WCAU reporter spit on by f-ing moron

[odomski]

http://www.nbc10.com/news/6596005/detail.html

While I hope the little girl recovers soon from the pit bull attack, I think the woman who spit on Channel 10 reporter Tim Furlong should be caged like the animal she really is. This is a perfect example of why I hate stupid people (the "stupid person" I'm referring is the woman who spit on the reporter). That was a big ass hocker that woman spit out too!

 

[bierkenstock]

Good For Her

The TV people are the true wild attack dogs in this story. It's a wonder more people don't cold (BLEEP) the TV bozos who stick cameras and microphones in their faces and ask demeaning and stupid questions ("How do you feel when your house blew up?" "Will you apologize....?" and in this case "Why are they taking you away?").

TV scum are asking for it. And then they moan and cry when someone finally gives it to them.

And Mister O'Domski fails to disclose in his post that he is one of them.

> http://www.nbc10.com/news/6596005/detail.html
>
> While I hope the little girl recovers soon from the pit bull
> attack, I think the woman who spit on Channel 10 reporter
> Tim Furlong should be caged like the animal she really is.
> This is a perfect example of why I hate stupid people (the
> "stupid person" I'm referring is the woman who spit on the
> reporter). That was a big ass hocker that woman spit out
> too!
>

 

[BRNout]

Re: She's a Lowlife

Spitting on the reporter shows this woman to be a lowlife who does not possess even one proton of class. Just like her choice of dog - the drug dealer's best friend.

The guy is doing his job; if you don't want to deal with him, just ignore him. Reporters hate that. But, they love spectacular bad behaviour like spitting.

While I'll concede that the media sometimes DO behave like jacka$$es, that's still no excuse to commit battery.

And, bierkenstock, I can't believe that you condone such crap. Do you also support those moronic Opie and Anthony fans who interrupt live shots? You can't be serious....

> The TV people are the true wild attack dogs in this story.
> It's a wonder more people don't cold (BLEEP) the TV bozos
> who stick cameras and microphones in their faces and ask
> demeaning and stupid questions ("How do you feel when your
> house blew up?" "Will you apologize....?" and in this case
> "Why are they taking you away?").
>
> TV scum are asking for it. And then they moan and cry when
> someone finally gives it to them.
>
> And Mister O'Domski fails to disclose in his post that he is
> one of them.
>

 

[bierkenstock]

Walk a mile in her shoes

I can't believe you buy into all the lies told about Pit Bull Terriers. I once owned one, adopted as a stray. A sweet, loving dog inspite of all the abuse it suffered. A dog who is mistreated enough can turn mean. So can a person, of whatever class, confronted in a terrible moment with TV news droids (not to mention cops).

And drug dealers, like TV Jackals, are "doing their job." I watched the American Experience documentary last night about the Nuremberg Trials on PBS. It, too, was all about people "doing their job."

Ignoring reporters doesn't work. They just run the video of someone ignoring them in slow motion and, in various snide ways, make the person look guilty. Of course, Ronnie used to cup his ear and shake his head while he ignored those idiots. That sort of worked.

I like the scene in The Godfather when Sonny Corleone grabs some news person's camera, throws it to the ground, breaks it and then tosses a wad of money at the photographer. A highly effective act of contempt.

Yes, there must be a better way than spitting, but what? Punch the microphone holder in the jaw? Or for a women, slip the vidiot in the face? A kick in the ballz? If armed with a drink in a glass or cup, throw it? Grab the microphone and stomp on it (which also has Freudian implications)? I am open to suggestions. What is the proper vidiquette for dealing with TV news jerks and their dumb, impertinent ambush questions?

And, no, this is not the same as the O&A stunts. The people disrupting the live shots were not the people the Jackals were going after and they can not, therefore, claim self-defense. But such stunts happen because O&A realize many people hate those prententious ken-and-barbie TV jackals and love seeing them made to look ridiculous.

If somebody stood in front of their neighbor's house and shouted have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions at them coming and going, they'd be arrested for harassment. TV SOB's should be, too.

 

[odomski]

are you crazy?

