Marathon Bombing Survivor Walks off the Set of 'Meet the Press'

[JI7]

meet the press with VERY LOW RATINGS must have been looking to get some moment on camera they can play over and over again for ratings . this wasn't a politician or some other public official . this was a private citizen who was a victim of a terrorist attack. if they could not do as she requested they should have just let her know so she would not appear.


<Adrianne Haslet-Davis, the dancer who lost part of one of her legs in the Boston Marathon bombing last year, said she walked off the set of NBC's Meet the Press crying Friday.

Dancer who lost leg in Boston Marathon blast performs again

A professional dancer who lost part of her leg in the Boston Marathon danced publicly Wednesday for the first time.
More

"Cannot believe @meetthepress chose to use the bombers name instead of respect their guest. Had to walk off set crying," Haslet-Davis said in a tweet.

The dancer, who has vowed to dance again using a prosthetic leg, said she felt disrespected by the show.

"I feel so disrespected @meetthepress I asked politely yesterday and you said yes. Now you choose to use the name instead," Haslet-Davis tweeted.

An NBC News spokesperson provided more information about the incident.

“Adrianne Haslet-Davis is an inspiring survivor with an important story to share," the spokesperson said. "She was due to take part in a roundtable discussion for Meet the Press with three other participants. She requested that the alleged bombers’ names not be used in the entire program, but given the nature of the discussion we couldn’t make that guarantee. We regret any distress caused by this miscommunication," the spokesperson said. >

Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/marathon-bombing-survivor-walks-off-the-set-of-meet-the-press/25435594#ixzz2ydJwjCxy

[Boom Sound 416]

1. Does using the names change the focus?

[Bandit]

78. Maybe if no mass shooting or terrorist name was ever given out, some copy cat crimes

might not occur. If they get no recognition, they just may not do it..

[former9thward]

79. That might be an argument at the time of the incident.

But this is a year later and the names have been out there from day one. Mentioning them now would not mean a whole lot.

[Sheldon Cooper]

2. If the spokesperson is telling the truth,

I think Haslet-Davis' request was pretty unreasonable. To not use his name in her segment would be one thing, but to expect him to remain nameless for the entire show is a bit much.

[lonestarnot]

5. I love the character Sheldon Cooper.

I don't know the guys real name.

[Sheldon Cooper]

7. Jim Parsons.

I love Sheldon Cooper, too.

[lonestarnot]

41. He sparkles.

[elehhhhna]

46. hate to agree but yeah

I think this is a sign that she isn't ready to deal w/ this publicly yet, which is understandable, and MTP was only going to exploit her anyway...

[SheilaT]

3. Huh? Why in the world would she request that?

I suppose they could have done the whole "He who must not be named", sort of like in the Harry Potter books, when many of the characters wouldn't say Voldemort's name out loud. Which, come to think of it, is rather childish.

[clffrdjk]

4. Copy cats.

Sick people will copy just to get their 15 min on the tv.

[cthulu2016]

57. They'll copy the bomber's name??

[clffrdjk]

81. Yes that's exactly what I said.

Don't be intentionally obtuse, it does not suit anyone.

[idendoit]

6. Huh? Why would you question the motives of a bombing victim?

[SheilaT]

10. Being a bombing victim

does not get her to control all of the actions of others. It really doesn't.

I also realize you may well have been ironic or sarcastic, in which case, ignore my above comment.

[idendoit]

11. Yet you want to control her actions.

Irony abounds.

[SheilaT]

42. No, I'm not trying to control her actions.

But she is trying to control the actions of several others. Can't mention the names. Nope. That's not controlling.

If she can't bear to hear the names then she shouldn't agree to any interviews. And as someone else has already pointed out, testifying at the trial is going to be a bit tricky.

[treestar]

49. Agree, and MTP could have refused to have her on the show

Realizing how difficult it would be to avoid using the names. If she can't bear to hear the names of the accused, she'll have to avoid all media, especially when the case finally goes to trial.

[joshcryer]

15. She isn't controlling all the actions of others.

If her simple request wasn't fulfilled she could only do what she could do, walk off the set.

[davidpdx]

37. I agree

I think MTP was not the show to go on in that situation. If they approached her, she would have been better off just turning them down rather than trusting them.

A daytime television show would have been a better environment to talk about the victims.

[mythology]

12. They weren't questioning her motives

More her rather unreasonable request given the forum she was participating in.

