What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official MSNBC Thread*** (1 Viewer)

The irony is, pointing out Blitzer's bias toward Israel isn't really unfair.  He used to work for AIPAC as an editor of the Near East Report.  

https://youtu.be/2-8aTGnjHnI

That it's even being painted as a controversial statement so many years after the fact when it's plainly true is more puzzling than the statement itself.  

But more to the point, Joy Ann Reid should have been fired a long time ago, for the hacking fairytale if not just for being a total hack.  

 
The irony is, pointing out Blitzer's bias toward Israel isn't really unfair.  He used to work for AIPAC as an editor of the Near East Report.  

https://youtu.be/2-8aTGnjHnI

That it's even being painted as a controversial statement so many years after the fact when it's plainly true is more puzzling than the statement itself.  

But more to the point, Joy Ann Reid should have been fired a long time ago, for the hacking fairytale if not just for being a total hack.  
To a guy like @squistionit doesn’t matter. She’s a D. She wears the uniform of the team he roots for.

 
HellToupee said:

70 year old Mitt displaying homophobia when he was a teen compared to Reid?? Lolz
Mitt Romney was 59 when he ran for President.

Your dismissive response indicates that you believe that forum members shouldn't be required to apologize for promoting people who did homophobic things in their youth, no?

You won't apologize for Mitt because his homophobia was "only" 40 years earlier, instead of 13 years earlier? That's a pretty sick attitude, and it shows that your continued jabs at squistion are disingenuous at best, or trolling at worst.

Homophobia is either wrong or it isn't. Agree?

 
Mitt Romney was 59 when he ran for President.

Your dismissive response indicates that you believe that forum members shouldn't be required to apologize for promoting people who did homophobic things in their youth, no?

You won't apologize for Mitt because his homophobia was "only" 40 years earlier, instead of 13 years earlier? That's a pretty sick attitude, and it shows that your continued jabs at squistion are disingenuous at best, or trolling at worst.

Homophobia is either wrong or it isn't. Agree?
Show what he said 13 years ago? I’m not aware of it

 
Seems like the difference between HT and squiz is that Romney's homophobia was publicly known for years, yet HT still defended the guy every chance he got.

Reid's homophobic past was not publicly known for the majority of the time that squiz has promoted her.

edit: it's dumb to expect either HT or squiz to "apologize", though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The irony is, pointing out Blitzer's bias toward Israel isn't really unfair.  He used to work for AIPAC as an editor of the Near East Report.  

https://youtu.be/2-8aTGnjHnI

That it's even being painted as a controversial statement so many years after the fact when it's plainly true is more puzzling than the statement itself.  
Like you know, you and I disagree on this point. You and I could go round and round on this. But yeah that is a viewpoint, and look at the video, it's a panel discussion - from 2006, right when Reid was blogging that post about Blitzer - on a very high level academic panel, and they did the same thing. Personally considering the Msnbc of 2014 (Schultz, Sharpton...) it would not exactly surprise me if they would have hired her knowing of these opinions. It's really practically certain the hacking claim was a lie, but I really seriously wonder if it is possible that Msnbc wasn't aware of her blog and hadn't researched it back when they hired her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like the difference between HT and squiz is that Romney's homophobia was publicly known for years, yet HT still defended the guy every chance he got.

Reid's homophobic past was not publicly known for the majority of the time that squiz has promoted her.

edit: it's dumb to expect either HT or squiz to "apologize", though.
I’m still waiting to see Romney’s homophobia 

 
I’m still waiting to see Romney’s homophobia 
I read a book by a gay man who worked for the RNC and supported Romney but quit the campaign due to Romney’s hostility to gays. It was pretty detailed stuff. He could have been lying I suppose but it certainly sounded real. 

Disclaimer: I supported Romney in 2012 here and elsewhere and voted for him. I read that book in 2014. 

 
I call :bs:  . No chance you voted for Mitt over Obama. Zero chance. 
Well you’re wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.  :P

I didn’t vote for Obama in either election. In 2008 I supported McCain until he chose his running mate; after that I refused to vote. In 2012 I voted for Romney. 

