Here's some background, for those not familiar:

"Do you not believe in freedom?", what a totally legitimate question, I can't imagine why the protesters were annoyed.

Maybe they should have walked in there withouth the FOX badges.

I love how she tries to establish a connection between the Convention and the protesters in the end, being totally aware of the fact that she might be talking to morons who need to have "1968" explained to them.

LOL... poor poor Fox... cant go into a crowd of 1000 protesters, asking antagonistic questions without being confronted...

Um, I believe the question came after the crowd started to forcefull stop him from doing his job.

Apparently, he's not allowed his rights to freedom of speech.

What were the antagonistic questions, exactly?

"What do you stand for?" "What does that banner your holding mean?" "Why are you protesting?"

Seems, legit to me.

Here is another article, from AOL:

Horses**t.... when you march into the midst of a political rally asking people if they dont believe in freedom... you are asking to be pushed around...

its fundamentally stupid to stand in the middle of the street and try to force your way into a crowd like that... this reporter got EXACTLY what he was looking for... a bunch of protesting liberals pushing him around... made for GREAT news didn't it?

It only seems legit to you because you side with them in your beliefs... we have had this argument on many many occasions....

I didn't see you raising a stink when a republican aide tackled a man for asking tough questions during the Patreaus interviews... hrmm...

Again, he did not ask them why they didn't believe in freedom out of the blue… only after they started shouting and shoving him, trying to shut him down. They were trying to take his RIGHT to FREE SPEECH away, despite wanting to exercise their own. At that point, it was a valid question… "Why don't I have the right to be here?"

He walked up to people carrying banners, marching for "a cause" and asked them what they believed. Isn't that what he was supposed to do? Talk to the people who WANTED to be heard?

And more importantly, he has the right to be there, he has a right to ask those questions. The protesters do NOT have the right to attack him! I don't understand why it's okay to "blame the victim," although, I suppose it's just because he's from FOX… and "FOX Bad" is engrained in some peoples mind… right before "common sense" kicks in.


As for the "Patreaus" thing… no idea what you're talking about. Link me up.

Maybe I'm missing something. When was he pushed? When was he "attacked"? At what time (per video counter) was he pushed.

Standing still in a moving crowd one may get jostled about a bit, but I guess I missed the shoving.


No one kept him from asking questions as far as I could tell, the protesters just didn't answer him. What did Fox news expect from a crowd left of the aisle? . Tantamount to Olbermann showing up at a protest made up of people from the right side of the aisle.

Again... that is crap... if you are trying to interview a march... you dont stand in the middle of the street and try to oppose the flow of people... if anything HE was trying to interrupt THEIR right to free assembly. Just because nobody would talk to him he started getting b***hy and the crowd carried him away...

LOL... again... walked directly into the mass off people, trying to stop them, obstruct their way... trying to get faces on camera... it was a bulls**t media tactic and he got exactly the result he wanted, which was the APPEARANCE of force used against him... which was really just him trying to fight the flood of people and failing...

Fentwin is right, he wasn't attacked... in no real sense of the word... he just couldn't stand up to the flood of people that... if he was a COMPETENT journalist, he wouldn't have marched into the middle of anyway... I've never seen a journalist try to march against the flow of people in a protest... till now... and the guy had the big "Dubbya Grin" on his face before he did it... he knew what was going to happen, he WANTED the appearance of violence... so dont try to make this some big issue when its a dumbass reporter trying to exploit the seperation of the parties to his own gain...

and OH PLEASE... first its Bush who is the poor victim, then its the whole administraion, then O'Reiley and now its all of FOX who are the poor, poor little stepchildren in all this, just trying to do their jobs and getting all roughed up... its very dificult to play the victim when you have your foot on someone elses neck...


Of course not... if I can find the time to dig up the video i"ll post it

So funny. How many people do you think are there just to protest? About nothing.

Isn't this the whole point of protesting? To get coverage? I guess I don't see how a reporter asking someone questions is anti-free speech but you wrote interrupting "free assembly" so maybe that's not what you meant. Still, I don't really see what he did to be so annoying. Asking questions? Really? He's a reporter and they are supposedly protesting about something they want people to know about. Bunch of dunces if you ask me. I personally think protesting like they are is stupid. There are far better ways to get something done than causing a traffic jam.

