Ann Coulter proves that Matt Drudge just makes stuff up

In a rapid departure from past behavior, the network reversed itself quickly rather than suffer days or weeks of criticism for censoring the news. With NBC and MSNBC so obviously partisan, it is easily seen by even left-leaning moderates that "banning" Coulter amounted to an effort to "control" the mids of their audience. Rahter than dither, and eventually lose viewers as well as the debate, NBC moved with alacrity by over-ruling their morning show editorial staff. The gaffe that caused them to pull the plug on Matthews and Olbermann as the election "anchors" was not going to be repeated in this instance. They did the right thing this time (after initially fumbling the ball). A quick recovery is almost as good as doing it correctly the first time. Coulter is hated by many, and viewed as a "spark plug" by others, but she is an alternative voice, and helps bring a different view of the news to the public. If they can show tapes made by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, what is so offensive that Coulter must be banned? 

The ban never exsisted, but thank you for picking up on that.

Ask Annie anytime what she thinks of liberals. Then stand well out of the line of fire. This does what good to the national discourse.

There are a number of people I'd like to see deal with her. R Madow is about the only one on MSM. David Barry would be fun, several folks connected to the progressive blogosphere would work for me as well.

Prove it never existed.  NBC never said it publically, nor did any other mainstream news outlet, that is true.  But there have been several articles over the last year that discussed Drudge and his sources and their uncanny accuracy.  You might not like what he reports, but he is rarely wrong.

By the way, how many times has NBC, CBS, ABC, WaPo and NYT used "unamed sources" for stories that have been critical of President Bush, the Iraq War, or Conservatives in general and the Liberals have taken the information as gospel, only to have it proven wrong?  A lot more then Drudge is wrong, that's for sure.

No thanks Reddy, Proving a negative to a wingnut is so often a rhetorical version of the dance of the seven veils.

There's info all arround you, with links from original sources, on this, and Drudge as well. If you won't give this any credibility, what chance do I have? 

your Wingnut Code Napoleon means any liberal is guilty of anything and everything. The French at least do allow innocence to be proved on occasion.