In retrospect I regret not voting for Obama. He turned out to be a much better President than I anticipated, particularly in his second term. But I did not think so at the time. 

 
Like you know, you and I disagree on this point. You and I could go round and round on this. But yeah that is a viewpoint, and look at the video, it's a panel discussion - from 2006, right when Reid was blogging that post about Blitzer - on a very high level academic panel, and they did the same thing. Personally considering the Msnbc of 2014 (Schultz, Sharpton...) it would not exactly surprise me if they would have hired her knowing of these opinions. It's really practically certain the hacking claim was a lie, but I really seriously wonder if it is possible that Msnbc wasn't aware of her blog and hadn't researched it back when they hired her.
I really don't have much of a problem with Reid holding offensive views a long time ago if she honestly reflected on and reconsidered them, so much as I do with how belligerent and flagrant she was about it.  But she's always had a sleightful take whatever her opinions are at the time.  

"Is Hillary becoming the candidate of white racists, or is she just the Al Sharpton of white people?"
I'm no Hillary fan but Reid absolutely scraped the bottom of the barrel when Clinton was seen as the enemy.  Beyond the hacking myth or supposed political flipflops, or all the times she's used her pretend liberal platform to punch left, she's really just a total hack.  

 
Reid is a hack and probably not a person I would hitch my wagon to. She's got a career now carrying water Democrats, but her past views are catching up to her. Interesting that NBC is ok with this and saying that she is evolving. Her character (or lack there of) was put on full display though when she just couldn't admit to making a mistake and owning her past comments. Now, these sites that hate her, probably will keep dripping other ridiculous things she says (they can probably just turn on her show without having to go back 12 years) and this will likely continue. I don't think she should be fired or censored. If there's an audience for somebody like her, good for her. 

 
Mariana Atencio?  Who said there were no winners in this child-hostage situation.
I like when she wears jeans and a tank top and the camera guy pulls the shot wider while she is walking in say a disaster laden Puerto Rico. Because it’s all about those victims ya know. 

Bertrand gets me giddy when she wears a tight shirt too

I still can’t believe Kieth Olbermann was with Katy Tur when she was in her late 20’s. She’s built for power

 
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-permit-fabrications-against-democratic-party-critics-it-encourages-and-rewards-them/

Whatever your views might be about Jill Stein and her third-party candidacy, there is no disputing the fact that Nance’s statement was a falsehood, a fabrication, a lie. Jill Stein did not have a show on RT, nor did she ever host a show on RT. What Nance said was made up out of whole cloth – fabricated – in order to encourage MSNBC viewers to believe that Stein, one of the candidates running against Clinton, was a paid agent of the Kremlin and was an employee of RT.

Reid allowed Nance’s lie to stand. Perhaps she did not realize at the time that it was a lie. But subsequently, a campaign was launched to urge MSNBC to correct the lie that MSNBC broadcast, based on the assumption that MSNBC – which is part of NBC News – was a normal news outlet that functions in accordance with basic journalistic principles and would, of course, correct a false statement once that was brought to its attention.

To date – almost two years later – neither NBC News nor MSNBC, nor a single journalist who works for either one of those media outlets – has corrected this significant falsehood, despite obviously knowing that it was broadcast to their viewers. In other words, NBC News and MSNBC knows that it told its viewers something that was materially false, and yet refuses to correct it. Please, defenders of this network: tell me what that says about its integrity, about its real function, about whether it is a real news outlet.

