News hottie flames networks!

[Jeratain]

Ashleigh Banfield, proclaimed a news hottie by members of this board , recently flamed the major cable news networks, including her own MSNBC, for making the recent war on Iraq seem more glorious than it actually was.

What was wrong with the coverage?

"You did not see where those bullets landed. You didn't see what happened when the mortars landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me," Banfield said.

It's actually really interesting stuff. It seems that Michael Savage, the conservative talk show host on MSNBC, called Banfield a slut recently and she also touched on that a bit. She criticized FOX News, and then NBC/MSNBC for trying to take up FOX's agenda by picking up conservative show hosts like Savage.

I'm actually a bit surprised by this move, and I have the utmost respect for this reporter right now. She's essentially throwing away her job (or so it seems) to make a point - and that takes guts.

Click here for the article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030428/tv_nm/television_banfield_dc

And for those of you who don't know who Banfield is, or just those of you who love looking at her (you know who you are ):

 

[MrPresident]

Did anyone ever say on any of the US Media outlets, "War is glorious." or something to that effect? Showing what happened, albeit not the whole situation from all angles, is not glorifying something. Everyone knows that war is hell. Practically every single Hollywood war movie tells that message. Why is no one ever concerned about portraying an over-negative view of war? Why only an over-positive one?

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Did anyone ever say on any of the US Media outlets, "War is glorious." or something to that effect?

I turned off my television 3 days into the war, but no I don't think they ever said it like that. I believe her point is mainly that the media portrayed every blast, every battle, and every part of this war as though it was simple for the army to handle and like there were never any problems.

Showing what happened, albeit not the whole situation from all angles, is not glorifying something.

True.

Everyone knows that war is hell.

Well.. some children seem to think it's cool, but otherwise I agree.

Why is no one ever concerned about portraying an over-negative view of war? Why only an over-positive one?

Good question. Although there can be/are positive outcomes to war, it is not necessarily a positive thing in general. It is fair to say the media wants to keep American's hopes and morale high through making this war seem like a huge success, but I think that her point is that doing so can also condition people to think that most any war can be justified because we think we can win them all now in the matter of days with minimal casualties. If they don't get to see the whole picture, then they might get the wrong idea. Of course, I'm not Ashleigh, and I don't speak for her, but it's an interesting discussion topic.

 

[Ohwell]

I'm glad she's sticking up for what she believes in.

I'm also wondering where you heard Savage call her that, if it is true than my respect for him has dropped even lower than it was, if there was any.

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by Ohwell
I'm also wondering where you heard Savage call her that, if it is true than my respect for him has dropped even lower than it was, if there was any.

Unfortunately I didn't hear Savage call her that - it was quoted in the article that he did:

Savage recently called Banfield a "slut" after her reports portraying the radical Arab point of view.
...
She ripped NBC for putting Savage on the air saying, "He was so taken aback by my daring to speak to martyrs ... for being prepared to sacrifice themselves, he chose to label me a slut on the air, and that's not all, as a porn star and an accessory to the murder of Jewish children. These are the ramifications for simply bringing the message in the Arab world."

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Did anyone ever say on any of the US Media outlets, "War is glorious." or something to that effect? Showing what happened, albeit not the whole situation from all angles, is not glorifying something. Everyone knows that war is hell. Practically every single Hollywood war movie tells that message. Why is no one ever concerned about portraying an over-negative view of war? Why only an over-positive one?

There's an old (and never followed) mantra in politics, as in "don't defend the indefensible." No, they didn't say "Operation Iraqi Freedom: War is Glorious" on any news tickers. But I think even the most heartfelt supporter of the war would have to admit that some networks were certainly portraying events as though they were a form of adventure and entertainment; the "baseball card" graphics and the insistence on round-the-clock coverage even on days when events didn't warrant it reinforced this.

And I don't actually agree that Hollywood really shows that war is hell. If they did, the movies wouldn't be popular. I own several supposedly anti-war films as entertainment, so they can't have been that successful...

R.III

Oh, and PS some of the most useful reporting I saw was interviews with "the enemy" to get a read on what they were thinking. So if that means that reporters delivering those interviews were "sluts," then please send this character my way, because I have a jaw to break and it ain't mine

 

[MrPresident]

But I think even the most heartfelt supporter of the war would have to admit that some networks were certainly portraying events as though they were a form of adventure and entertainment; the "baseball card" graphics and the insistence on round-the-clock coverage even on days when events didn't warrant it reinforced this.

With all due respect that is rubbish. Show me someone who thought the war was a form of adventure and entertainment. There is far too much assumption about the audience in this debate. Everyone "assumes" that flashy graphics reinforces the view that the war entertainment. Everyone "assumes" the news outlets glorified war by not fully showing its horrors. Everyone "assumes" that the audience will react in a particular way without actually bothering to find out if the audience reacted in that way at all. I say there should be less assumptions and more facts. Show me evidence that people's views on war were affected by the recent news coverage.

And I don't actually agree that Hollywood really shows that war is hell. If they did, the movies wouldn't be popular.

Why do people watch horror movies? Is all the gore and blood entertaining? Yes, because people know it is not real. There same goes for the war movies. People know that although they portray real events they are just watching a movie. People know that movies are not real.

 

[CurtSibling]

For his disgusting comments, Savage should be savaged...By my pack of blood-thirsty dobermans.

Send him my way!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by MrPresident

With all due respect that is rubbish. Show me someone who thought the war was a form of adventure and entertainment. There is far too much assumption about the audience in this debate. Everyone "assumes" that flashy graphics reinforces the view that the war entertainment. Everyone "assumes" the news outlets glorified war by not fully showing its horrors. Everyone "assumes" that the audience will react in a particular way without actually bothering to find out if the audience reacted in that way at all. I say there should be less assumptions and more facts. Show me evidence that people's views on war were affected by the recent news coverage.