Besides, merely being a victim doesn't actually mean she can't be questioned.

[idendoit]

14. How about you?

Are you missing part of a limb due to a bomb explosion? The network only said there was a 'miscommunication'. If there was than is she still making an unreasonable request?

[Schema Thing]

29. wtf?

because it's a bizarre effing request and a person making it should not be being interviewed by anyone but a psychologist.

[cthulu2016]

59. Not sure "motives" means what you think it means.

[idendoit]

83. Getting part of a leg blown off is a motive.

Do you doubt that?

[Logical]

71. Yes, it was a stupid request and they had the right to refuse. She choose to leave. nt

[idendoit]

84. The broadcaster didn't say whether or not...

...it had been agreed to beforehand. Those that favor merchants over showing empathy to real humans deny their own humanity.

[Logical]

85. I figure the average person knows what "News Networks" do. nt

[idendoit]

86. So you just assume things then?

[Logical]

87. Yes, only an idiot would expect to go on CNN and not have the most famous criminal of 2012 discussed

[idendoit]

91. No, an idiot might assume...

...the topic hadn't been discussed beforehand. The broadcaster said there was a 'miscommunication', they didn't claim by which party.

[JI7]

25. she thought it was going to be about the victims of the bombing and what they dealt with

during the last year.

[lostincalifornia]

51. Then it there was obviously a miscommunication. I do not see it anything more than that. No real

"bad guys" in this affair. However, when tragedies occur the media today would be the last place to assume adherence to agreed upon terms. That is there nature

[gcomeau]

30. To not give the scum any more fame or infamy than absolutely necessary.

Which is a completely reasonable request.

[lostincalifornia]

52. It would NOT give him any kind of fame. The problem is that the popular media cannot be relied upon

to honor requests from victims of tragedies. Information was obviously miscommunicated to her from people who did not have the authority to do so, or did so deceptively.

[gcomeau]

65. Broadcasting his name...

...all over national television is the definition of fame.

[lostincalifornia]

66. Your definition.

[gcomeau]

80. Yeah mine... and all other english language speakers.

What language are you speaking that coincidentally has a word spelled "f-a-m-e" that means something different than "to be known or talked about by many people"?

National television audiences being, of course, MANY PEOPLE.

[lostincalifornia]

82. The connotation for fame is positive , these people would never be viewed in a positive light

O

[gcomeau]

88. Often, but not required to be, positive.

And it should have been brain meltingly obvious that concern over positive publicity wasn't on anyone's mind here. Did that seriously need to be spelled out for you?

[lostincalifornia]

89. forget it, have a good day. I am really tired of your snark. Go find someone else to belittle

[Blue_Tires]

92. Well that makes no sense

I've never seen a blackout of Charles Manson's name on the news, or any of countless other evil people not get mentioned...

And I've got news for you -- People already know the name, whether or not the MTP people say it...If some guest can't handle that, then she doesn't need to be on...If anyone other than the NBC news director gave her that assurance, then it was an assurance they weren't authorized to give...

[gcomeau]

93. What about it are you having difficulty following?

"I've never seen a blackout of Charles Manson's name on the news"

And that's an argument that nobody should think there SHOULD have been... how?

And of course people already know the damn name. That's not the point. Spreading it around at every opportunity, constantly putting it in the conversation, repeating it again and again, getting it down in the history books... that's the kind of thing a lot of these assholes WANT after they're done pulling this stuff. Look at me, I'm going down in history because I was such a big damn deal. Everyone knows My name! I'm just that important!


If she wanted AT LEAST her one appearance on this show not to be a contributor to that bullshit what part of that is hard for you to make sense out of?

[Blue_Tires]

94. Like I said

she shouldn't have had any expectation whatsoever that her request about what's his name not being mentioned would be granted...And if some producer or staffer agreed to that, I'm betting they didn't have the authority to; and they should rightly be out of a job this morning...

[gcomeau]

95. Oh really?

From the OP:

""I feel so disrespected @meetthepress I asked politely yesterday and you said yes. Now you choose to use the name instead," Haslet-Davis tweeted."

[NutmegYankee]

39. A lot of people feel it gives the perpetrator what they wanted - attention.

I tend to agree. I think we should never spend time onthe names of terrorists and murders. They deserve to be forgotten. And yet we nearly always know the murderers name, but never the victims.