 
Nance just being a complete ### on twitter.  This is one of MSNBC's lead intelligence analysts.  Joke network

Malcolm Nance‏ @MalcolmNance 

HAY YALL: I got GREENWALDED: “The act of misrepresenting a more intelligent person's superior argument, typically on social media in the form of poorly written material under the guise of journalism.” It only took him 2 years for @ggreenwald to go full Louise Mensch! HONORED

 
In One Year, MSNBC Covered 'Stormy Daniels' 455 Times, 'War In Yemen' 0

For a bit more context, in the time period of July 3, 2017, to July 3, 2018, MSNBC dedicated zero segments to the US’s war in Yemen, but 455 segments to Stormy Daniels. This isn’t to suggest the Stormy Daniels matter isn’t newsworthy—presidential corruption is per se important. But one has to wonder if this particular thread of venality is 455 stories more important than Trump aggressively supporting a war that’s killing hundreds of people a month, injuring thousands, and subjecting millions to famine and cholera. Did MSNBC editors, poring over the latest academic foreign policy literature, really come to the conclusion Trump’s war in Yemen isn’t important? Or is MSNBC simply fueled by partisan Russia dot-connecting and stories that allow them to say “porn star” as much as possible?

What seems most likely is MSNBC has found that attacking Russia from the right on matters of foreign policy is the most elegant way to preserve its “progressive” image while still serving traditional centers of power—namely, the Democratic Party establishment, corporate sponsors, and their own revolving door of ex-spook and military contractor-funded talking heads (3/26/18). After all, Obama backed the war on Yemen—though not nearly as aggressively as Trump has—and it’s difficult to make a coherent left-wing, anti-war criticism when the current Republican in office is simply carrying out your guy’s policy, but on steroids.

In any event, it’s not like any Yemenis are going to pull ads, turn down appearances, or phone Comcast higher-ups complaining. So, who cares? To be poor and brown—to say nothing of not serving the immediate partisan interests of the Democratic party—is evidently to not matter much in the eyes of MSNBCproducers and on-air talent.

 
And they all covered Rosanne for an entire week instead of the 4,000 death count that came out from PR.  It's corporate, profit-driven media and not liberal media.

 
It’s awful, but it’s not partisan. It has nothing to do with Trump vs Obama. It’s the same reason all 3 networks a few years back avoided reporting on the Iraq War and focused instead on a missing girl in Aruba. Because the girl in Aruba got better ratings. Sex sells. That’s the way it is; that’s the way it’s always been. 
Which raises the question.  Why do intelligent people still get information from cable news, when their coverage is so obviously driven by profit and ratings for television corporations?  

It's one thing to be captive audience in a gym or doctor's office.  It's another to know it's garbage and consume it anyway.  

 
Which raises the question.  Why do intelligent people still get information from cable news, when their coverage is so obviously driven by profit and ratings for television corporations?  

It's one thing to be captive audience in a gym or doctor's office.  It's another to know it's garbage and consume it anyway.  
Access, awareness, american's are lazy.   You know why.  Go to any public location that has TVs and they are playing CNN or Fox or MSNBC.   

 
Another reason why Yemen is not being covered as much is that the War on Terror is now 15 years old and has been reported on extensively.  And for better or worse, Americans seem to be fine with it so long as large numbers of Americans aren't being killed.  If Trump were simply the third straight President to make payoffs to mistresses, I doubt the Stormy Daniels matter would have been covered that much either.  

 
Another reason why Yemen is not being covered as much is that the War on Terror is now 15 years old and has been reported on extensively.  And for better or worse, Americans seem to be fine with it so long as large numbers of Americans aren't being killed.  If Trump were simply the third straight President to make payoffs to mistresses, I doubt the Stormy Daniels matter would have been covered that much either.  
It's not part of the war on terror though.  It's a US-backed siege being waged by the Saudis.  If MSNBC and its viewers are so disinterested in war that they can't even disambiguate one middle eastern death from the other, how could anyone get off calling it a liberal network.  I know you're just explaining the rationale, but still.  

 
We're at war with fricken' Yemen?
Saudi Arabia is.  Much like with Gaza, some Yemeni groups have been lobbing missiles over the border for a while.

Kind of amazing, much like Haiti/Dominican Republic.  Huge difference between Oman (a place I'd like to visit) and Yemen (####hole, to steal a term). 

