'Reporters' - Good or Bad

[braydonosu]

I found this article on cnn.com today and couldn't help but post it here.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/cri...ter.arrest.cnn
I guess it's up to you to decide who was in the wrong, but I believe that the media has started to use 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of the press' to get away with a lot, but this time he was disrupting a police scene and the cop was not going to have it - the sad part of this is that the 'reporter' is now back at work while the police officer is on desk duty.
I am not a person that likes the media or the police. I think that the media uses it's telivision and internet access to shove their biased agendas and opinions in our faces. When was the last time that you saw news coverage of a person reaching out to help someone less fortunate or a firefighter rescuing a child from a burning house that was not surrounded by stories of a man killing his family and himself where they ask so many questions of family members who are still grieving, or blasting government officials for some 'questionable' tactics that kept our country safe. The media gives murderers their 15 minutes of fame, while showing a 30 second tidbit about the hero returning from war to surprise his child at school on their birthday. IMO 'reporters' do not care who the step on or who they hurt as long as the make thier deadlines. Do you remember the first Die Hard, where the 'reporter' figures out who is in the building and he goes to her house to get the childrens reactions? How long will it be before a real reporter does something like this?
I don't believe in censorship, but I think that the media needs to take responsibility and accountibility for thier reporting, and as Americans we should not give so much power to the news agencies and their 'fair' reporting. Everyone knew that JFK was hooking up with Marilyn Monroe in the oval office, but nobody cared, and the media never reported it. Clinton has a little affair with an intern and the whole world judges him - The Bush Administration OKed some tactics designed to get information out of terrorists about other attacks and the media crucifies them. Sure they lied, but should there have ever been a story that they had to lie about the begin with? IMO as long as an American is not being violated I don't want to hear about what the government is doing - if it keeps me safer or does not affect their ability to lead - it's not a story I want to read about.
I want to challenge the media to report on the fire in my city where a hero rescues the sleeping children, the person that handed out blankets and soup to homeless the night the temps dropped below freezing, or even the damage that pot holes are doing to our cars, but please don't give murderers their 15 minutes of fame or vilify a President for getting some action or keeping us safe.
Sorry this is such a long rant, but after seeing too many stories of reporters beat up for their own stupidity and getting a 'story' out of it, I have had enough.

 

[firestorm]

Wow - I couldn't disagree more. From what I could see, The reporter walked up to do his job, was told to leave, and was leaving. He made a smart remark about 'doing his job' and stating that his camera man can "shoot if he wants to" while on the way to his truck - Both are completely valid and legal points btw. The officer then freaked and secured him against his (the reporter's) truck.
Furthermore, at the beginning, it is even said that the reporter was trying to interview "witnesses to a traffic accident" - witnesses being the key word, not family members or people involved - odds are he was a traffic reporter - which I for one appreciate when trying to find my way home.
This cop was out of line - he was even holding the reporter against the truck (notice the cops hand inside the reporters back belt line to secure him) when the reporter said he'd go. The officer then said "you're not going" while he was STILL securing the reporter, and then proceeded to cuff him - this is absurd. Let the man go - he's tried to leave twice now, and you cannot arrest someone for being a smart---. (or rather you can, but if you do it while being taped, you get tied to a desk and rightfully so).
Your general premise that the media chases junky stories I agree with - but this is a poor example of that, imo. Your second premise that the media is biased is overly obvious to me - the media has ALWAYS been biased - as long as people write, people have opinions, it will always be so. Go read some of the things written in Lincoln's elections, or even prior, if you don't believe me...multiple sources and from varied sources are the only way to overcome that - there is no such thing as impartiality in something people are involved with, imo.

 

[reefraff]

I agree that there has always been a bias in media but until the last 15 or 20 years it was never so one sided or obvious. Last presidential election was a absolute joke. They started promoting Obama in the Democrat primary.
As far a the video I wont even click on a CNN link after witnessing the deplorable way they handle the TEA party protests.

 

[firestorm]

I agree that there has always been a bias in media but until the last 15 or 20 years it was never so one sided or obvious. /QUOTE]
Again, I disagree, but I assume this comes from 1 of 2 areas, and I'm betting on the second.
Either, 1, you've forgotten your US history.
or 2, you're referred to very recent history.
There are problems with both, imo, and broken down by section - too tired to type more than bullets atm.
1).
-1860's, lincoln cited bias in southern border states newspapers and closed several.
-beginning of 20th century, when Hearst owned several large newspapers, and arguably created the spanish-american war, specifically falsifying reports, etc.
Just for a couple of examples
2).
-Conservativism owns talk radio, has for quite some time now.
-Fox news is no less biased than MSNBC or anyone else - they just choose a different slant.
As I said, bias is not going to be avoided, imo - just be aware of what point of view you're reading or watching, and, on anything important, watch both. If you're not open to both points of view, then there's no point in watching the news except to find out what your party is saying so you can 'tow the line' - to quote a couple of great truths
"In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. "
Alexis de Tocqueville
"There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle."
Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[braydonosu]

So maybe the first time through I missed some of the dialogue, but the smart... traffic 'reporter' was still being a jerk - It seemed to me not only that he was doing his job there, but that in his opinion he absolutely had to be there. Clearly the cop thought that he needed to hang on and interview later, but he needed to do it then. Nobody knows what happened before the tape started, maybe the cop was interviewing the wittness, or wanted to interview him before the 'reporter had a chance to 'interview'. And i'll disagree with you that he was leaving - he and his camera man may have backed off, but he was still spouting off and his camera man was still filming after how many warnings to leave. Clearely he does not respect an officer's authority.
reef - I was trying to beat around the latest election. I am well aware that the media and Oprah got Obama elected. I'm not down on him yet, we'll see how well he does, but I do agree the last election was a very good example of the media securing votes. Heck if you workd for another new source that backed republicans you were called unamerican by everyone.