[Boreal]

8. Last I checked

the Tsarnaev brothers had not been convicted of anything. Yes, I realize one is dead and won't ever get a trial (just like their friend in Florida). Does she plan on testifying when the surviving brother is brought to trial? Will she throw a hissy fit if the court dare mention his name? Maybe she'll demand the defendant be removed from her sight.

[idendoit]

16. Can you honestly say how you would feel..

..having your life's work taken by a bomb? Would you throw a hissy fit?

[Boreal]

17. Can you prove to me

that the accused (and murdered) are guilty?

[idendoit]

18. Can't say how you would feel?

[Boreal]

20. I've seen lots of people

who are victims of crime, or whose children have been victims, say the names of the accused. She has no right to demand that the name of someone presumed innocent not be uttered. In fact, for his sake, his name needs to be mentioned a whole lot more and details of the event better examined (as opposed to the sad stories of victims and all the "Boston Strong!" baloney). Oh, and that shoving people out of their homes at gunpoint needs more coverage, too.

[idendoit]

21. Please, share with readers how you would feel as...

...a bombing victim.

[Boreal]

23. How would any bombing victim feel?

Traumatized. PTSD. In severe PAIN. I have to hand it to Adrienne. Seven days after an amputation she was chipper, joking around and moving her leg with ease. She's pretty special. Much like the young man (forget his name) who lost both legs and attended a hockey game just two weeks later. He, too, was upbeat and doing great. I guess that's where "Boston Strong!" came from. I've know someone who lost a leg and their recovery was long and hard, with a long time in rehab after critical care.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the crime, the accused, the two who were killed by LE and the martial law, or whatever that was, that went down after the event.

BTW, here's Adrienne a week after the amputation (remarkable!):

[treestar]

48. There are other surviving victims

They may feel differently. There could be a wide variety of reactions.

Not wanting to hear the name of the accused is strange. How will she testify at trial? And there is a presumption of innocence. I can see that victims might feel that the justice system should be thrown out the window because they feel someone is guilty, but that's why we have this system, rather than vigilantism.

[gcomeau]

31. She has every right...

... to make ANY DAMN DEMAND SHE WANTS as a condition of appearing on the show, and to then refuse to appear if she was told those conditions would not be met.

[penultimate]

70. Are you a member of the FreeJahar fan club too?

OMGOMGOMG he is the mooooooost dreeeeeamy terrorist/murderer ever. Like totally!

[Boreal]

74. I have no idea who Jahar is

so, no.

[LanternWaste]

101. No more and mo less than you can prove your use of "hissy fit" was accurate

"Can you prove to me..." No more and mo less than you can prove your use of "hissy fit" was accurate rather than simply a melodramatic pejorative used when rational thought is lacking.

(insert distinction without a difference here...)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

104. What is that supposed to mean?

That you will not accept the results if the court does find him guilty?

Also, the brother was "murdered" trying to kill LE when he was apprehended, then run over by his loving turd of a brother. They were trying to kill to escape LE, like Sean Collier. You know Sean Collier, right? Or just don't give a fuck?

[lostincalifornia]

53. I wouldn't not give the time of day to any media outlet or forum if I was the victim or a family

member was

[jberryhill]

102. Bingo

In the tragedy media complex, being the victim of some awful event is the start of a lifelong career as a victim. It becomes the central point around which everything else revolves, and confers a proprietary interest in how the tragedy is thenceforth discussed, remembered, or characterized by anyone else.

Lost a loved one in 9/11? Here, have a check.

Lost a loved one in a crime elsewhere in NYC that day? Fuck off.

They key is to lose a loved one in a tragedy that meets the criteria for "sacred tragic event".

[Eleanors38]

9. I like her style. Doing her part to check the CelebroPunk™.

[tavernier]

13. I completely agree with her!

Why is it that the media seems compelled to turn every criminal, shooter, rapist, murderer into a super star? We hear their name over and over ad nauseum, their picture is run more often than Johnny Depp, we know every detail about their family, childhood, hobbies... on and on.

I think the bastards shouldn't get one second's worth of publicity, before, during, or after, and I think it is devastating to the victims when these monsters are turned into media idols.

[playthegame]

19. It evokes emotion, which creates viewers....

Which creates ratings, which createsssss.... MONEY!!!

You think the shows producers are feeling bad about upsetting her, or giddy about the attention it's creating?

