Drunken Congressthingy Assaults Student For Asking a Question
 

Hmm. Well. Isn't this interesting. An obviously intoxicated NC Congresscritter, upon being asked a single question by a well-dressed University student standing on a public sidewalk, reacts with violence and attempted theft. Refuses repeated requests to desist from his violence, and instead escalates against people who had the temerity to ask a single question.

Private non-violence met with State violence. These two kids are to commended: they showed far greater restraint and forbearance than I or many other people would have in the face of a drunken assault.

That's not State violence; that's an asshole. Let's turn the hyperbole down a notch, shall we?

Is Mr. Ehteridge an agent of the State? Yes.

Is he protected by the State? Yes: ask yourself these two questions:
1: What legal consequences will Mr. Etheridge suffer?
2: What legal consequences would the filming party have suffered if -he- had dared to lay hands on Mr. Etheridge, or a Policeman, or any other State functionary?

Ergo, State violence. The violent actor is an agent of the State, in all likelihood protected by the State from any sanction for his violent act.

"Asshole," while certainly accurate and appropriate, fails IMO to address the State-sanctioned aspect of this.

"State-sanctioned"? Really? This was on some official memo, "act like a prick"?

Horseshit.

Back to the ignore list with ye.

Whooo, boy. Dunedan, you're spinning this shit so hard I'm going to need one of those compression suits they give the guys that fly F16s.

Yeah... I must be a liberal. As far as I see it, when one old guy in a suit acts a fool, it isn't The Man Trying To Keep A Brother Down.

It's not any different than that fatass bruiser cop in Chicago beating up the female bartender. It wasn't The Man, just some ogre.

Actual problems with The Man: The LAPD purchasing bayonets in the '90s and that recent police beating outside the B-ball game in Maryland.

I do like to see the obsolete codgers that run our fine nation make douchebags outta themselves. It reinforces my urge to vote.

The -individual- is just an ogre, yes. The State support and condoning of such ogreish behavior (pun intended) is my primary issue here. IMO the State supports and condones such things by not only not punishing official State actors who commit such egregious violence, but also by drastically enhancing the penalties for a non-State actor committing similar or lesser acts upon a State actor, thereby enacting an egregious double-standard backed up by threat of legally-sanctioned violence.

Where are we going with this? That the American people are being oppressed by drunken congressmen?

Dunedan,

It isn't the state, though. It's the good old boy network. Believe it or not, they're actually two separate entities.

Example: covering up "an incident" while deployed. It wasn't the DoD that covered it up, it was some O-rank. People, not institution.

Just because you wear a uniform, hold an office, etc. doesn't mean that you always act in an official capacity. Especially when drunk.

Possible Topics For Discussion:

1: State/private-violence double standard.
2: Violence not unique to Rightists, despite stereotypes. See also: Peaceful Tea Party Rallies Where Nobody Got Their Fingers Bitten Off.
3: The apparent self-appointed "right" of State functionaries (in this case a drunken Congressman) to enact violence at will upon those Plebs who annoy them.
4: Whether a person with such an obvious impulse-control problem should be allowed to continue working for people he sees no problem assaulting on the street.
5: Whether "Public Servant" still means anything: when the Butler assaults the Master Of The House, or the Steward, or one of the guests, the Butler gets fired and then arrested, after all.
6: Whether we should be paying a Congressman's salary for someone to get that drunk on "Company time."

Dunedan, no one, and I mean NO ONE is a 24/7/365 agent of the state. It's just not possible. With that in mind, was the Congressman acting as an agent of the state? Did he abuse his powers?

No and no, in my mind.

As for "egregious violence" I don't see any of that. Sure, he's guilty of the lowest level of assault - a misdemeanor - but this isn't even the most violent confrontation I've seen today (right now, that's the Vince Young upside-down-Hookem-Horns debacle). This isn't even in the same ballpark.

For the State to have done anything wrong the state has to, you know, do something. If an off-duty cop beats someone up, that's not on the city/state/county. It's on the cop. I just see a drunk on his way back from a 5 martini lunch proving he's an ass.

---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

Is this a concession that your OP sucks and that you want this thread deleted so you can try again? Because that sure seems appropriate based on what you've done thus far.

You're smarter than this thread makes you look, Dunedan.

So what when Senator Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the United States Senate, was that Civil War? Give me a break, Dunedan.

But yeah, that Congressman is an asshole and I hope he's defeated in November.

you know as well as I that this congress bottom feeder will face no charges and simply have to offer up a BS apology, whereas had it been the other way around, this student would already be arrested for assaulting a public official.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

how about a state that mandates off duty officers carry their service weapons so that they may respond to emergencies while off duty? and then when that officer kills an unarmed man after that guy improperly grabs the ass of the woman that the offduty cop is with? would that be on the state?

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

why not charged with a crime?

And if it had been a young black male, the poor kid would have gone to jail for 99 years.

If it had been hot brunette with big fakies working for Citibank... no charges would have been filed.

Let's keep it going.

Irrelevant to the clip. Start another thread.

You, of all paranoid loudmouthed pro gun mofos, should know that guns are operated by people, not institutions.

Too early to tell. There's been no opportunity for the "state" to do anything wrong yet. So far, it's just a drunk guy assaulting a reporter. The drunk guy happens to be a congressman. There are other things which could still happen.

1) The kid can press assault charges.
2) The congress can file an ethics violation (I guess?).

Now, if the kid files charges and there's evidence the "state" gets them dismissed, then I agree with Dunedan. If congress "can" file an ethics investigation and doesn't, well then I guess I agree with Dunedan again.

I think we all expect these things to happen at the same speed the information gets dispensed. I'll have the patience to see how it plays out.

Where's the ethics violation here?
And if the kid presses charges (and he has every right to), what kind of penalty would be sufficient to satiate Dunedan and his ilk? The chair?

No? Take a swing at an off-duty cop sometime, watch what happens. Better yet, blow past one on your motorcycle while he's riding in an unmarked car. The last guy managed -not- to get his shit kicked or his head shot off, but he's also not getting his computers or helmet-cam back anytime soon either.

No, it's a concession that I should either have been excruciatingly explicit in my OP, because people here can't seem to find anything debate-able in the OP other than my opinion of the violent act itself and need their hands held to find the topic, or should have just stayed out of Tilted Politics altogether.

I would say "thank you," but...no. I'll simply say that this thread's making a -lot- of people look dumber than they are, myself included.

I'd settle for a Congressional impeachment (loss of job upon conviction) and charges/trial/conviction on whatever variation of Assault & Battery is on the books in DC, with punishment commensurate to what an ordinary person would receive for assaulting another ordinary person.

Obviously we're all giant idiots here, Dunedan. Can't seem to wrap my head around what has got you seeing red like Charles Bronson in Death Wish III.

I mean, I'll freely admit that I've only got a pair of braincells to rub together... I'm a big dummy... but I think the rest of the crowd is pretty smart.

How about this:

Take a swing at a reasonable guy with a CCW. Just because you choose to attack another or defend yourself doesn't make you The Man.

If some refrigerator-sized dude at the grocery store gets all pissed and decides he wants to kick my ass into next Thursday and I as, say, a paranoid ice cream truck driver, draw my gun... it doesn't mean I'm playing GI Joe. It just means that I don't want to end up in the ER with my spleen in a bucket next to me.

And in conclusion:

I would be tempted to say class warfare but that young man had a tie on.

However, taking a swing at an off-duty cop will get you arrested, convicted, and jailed (if not shot) for Assaulting an Officer: compare the penalties for Assaulting an Officer and Simple Assault sometime. If he shoots you, it will be ruled a "clean shoot" and he will go home. Ask the folks on the Danziger Bridge in NOLA. Taking a swing at someone with a CCW will probably result in him taking a swing at you, and you being arrested for Assault. If he shoots you, he'll go to jail for murder (as he should). That's the difference.

Not that I've studied the topic for years or anything, but rumor has it that cops aren't legally bulletproof.

As I said above, the stuff that pisses you off is an example of the good ole boys network, not the organization.

Cops can't use their "assaulting an officer" gimmick to start fights. Most DAs see right through that shit.

Just as in the OP... it isn't the formal mechanisms that are failing should Drunky McWhitebread get off clean.

You wanna bitch about something... bitch about how old white men are ruining our country by playing nobility.

...

Oh, wait...

I can see my way to this. However, the question then becomes: "To what degree do the State and the "network" function in concert or opposition? Are they symbiotic, parasitic, antagonistic? My contention is that the State and the "network" have become so closely intertwined as to be all but inseparable, that it is a symbiotic relationship (each gains something), and that the two institutions usually work -very- closely with one another to protect their mutual interests.

You don't wanna get me started on the Federal Reserve and Title Of Nobility. Now political homogenity and the rise of an un-landed psuedo-aristocracy (Kennedys, Bushes, etc) is a good starting point, but that's for another thread.

Well, I'm not certain (sincerely), but I hope that the Congress ethics book includes "You aren't allowed to take swings at reporters who ask you questions." On what basis? Well, I suppose a free press needs to operate under the assumption that petitioning their government won't result in a sidewalk beatdown. That might tend to discourage a free press, if not acted upon by an ethics hearing. Again, I don't know if this is addressed in the ethics handbook, I just hope that it is.

Man, if I got into with a dude in a bar who then grabbed my hand firmly, but without intent to cause pain, and then went to the nearest cop I could find to press charges, do you know what he'd say? He'd tell me to piss off because that's some trifling shit. And he'd be right.

If the situation were reversed, and a citizen held a congressman's hand like that, would that person be charged? Maybe. And I can see good arguments both for and against that (we should protect congressmen closely because political intimidation is especially heinous vs. who cares, no harm done). But if you think that act shouldn't earn a citizen a charge, then it doesn't make it right to give Etheridge a charge here. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

This is an issue of criminal behavior, not unethical behavior. Unless, of course, you want to consider every criminal act an unethical act, and that's just redundant.

You've yet to prove that this has shit to do with the State. He's not in the Capitol Building or an office building. He's not at a rally. He's walking down the street. The onus is on YOU to prove that he's somehow an agent of the state.

Congressmen aren't cops, so I'll point and laugh at your unclothed emporer/strawman/red herring. You who else are agents of the state? DMV workers, building inspectors, garbagemen, t-ball coaches, coach guardsmen, ambulance drivers, meter maids (outside of Chicago, of course) and accountants. So if one of these punches me in the mouth on the street because I asked them a question, are they acting as an agent of the state?

I've already conceeded that there's a misdemeanor here. There's definitely no felony. And I've seen no evidence that suggests that this is being swept under the rug or that anyone's failed to prosecute or anything of the sort.

So how about either sharing the rest of the story with us, Paul Harvey? If there isn't any, this just makes your post look like a partisan smear campaign.

...I wanna be punched in the face by a T-ball coach! How awesome would that be?

Someone get a camera and t-ball coach to NOVA stat! I'll pay to see this.

Can you spot the gestapo?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3054/tball.jpg

One could argue, that since the "reporter" referenced him by his title and asked him a question which was definitely in the context of his duties as a federal Congressman that it's implied his response and subsequent actions were in the context of his title and duties to that title. I don't view it that way, but I'm sure you could find 12 jurors who view it that way.

Fuglystick, I'm simply saying that a congressman beating up a reporter for asking a question does get pretty close to the line on the government allowing a free press to operate...freely. It could be argued that such a lashing out would create a chilling affect on future reporters. So, to that end, it could be seen as a congressman has an ethical responsibility to accommodate the press.

I'm waiting to see how this plays out before I feel any indignation. Honestly, I don't really care for how the video is framed/shot/edited. Something seems fishy about it...

His title is an honorific. Just like the "Coach" I'm gonna pay to pop Plan9 one in the mouth.

So basically, Cimmarron, you're saying that anytime anyone asks any sort of government employee a question, the responder is a state actor. Given a large enough jury pool, I'm sure I can find 12 jurors that think you're the Lindbergh baby.

No, I'm repeating that I don't see it that way. But, one could argue it that way, and could be successful.

Shut the fuck up, man! Bastard, now I have to change my identity, again! See you next week as Cimarron29415.

Uh, is it me or have the tags been modified since this thread started?

not irrelevant. it's not about the gun specifically, but the policy. If the policy is followed and then a crime is committed within that policy, is it on the state?

why would you take a swing at an off-duty cop? why would you take a swing at anyone?