That lowlife ghetto rat who spit on the TV reporter deserves what she gets. That woman was not made to look guilty. She was guilty. She already had warrants against her. She was also guilty of assault. Spitting on someone is the same as assaulting them. I can't believe that you stick up for lowlifes like that.

I'm sure pit bulls can be friendly animals. However, if they are trained to attack and fight, they will. It seems to me that you are defending people who train their pit bulls to fight. And look what happened in New Castle? An innocent child got attacked and severly injured. It's a shame that you feel the dog's owner is the Little Innocent Angel in all of this. About 10 years ago, the City of Wilmington passed a law that all pit bull owners are to register their pet with the city...in response to pit bulls attacking people randomly. Are you saying the City of Wilmington is being a bunch of dictators for passing a law like that?

Seems to me that you're right and the Media is the "bad guy." If it wasn't for the media, you wouldn't know about assholes like the New Castle ghetto rat who spit on the reporter...who did NOT provoke her. He asked her a question. He provoked nothing. He did his job. It's not the reporter's fault she had warrants against her. She was stupid for getting caught. The news media made her look as stupid as she really is.

Now you can go back to your regular Romper Room message board now. *rolls eyes*

 

[bierkenstock]

Re: are you crazy?

"Are you crazy?" Typical of the insults disquised as questions you TV jackals like to shout at people to provoke a response.

"Lowlife ghetto rat?" Smacks of elitism or possibly racism. Be careful. That's your audience. Whom do you think watches TV news?

How do you know the dog in question was trained to fight? You don't! Typical reckless disregard for the facts in the interest of sensationalism or spin.

Guilty of assault? Not until a jury says so. You TV types should try reading the consistitution sometime - of course that would take time away from important stuff like hairstyling and make-up. But then TV jerks have all that time on their hands to do live shots from someplace a staged "media event" happened hours ago, just so they can say, "We're live."

The story to which you provided a link says this incident was handled by the New Castle County Police, which means it did not occur in the City of Wilmington? However, in one breath you acknowledge that dogs become viscious when abused, trained to fight or provoked and then you defend a city ordinance (and the politically-motivated idiots who passed it) singling out a particular breed.

Slight correction: If the media had not been involved in the story we wouldn't know about it. People get assaulted for real every day - the kind of assaults that require emergency medical attention and may leave someone in pain or incapacitated for the rest of their life. Media can't be bothered with that unless there is some sizzle. But spit on a reporter - end of the world. Second coming. Big story on Action News. Hold the presses. (Same thing for all the attention to Woodward and his camera pointer who are home and not permanently the worse for wear. Thousands of others killed, even more permanently disabled, but the big story on Action News is Bob Woodward.)

You have periodically insulted people on this board (and others) and act surprised, hurt and indignant when those people respond in kind. A bunch of TV reporters stand in front of somebody's house and shout deliberately insulting questions at someone who has not consented to an interview and you say that's not provacative?

Fact is anyone except the so-called "low-lifes" you disdain has total contempt for TV news and its minions - even people in television (look at how TV news is portrayed in prime time dramas and sitcoms). You are convincing me Opie and Anthony may be right. Folks, if you see TV trucks, stop and do whatever you can to disrupt the live shots: Shout the F bomb when the red light is on and then call the FCC and make a profanity complaint. Walk in front of the camera and give Ken and Barbie the bird. Show them how you feel about them and teach them some manners. If you are lucky, one of them may respond and then you can sue.

 

[BRNout]

Re: A question...

If you have such contempt for the media, why are you even here? Surely there is a drug dealers message board for you out there. Based on your posts, you seem to believe that it is an honorable profession....

 

[HomerJay]

Re: are you crazy?

>Same thing for all the
> attention to Woodward and his camera pointer who are home
> and not permanently the worse for wear. Thousands of others
> killed, even more permanently disabled, but the big story on
> Action News is Bob Woodward.)

It's absolutely uncalled for to denigrate someone by using a snide put-down for their profession. These men were working to tell the story of what's happening in a war zone, doing what many pundits claim the media has failed to do. You can't get much more accurate in reporting on the state of the Iraqi military then riding with them first hand. Wartime reporting is hardly the same as local news reporting on a pit bull attack.