[tavernier]

22. I don't think I'm the only viewer

who could give a shit about who these creeps are and their life stories. When the news comes on and some guy's face is plastered across the screen because he's just killed a child or shot a Circle K cashier, I turn the channel, and I know damn well I'm not the only one.

Many of us are truly sick and tired of watching this crap. And it's not because I'm desensitized or don't care; it's simply because giving the crime and the criminal so much media publicity doesn't serve any purpose other than to glorify the event.

[Boreal]

24. The bastards?

The remaining (still alive) "bastard" is accused, not convicted of anything. Do you think he deserves the presumption of innocence? A defense attorney? A TRIAL?

[jberryhill]

26. Yes, that guilty motherfucker will get all those things

He is entitled to a presumption of innocence in court.

I am not on the jury, nor am I the judge.

Incidentally, there will be a person in court declaring him guilty from day one. That person is the prosecutor. The prosecutor doesn't need to presume jack shit about that guilty bombing motherfucker, and neither do I.

Let me ask you something. If I walked up to you in the street, told you my name, and then punched you in the face, what would you do?

Would you call the police? Why? To accuse presumptively innocent me of a crime? How dare you.

[Boreal]

27. Ok Nancy Grace

I guess we can do away with the Innocence Project, too, because people like you say GUILTY!

[gcomeau]

32. Try actually reading posts before responding.

Just a useful tip.

[Boreal]

33. I read it nt

[gcomeau]

34. That's unfortunate.

Considering your response I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[jberryhill]

36. Lol at the flaring nostrils of justice

People are entitled to their opinions. I see you didn't answer my question.

I don't thnk a DNA test is going to do much for this particular guilty person, and the Innocnence Project doesn't take all comers. They pick their subjects carefully. You think they rush to the aid of every person that sends then a letter? No. Why do you suppose that is?

I defend people accused of stuff all day long. This guy is not my client.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

105. Lemme guess....this was a false flag operation....

Please proceed, Alex Jones.

[msanthrope]

38. Perfectly said! Will be stealing this for use when I'm told Comrade Eddie

is innocent of being a fugitive.

[NutmegYankee]

40. You know, this misconception is getting old.

You are presumed innocent by the law. Regular people may say whatever they want about you.

[maddezmom]

54. Yup and it is usually accompanied by some sort of Truther argument

That it was a gov't plot for a gun grab or whatever nonsense Alex jones and their ilk are spoon feeding them.

[alarimer]

58. Except that if you are splashed all over the media and your guilt is assumed by said media

It poisons the jury pool. It is highly unlikely any trial could be fair, with this much publicity.

I'm sure there have been cases (probably not this one, I grant) where someone has been railroaded in this way.

[NutmegYankee]

63. The legal system has controls in the Voir Dire to account for that.

I'll be quite frank, when people on DU proclaim the innocence of persons who were witnessed by multiple people doing a crime, it literally comes off as support for that person.

[Logical]

72. Brilliant idea. So no one on trial can we say their name? O.J.? McVeigh? Menendez? Get it?

[tavernier]

75. No, sorry

I don't understand your question. Could you reword it?

[deathrind]

28. That is an unreasonable request.

To expect a news/information program to not mention the name of a person (or primary suspect in this case) not to be used during a show about the subjects alleged actions and its consequences is an unreasonable expectation and then to "tweet" the incident afterwards seems dubious/grandstanding as well.

[Inkfreak]

35. Absurd request.

It's a news program. And speaking a name in no way glorifies an alleged criminals name. The idea she wants others discussing this bombing yet NOT saying the names is fucking absurd.

[Orsino]

98. Not absurd. The perps' names are probably triggery.

It seems no promise was made to her, but she may have had her heart set on erasing the bombers by preventing her interviewers from mentioning them.

[Inkfreak]

99. No, it's absurd.

Of course, this is merely my opinion. Which is worth about as much as anyone else's around here. But I understand things trigger emotions. Perhaps if mentioning the names of these men triggers stress, she should avoid the subject entirely. I only hope she can fully recover from her ordeal.

As for me, I don't like to sanitize the past. I will speak their names with the disgust and disdain they deserve.

[Orsino]

100. Your opinion isn't absurd, either.

But you might share hers had you gone through similar trauma.

[Inkfreak]

103. Fair enough, I can't argue that.

And saying absurd may sound a bit callous. I do have immense sympathy for the woman. Perhaps I should rephrase to say that if she's making this request, she should postpone these types of news programs until she has worked thru her trauma some more. And maybe she'll be a able to handle hearing those names. Or maybe never will.