I can't believe you played the 'old white men are ruining our country' card. :shakehead:

...

Did you totally blow out your logic because you assumed I would not want the citizen charged if the situation was reversed? Bad, Guy44, Bad.

Well now, -this- is a step in the right direction. Props to Drunky McWhitebread for apologizing and admitting his error.

From CNN: No sidestepping, no obfuscation, no complaints of his status or the like, just; "I had a long day, I over-reacted, I was an ass and I'm sorry. No excuse, Sir."

My day just got a little better.

What to do with all that righteous indignation now?...

Save it for a less classy Congresscritter. This one seems to be something of a Mensch at least. I would never have expected such a direct, no-nonsense apology from a politician.

Stay vigilant, Dunedan; someone is bound to disappoint you sooner or later.

With politicians, the disappointment is so continuous that it takes someone of the calibre of, say, Edwin Edwards to truly elevate my opinion. Fast Eddie was corrupt, easily purchased, and prone to spending other people's money on his mistresses. But he was also honest, forthright, and a lot of fun to watch. That's the "best" I ever expect to see from a pol: honest corruption and good entertainment. The only exceptions I've seen have been Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Paul. I gave up on honest government and non-whingey politicians a LONG time ago.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictur...lyGrail007.jpg
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

/ Couldn't help it.

CONTEXT ALERT!

The "student" in the video is an Andrew Breitbart's plants. You may remember Andrew Breitbart as the main force behind the totally dishonest smear campaign against ACORN.

In other words, we're almost certainly seeing a heavily edited clip without the context necessary to understand what's going on.
Source

Short of checking his prostate, what justification did Drunky McWhitebread have for assault, again? I'm all sorts of confused.

I grew up in a pussy world where grown men couldn't just wrassle each other over harsh language and a differing opinion.

*hides those damned dueling pistols*

I don't give a shit if the kid said he was a puppy peepee-sucking commie, it doesn't justify any physical contact.

Even the in-yo-face-with-the-gizmo and annoying reporter talk doesn't warrant that kind of legal bad touch.

...

This is totally mamby-pampy assault of course... as Americans we're guaranteed to see hotter action on Maury.

Honestly, if I was a judge? I'd let it slide for both idiots. My ruling would be: "Stop being total choads, mmkay?"

Tagging this thead as "OP = Utter Fail" is a bit of a dick move, regardless of where you stand on the issue. Just my 2 cents.

Yeah, I saw that. I don't know if Dunedan did it (good humor) or Jazz did (clever dickhead). Either way, I think it's hilarious.

I in fact did not see that, and I cannot see it reproduced now.

I must therefore assume that either the "tag" has been altered in such a way that I am unable to see it, or that the person responsible for the edit has changed it back.

In either case, the person responsible has made these changes without my consent and with nothing like a good God-damned reason. Whoever is responsible is indeed a dickhead, and I have made the appropriate complaints.

Whoever you are: This is bullshit. You can disagree with the premise of the thread all you like, or with my interpretation of the evidence, or with my presentation thereof. This, however, is crossing a pretty big line. Fuck off, jackass.

Indeed.

http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/a...sin/wtftfp.jpg

Aah, there it is. Thank you. I remain a Child Of The Early 90s (we still had film-strips and records in school) and sometimes miss things. I thought something untoward had been done with the subject line, or something of that sort. My objections stand, however; albeit in modified form.

Edited To Add: Upon further examination (with help) it would seem that this function is open, albeit indelible. I had been unaware of such a thing. This bears more thorough investigation. Apparently this board OS allows one to do all sorts of ridiculous things.

Before you lemmings form a giant pile of righteous outrage at the bottom of the cliff, I didn't alter the tags either time. I'll admit to laughing, though.

Lemmings? Please... we're more like Republicans blaming Obama for X.

...

And I think everybody was laughing until they realized Dunedan didn't do it.

I'm usually the only idjit 'round these parts that does stupid shit with tags.

I got a question, when was it reported that this guy was drunk? There was no article attached to the OP or anything other than the video to tell us this. I can't find anything on the net saying anything about drinking.

