Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« George Allen's thugs attack journalist | Main | Oaxaca update »

October 31, 2006

Marilyn Musgrave's men maul media

Watch how the handlers of the notoriously homophobic Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's partake in the latest GOP craze: mauling the media.

When the Progress TV crew approached the Republican Congresswoman on the street, her handlers tried to intimidate them and force them off a public sidewalk. When that didn't work they put their hands on the reporters' faces, on their bodies, and on their camera equipment.

One of Musgrave's people was obviously trying to provoke a fight, getting in the reporter's face and sneering, "What are you gonna do about it?"

"It" being the reporter's polite request for the thugs to get their hands of people and equipment.

What a pathetic spectacle, all to avoid a simple question from an undecided voted in Musgrave's district: "Given the choice, would you rather save a soldier's life, or prevent a gay marriage?"

Bigots are bullies. Never forget it.

HT: Pam Spaulding

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d834f69eed69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marilyn Musgrave's men maul media:

Comments

This was a juvenile stunt, where a fake journalist asked a stupid question that he pretended was from an "undecided voter" ( yeah, right ) in order to provoke a reaction, so that he could protest the reaction that he provoked.

If this jackass "journalist" dislikes the fact that this congresswoman supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, he should vote against her, give money to her opponent whatever. He shouldn't pretend to be a journalist and stalk her on the street.

Most unimpressive.

Mmm.... (buzzer) bnnnnnk!

No, I think that Marilyn Musgrave's people acted like (fill in epithet)s.

They're real journalists.

--They're real journalists.--

Yes, and they were just trying to clear up a question on behalf of an "undecided voter"! Ha!

I think, were I heading into such a situation (as this, or Stark's) I'd start carrying pepper spray; the circumstances would, probably, be justified, legally, and the "pour encourager les autres" effects might be worth the hassles.

It would make thuggish staffers think twice before manhandling people.

Phantom: The problems are 1: Even if he was, "protesting", or engaging in sandbag reporting there is no justification for this sort of behavior, so you can burn that strawman.

2: It's part of a http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/10/thugs-in-suits.html>trend and the Right side of the aisle is the one doing it.

TK

So, Phantom -- right-wing advocacy journalists (Fox) are "real," but left-wing advocacy journalists are not only "fake" but deserve to be roughed up?

Oh shit, this just gets better and better. The GOP should just go all the way, full-on stupid and run Borat for office.

The notion that our exalted elected officials should have to answer questions from the common rabble...it's ghastly! The insolence of it!

Truman's adage needs updating: If you can't stand the heat, go on Fox News and whine like a peevish 3-year-old.

What counts as "real media" nowadays? Fox? Progress News? Seems like much of media is moving away from the non-partisan approach and to a clearly partisan one.

If a news group is clearly partisan, like Fox News or Progress News, should politicians ignore them and rough them up? I understand they don't want to talk to them, but it's certainly no reason to rough them up and intimidate them.

So these "fake journalists" should be hepaed with scorn, unlike "real journalists" such as Jeff Gannon?
Is that what you're saying, Phantom?

Hello?

I bet Thomas Jefferson would consider bloggers journalists resembling the same type of media that existed during the revolution.

Phantom, there is no such thing as a "real" journalist. Even you are a journalist, and if you ask a question to a public politician, you don't deserve to be manhandled, intimidated, or thrown to the ground just because they don't like you or your question.

http://www.bu.edu/cdaly/whoisajournalist.html

All

I find it interesting that there are two posts of "stalker/harrasser" journalists in quick succession.

Their sole intention was to intimidate and to provoke a reaction, and to then whine when the reaction was given.

I disagree with people like Ned Lamont, many different NY politicians, for example, but would never chase them down the street or try to deny their right to speak or assemble or go about their business.

And I've never cared for local TV news people who do similar tactics, which I might say they normally reserve for those convicted of crimes etc.--not politicians who cast votes that they didn't like.

This is heinous behavior on the part of these two faux journalists. If you want to really move civil discourse down the tubes, keep this sort of behavior up, provoke an equal right wing reaction --and I guarantee that it will happen if this shit keeps up.

Musgrave is the one who should have carried pepper spray, and used it. Each of these two faux journalists/stalkers should have been arrested.

Each of these two faux journalists/stalkers should have been arrested.

So does that make you a faux journalist? Is Linsay a faux journalist? How was what they did "stalking" if they were standing right in front of them and asking questions? Doesn't stalking require you to try hiding your identity? They might have been at the very least confrontational, but stalking? Not even close.

...but would never chase them down the street or try to deny their right to speak or assemble or go about their business.

How were they in ANY way denying them the right to speak or to assmemble or their right to go about their buisness? If you are a public figurehead, and a journalist asks you a question in front of a camera, you can either 1.) say "no comment" or 2.) keep moving or 3.) talk to them. You don't need to start grabbing their camera equipment, you don't need to verbally get in their face and threaten them, and you certainly don't need to put them in a headlock and wrestle them to the ground. You're just making an excuse for their gestapo like behavior.

It would be perilously easy to grab my camcorder and a buddy and ask inane loaded questions of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and so on.

I would love to stand in the middle of the Castro district with a Marriage Protection Amendment stand, and accompanying literature. Video cam ever present to detail the ensuing pandemonium.

I never cared for gotcha journalism at any level… this is beyond that.