Actually, Socotra would be cool, but I wouldn't want to go through Sana'a to get there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MSNBC Public Relations‏ @MSNBCPR Aug 9

RATINGS:

On Wednesday, @maddow was the #1 most-watched program across all cable TV. Overall, four @MSNBC shows made the Top 10 cable shows in total viewers: @maddow #1, @TheLastWord @Lawrence #5, @allinwithchris @chrislhayes #8 and @11thHour #10.

https://twitter.com/MSNBCPR/status/1027653937598529536 (Top 10 listed at link)
When comparing the shows on FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC; Maddow really does stand above in terms of truth and seeming to not treat viewers like idiots.

 
Checking in on That ‘Investigation’ Into Joy Reid’s Hacker

by Aidan McLaughlin | Aug 8th, 2018, 12:26 pm 1083

It’s been more than three months since Joy Reid responded to anti-gay posts unearthed from her old blog by claiming that she was the victim of a nefarious hacker.

As more embarrassing posts were unearthed — the majority of the offensive content included various anti-gay and anti-Muslim commentary — reporters pressed the liberal MSNBC host, her network, and her alleged cybersecurity expert on the hacking excuse.

Despite the ludicrous explanation — the few concrete instances she provided as evidence of hacking fell apart under scrutiny — Reid stood by her assertions and her lawyer (not NBC’s) told reporters the FBI had been tapped to investigate.

Following the near-universal skepticism that met her claims, there was the strange apology episode of AM Joy, where Reid quasi-admitted to screwing up, saying she “truly believed” she had not written the posts, and had a panel of LGBT rights activists take turns forgiving her for the posts she definitely/maybe didn’t write a decade ago.

The result was a stalemate between reporters seeking an explanation that made any sense, Reid refusing to admit she had lied, MSNBC referring questions to Reid’s lawyer, and Reid’s lawyer not responding to emails. Nevertheless, MSNBC kept her on the air while this “investigation” was ongoing.

More posts inevitably trickled out (including a dose of 9/11 trutherism and an image of John McCain’s head photoshopped onto the body of the Virginia Tech shooter) and in Reid’s last official apology for the blog, she did not mention any hackers.

“While I published my blog, starting in 2005, I wrote thousands of posts in real time on the issues of the day,” she said. “There are things I deeply regret and am embarrassed by, things I would have said differently and issues where my position has changed. Today I’m sincerely apologizing again.”

Meanwhile, Reid’s weekend show on MSNBC quietly chugged along like the whole thing hadn’t happened, its host calling out President Donald Trump‘s administration for its lies and coverups.

Now, her ratings did suffer in the process. An analysis conducted by Contemptor in July found Reid had lost more than 20% of her viewership since Mediaite initially reported on her posts.

But with no further updates to cover, the story of Reid’s blog died.

There is a plot line in this ordeal, however, that’s still ongoing: the FBI investigation! Surely by now, with the full force of one of America’s top law enforcement agencies on the case, Reid’s hacker would have been caught and brought to justice? If there ever was an FBI investigation, it has yet to conclude. The FBI doesn’t comment on ongoing investigations, and Reid’s lawyer, as is his wont, still refuses to reply to emails.

Ah, but how can we forget the NBC investigation!? The network’s internal probe into whether one of its star anchors lied about homophobic posts being inserted onto her old blog to save herself from the embarrassment of having to admit that she wrote them?

Well, as it turns out, it doesn’t look like NBC ever conducted an internal investigation. Why wouldn’t NBC seek to find out whether Reid actually was the victim of a highly sophisticated, bizarrely detail-oriented hacker as she claimed? Given that every media reporter with a Twitter account suspects the MSNBC anchor lied, one would think, particularly in an environment where distrust of the media is rampant, NBC would question whether she told them, possibly the FBI and certainly its viewers, a whopping lie.

A spokesperson from the network declined to comment. Perhaps it’s because NBC knows that an investigation would find that, like Brian Williams before her, Reid lied. At least in his case there were repercussions.

So I’m sad to report that there are no updates in NBC’s probe, because apparently the probe does not exist.

