Thursday, May 01, 2003

MSNBC's Banfield 'Slams' War Coverage (via Agonist)
This mildly critical account of US journalistic coverage of the war is interesting because while it is generally pro-war and pro-Empire it provokes furious attack from the system. Just as the American propaganda system is breaking down, it is veering more to the extreme right wing. The comments about the business/revenue/advertising model of Fox are also pertinent and should be explored in further detail. It must dawn on people eventually that corporate/advertising media cannot by its nature provide good news coverage.

'Her comments sparked a media controversy which reportedly prompted her NBC employers to severely reprimand Banfield. While she has not commented on the issue, an NBC spokeswoman told reporters Monday, "She and we both agreed that she didn't intend to demean the work of her colleagues, and she will choose her words more carefully in the future."'

'As a journalist I'm often ostracized just for saying these messages, just for going on television and saying, "Here's what the leaders of Hezbullah are telling me and here's what the Lebanese are telling me and here's what the Syrians have said about Hezbullah. Here's what they have to say about the Golan Heights." Like it or lump it, don't shoot the messenger, but invariably the messenger gets shot.

'We hired somebody on MSNBC recently named Michael Savage. Some of you may know his name already from his radio program. He was so taken aback by my dare to speak with Al -Aqsa Martyrs Brigade about why they do what they do, why they're prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they call a freedom fight and we call terrorism. He was so taken aback that he chose to label me as a slut on the air. And that's not all, as a porn star. And that's not all, as an accomplice to the murder of Jewish children. So these are the ramifications for simply being the messenger in the Arab world. How can you discuss, how can you solve anything when attacks from a mere radio flak is what America hears on a regular basis, let alone at the government level?'

No comments: