If you are not reading this on a computer that can show you YouTube videos, GO TO A COMPUTER THAT CAN SHOW YOU YOUTUBE VIDEOS. Lakeshore Laments described this video as “Fox News reporter [Jesse Watters] messing with the Think Progress clown” (at CPAC), which is accurate, but not nearly an epic enough description. Which is not Lakeshore Laments’ fault: some things needs to be seen to be believed, and Watters giving an impromptu explanation of how to do a video ambush while never breaking stride is one of them.
If you’re wondering why the Online Left so totally whiffed on gotcha video journalism in 2010, it’s because stuff like the above represented the pinnacle of their craft. Heck, it was the pinnacle of their craft in 2008 and 2006, but back then the Online Left had the advantage of being early adopters.
They just never bothered to get any better.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Not to mess with the way that Watters rolls – because that was awesome - but you don’t need a sound guy and a dedicated camera guy to do this sort of thing. You do need another guy to film you being filmed, and you do need to be prepared, and you do need to keep your hand from shaking – but you don’t need the gear that Fox News takes for granted. Just ask Bob Etheridge.
Moe Lane
Dan Spencer
Dan McLaughlin
Jeff Emanuel
Perfect!
edintexas Monday, February 14th at 10:52AM EDT (link)“…but you don’t need the gear that Fox News takes for granted. Just ask Bob Etheridge.”
A perfect ending to a perfect story.
I don't know about this, Moe
nycenterright Monday, February 14th at 11:21AM EDT (link)This sort of response seems a little dodgy (pun intended). I think he would’ve been better off going with something like:
“That’s stupid, the insider is lying/doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Thanks for your time, have a good day.” and then walk away.
No, actually that would have been the dodgy response.
Moe Lane (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 11:43AM EDT (link)Watters essentially owned that exchange from the start, and the TP guy probably *still* doesn’t know where the multiple stab wounds on his torso originated from. The truly, truly nasty bit was at the very end, when Watters reference the guy’s hand shaking; that was personally where I lost it and started laughing so hard that I was gasping. Anybody who does any kind of video interviewing on a regular basis is going to watch the entire thing and shake his or her head that TP thought that this was smart to put up.
And, of course, nobody else in the outside world is likely to see this video anyway.
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
It's unbelievable. . .
msctex (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 12:11PM EDT (link). . .that we are seeing this at all. What exactly did whoever posted the video on YouTube think they could achieve for their cause? Watters wasn’t even mean or unpleasant to the guy; at most he was dismissive, which was damn near unavoidable.
A post best titled, “Here’s One of Our Operatives being Intellectually Dismantled by a Conservative” would not seem of help to their efforts in any way, but we live in inexplicable times.
Why respond to such a outrageous question?
blogan2 Monday, February 14th at 12:59PM EDT (link)It would be like if someone went up to a Democrat and asked them to respond about Obama meeting with space aliens and that he plans on selling the moon in exchange for unicorn armies.
"Madam Speaker,
rickbull Monday, February 14th at 9:00PM EDT (link)what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance?”
“Are you kidding?”
With that exchange in mind, tell me why a Fox News reporter should even acknowledge that this twerp with the cell phone camera even EXISTS.
What he should have said: “Come back and talk to me when you have a name for your “insider,” and even sketchy details of a story that Fox News made up.”
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
Well, that was a completely pointless video
Raven (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 1:39PM EDT (link)I don;t see where Watters was embarrassing the guy. I think the embarrassment came in when whoever it was decided to post this for public consumption.
“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Luke 22:36
My Response
qsclues (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 4:00PM EDT (link)I think my response would have been: “Getting a tour of the Fox News building does not make you an ‘insider’.” Just the right blend of sarcasm and properly dismissing the question. That may just be my opinion, though.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
3 : term used by a liberal to concede an argument
This is all very meh
maurizio689 Monday, February 14th at 5:56PM EDT (link)n/t
Oh, how sweet. *Thank* you for admitting...
Moe Lane (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 9:39PM EDT (link)…that I stung your side with this post. It’s always nice to get feedback from the Left on that sort of thing.
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
kowalski: Unfortunately, you forgot to use...
Moe Lane (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 9:40PM EDT (link)…the word ‘victim’ in your response, so I’m going to have to toss you for inconsistency, moby. Ta!
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
Ambusher flunked Journo 101.
taxpayer1234 (Diary) Monday, February 14th at 10:04PM EDT (link)The little tyro’s question was worded something like this: “Um, like, I heard from somewhere that, like, a Fox News insider says you’re all making up bogus stuff, and, like, is that true?”
What obligates Walters to answer such a vaguely-worded question with anything but a vaguely-worded answer?