George Orwell said….

“Evil is done by little men in starched white shirts who never raise the tone of their voice.”

Why do they never raise their voices…..well…they don’t have to.

I commented on the Marilyn Musgrave, because there we appear to see more of the ambush approach by the so-called journalist.

She didn't want anything to do with him, but nonetheless he came up to her, invading her personal space, following her around when she changed direction, when he knew that she had no intention of answering his ludicrous question.

The guy with the microphone (self-described journalist)
should indeed have been maced, or arrested. And I'd say the same thing if it was a "journalist" from "Rove TV" or whatever going up to Nancy Pelosi saying "why do you want our soldiers to die"? or another question about as smart as what this genius asked Musgrave the other day.

Deeply stupid acts like this by partisans weaken their own cause, a lot. You can't imagine how bad this looks, and not the way you think.

I would love to stand in the middle of the Castro district with a Marriage Protection Amendment stand, and accompanying literature. Video cam ever present to detail the ensuing pandemonium.

Nothing saying you can't, it's your first amendment right.

I never cared for gotcha journalism at any level… this is beyond that.

Your right, when they start wrestling you to the ground, put you in a headlock and almost bash your head into a window, yeah it's truly beyond that.

>Deeply stupid acts like this by partisans weaken their own cause, a lot. You can't imagine how bad this looks, and not the way you think.

Mmm... I have to say, I need to turn those statements back at you, Phantom. You can't imagine how bad this looks, and not the way you think. I would also add that, if it were a republican reporter getting roughed up, I don't even need to go into the loud outcry that they would raise.

--I would also add that, if it were a republican reporter getting roughed up, I don't even need to go into the loud outcry that they would raise.--

Well since this guy wasn't a reporter, I fail to see the comparison. If he's a reporter, every caller on Michael Savage or Rush Limbaa is a reporter, and so is the guy muttering on the subway about the laser beams in his head.

This guy didn't seek to learn any new fact, or opinion. He sought to harass.

Give me a for instance of a "rethug" using asshole tactics like this, and I'll condmemn them to. The "Progress TV " guy is the instigator.

He has a fine future at Air America, I'm sure, or in the county jail.


She didn't want anything to do with him, but nonetheless he came up to her, invading her personal space, following her around when she changed direction, when he knew that she had no intention of answering his ludicrous question.

It wasn't like she was a grocery store shopping with her kids, she was at a politcal rally, so they were well within their rights to ask her questions. They weren't invading her personal space, they guy was right beside her asking her questions and the aid walked beside her grabbing the camera. They weren't even near their personal space. The question may or may not have been ludicrious, I don't know anything about the candidate or the issues there, however, it doesn't give them the right to start grabbing the cameras and start bullying the reporter. If they felt the question was rediculous, she should have said, "I'm not going to comment on a clearly partisan question". They're reaction was wrong, and indefensible. If you're a public figure, you either have to deal with people in an effective manner, even if you don't agree with them, or face ridicule like this.

Well since this guy wasn't a reporter,

He was in fact a reporter. Define to me what your definition is of reporter, it's probably incorrect. Because he's not from a well established media source like Fox, NBC, CNN or a major newspaper? Who cares. Today, everyone IS a reporter, especially if they have their blogger, doesn't matter if you're part of a major corporation or not. However, that doesn't give people the right to brownshirt them. Doesn't matter how legitimate they think the person is, they're still required to show some courtesy, no matter how they disagree. So if some school teacher was there with his class, and asked a question they didn't like, they deserve to get beaten up too because they aren't from what you classify as a legitimate news source?

Was "Common Sense" written anonymously fake news as well? Do you need a license to be a reporter? No. Do you even need a journalism degree? No. If that were the case most the Republican talking heads out there would be out of a job.

Right. It seems pretty clear that both camps, Musgrave's and Allen's, were frustrated and angry at being asked unflattering questions, and couldn't think of a damn thing to do about it other than beat the shit out of the questioner. Not the best representatives for the old Freedom of Speech and Protect the Constitution thing.

Common sense was fiery political commentary. Thomas Paine did not stalk other politicians, getting within a foot or so from them, clearly in their personal space.

To paraphrase Mr. Benson, I've read Thomas Paine, and this guy is no Thomas Paine!

Again, defend stuff like this, and you're bringing it on to "your side" too, and before long there will be no dialogue at all.

These tactics will soon have all politicians protected by bodyguards, etc. This is simply indefensible.

"Tactics?" The only "tactic" was standing near a political figure and asking them a question. Are you seriously trying to say that one scrawny guy, even if standing a foot away from Musgrave or Allen, was really threatening to them? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure this was just bullying.

Phantom, these people physically beat a reporter asking them questions. If it were a democrat or a green, I'd certainly speak against it too, but unfortunately, it's a Republican. I don't think that calling this anything but bullying is really going to sell.

Common sense was fiery political commentary.

So? Any less fiery than the war in Iraq?


Thomas Paine did not stalk other politicians, getting within a foot or so from them, clearly in their personal space.

How do you know he wasn't asking questions of politicians? Again, it's not stalking if you're standing in front of the person to ask them a question from 5 feet away. He wasn't "within a foot" by a long margin, and wasn't 'clearly in their personal space', and was in fact not anywhere near it.

The comments to this entry are closed.