Did those gentleman receive more attention than others? Yes. Such is the nature of celebrity. Whether a former actor-turned-president, a civil rights pioneer, a news anchor, a comedian or a pope, your situation will, justly or not, receive more attention than the average Joe.


>
> Fact is anyone except the so-called "low-lifes" you disdain
> has total contempt for TV news and its minions - even people
> in television (look at how TV news is portrayed in prime
> time dramas and sitcoms).

Not a fact at all--it's an opinion. I don't know a single person who has contempt for the media. That no more proves no one has contempt for it than your assertion that everyone has contempt for it.

 

[bierkenstock]

Like a fox!

> It's absolutely uncalled for to denigrate someone by using a snide put-down
> for their profession. These men were working to tell the story of what's
> happening in a war zone, doing what many pundits claim the media has failed
> to do. You can't get much more accurate in reporting on the state of the
> Iraqi military then riding with them first hand. Wartime reporting is
> hardly the same as local news reporting on a pit bull attack.

A camera pointer and a pretty boy who reads Tele-Prompters: To call either "journalists" is like calling a disk jockey a musician.

You can get accurate reporting from serious journalists on their own, not from someone you call a celebrity being taken on a carefully guided tour by military PR flacks. Big-foot Woodruff shows up for a few days and all of a sudden he's an expert. Boy, the military loves it when that happens and they've got somebody who will buy whatever they are selling.

>
> Not a fact at all--it's an opinion. I don't know a single
> person who has contempt for the media. That no more proves
> no one has contempt for it than your assertion that everyone
> has contempt for it.
>

That's like saying "everybody I know likes danz music." Every year they do a poll on public perception of different occupations. Guess who ranks right down there with lawyers and even lower than car salemen? Of course, that's not a fact either; it's a survey to collect public opinion.

> Surely there is a drug dealers message board for you out there. Based on your
> posts, you seem to believe that it is an honorable profession....

For the record, as a Libertarian, I favor complete legalization. But since BRNout brought it up, CBS was founded by somebody who made his fortune manufacturing and marketing nicotine delivery systems. Nicotine has been shown to be an addictive and mood altering chemical. And "journalists" such as Ed Murrow, Mike Wallace and Walter Cronkite took money to sell nicotine delivery systems to the public.

And if you all go back and read the story linked to the original post, there is no mention of drugs or drug dealing in connection with the incident in question. But who cares about accuracy? Certainly not TV news hyenas, who never let the facts get in the way of a good story. And apparently those who consider TV news "honorable" don't care much about accuracy either.

 

[HomerJay]

Re: Like a fox!

>
> A camera pointer and a pretty boy who reads Tele-Prompters:

The nerve, someone is handsome. Let's dismiss him based on his looks.


> To call either "journalists" is like calling a disk jockey a
> musician.

The mere fact that you disdain broadcast journalism doesn't mean they're not journalists.

>
> You can get accurate reporting from serious journalists on
> their own, not from someone you call a celebrity

Yes, I called him a celebrity. I call those in the public eye celebrities, no matter their field. Being well known and being good at what you do are not mutually exclusive.

>being taken
> on a carefully guided tour by military PR flacks. Big-foot
> Woodruff

Name calling...always a mature way to make an argument.

>shows up for a few days

He's been there many times; "a few days" is simply inaccurate.


>and all of a sudden he's an
> expert.

Never said any such thing. Many reporters and camerapeople cover multiple topics; that doesn't mean they're "experts," but it does give them a solid knowledge base from which to speak.

>Boy, the military loves it when that happens and
> they've got somebody who will buy whatever they are selling.
>

This raises an interesting question. Which is it when it comes to reporting on the war? Half of the people swear the reporters aren't reporting the "facts" that things are going well (presumably what another group you choose to resort to name calling for), while the other half says they're reporting only what the administration wants them to see.



> >
> > Not a fact at all--it's an opinion. I don't know a single
>
> > person who has contempt for the media. That no more
> proves
> > no one has contempt for it than your assertion that
> everyone
> > has contempt for it.
> >
>
> That's like saying "everybody I know likes danz music."

