What do you all think of this "ambush" interview?

[dhart]

According to Drudge this reporter was "suspended" afterwards.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6905.html

[rocky1138]

I've seen worse, and this doesn't seem very "ambush" to me.

Anyone know more about it & why the reporter might have been punished?

[svp]

Am I missing something??? Why was she suspended? Because of viewer outrage? What about the Executive Producer or Producer who APPROVED the story for air? Were they suspended???? There's no mention of that.

[elvezz]

well, she seems like an idiot, but I saw no "ambush".
the old guy coulda quit anytime.
Loved his first line!

[slick]

I'm not a fan of ambush interviews, especially when they are only for sensational impact.

That being said, I don't see this example as terribly bad. The worst thing I saw was her "poking" at his gun box... and blocking his car door.

[irspit]

Honestly, I found the piece very boring. I didn't see a point in doing the story. I mean it is crazy that he had to shoot 2 people in 3 weeks, but she said that he was within his right of doing so. Just a boring piece.

[f11vid]

Did they follow this guy to the gunshop? How on earth did they just happen to be there when he went to purchase the weapon? If there was reason to suspect that this fellow lured these men on to his property,I might see where this was going.But this would only be an element of that story.Otherwise,I don't see the point in ambushing him about something he is legally entitled to do.

[Canonman]

That being said, I don't see this example as terribly bad. The worst thing I saw was her "poking" at his gun box... and blocking his car door.

Blocking his door which prevented him from leaving could be grounds for legal action against her or the station. He could not have closed his door without injuring the reporter.

cm

[Run&Gun]

She's a moron and tasteless. Crap like that is just one of many reasons why I'm glad I don't work in local TV. The poor photog was probably thinking "You wanna do what? Crap...". At least I hope he didn't enjoy it. How did they find him anyway, follow him from his house to the gun store? Stalkers... It's j@ck@$$'s like her that make people dislike us.

Like others have said, I've seen worse. Judging from this piece, I don't think anyone at home in TV Land will miss her... And if she is in fact an award winning journalist I would hope the idea to do that wasn't hers and if it was an ND's or producers she should have stood up and said "No".

Slightly off topic: Isn't that cute that the two DA's on the website think that someone watches all the PKG's before they go on air?

[Baltimore Shooter]

At least he didn't think the camera "could be used as a weapon" and shoot them with his new shotgun.

Warren

[Hank Scorpio]

That chick in the black sleeveless shirt is SMOKIN'!

WOW!!!!!

[cameradog]

What about the Executive Producer or Producer who APPROVED the story for air? Were they suspended????

In my career I rarely saw a producer or EP view a story before it went to air. They always approved stories based on what was in the script sent to them by the reporter. The script wouldn't necessarily have indicated the problems here. For instance, the script wouldn't have indicated that we see his face at all, so his comment that he didn't want his face shown wouldn't have jumped out at the producer. It wouldn't have indicated that the reporter stood in his door to block him from leaving. It also may not have included ALL the verbatim, so the producer may not have read everything that was actually in the story. And even if the producer did see everything, it probably didn't read with the kind of condescending tone the reporter actually took.

One other thing that comes to mind is that I wonder how much of a factor the photog played in this. One of the biggest criticisms is that they showed his face for several seconds at the top of the piece, then explained that he didn't want his face shown for fear that someone would come after him. I wonder if the reporter assumed that the photog would cover that video off the top with something that didn't show the guy's face. She DID write to the video of the guy standing there with the gun, but how many times have we ALL had a reporter write to something we can't possibly show, thinking we would somehow work some magic and get the point across without showing the actual video? I know it has happened to me. Even so, I wonder if the photog saw the problem and brought it up with the reporter or simply fed her rope and let her swing in the breeze.

[NEWSSHOOTER3]

First of all, what junior college dorm room does Breitbart transmit from?!? What kind of CRAP was that?

Second of all, this a just a whole bunch of nothing! If its an issue, the EP, or producer, should bear the brunt of responsibility for this hitting the air, IF its really an issue... and its NOT!

[patssle]

The reporter is trying to paint this guy as a "bad person" by buying another shotgun after killing 2 people which was justified.

