posted
There was a segment on the Today show this morning about a Fox reporter getting his a** handed to him by a guy he was investigating. And the guy's wife. The camera guy who was with him got the whole thing on film.
I wonder how many people watched that and were kind of rooting for the attackers? The media gets such a free pass when it comes to jamming their camera's in people's faces. I can't really blame this couple for refusing to take it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, I was not rooting for the attackers. Those people are worse scum then any reporter.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched it, and was kinda rooting for the pipsqueak guy who was just standing there doing his job when a big angry man came out of nowhere and blindsided him with two roundhouse punches.
The monolithic "media" is far from perfect, but when it comes down to actual people on an actual street corner, I still think individuals are responsible for their actions, and I don't believe physical assault is justified just by anger and frustration.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, baloney. There's never a call for that kind of childishness.
The reporter was filming somewhere completely away from the attacker-- the attacker and his wife (or whatever) drove over to find and assault him. There was no camera-in-face-sticking, until the assault.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you feel like the cameraman was a jerk for standing there filming it instead of putting down the camera to lend assistance?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a jerk; and the reporter probably didn't want his help either. (Who was the dude that wrestled the assailant and the reporter to the ground? Sound guy?)
I did have a 'Put the camera down and go help your man!' moment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he was another interviewee, either a subject of the investigation or another source in the same story.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: I watched it, and was kinda rooting for the pipsqueak guy who was just standing there doing his job when a big angry man came out of nowhere and blindsided him with two roundhouse punches.
Well, you may have missed the beginning. The reporter and his cameraman were on his front lawn, getting in his wife's face. They wouldn't leave, and she was getting angrier and angrier. She tried throwing water at the camera, but they insisted on following her. It looked to me like she probably called her husband, because he came home, got out of his car, and slammed into the reporter.
It's not like he just saw the guy and jumped him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, you may have missed the beginning. The reporter and his cameraman were on his front lawn, getting in his wife's face.
Hm... not what I saw at all. They looked to be in front of an apartment building, perhaps one in which the person under investigation was living in; in any case, the wife accosted them, and started yelling at them, throwing water at them, etc.
I think this highlights a very interesting difference in perception.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't helped by the fact that Fox (deliberately, I think, or as a matter of 'style') routinely presents clips out of order and with minimal-to-none captioning or narration to make explicitly clear the context, sequence, etc.
This is worst (and not confined to Fox) with archive footage. The voice over will say something benign like 'tensions have been rising in the area for the past month,' and the video will show a truck exploding -- but no clue where/when/how that event occurred, who was blowing up whom, or even if it was in the same 'area' being alluded to.
It's content-free news-candy, an awful lot of it.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on what I could see on the footage, it was not acceptable for the attacker to resort to physical violence.
If a reporter has a camera in your face, just walk away. If the reporter is on your property, call the police. But beating the reporter up, under these circumstances is not justified.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a much better video. The couple was running a real estate scam and the reporter had exposed it back in July. Accoridng to this video, the couple threatened him several times after the report aired. The reporter was shooting a follow-up story, and someone tipped the couple off regarding the reporter's whereabouts, at which point they went out, found, and attacked him.
The guy who helps out is one of the scammer's victims.
posted
Um, beating people up is against the law, unless it's in self defense. Period. The end.
And let's admit, people have a love-hate relationship with reporters. As long as they're writing what they want you to write, you're happy - and you're happy to parade in front of the camera. Which means the people who believe the opposite thing as you are unhappy. And so on so forth.
Just look at the White House. In public they b*tch about how the New York Times got the facts wrong, is biased, is elitist, liberal leftist I could go on and on; but when the WH has policy changes or other news they want to disseminate, to whom to they give the exclusive, anonymous report? I'll give you one guess.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: This is a much better video. The couple was running a real estate scam and the reporter had exposed it back in July. Accoridng to this video, the couple threatened him several times after the report aired. The reporter was shooting a follow-up story, and someone tipped the couple off regarding the reporter's whereabouts, at which point they went out, found, and attacked him.
The guy who helps out is one of the scammer's victims.
--j_k
If I was one of the victims, I wouldn't help by restraining the guy, I'd get some shots of my own in. Well assuming I was mad enough, in my calm composed mode I'd simply split them up like the 3rd man in the video does.
If you can't stand reporters on your property, call the police. If you are rich and famous and they follow you everywhere, move somewhere nice and stay there for a bit. Tabloids won't pay for their photographers to stay overseas permanently.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hah, that would be great. The answer is the New York Times. Which infuriates White House reporters from other news organizations, but what are you going to do.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The media gets such a free pass when it comes to jamming their camera's in people's faces. I can't really blame this couple for refusing to take it.
Um,
..... Thhhhen you excuse their use of physical assault as a retributive action?
posted
While I don't condone what the attackers did, I think, amidst the swearing, the wife asks a pretty valid question: just what were the reporters hoping to get that they hadn't already? It's not a question that really gets answered, and the way the cameraman takes after the wife seems more like its trying to provoke a response than gain newsworthy information.
And it's worth saying that we do theoretically have a legal system that says someone is innocent until proven guilty; if Fox's coverage is inaccurate, then they may have done this couple irreperable and undeserved harm.
Which still doesn't justify pummelling a reporter, but... I can understand, if not condone, the feeling.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they've done the couple "irreparable and undeserved harm", then they can sue for defamation and libel. It's much easier to do that when you're not famous.
I can't believe there's anyone here who is even remotely attempting to condone or excuse this.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How could anyone say the attacker is justified? These people are con artists who are pissed off because they got caught. The media wouldn't have been invading their privacy if they weren't criminals in the first place! They're ass holes, and they should both rot in jail.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