I woudln't be so sure.
Do not underestimate the stupidity of the average pleb.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Why do people watch horror movies? Is all the gore and blood entertaining? Yes, because people know it is not real. There same goes for the war movies. People know that although they portray real events they are just watching a movie. People know that movies are not real.

I repeat my last sentence.

 

[cgannon64]

Does Savage try to make an ass of himself? Is it some kind of game with him, some perverse one-upmanship?

 

[Bose]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Why do people watch horror movies? Is all the gore and blood entertaining? Yes, because people know it is not real. There same goes for the war movies. People know that although they portray real events they are just watching a movie. People know that movies are not real.

That's the thing. The way the war was shown really took the reality away from it to a point. I know that when i watched coverage, i didn't feel like there was hell going on over there. I'm an avid supporter of what the Americans are acheiving over there , don't get me wrong, but i also believe that the American networks tried very hard to portray the war as purely entertainment. I don't remember seeing too many soldiers lying on the ground with their skin ripped off by shrapnel...

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by MrPresident
With all due respect that is rubbish. Show me someone who thought the war was a form of adventure and entertainment. There is far too much assumption about the audience in this debate. Everyone "assumes" that flashy graphics reinforces the view that the war entertainment. Everyone "assumes" the news outlets glorified war by not fully showing its horrors. Everyone "assumes" that the audience will react in a particular way without actually bothering to find out if the audience reacted in that way at all. I say there should be less assumptions and more facts. Show me evidence that people's views on war were affected by the recent news coverage.

Why do people watch horror movies? Is all the gore and blood entertaining? Yes, because people know it is not real. There same goes for the war movies. People know that although they portray real events they are just watching a movie. People know that movies are not real.

To your first challenge, it seems Boze will do...

Second, the use of silly music and graphics to deal with a serious topic is precisely to entertain. Why wouldn't it be?

You also assume a lot. I didn't say that people's views were affected by the news coverage. I did say that the networks tried to make coverage of the war entertaining. There is a difference. I know politicians lie; I can condemn it without necessarily assuming that the public beleives the lie.

And by your logic, if people don't think Hollywood war movies aren't real, then why would it matter if...

Everyone knows that war is hell. Practically every single Hollywood war movie tells that message.

And finally, re: your question...

Why is no one ever concerned about portraying an over-negative view of war? Why only an over-positive one?

I remember having a conversation with my grandfather along these lines when I was in my early teens. For all the bluster on these forums about how necessary some wars might be, I think he'd agree that some wars are necessary, but still give a sick chuckle at your question above. After a close-call at Dunkirk and four years of close combat in the jungle against Japan, I suspect you can guess his view, given that the two societies he'd had to fight started the wars they did by portraying an over-positive view.

R.III

 

[meldor]

So let me get this start, first they were too patriotic now they were too entertianing. Maybe those of you who feel this way should buy a sat dish and get the arab news. They just fired a female newcaster because she giggled at the end of a show. Their comment was along the lines of "she shouldn't have acted coquetish and gigglely afetr the showing of bombing and killing.

Sounds like they are more what you are looking for.....

 

[SunTzu]

And how do u all know that Ashley Banfield isn't a slut, how do u know she isn't going around the office 24/7 dropping it off, why do u think the news anchors are always happy and smiling

 

[Bose]

Originally posted by meldor
So let me get this start, first they were too patriotic now they were too entertianing.

Don't assume we were the ones at the start saying the networks were too patriotic. I'm not sure it's possible in this day and age.

I'm just reiterrating what has been said a million times in these forums how the coverage, on a whole, has been handled in a way that stirred ratings, not realism. I'm sure i echo the experiences of everyone here when i say that i have no idea nor will ever have the slightest idea of what it's like to be in the middle of a war, but i'm damn sure it's nothing like what was pumped out of my TV since the start of this campaign. Mabey that's a direct product of the war itself, or mabey that's exactly what the producers thought would sell more Toyotas... I'm thinking the latter

 

[Bose]

Originally posted by SunTzu
And how do u all know that Ashley Banfield isn't a slut, how do u know she isn't going around the office 24/7 dropping it off, why do u think the news anchors are always happy and smiling

If she isn't, she should be!

 

[SunTzu]

ain't that the truth

 

[napoleon526]

Yeah, any woman who has different opinions must be a slut.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by SunTzu
And how do u all know that Ashley Banfield isn't a slut, how do u know she isn't going around the office 24/7 dropping it off, why do u think the news anchors are always happy and smiling

If you have to post an insult, at least make it somewhat entertaining (or eloquent). If not for your betterment, consider that many posters to this forum do not wish to relate the legendary name of "Sun-Tzu" to trite, knee-jerk remarks that clearly do not belong in any rational conversation between adults.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Richard III


There's an old (and never followed) mantra in politics, as in "don't defend the indefensible." No, they didn't say "Operation Iraqi Freedom: War is Glorious" on any news tickers. But I think even the most heartfelt supporter of the war would have to admit that some networks were certainly portraying events as though they were a form of adventure and entertainment; the "baseball card" graphics and the insistence on round-the-clock coverage even on days when events didn't warrant it reinforced this.

And I don't actually agree that Hollywood really shows that war is hell. If they did, the movies wouldn't be popular. I own several supposedly anti-war films as entertainment, so they can't have been that successful...

R.III

Oh, and PS some of the most useful reporting I saw was interviews with "the enemy" to get a read on what they were thinking. So if that means that reporters delivering those interviews were "sluts," then please send this character my way, because I have a jaw to break and it ain't mine

Couldn't have said it better