TV news showing some of that "liberal bias" ;)

[Turdpolisher]

I don'tsee the big deal. everybody is up in arms about how she talked ot an old man. If she had done the same thing to Pookie, Ray-Ray, or Pimp-Daddy Smoove, they'd be high-fiving her from the edit bay to the booth.

He suspension is nothing but a wimpy-@ssed news director bowing to a few calls from viewers pissed about someone asking grandpa tough questions. If it were really a problem, the EP and whomever else touched that story on its way to air would have met the same fate.

[Chicago Dog]

That wasn't the only obnoxious ambush. Those c-stands on the crossover shots of that two-dollar studio set-up were quite distracting. Which one of those two had the spare "studio" room in their garage?

Yikes.

[NEWSSHOOTER3]

That wasn't the only obnoxious ambush. Those c-stands on the crossover shots of that two-dollar studio set-up were quite distracting. Which one of those two had the spare "studio" room in their garage?

Yikes.

Ha! That's all I'm saying... they should be suspended for their assault on my sense of decency! :eek:

[Freddie Mercury]

Here are my thoughts on the ambush video. Finding the man buying a new rifle after having to give up his other two was great. I think when the man made it clear he did not want to be interviewed on camera, the reporter had to make a choice. They either had a vo of the man buying his gun or a story without a face. For some reason it ended up being a story WITH the man's face, and I think that was the biggest infraction here, and it wasn't necessarily hers. It's possible someone was supposed to hide his identity and didn't.

It seems real likely that the man wasn't aware he was being recorded, but I don't know that so I won't assume it. What is clear is that the reporter was being pretty pushy physically, getting in his face and arguably preventing him from being able to leave. As far as the question about the itchy trigger finger, she maybe should have qualified that with "some might say" or such, but it was clear to me she was not trying to hang that label on him.

I think it makes a difference that she did the tag in studio. That tells me this video was in house LONG before it aired. I don't know of a station that doesn't have a system of approval, especially when it's not from the field. If there was a major problem, somebody should have caught it.

I'm not overly enamoured of this reporter or her style, but unless she was responsible for not obscurring the face shot this doesn't seem like grounds for suspension.


Oh, and C-dog, what's up with the Sting quote?

[Canonman]

That wasn't the only obnoxious ambush. Those c-stands on the crossover shots of that two-dollar studio set-up were quite distracting. Which one of those two had the spare "studio" room in their garage?

Yikes.

When that link was posted earlier today, those two clowns weren't there, just the actual video. As it got more popular throughout the day, they apparently felt the need to cash in on the hits their site was getting. Fortunately, the uninterrupted video was still on Youtube as of early evening, without their lame commentary.

Oh, and it wasn't just a few calls. It was a massive outrage by the viewers and they let the station know it through calls, emails, and blog entries on the station's website.

cm

[rocky1138]

wow, I looked at the link early today w/o the crappy commentators. I think the guy is actually TD-ing while "hosting." has anyone done these folks a favor and let the people over at www.breitbart.tv know about Nino's site?

onto some of the comments that they were reading. 'did she cross the line in the questions she asked?' by asking the tough questions? hell that is her job.

'she should be fired for blocking the guy from closing his door' what on earth?!? have these people ever seen celebrities being photographed? those yellow 'journalists' for hire actaully get in people's way & block traffic. this reporter probably would have moved if he even began to close his door.

now that I've thought about it some more, I don't think this is a great news story, but I don't see this as being an aweful aweful piece. so if the reporter got punished then so should the photog, editor, EP & producer too. in this business we work as a team and when the team screws up, punishment should go to everyone involved, not just the pretty face on the TV

[Canonman]

onto some of the comments that they were reading. 'did she cross the line in the questions she asked?' by asking the tough questions? hell that is her job.

Asking tough questions is one thing, but she clearly injected her own bias against what the man had done. Let her ask the tough questions in a sit down interview that the subject has agreed to do. She showed little respect for a person that, as a decent human being, was already upset at having to defend his property, not once, but twice within a month.

cm

[Chicago Dog]

so if the reporter got punished then so should the photog, editor, EP & producer too. in this business we work as a team and when the team screws up, punishment should go to everyone involved, not just the pretty face on the TV

If only that were the case. Unfortunately, it's these stories that make their own meta-headlines. As a result, we all pay because of the idiots thinking this story is fit for air. What in the hell were they thinking?

