freely, without worrying about being "Zotted" or banned, simply because I believe that the Truth WILL prevail and in the heat of debate the truth will more quickly come to the forefront than if harsh, strident and/or "Disrupting" viewpoints, threads and opinions are disallowed.

Of course, it goes without saying that this is Jim Robinson's site, and he can set up whatever rules he wants, and enforce them however he wants, and I am glad to follow them...I simply do not know what I would do if Free Republic weren't around!

Ed

[_Jim]

then banning said "disruptor" as the quick fix.

Banning of a poster who returns here time and time again under 'false pretenses' though is another matter ...

[Sir_Ed]

"then banning said "disruptor" as the quick fix.

Banning of a poster who returns here time and time again under 'false pretenses' though is another matter .."

I agree...is that what BB was?

Ed

[montag813]

How dumb she is. MSNBC was going to can her anyhow, but now NO ONE will touch her. Go back to Canada, Ashleigh, your thinking is right in line with the average Canadian these days, it seems.

[_Jim]

That is the indication that I'm getting ...

As far as 'honest', disagreeable debate goes - do you remember who Ash was?

[LanPB01]

Then sign me up, baby! Some sweet conservative lovin' will fix her right up! Plus, I'll help her pick a hair color and stick with it.

[Taffini]

Then sign me up, baby! Some sweet conservative lovin' will fix her right up! Plus, I'll help her pick a hair color and stick with it.



Lan, Please do something about those awful glasses she wears. Get those headlights lasered so she can see.