 
Every time there is a huge story, they get the part of the Fox crowd that wants to know what is going on in the world

 
Ronan Farrow’s Ex-Producer Says NBC Impeded Weinstein Reporting

By John Koblin

Aug. 30, 2018

In October, when Ronan Farrow published his first article in The New Yorker on the alleged transgressions of Harvey Weinstein, people in the media and entertainment industries wondered how NBC had missed the story. After all, Mr. Farrow had spent months gathering material on the mogul when he was with NBC News.

Now a producer who worked closely with Mr. Farrow has accused the network of putting a stop to the reporting, saying the order came from “the very highest levels of NBC.”

Rich McHugh, the producer, who recently left his job in the investigative unit of NBC News, is the first person affiliated with NBC to publicly charge that the network impeded his and Mr. Farrow’s efforts to nail down the story of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct. He called the network’s handling of the matter “a massive breach of journalistic integrity.”

NBC denied his characterization on Thursday, saying Mr. Farrow’s work was not broadcast-ready when the reporter decided to take his reporting to The New Yorker.

Nearly two months after he stopped working on the story for NBC, Mr. Farrow published the first in his series of articles on Mr. Weinstein — a series that won a Pulitzer Prize in public service for The New Yorker, an award the magazine shared with The New York Times.

Mr. McHugh, 43, described NBC as “resistant” throughout the eight-month reporting process, a characterization disputed by the network. Last August, he said, it seemed that the network was no longer supporting the story.

“Three days before Ronan and I were going to head to L.A. to interview a woman with a credible rape allegation against Harvey Weinstein, I was ordered to stop, not to interview this woman,” Mr. McHugh said. “And to stand down on the story altogether.”

The producer would not disclose which executives had given him that direction. But by doing so, the network was, in his view, “killing the Harvey Weinstein story.”

In response to the producer’s account, Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, said, “He was never told to stop in the way he’s implying.”

One problem, in Mr. Oppenheim’s view, was the lack of on-the-record, on-camera interviews.

“We repeatedly made clear to Ronan and Rich McHugh the standard for publication is we needed at least one credible on-the-record victim or witness of misconduct,” Mr. Oppenheim said. “And we never met that threshold while Ronan was reporting for us.”

Mr. Oppenheim added that the day before the planned trip, Mr. Farrow had asked to pursue the story for another outlet.

“Ronan reached out to us and said: ‘I want to get this out now. I have a magazine that’s willing to do it. Will you be O.K. if I take the reporting to this magazine?’” Mr. Oppenheim said. “And we granted him permission to do so.”

Soon after that mid-August conversation, however, Mr. Farrow, whom NBC described as a nonexclusive contributor, requested the use of an NBC camera crew for the interview in Los Angeles. That request seemed to suggest that he was open to staying on the story for the network. Mr. Oppenheim shot down the request, severing the network’s relationship with the reporter.

Mr. Oppenheim recalled the conversation: “We said: ‘You’ve asked for permission to go elsewhere. You can’t use an NBC camera crew for another outlet. You can do whatever you want to do. And you don’t work for us.’”

Mr. Farrow implied that the network had mishandled his work during an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program that aired shortly after the publication of his first Weinstein article. “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier,” he said.

On Twitter last fall, Mr. Farrow praised Mr. McHugh, saying he had “refused to bow to pressure to stop, through numerous shoots, even when it meant risking his job.” He also called him an “unsung hero of this entire story.”

In a statement for this article, Mr. Farrow said: “Rich is a fantastic producer and journalist. He’s a person of integrity, and he cared deeply about the investigative stories we worked on together and the importance of seeing them through.”

Mr. McHugh left the network almost two weeks ago, after getting a job as a co-executive producer of a climate-change documentary hosted by Al Gore. He has decided to speak out at a moment when there is a harsh spotlight on NBC News and its chairman, Andrew Lack, who sits above Mr. Oppenheim in the corporate chain of command.