No, I made it quite clear referring to my circle of knowledge was not enough to make the kind of blanket generalization you did.

>
> > Surely there is a drug dealers message board for you out
> there. Based on your
> > posts, you seem to believe that it is an honorable
> profession....
>
> For the record, as a Libertarian, I favor complete
> legalization. But since BRNout brought it up, CBS was
> founded by somebody who made his fortune manufacturing and
> marketing nicotine delivery systems. Nicotine has been
> shown to be an addictive and mood altering chemical. And
> "journalists" such as Ed Murrow, Mike Wallace and Walter
> Cronkite took money to sell nicotine delivery systems to the
> public.
>

For the record, as someone who leans to Libertarian views I agree with legalization, and that's why I didn't go down the whole drug path in the first place.

 

[bierkenstock]

Re: Like a fox!

>
> The nerve, someone is handsome. Let's dismiss him based on
> his looks.
>

Excuse me. These people are hired for their looks. Actual work is done by writers, editors and producers, who are there to make these mannequins look good. They collect the information. They whisper into the "talent's" ear plugs and tell them what to say. They pre-interview subjects and then write up questions for the "talent" to use on-camera. Sometimes they do the actual interview and the talent is edited in later.

>
> The mere fact that you disdain broadcast journalism doesn't
> mean they're not journalists.
>

The fact that they are not journalists is the reason I disdain them.

> > on a carefully guided tour by military PR flacks.
> > Big-foot Woodruff
>
> Name calling...always a mature way to make an argument.
>
The term "big foot" is used by the aforementioned producers, writers, editors and actual field reporters to refer to "celebrity" air talent who fly in and take over the story they have spent days, weeks or months working on and actually developing. Did you ever wonder how "the stars" cover so many "big stories?" They don't. They just front.

>
> Never said any such thing. Many reporters and camerapeople
> cover multiple topics; that doesn't mean they're "experts,"
> but it does give them a solid knowledge base from which to
> speak.
>

(1) See above. (2) Speaking on camera is different from actual reporting. It's all show biz. Big name "talent" blows in. Does a few pre-arranged interviews. Gets their picture taken wearing a helmet. Somebody else puts the piece together. "Talent" records stand-up and voice-over. TV and radio news are not about covering news; they are about appearing to cover news. As close as these people ever get to reporting is checking the wire, reading newspapers and looking at press releases.

>
> This raises an interesting question. Which is it when it
> comes to reporting on the war? Half of the people swear the
> reporters aren't reporting the "facts" that things are going
> well (presumably what another group you choose to resort to
> name calling for), while the other half says they're
> reporting only what the administration wants them to see.
>

I was wondering when somebody would bring this one up. Walter Cronkite first used it in the 60's. He said he put mail that said he was biased one way in a pile, and mail that said he was biased another way in a second pile. If the two piles were about the same size, he figured he was doing his job. Maybe media distortion is the one thing all sides can agree on. This arguement is akin to saying if truck drivers and gourmets hate a restaurant, it must be good. Every time these people cover a topic about which I know something, they somehow manage to get something wrong.

The mantra for TV news should be "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

PS: Last night, this same NBC10 Delaware "reporter" Tim Furlong had a live shot about a Dover newspaper employee being fired because of comments posted on his personal blog. Furlong stated the story was something views would see "only on NBC10." That is unless they had read the story in the News-Journal the day before, or had seen the story on a Salisbury station carried through-out lower Delaware on cable, also the day before. Furlong stood alongside a highway "reporting" "live" after 11 pm, even though the interview and B roll material had been shot during daylight. What was the point of having this guy - plus crew - spend over six hours hanging around Dover, other than so he could say he was "reporting" "live?" This was not breaking news at 11 pm last night. As with most of these so-called "live shots," nothing was happening. Once again, TV "journalism" is all smoke-and-mirrors, dog-and-pony.

Furlong is not that pretty but he does have the on-camera presence and manner of an infomercial pitchman (sort of Tony Little without the pony tail and all the muscles).