Right now the hot topic seems to be about that Weinner guy and after watching the video of reports hounding him for questions it really got me wondering about this. Now i'm just using that as an example this discussion isn't about Weinner, if he did it, didn't do it, political nature, etc... it's about the news media.

Do you think the news media at large is or is becoming quite abusive towards the people they are interviewing? Also is there anyone specific you can think of that is abusive as in interviewer to the person they are questioning/interviewing?

Not really. Well, not in the UK anyway. But maybe I'm just not watching the right shows.

Mighty general question is very general.

It obviously depends on the reporter and on what is being reported. This usually happens when reporters hassle politicians.

Have we become so soft that we care about the well being of someone being interviewed? I think if they agreed to an interview and are worth interviewing, the information that's supposed to be extracted from the experience takes precedent over their temporary emotional state.

"News media at large," no. Some reporters, yes. There are those reporters who make a rabid pit bull look friendly, and there are others who could interview Adolf Hitler without coming off as anything but impartial. The same thing that goes with pretty much anything about people- some are, some aren't, some more so, some not so much. :shrug:



Yeah! They're being interviewed, fer chrissakes! Waterboard'em!

I'm reminded of the Star Wars fan-made "COPS" parody called "Troops." "All suspects are guilty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects!"

I dunno, Paxman can get pretty nasty

Its all about the $$$ :disguise:

I tend to avoid watching those kind of things becuase its human nature to be biased...and everyone is wrong except me! :swear:

Nancy Grace. That chick is a vicious harpie... not that i would call what she does really interviewing anyone, she just kinda runs her mouth.

I think that if you're going to be a public figure, you have to deal with the overly aggressive news media. That being said, it does annoy me a bit when reporters are quite obviously pushing an agenda, even if the obvious ones are better than the ones who try to hide it.

Reporters will do anything to over-dramatize a story. Tragedies have to be more tragic. Crimes have to be more heinous. Any possibility of a natural disaster has to be 100 percent impending doom. To that end they often have to goad the people they're interviewing into giving them some kind of reaction. The nicest thing you can do to a reporter is to punch them square in the face on camera. The worst thing is to completely ignore them.

What happened with this Weinner person?

Reporters will do anything for the story. It's their livelihood. If someone gets hurt, they don't care, it makes for a better story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4dKIS4wSs

Thats what I'm wondering. Are you talking about New Yorker Anthony Wiener? Or something else? Hot Dogs perhaps?

EDIT: Although to be more OT, I think there are some reporters that are way too aggressive in their interviewing style. I won't mention specifics (although I wonder if you can guess which "news" agency they belong to?), but there are definitely some "reporters" that just seem more interested in getting their word in rather than letting the interviewee get their message across. It really isn't news, just talking heads calmly yelling at each other, it's kind of stupid.

apparently weinner sent a picture of him wearing his boxers to some girl. I heard that the photo didnt even show his face and it was just centered at his junk.

Reporters abusive? i dont really care but it makes it more entertaining.

Depends on the reporter i suppose.

I don't know about abusive, but I think a lot of news reporting in the U.S. nowadays has more of an interest in creating controversy that will get them ratings than actually informing anyone. I've seen a lot of interviewees railroaded into fueling controversy, etc. A lot of the news networks have gotten pretty good at implying things without actually stating them as fact as well, which allows them to stir up controversy that doesn't even have any basis in reality without being accused of wrongdoing. I sometimes wonder how much fact-checking goes on...it seems like a lot of the news networks in the U.S. just speculate and imply whatever they feel like and then update the story later when they actually have facts. Of course, by then it doesn't matter. Everyone has already formed an opinion and told all of their friends and neighbors, so it becomes true whether or not it's actually true. *cough*foxnews*cough*

I don't quite get the abusive part. You don't have to talk to them. God knows I sure as hell wouldn't. At least, none of the U.S. media.

I do think that stalking people and following them around and making their stay in public unbearable should have consequences, but other than that, people need to stop having such thin skin.

The news media make their money off advertising and their stories. If they don't have content that is new and unheard of, they don't stand out. Reporters get aggressive in order to try and get the information that they need from these people. Some of them are more aggressive than others. They might get more and more aggressive to try and elicit a reply from a non-responsive person, or they might let it slide and just go and write bad stuff about them in tomorrow's edition.
Getting the best quote possible is important to a reporter in order to make their stories better, so of course they act aggressively.

Which they have the absolute right to do.

Politicians are elected by the people to do things for the benefit of the country, they need to be hassled so they dont lie, adn actually do thigns right.

Sure, but where do you draw the line between questioning someone's behavior and running a smear campaign? From what I've seen there's not much evidence that the guy sent the picture himself, yet the news media is already treating the situation like a huge scandal. The problem is that when (and if) the truth ever comes out it won't matter. The damage to the guy's career will already be done, and I imagine that the broadcasters that destroyed his career over an opportunistic opponent getting a hold of his Twitter password will sleep just fine. (Just a hypothetical there...I'm not saying the guy is definitely innocent, but it's quite possible.)

Now, some politicians are important enough to avoid having their careers destroyed by these smear campaigns, but what about the damage done to the democratic process? How many real issues came and went through congress while the voters were preoccupied with the existence of a birth certificate?

Yep your right, but he could easily say, I duid not send it, I wa hacked, thsi si a criminal offence and turn thsi around and help himself. Which he si not. And what do you expect the American Media to do, each and every broadcaster is a propaganda machine for which ever side they affiliate with, so.. yah.

Also.. it sfunny cause of his name and the photo but never mind.

Well, the news networks could have waited to hear his side of the story before implying he was guilty, for one thing. Like I said, they break the story first and then make sure they have the facts straight later. That's my problem with it. By the time any facts at all begin to crystallize the damage to the person's public image has already been done.


It is pretty funny. :teehee:

I'd get really annoyed if I constantly got hassled like politicians and actors do. Enough to just turn and punch one in the face, but I guess that's something they learn to deal with.