I'm starting to agree with WR. Seeing where the video comes from is making me wonder about the whole story.

Anybody else see the irony in Eden questioning the state of inebriation of another from North Carolina?

...

Yeah, the video is totally suspect. Just like every other political video posted on here.

You look at it... form an opinion. Then you look at it again and see how it's edited for spin.

"Bloodthirsty" Apache chopper pilots vaping those "innocent" photographers, anyone?

It's difficult to say. It's difficult to know whether a drunk man would sooner punch someone in the face or slap on a nasty hug attack. I just don't know....

His speech did seem a bit slurred when he first started speaking.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- The ability to edit other people's tags was something that I left open for people to help better define the topics, help out the community and good general welfare. Alas it always takes one moron to ruin it for everyone. I have removed that ability from all groups except for staff. I have extremely good chances of finding out who did it (we track EVERYTHING here) I don't take to kindly to those kinds of sophomoric escapades. I don't tolerate it from staff members and have removed such staffers, and I won't tolerate it from members. In the future, you should direct such kinds of complaints to the Admins, we have 4 extremely active ones, cynthetiq, The_Jazz, amonkie, and SecretMethod70.

Jesus, I wrote the tag.

One way or another, this thread is gonna result in a witch hunt, amirite?

No, it won't. It wasn't overly cool of you, but no harm done. We don't have rules to govern this sort of thing, but the tag editing feature is turned off for now. The day a rule goes up banning bad jokes is the day the countdown clock for said banning starts on yours truly. Over/under is 2 days.

the fact that this thread has devolved into an argument about tags says everything

I admit to not reading all this thread because some of it seemed to be truly and unnecessarily harsh on Dunedin, for expressing his opinion.

First, I understand exactly where he is coming from. This could be considered state violence against the people. Rep Drunk Fuck probably would never have laid hands on the kid if he didn't have Rep before his name and the protection that comes with it.

Does that mean that we are oppressed? No, but it shows these congress fucks believe they can get away with anything they fucking want to. And that is wrong. ANY congress person that lays hands on a civilian like this should be asked for his resignation or at the very least tried for more than just assault because this is an abuse of power.

Secondly, had the kid reporter been black, Hispanic or female, this would probably have been headline news until Rep. Dunk Fuck resigned. The fact it was a white male student and someone has posted it was a set up... says something about the reverse racism and ignorance of some people. Rep. Drunk Fuck should be asked for his resignation REGARDLESS of whom, what race, what nationality, what whatever the kids is. The same could also be said based on party affiliation... Dem it's ok... GOP turn in your resignation type press.

To imply that someone from Congress was set up to do this is flat out ludicrous and trying to find reason to find an excuse for his behavior. I did not see anyone trying to lay hands on the Rep. I did not see any provocation and if having a microphone and being taped is provocation to Rep. Drunk Fuck.... then why hasn't he done it to CNN, ABC, etc reporters? Being a congress person means having cameras and mics in your face at any given time. The fact is he laid hands and intended harm to someone and did so knowing that as a Dem Representative he would get off and nothing would happen to him.

I missed you Pan. Glad to have you back. I believe you should expect replies. :)

Does it matter if he was drunk or not?

Well, in a way I think it does. If he did this sober it is an even worse showing of his abuse of power and what he knows he can get away with.

Pan, I'm not going to bother responding until you can be bothered to read the whole thread. Especially since you've clearly got no clue about the information revealed as it developed.

Dude, it gets better.

Speculation.

Actually, I don't think it does. If he believed he could have gotten away with anything, he would have at the very least taken their cameras, don't you think?

I'm not sure about this. While I will admit that his resignation should be considered, I don't think it should be based on the accusation of an abuse of power. Rather, I think it's a breach of trust and integrity. His position is a senior one in a legislative capacity. If he demonstrates an inability to abide by the law of the land, then the trust the people place in him is in question. But where do we draw the line on this?

I'm not at all interested in what-ifs. They're useless and unwieldy. Because we would need to go further and say, "Had the Congressman been Black or Hispanic, he would have been forced to resign already.... Had the Congressman been female, the actions would have been ridiculed.... Had this been at night, the Congressman's actions would have been justified as self-defense...." Also, I don't know how the suggestion that it was a setup is reverse racism. Generally, you're really stretching here—really stretching....