Mr. Lack, 71, ran NBC News for a time in the 1990s and returned to the network in 2015. During his latest stint, he has overseen ratings gains for its cable network, MSNBC, and has successfully navigated an anchor transition at “NBC Nightly News.” But the division he oversees has faced serious criticism.

In the fall of 2016, as the presidential campaign entered its final, heated weeks, NBC was scooped by The Washington Post, which broke the story of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee, was heard speaking about women in vulgar terms. “Access Hollywood” is part of the NBC Universal family, which gave the network a first shot at the story.

Mr. Lack has also fallen under scrutiny over what network executives may have known about the workplace behavior of the former “Today” anchor Matt Lauer, who was fired in November because of allegations of sexual misconduct against him. In May, an NBC investigation cleared network executives of any wrongdoing in the Lauer matter — but that investigation drew criticism because it was conducted by in-house counsel, rather than an outside law firm.

On Thursday, Mr. Lack became a target of President Trump, who claimed on Twitter that the executive was “about to be fired(?) for incompetence, and much worse.” The tweet was one of many recent presidential statements attacking news organizations, and it appeared three days after The New York Post’s Page Six gossip column reported that Mr. Lack was “facing the boot.”

Before joining NBC, Mr. McHugh spent eight years as a producer for ABC’s “Good Morning America.” He joined forces with Mr. Farrow, a lawyer turned journalist, in 2015 for “Undercovered With Ronan Farrow,”a series that aired on “Today.”

The pair zeroed in on Mr. Weinstein early last year, after Mr. Farrow had locked down an interview with the actress and activist Rose McGowan to speak about allegations of sexual harassment in Hollywood.

“From that point on, I think it’s fair to say Ronan and I felt resistance,” Mr. McHugh said. “We were told to put the story on the back burner.”

Mr. Oppenheim said that he had encouraged Mr. Farrow to interview Ms. McGowan. “I said to him, ‘You know, there’s an actress, Rose McGowan, who’s been tweeting she was attacked by a studio executive,’” Mr. Oppenheim said. “There are rumors circulating that it might be Harvey Weinstein. You should look into that.”

Rich Greenberg, the executive editor of the NBC News investigative unit, added that Ms. McGowan did not give an ideal interview, for the network’s purposes.

“The problem was, we didn’t have a credible accuser on the record, on camera,” Mr. Greenberg said. “The one we had the closest hope of getting, Rose McGowan, pulled out. She’d never say Harvey Weinstein’s name on camera with us.”

Mr. Oppenheim said Mr. Weinstein had no influence on the network’s handling of the Weinstein story.

The NBC executives’ comments echoed findings contained in a 12-page internal report that the network provided to The Times.

But there was a big story to be gotten, and the reporting continued into the spring and summer, albeit “discreetly,” Mr. McHugh said. Mr. Farrow gained access to a recording of a New York Police Department sting operation in which Mr. Weinstein admitted to groping the model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez. Even with the addition of that tape, Mr. McHugh said, executives at NBC News seemed unpersuaded.

“I think it’s fair to say that there was a point in our reporting where I felt there were obstacles to us reporting this externally, and there were obstacles to us reporting this internally,” the producer said. “Externally, I had Weinstein associates calling me repeatedly. I knew that Weinstein was calling NBC executives directly. One time it even happened when we were in the room.”

On Oct. 5, The Times published the first of its articles detailing allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Weinstein. That evening, CBS and ABC gave airtime to the explosive story on their newscasts. NBC did not. The next morning, “Today” gave it scant attention.

Mr. Farrow published his first New Yorker article on Mr. Weinstein on Oct. 10. Since then, Mr. McHugh has questioned how NBC handled things.

“I don’t believe they’ve told the truth about it,” he said. “That’s my opinion. I’ve asked that question, and to this day I still have not been given a good answer.”

Asked why it had taken him so long to leave the network, Mr. McHugh said he had stayed on so he could continue providing for his family and out of a fear that NBC could retaliate against him.