[warrior1]

43. They should have honored her request.

These cowards shouldn't be named.

I don't think that it was unreasonable.

[AngryOldDem]

47. I just watched the CNN special report that featured her.

She has severe PTSD. Understandably so. I realize that for those of us lucky enough to have never been through such a trauma it is hard to understand her request that the names of these people not be used in her presence. Surely MTP could have referred to them as the "suspects" or the "perpetrators" and the conversation could have gone on just fine as usual.

And I have to say that I am really disappointed by some of the callous opinions here. The adage about walking a mile in another person's shoes has never been more apt. But I suppose empathy is just one more thing that's getting to be in short supply in this society.

I wish Adrienne well.

[Sheldon Cooper]

50. Some of us 'callous' people are commenting on her apparent demand

that his name go unmentioned during the entire show, not just her round-table segment. If this is in fact true, then she clearly is being unreasonable. To think that a news show cannot state his name while she is in the green room, waiting to go on, or in the cab leaving the studio after she's done, is frankly, absurd.

It doesn't mean we don't have compassion for her struggle, and the suggestion that we lack empathy is insulting. But do carry on with your name-calling.

[AngryOldDem]

61. It seems that MTP led her to believe they would comply.

Why didn't they just tell her up front that they could not do that, and give her the option not to appear? And again, the conversation could have been had without mentioning the bombers by name. We all know who they are. They have had more than their 15 minutes of infamy. They deserve no more.

I for one empathize with her request that the names not be used. In light of what she has gone through I don't think it was an unreasonable request -- MTP could have found a way to accommodate her.

And as for name calling, I don't think I would classify any PTSD survivor's opinions, requests, or sensitivities "absurd."

[Sheldon Cooper]

64. Then perhaps she's simply not ready to appear in the media to discuss it.

Maybe she should heal some more first.

And, last time I checked, 'absurd' is an adjective, rather than a name. But I can see that it's very important to your narrative that you continue to insult, so please proceed.

[Logical]

73. LOL, hard to cover big crimes without mentioning the people charged. Wow, clueless?? nt

[Sunlei]

44. may always be 'to soon' for any interviews for Haslet-Davis. She should say 'no' when asked.

Though it does seem she seeks the media spotlight under her terms.

[m-lekktor]

45. she shouldn't agree to do political chat shows in the first place

if she is that sensitive. why else would a news discussion show invite her on, to discuss climate change? is using pronouns in reference to those who shall not be named ok with her? seriously. maybe i am being insensitive but i think she is being a drama queen.

[lostincalifornia]

55. You are correct about the media forum, however, that can be written off to naiveté. However, she is

NOT a "drama queen". All her dreams and life's ambitions are gone in an instant, and that will take years for her to get through if ever

[AngryOldDem]

62. Have you seen the CNN special about her?

Without giving anything away, you will be amazed.

[lostincalifornia]

90. No, I haven't

[cthulu2016]

56. Well... she's wrong and Meet the Press is wrong and who cares?

She shouldn't be on a news show if she can't handle discussion of the topic.

Meet the Press should have dropped her when she made the request.

Everyone is wrong.

[Vashta Nerada]

67. If she can't handle the name of the bombers, maybe she shouldn't be going on shows.

Their names are going to come up in one fashion or another.

[HeiressofBickworth]

68. "she thought it was going to be about the victims of the bombing

and what they dealt with during the past year" That phrase caught my attention. Could it be that MTP told her just what she needed to hear in order to agree to do the program -- all the while, not intending to accommodate her any way. By tricking her into appearing, MTP has the marketing data to sell their program -- lovely young woman, dancer, cut down in her prime, etc. They then have two alternate outcomes -- she either goes along with it and they exploit her experiences for ratings, OR she walks off and they exploit her reaction, again for ratings. Win-Win for MTP. But then, I tend to be cynical when it comes to television rating tricks.

[NutmegYankee]

69. To Understand where she comes from - Watch this Video

You see her stages of recovery and her reason to not want to name the bombers.

[ananda]

76. Preet the Mess.

I haven't watched that show in years.

I hope it bites the dust.

[tularetom]

77. Meet the Press is on Friday now??

All these years I thought it was live on Sunday morning.

[backscatter712]

96. David Gregory and the othe cockroaches on Press The Meet can suck a tailpipe. n/t

[RandoLoodie]

97. silliness