Over at MediaLine, someone made a very good point: the crew may have been pushed by some overzealous news director to "get them before the guys across the street do." While that may be true, there are certainly more tactful ways to go about interviewing a seventy-year-old man who was put in that situation twice in as many weeks.

Two things ticked me off about this insensitive bitch and her moron crew's hadling of the story:

First, why'd they show the guy in the first 20 seconds of the package if he made it clear he'd only talk if they didn't show his face? Decent, ethical journalists will respect a subject's request if it falls within reason: this seventy year old man, for instance. They sure didn't have a problem "respecting" the request when she mentioned it in her track.

Second, the "trigger happy" question almost made me sick.

Get out of the business, you hack. You're what's wrong with journalism today.

Oh, and C-dog, what's up with the Sting quote?

Rosenblum is obviously too much of a candyass to answer both questions in my old signature, so I got tired "asking," as it were. So, boredom caused me to replace it with my favorite lines from one of my favorite songs, "St. Augustine In Hell."

That, and I'm waiting for you to say something hilarious to reclaim the spot!
;)

[code20photog]

The "ambush" part of the piece, that didn't bother me and I don't have an issue with that. I even don't have too much of a problem with showing his face becuase there was previous footage of him with the police after he shot one of the burglars. I think it's a fine line of whether to show him or not, had they been on private property, then I might have not, but they were in public and the camera was obviously there and on, and he only said no after she started with the tought questions. Too close to call.

But as a few others have said, the "trigger happy" comment to me shows a bias, a personal agenda that she' trying to get across, and for that, I think the suspension is not out of line in this case. I just felt a flippant attitude throughout the entire piece. Award winning journalist or not, you can't let your personal feelings on things like guns filter into your stories.

And besides, I can just tell from that piece alone, this is a woman who's in the business to win awards, have the spotlight on her. There really was no point to this story except to get her some air time, create controversy and get another award with her name on it. Heck, if we had more guys like this defending his property with the business end of a shotgun, we'd have less problems with people trying to break into places.

[SeattleShooter]

The story was about a old Army vet protecting himself and a reporter who thinks that with him doing so is "wrong".

If anyone were to come on to MY property and rob me, hurt me, and/or violate me or my wife in anyway...just give me a second to choose what round is going to enter their head. A 40 cal or a million beads from a shotgun. And I am a liberal.

So...if this were your package that you shot and had to edit...how would you go about doing it? Would you give your thoughts for the approach of the story?

[1911A1]

Would you give your thoughts for the approach of the story?


Yep, and if she insisted on doing the ambush anyway, she'd probably have to do it with another photographer. Just because the reporter wants to pull some bullsh!t stunt doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the old man was completely within his rights to do what he did. She could've approached him in a less confrontational manner and she might've gotten an even better interview.

Instead, she chose to act like a fool and now she's cooling her heels, suspended indefinitely from her job.

Hopefully it'll be permanent.

[Goon]

She uses the same "talk down" tone that Carl Monday used in his library masturbation story, and the same tone that Chris Hansen uses in his To Catch a Predator series. The only difference between the two is that Chris gets a free pass b/c he is dealing with pedofiles. As for Carl Monday he now has his own line of t shirts.

http://20253.spreadshirt.com/-/-/Shop/Article/Index/article/1271244

As for the "trigger happy" question. Would you ask that of a woman who'd shot and killed two attackers?

[Canonman]

She uses the same "talk down" tone that Carl Monday used in his library masturbation story, and the same tone that Chris Hansen uses in his To Catch a Predator series. The only difference between the two is that Chris gets a free pass b/c he is dealing with pedofiles.

You could arguably say that masturbating in the public library is illegal as well. So you have given two examples of individuals who are confronted on camera while committing, or having committed illegal acts.

The man in this story did nothing illegal. Unfortunately, he apparently lives in a part of the city where the criminals are almost equal in number to cockroaches, and are just as hard to get rid of.

cm

[Buck Satan]

Unfortunately, he apparently lives in a part of the city where the criminals are almost equal in number to cockroaches, and are just as hard to get rid of.

Not for him they werent...:)

[Land Rover]

It came across to me like she went into this with her mind made up that he was some sort of blood-thirsty killer and she wanted to point that out to everyone. I noticed her tapping on the box too and that bothered me as well. It was a real story, I just don't like how it was handled.