Hole. Lee. Shit.

The stupidity, it is blinding.

Apologies. There isn't any real discussion happening in this thread anyway, other than crazy gibberish, so I leave it to you more brave souls.

State violence against the people....now, thats just bizarre.

While not condoning at all the thuggish actions of the congressman, IMO, part of the problem is these new "journalists" who are not out to seek or report on the facts, but to ambush the "enemy"

Perhaps when they display even minimal levels of journalistic standards and ethics, such responses might not occur.

I agree with you. We've delved into paparazzi journalism. Ideally, this guy would have scheduled an appointment and sat down with the Congressman. I don't know how realistic that is, however. Do congressman sit down with the blogger side of the media? Do you have to be AP to get consideration? Perhaps, some do and some don't.

One sees a lot of this in the ambush documentaries of the day as well. Michael Moore comes to mind first, but certainly it happens on all sides of all issues. They aren't even documentaries, when you think about it. The situations are so contrived as not to document events but to "create" events to film.

just for the record, I am not singling out the conservative ambushers.

I agree, Michael Moore started it all.

It doesn't have to come to scheduling an appointment. I think members of Congress are leery of anyone purporting to be a journalist, but not displaying any credentials or identification. You can see the AP or CBS or FOX guys coming; they all wear their IDs.

You speak with a blogger...they edit it...you have no recourse, unlike speaking with a reputable media person (even FOX!)...well maybe not O'Reilly and his ambushers.

actually, I'd argue that someone who has a tendency toward assault would be doing it regardless of his job description

Exactly, I've seen people do worse then what he did for much less and they certainly didn't have Rep before their names. Sometimes people are just giant assholes regardless of their stature or title, I doubt he pulled this stunt because of his position its probably just his nature. Although I have to say calling this "assault" comes off as slightly ludicrous in my opinion, sure it probably is by the letter of the law...but c'mon it looked like a slap fight between two 10 year old girls.

On a side note did anybody crack up when he put his arm around the kid at the end? It was such a picture perfect belligerent drunk moment.

I can see that as a possibility or the possibility that because of the title and entitlements that come with it he has an overblown ego and belief he can get away with such things.

If he was committing murder, embezzling funds, getting his kid out trouble when he is driving around with 10 kilos of coke, or taking handouts from lobbyists, I could see you being right pan. This incident? Take away the suits/ties and it looks like an old redneck trying to push around some young kids that were bothering him. An asshole is going to be an asshole no matter what title he has in front of behind his name.

For there to be a question of impeachment or any judicial action, the "student" has to press charges. I don't condone what he done (he shouldn't have grabbed the kid), but this seems like this got blew up to massive bullshit proportions. I can't wait to see the kid on TV with his arm in cast/sling talking about his physical pain and emotional trauma.

so you're advocating that journalists should be licensed and authorized?

I think you may be putting words in his mouth...er...keyboard. I think he's simply acknowledging there's a problem present in this new world of information sharing. Everyone now has a platform to easily share information and because of that they may feel they have a right to...detain...anyone and demand answers. Imagine if anyone who wants to feels they can stop you on the street and ask you a question to be published to the world and there is some sort of expectation by the "reporter" that you MUST stop and answer their questions until they are satisfied. What if you have tickets to a show, or it's your son's birthday? There is a life after work, you know.

We all need to acknowledge there's been a change in how information is collected and that the line is now blurry on protocols in collecting that information. Now, I will be the first to say that our nation's congress are slaves to their master, the people. However, there has to be a limit to when their day ends and they simply become a working man who's going home to hug his wife and watch a little TV.

I don't have any answers. It's events like this which will more strongly define the new protocol. Hopefully, that protocol will never condone assault of the "reporter".

Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing — after group forced to disband | Raw Story

thought you might be interested in the congressional report that shows nothing true of the nonsense from the right about acorn and nothing of any substance behind the "big government" hit video willravel mentioned above.

caveat lector, you know?
geez.

Not at all.