He has retained the Washington-based lawyer Ari Wilkenfeld. Mr. Wilkenfeld also represents women who have made allegations against Mr. Lauer and another NBC luminary, Tom Brokaw, who has been accused of making unwanted advances toward women he worked with.

In addition to his continuing work for The New Yorker, Mr. Farrow is writing a book, “Catch and Kill,” which is expected to include his account of NBC’s role in the reporting of the Weinstein story.

 
NBC’s reluctance stoked Farrow and McHugh’s concerns about NBC’s commitment to the story, the sources said. Farrow did not respond to a request for comment. Ari Wilkenfeld, McHugh’s attorney, told The Daily Beast that his client “has no comment.”

In spring 2017, according to the sources, Farrow played Oppenheim the audio of Weinstein with Battilana admitting that he was “used to” groping women’s breasts. At one point during their meeting, according to sources, Oppenheim had asked if people still cared about Weinstein.

Farrow had begun to suspect that Oppenheim—who moonlighted as a Hollywood screenwriter—was potentially communicating with Weinstein directly about the story, according to the sources.

During a meeting in summer 2017, Oppenheim mentioned to Farrow that Weinstein had raised objections to Farrow’s reporting—even though Farrow had not yet asked Weinstein to comment on the allegations, according to individuals briefed on the meeting.
Sources: NBC Threatened Ronan Farrow if He Kept Reporting on Harvey Weinstein

Ronan Farrow had already left NBC News. But a top lawyer at the network threatened to smear him if he continued to pursue the Hollywood mogul, multiple knowledgeable sources say.

 
Mr. McHugh, who is not mentioned in Mr. Lack’s note or in the NBC document, had a different interpretation of what occurred on Aug. 18. That was the day he received an order not to proceed with a planned interview and “to stand down on the story altogether,” he told The Times last week.

“I told them at that point by ordering me to stand down, NBC was killing the Harvey Weinstein story,” Mr. McHugh said.

In his memo, Mr. Lack said the interview did not proceed with NBC’s cameras because Mr. Farrow had already asked to leave the network.

“We were increasingly concerned that repeatedly asking victims to sit for anonymous interviews in front of television cameras on this subject matter was no longer a productive approach,” he added.

Mr. Farrow took issue with NBC’s version, saying it “contains numerous false or misleading statements” in a Twitter statement that represented his first extensive public statements on the network’s handling of his work. For one thing, he said, it was not his idea to take the Weinstein story to another news organization.

“The suggestion to take the story to another outlet was first raised by NBC, not me,” Mr. Farrow said, “and I took them up on it only after it became clear that I was being blocked from further reporting.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/03/business/media/nbc-farrow-weinstein-andrew-lack.html

:popcorn:  

 
:pickle:

MSNBC Public Relations‏ @MSNBCPR 2h2 hours ago

RATINGS:

On Wednesday, @maddow was the #1 most-watched program across all cable TV. In fact, five @MSNBC shows made the Top 10 across all cable TV: @maddow #1, @TheLastWord @Lawrence #3, @allinwithchris @chrislhayes #6, @11thHour #7 and @Hardball @hardballchris #9.

https://twitter.com/MSNBCPR/status/1037820515124215809 (top 10 list at link)

 
This is pretty terrible even for Al Sharpton.  Have any elected Democrats condemned this yet?

Friday on MSNBC’s “Deadline,” Al Sharpton said President Donald Trump’s supporters are like people who “would go to church and then go to the lynching after clothing themselves in morality.”

When host Nicolle Wallace asked why the president is graded on a curve, Sharpton said, “Because I think that we’re dealing with a bully and he’s been able to make people defensive that ought not be defensive. They ought to be on the offense. And we need to stop apologizing for calling out what it is. What he is doing is outrageous. When he mentions Adam’s article about the lynchings, let’s not forget these people would go to church and then go to the lynching after clothing themselves in morality. And that’s what we’re seeing today.”
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/10/05/sharpton-after-collins-kavanaugh-announcement-trump-base-are-like-people-who-attended-lynchings-after-church/

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top