 

[firestorm]

He had a right to film and he knew it. He was walking away, to his truck - he has freedom of speech and he knew it - he had a right to say what he said. He was secured against the truck after walking to it - and then offered to leave multiple times AGAIN - and was then arrested.
Whatever authority this cop had on the scene was obviously overstepped. That hardly looked like a homicide scene - there wasn't even tape up and only one officer. The only way it was justified was if the pre-story (before what we saw on tape) included the officer asking him to leave a few times, and the reporter had walked to his truck at least once before...otherwise, imo, once the reporter is walking to his truck, he's leaving, the officer has won.
That should have been the end of the story. For a good cop, it would have been.

 

[braydonosu]

I agree that all new agencies have a bias in one direction. I just hate reporters sticking their noses into place that they don't belong under the disguise that they are 'reporting what people want to know' They routinely create their own investigations into politicians and every day americans. I saw a reporter get punched out because he ran onto someone's property and shoved a camera in his face because this landlord allegedly was not taking care of some maintenence problems at a house that he owned. I would punch someone out too that ran onto my property with the sole intent to slander my name and reputation.
Politically they dove head first into Gitmo and the 'torture' of suspected terrorists. I don't know wbout you, but I believe that this 'torture' kept us from other attacks and also helped us take down other terrorists.
Clinton hooked up with an intern - who cares? Did it affect how he ran the country?
Don't get me wrong the Chicago Gov should have been thrown out of office, his actions did affect americans, as did Madoff, it's the stories where "CNN investigates" or "Fox News investigates" and it's nothing more than a witch hunt - or the stories where a kid shoots someone at school and before the cops reach the parents for questioning the news vans are already there blaming the parents.
What about the news that

[hr]

[hr]
used the restroom today? Or

[hr]

[hr]
was seen kissing a boy today? Are those news? Supposedly 'people want to know' so that gives photographers the right to shove hundreds of cameras in celebrities faces every time they step out of the house. Where should the line be drawn between freedom of the press and a someones personal rights be drawn?

 

[firestorm]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3024966
Where should the line be drawn between freedom of the press and a someones personal rights be drawn?
Ahh, the fun question...that's the balancing act...sometimes it goes to far one way, and sometimes the other.
Being an ex-Army Infantry officer, my opinion of torture is that it is never justified. Both candidates agreed this year - that says something. How many innocents do we torture to prevent a possible attack? And remember, these people were never tried, never convicted of anything...does your answer change if you know one of them personally? If so, why? Did the north vietnamese torture of McCain save any of their citizens? He was a pilot with valuable information after all...if it did, then its ok by that logic.
Could care less about who sleeps with who - what's between two consenting adults should stay that way, imo.

Private property is different than public property. Different rules and laws apply.

Slander and libel lawsuits exist for reasons besides making crimzy wealthy enough to buy a 450ish gallon tank

 

[uneverno]

#1 reason journalism students cited for choosing their major: I want to help change the world.
That's not journalism, that's Op/Ed.
Bottom line is there's no such thing as objective reporting. Never has been, never will be.
The greatest spoil of war is the writing of its history.
Napoleon
And many of the "police" (TSA in particular) have no idea what Constitutional Rights they are sworn to uphold and protect.
Who will guard the guards?
Plato

 

[braydonosu]

I guess that all depends on your idea of what exactly torture is. Stabbing someone over and over with something - torture, hooking someone up to a car battery - torture, sleep deprivation - it's called school/work - humiliation - high school bully stuff, waterboarding - hot topic issue that I do not believe is torture (our military is subjected to waterboarding in training are they not?)
I agree public v private is different, but again how far is too far? Even if you or I were in public would we be OK with photogs hounding us and shouting obsenities to get a rouse out of us so that they can sell a picture for thousands?
I know that there are slander suits, but that seems to be the theme to every "(insert news station) Investigates" story - if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all

 

[braydonosu]

Unev - I like both of your quotes - they are both very true

 

[firestorm]

I tend to agree with you on the second two. Unfortunately, there is a market for that garbage, and bear in mind, plenty of celebs go courting the media when it suits their needs (its a love hate relationship).
On the torture issue, I'll never agree with it. Some branches are taught how to survive waterboarding, along with other methods. Bear in mind, waterboarding has been called 'the drowning torture' in previous other countries. Mainly people who are going to work behind the lines. Its done for a very short time, under controlled conditions. Simliar to how in Ranger survival training we eat bugs, rabbits etc - it might suck, but its under controlled conditions and we're aware we're not at risk of death...a lot different than real life.

 

[uneverno]

The Geneva Convention, which we are signatories of, defines waterboarding as torture.
Yet, that's the same Convetnion we use to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo - they have no legal rights under the Convention because they didn't adhere to it in combat.
I'm not commenting one way or the other on whether either is right or wrong.
All I'm saying is ya can't have it both ways.