Violence is seldom the answer, but when reporters follow people around with their cameras, invading their privacy so badly that they have no personal life, isn't it appropriate for people to do whatever it takes to make them cease and desist?
2006-09-07 13:42:35 · 21 answers · asked by Candidus 6 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
To those who are saying, "There is no justification to ever be violent," don't you think that is naive? You really think there is never justification in defending your rights?
2006-09-07 14:02:47 · update #1
To those who are saying, "This was a BAD MAN who scammed people. He NEEDED to be followed around and harassed," don't you think that is what the legal system is for? We have no need for people to be prosecuted in the court of public opinion BEFORE they ever see a real courtroom. Sensationalism results in extreme behavior.
2006-09-07 14:06:56 · update #2
Yes, Carl. You can check it out at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707049/
2006-09-07 14:34:29 · update #3
I was a fire/paramedic for 10 years and watched reporters ask stupid ?'s like " how do you feel about your loved one dying tragically"? They deserve what they get.
2006-09-07 13:46:23 · answer #1 · answered by Bob G 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I work in TV news, and what happened was NOT provoked by the news crew. I think the photog following the lady was not necessary, but in situations like that when people harass you, you're told to start rolling and don't stop til either they leave or law enforcement gets there.
They were doing an investigative piece that helped shed light on this guy who was ripping off people. That's great journalism plain and simple. What if you were one of the people that had their identity stolen? Would you think that we're still a bunch of "sick mo-fo's?"
Being a photographer, I was disappointed that the shooter didn't put the camera down still rolling and help his co-worker out.
2006-09-07 21:01:36 · answer #2 · answered by PhotogInSC 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I usually agree with you but in the particular case you are wrong. The reporter was following the case of a man who has defrauded hundreds of people and was attacked with rocks, teeth, threatened to be shot. I agree that most reporters go to far, but in this case, the man was just trying to expose a really bad individual.
2006-09-07 20:49:30 · answer #3 · answered by rom0801 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Those people didn't have to stand there and talk to the reporter. If the reporter was on their property they should have called the police to remove them. Unless someone physically attacks you, you have no justification for hitting another person.
2006-09-07 20:50:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I feel little remorse for the "in your face reporters" getting attacked. At some point they will push the person past the point of control. Its call the "flight or fight" response.
2006-09-07 20:44:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If someone put a camera in my face and would not remove after I asked them to I would kick their a$$ also.
2006-09-07 22:22:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nobody deserves to beat up another person just because they are annoyed by that person. It is wrong and I hope that guy goes to jail. It's not an invasion of privacy if they are outside.
2006-09-07 20:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by honey 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
stupid woman didn't need to act like that. she should have called the police but instead she took the law into her own hands. the woman was a scam artist and illegal
2006-09-07 20:45:48 · answer #8 · answered by Bob 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
although violence is seldom the answer there is a time when one must "take up the sword"
2006-09-07 20:45:07 · answer #9 · answered by Infinity242 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Kick their *** and take a video of them also, to show what jagoffs they are.
and sell the video.
the "media" is comprised of some sick mo'fo's.
2006-09-07 20:45:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