Addendum:

I finally had time to view the second video that Blue posted. It does appear that a few twatwaffles did try to take the camera away from the cameraman.

I am by no means a fan of Fox news (noise) but I also "reckon" every crowd has its rectocraniate aspect of the population. I find it very saddening. Bluster and bile accomplish nothing.


It didn't appear as if the whole crowd was involved, and a policeman just stood by and watched (Eh, what could be do on his own?). I chalk this up to whacking a hornets nest then acting surprised when you get stung.

Well, he wasn't standing still, as the video shows. He jumped into the march, and started marching along with them, asking questions. Did he tell anyone to stop marching? Did he prevent anyone from marching? Then how was he interrupting anything? That's just silly!

He didn't get b***h because they weren't answering him, he got "b***hy" because they were yelling at him, and tried to wrestle the camera away from his camera guy. Wouldn't you get b***hy?


So when someone starts to pull the camera away from his camera guy, that was "an appearance." And when (in other clips) they push him away, and try to take his microphone… that was "an appearance" too?


So, it's his fault. I asked this on another blog… here's a situation for you… tell me who's to blame:

Imagine that instead of this "Recreate '68" group, they were a group of Klansmen. And let's assume Jenkins was a black reporter. Now, we'd both agree, that if he was there, jumping into the protest, some violence COULD happen. But does that make it right? Does that make it acceptable? Who's fault is it when he gets shoved around by the guys in white hoods? Is it HIS fault?

I'll answer it for you, "NO!" It is not acceptable, no way, no how.


So because he's from FOX, it's okay… huh? I assume if the shoe was on the other foot (say, someone from MSNBC getting shoved around at a right-wing protest)… the story would be different. Then it would be wrong, and arrests should be made, huh?

Blame the victim… if we don't like the victim… is not an acceptable rational.


Yeah, it's a conspiracy… I'm lying… I know exactly what you're talking about, just pretending I don't. Yeesh. Sorry I stepped over the line, asking you to explain what you're talking about. My bad… how rude of me.

How thoroughly did you read that article? Look at the language even somewhat carefully and it seems pretty obvious that shep182 is right. Every other sentence is fine tuned propaganda.

He didn't know what they were going to do with the camera. Maybe they just wanted to take it away or turn it off.
Presumption. But it's probably right seeing the way Fox portrayed them.
Constant use of 'they' when it was a handful of the protesters that 'harassed' the reporters. Fox got exactly what they wanted from the crowd so they could post this kind of propaganda. And you fell for it.

Well, I disagree about the "surprised" part. I don't think anyone was "surprised." But that doesn't make it right... right?

As for your example... I'd like to think these people (the protesters) are smarter than hornets... but maybe not.

Does that make it right? Let's assume everything you said is correct... let's just assume that for now. Does that make it right? Is it acceptable for the protesters (or a handful of them) to try to take away the FOX camera? To push and shove the reporter? To threaten him with violence? Is that okay?

These are people... the protesters are people not animals... if they only way they can react is with violence, what does that say? FOX's "intentions" are not really the point. As I said in an earlier post, it does not make it right.

Imagine if Jenkins (the reporter) had actually gotten hurt. Imagine if someone hit him with a bottle or something. The police make a few arrests, and at trial they give the defense of, "Well, yeah we hit him... but what did he expect, we're an angry mob, and he's from a group we don't like?!" That's not a defense.... that's not an excuse.

It's like NBC making it seem like a 13 year old boy wanted to have sex with an adult man... of course they knew what was going to happen, they were going to hook a sexual predator. But that doesn't make what the predator did right! They're still going to get arrested!

It's not FOX's fault these protesters are bananas crazy.

I'm not trying to say that they deserved to be roughed up, but it's what they wanted. Those few bruises were the price Fox had to pay to get that article. And in turn they were able to convince you that liberals are crazy hypocrites.

Bah... so not arguing this anymore... you dont want to hear anything but your version of events, or u just want us to keep arguing because it lends credence to what you are saying... this is a bulls**t argument and I'm not giving it my attention any longer... good luck on the crusade.