I am suggesting that if these pseudo-news site/blog "ambush reporters" want to be treated as journalists, they should learn about,, and practice, journalistic standards and ethics.

These standards and ethics are self-regulated on the association and organizational level. (Read: it ain't going to happen unless these pseudo-news site/bloggers join said associations and organizations.)

I agree...thats the problem and I dont have a solution other than to suggest that when they stalk a member of Congress, that member should just turn and walk away. And if the stalking continues and becomes overly aggressive, take it to the Capitol police.

Well true, but the other side of the coin is that even poor journalistic standards don't warrant sidewalk beatdowns! Wait a minute, maybe they do. Maybe that's what we need to improve journalism today.... :)

I tend to agree. As much as I like the idea of people having a vehicle that takes journalism out of the hands of big corps and allows the average Joe a voice, there still needs to be some journalistic ethics/standards involved. Some random guy trying to get hits on his blog and build his online rep by using whatever tactics he can think of to get attention isn't what we need either, it makes the blogging/amateur world of journalism look bad and gives people an excuse to ignore it all together.

Kind of a double edged sword I suppose, but in my mind the good probably outweighs the bad...we need more voices not associated with big money.

Nevermind.

I saw no "beat down" in that video (not that I'm condoning the behavior, but let's not pretend the congressman took a swing at these guys)

I agree, the more voices, the better we are served...IF they have any self-imposed journalistic standards.

But the other issue is the credibility of what you hear or see on a video interview. With a credible news organization, there is some level of internal controls to assure that the interview is not doctored or manipulated for political purposes. With an "ambush journalist" acting independently and w/o standards, there is no such control..and little recourse.

i saw a fake student who shouted something in teaparty and then when challenged as to his identity refused to answer the question----which almost anyone who was in such a situation would do. and had he answered the question the situation would not have escalated. but the point of this nitwit charade lay elsewhere: in the use of the special language of teaparty, it sets up an identification between conservative viewers and the "student" which is then given "content" through the sophomoric use of text and rudimentary editing.

the clip made no pretense to journalism. i'm not sure why the topic of journalistic ethics comes up in relation to it.

rb -

Wouldn't that be the point we are all making? Because there were no journalistic standards (not ethics) in this person's approach, the interviewee's response becomes more understandable. It doesn't justify violence or the detention of another person (holding them so that they can not leave), but the reaction seems to possess more of a human element (rather than this alleged "State sponsored" element) when one considers the approach.

I could find a dozen ambush blogger reporters hurling inflammatory questions at a congress person. Half will be conservative and half will be liberal.

it's not journalism. i suppose i would say the same thing but more strongly.

and i'm not at all sure i buy the parallel with michael moore, which seems paper-thin. at least michael moore asked coherent questions. and identified himself. and assembled the resulting footage **with context** into coherent documentaries that conservatives might not like but which nonetheless present arguments and evidence that are worth taking seriously. but this...this is just bullshit.

I think we are arguing the same thing here.

It isn't journalism because he didn't identify himself, he asked a stupid question, his motivation is not to expand the knowledge of his audience, rather to shock the audience with his edginess or assertiveness or something. However, he believes it is journalism because, heh, he's got a camera and he's asking a pseudo-political question to a politician. But anyone with access to a BestBuy and a train ticket to DC can do that.

Which brings us back to the point. If this guy were an actual journalist, and not a blogger, then he would be trained in and would most likely follow journalistic standards. He would have most likely gotten an interview from the congressman. Of course, then we wouldn't have this video or this thread. And then where would we be?

I'll just have to disagree with you about Michael Moore. His "interview" of Heston was ambush reporting, no different than this. What's worse, he went to the man's home.

To say nothing of his "creative" editing of Mr. Heston's speech in Denver.

The kid can feign shock, outrage, and injury but the truth is that he got a response that was so much better than what he had been going for.

As for it being assault, you can hardly get a cop to come to your house after your car gets broken into, is it really reasonable to call grabbing someone by the wrist and neck for two seconds assault?

Heston allowed an interview at his residence. Nobody can know what the full premise disclosed to Heston was but it wasn't as if Moore was an unknown person at the time. If you allow yourself to do an interview without doing some due diligence you deserve what you get.

I would expect nothing less than this response from you.