Rebecca Attacks Back

[arnoldevns]

Two day suspension is too little IMHO. They need to clean house from top to bottom

So you would fire the entire news department over one story? That seems like an overreaction to me.

 

[grantchester]

Basically, Rebecca asked this gentlemen some tough questions, but that's about it. Just because her questions didn't meet the "Texas" mentality, you all are crucifying her. That's okay, but she may have to move to somewhere else in the country.

Gee, 'AA', I don't think it's about the Texas mentality so much as the man asking that she not put his face on the air, (which she did),asking that she stop recording (she didn't), standing in his car door to keep him from being able to leave, and asking insensitive questions in an effort to provoke him to tears.
My problem with the story is the exploitive nature of the report. It didn't add much information (other than the fact the man had to buy a new gun to replace the one police seized).
And I don't think this kind of thing will go over any better in any other part of the country.
g

 

[Slambang]

So you would fire the entire news department over one story? That seems like an overreaction to me.

Not the whole news room, just key personel for the simple fact they've run a shotty operation over there for years. Its become a "Bleeds/Leads" type of operation and thats just a dang shame

 

[tubetop1]

Basically, Rebecca asked this gentlemen some tough questions, but that's about it. Just because her questions didn't meet the "Texas" mentality, you all are crucifying her. That's okay, but she may have to move to somewhere else in the country.

Gee, 'AA', I don't think it's about the Texas mentality so much as the man asking that she not put his face on the air, (which she did),asking that she stop recording (she didn't), standing in his car door to keep him from being able to leave, and asking insensitive questions in an effort to provoke him to tears.
My problem with the story is the exploitive nature of the report. It didn't add much information (other than the fact the man had to buy a new gun to replace the one police seized).
And I don't think this kind of thing will go over any better in any other part of the country.
g

And of course if you, Grant, had found out this guy was about to buy a new shotgun (not that you would actually try to interview this guy, but if you did) you wouldn't go to the store and verify it? And if you went to the store you wouldn't try to interview him? And if you did, and the guy said "I don't want to be on TV" you wouldn't keep the tape rolling (and let a manager decide whether the video gets on later)? And, lastly, you wouldn't ask him anything that might provoke a response because, oh I don't know, this guy is a little flakey and won't answer questions any other way. Do I have that all? If channel 4 had edited this the right way it could have been a great story instead of a mess. But I don't blame Rebecca for trying.

 

[tubetop1]

So you would fire the entire news department over one story? That seems like an overreaction to me.

Not the whole news room, just key personel for the simple fact they've run a shotty operation over there for years. Its become a "Bleeds/Leads" type of operation and thats just a dang shame

Purhaps iff you wood lurn to spel wee wood taik you seereeuslee.

 

[VERITAS DE VOCE]

So you would fire the entire news department over one story? That seems like an overreaction to me.

Not the whole news room, just key personel for the simple fact they've run a shotty operation over there for years. Its become a "Bleeds/Leads" type of operation and thats just a dang shame

Think of Dallas or Houston, even... name a TV station that isn't around sweeps? :-\

 

[grantchester]

[/quote]
Tube says:

And of course if you, Grant, had found out this guy was about to buy a new shotgun (not that you would actually try to interview this guy, but if you did) you wouldn't go to the store and verify it? And if you went to the store you wouldn't try to interview him? And if you did, and the guy said "I don't want to be on TV" you wouldn't keep the tape rolling (and let a manager decide whether the video gets on later)? And, lastly, you wouldn't ask him anything that might provoke a response because, oh I don't know, this guy is a little flakey and won't answer questions any other way. Do I have that all? If channel 4 had edited this the right way it could have been a great story instead of a mess. But I don't blame Rebecca for trying.
[/quote]

G responds:
Had I found out the guy was buying a new shotgun, I would have gone to the police department to find out why they took his gun away. I probably would have contacted him and asked for an interview. I would have asked for permission to tape. I would have turned off the recorder if he asked me to. I would work to gain his trust, and would have been a bit more sympathetic, and a bit less persecuting. I never record without permission. I always show respect to my interview subject.
I guess I'll never be a big time television reporter, beause I am not willing to hurt people to further my career.
g

 

[Ranger]

G responds:
Had I found out the guy was buying a new shotgun, I would have gone to the police department to find out why they took his gun away. I probably would have contacted him and asked for an interview. I would have asked for permission to tape. I would have turned off the recorder if he asked me to. I would work to gain his trust, and would have been a bit more sympathetic, and a bit less persecuting. I never record without permission. I always show respect to my interview subject.
I guess I'll never be a big time television reporter, beause I am not willing to hurt people to further my career.
g

Defiantely no Woodward & Bernstein here. I hope you wouldn't have hurt Haldeman & Erlichman's feelings.

 

[grantchester]

[/quote]

Defiantely no Woodward & Bernstein here. I hope you wouldn't have hurt Haldeman & Erlichman's feelings.
[/quote]

I don't recall Woodward and Bernstien putting their efforts into getting a sound bite of White House aides crying. Hot dog reporters who badger interview subjects do a disservice to the entire news industry. It makes it that much harder to get someone to share information or go on tape. I know. I have suffered from the fallout. Woodward and Bernstien were police reporters. If they ever treated a cop or lawyer like that, they would never get ANYTHING from those sources again. I've never badgered someone to get an emotional reaction. I have had people treat me like some kind of monster, because of the general perception they have of reporters, based on what some other hot dog has done to them or someone they know. This concerns me. I'm not interested in persecuting Rebecca. I'm just saying, this kind of tactic is counter-productive. News executives who are so concerned about getting a juicy bite that they will treat people rudely hurt our industry. Flame on, Hal, AA, Tube, or anyone else who thinks I'm wrong.
g

 

[tubetop1]

You are wrong. Like I said, if the story had been edited properly Rebecca would be getting high fives for getting that interview.

 

[OnTexasTime]

You are wrong. Like I said, if the story had been edited properly Rebecca would be getting high fives for getting that interview.

While I will agree that a different editing job would have kept some of the criticism down. Many of us in the public would still be criticizing her for stalking Mr. Walton to the Academy Store. The man had declined an interview with her.

 

[mmnassour]

Is that what happened? I thought he had told her that he would be there at that time..............?

 

[OnTexasTime]

from my understanding he told her, he did not have time for an interview and that he was headed to Academy. He did not invite her there to join him. Most of us do not think that being honest about where you are going would to lead to a camera ending up in your face.

 

[mmnassour]

Ah, I see. That makes me think even less of her....and the people who OK's this fiasco.

 

[in3media_be1]

Some of the posts from this thread have been moved to TAKE IT OUTSIDE


http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,84557.msg630431.html#msg630431

 

[JayDavis]

I get tickled at those who boast of their journalism degree. As I recall, many fairly succesful reporters never finished college. Want to be a journalist? "Who, what, when, where, why and how." Congratulations. You passed. Now...major in English or History if you want to learn something else.

Such as the fact that there is no such word as "efforting", or "monetize".

The only people who call journalists "journalist" are journalists. To regular folks, they're reporters. Or are supposed to be.

Excellent point.

Although I am a VERY proud Texas Tech Red Raider and a graduate from that fine University, one of CBS's top talents, Scott Pelley never completed his degree there. He was a student at Tech, yet he never graduated from there.

That is not to say he isn't a great reporter, but he didn't finish his degree plan at Tech.

 

[OnTexasTime]

I was so happy to hear on the news ..............

that Mr. Walton was no billed by the Grand Jury.

http://tinyurl.com/2rbcop

I don't know why FOX 4 didn't get a comment from Rebecca.