"Who Are You?"

[Zoot Soup]

Man, what a loon. Who talks to ANYONE like that? It's not even like the "reporters" were being combative with him.

[Run To State]

I disagree. I have no problem with Aldrin hitting the guy.

 

I do understand that elected officials are different than private citizens. However, what Aldrin and Armstrong did was on the government tab. Sibrel (whom I detest) wasn't asking about Aldrin's private life. He was asking about his involvement in a very public government project.

 

 

Thanks for "teaching the teacher."

OK, I can agree with you on it being on the government tab. But I still think the aggression of that guy vs. the kid with the congressman are worlds apart.

 

 

Glad to be of service. :thumb:

[Run To State]

Man, what a loon. Who talks to ANYONE like that? It's not even like the "reporters" were being combative with him.

That's pretty much how I saw it. I agree, the guy is a loon.

[Habib]

Man, what a loon. Who talks to ANYONE like that? It's not even like the "reporters" were being combative with him.

 

He might have been hammered drunk. At any rate, if you're a public figure you should expect to be approached in public. There are some caveats to that but it didn't appear these guys broached them. He really has no excuse for grabbing the guy like that. That irks me.

[True blue (and gold)]

OK, I can agree with you on it being on the government tab. But I still think the aggression of that guy vs. the kid with the congressman are worlds apart.

 

 

Glad to be of service. :thumb:

 

I agree that there is a large difference between the aggression in the two incidences.

 

I'm just thoroughly disgusted at the "paparazzi" attitude of people these days. To me, it's part of the "entitlement" problem.

Edited June 14, 2010 by True blue (and gold)
add an "s"

[Run To State]

I agree that there is a large difference between the aggression in the two incidence.

 

I'm just thoroughly disgusted at the "paparazzi" attitude of people these days. To me, it's part of the "entitlement" problem.

I can relate to that.

[Zoot Soup]

He might have been hammered drunk.

 

I was thinking the same thing at first. He had this angry drunk thing going on. I just chalked it up to his personality.

[swamprat]

I disagree. I have no problem with Aldrin hitting the guy.

 

I do understand that elected officials are different than private citizens. However, what Aldrin and Armstrong did was on the government tab. Sibrel (whom I detest) wasn't asking about Aldrin's private life. He was asking about his involvement in a very public government project.

No, Bart Sibrel, who is not a reporter, but a conspiracy theorist who believes NASA faked the moon landing, lured Buzz to that location under the pretense of doing an interview for Japanese television. He didn't walk up to Aldrin on the street. Sibrel then proceed to get Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he'd landed on the moon. When Aldrin dismissed him he proceeded to call Buzz a coward and a liar. You see Buzz's response. The verbal attack was such that the LA DA would not pursue charges and when Sibrel attempted to sue Aldrin over the incident, the presiding judge threw it out of court. By the way, nice shot from a 72 year old man. Buzz is 80 now and I'm not sure I'd want to mix it up with him still.

 

I see nothing in either incident that remotely relates to the other.

 

I hate the "media", student or otherwise, sticking mics and cameras into the faces of anybody they want, including elected officials. However, the response of the congressman was way out of line. You would think a politician would have more tact.

[True blue (and gold)]

No, Bart Sibrel, who is not a reporter, but a conspiracy theorist who believes NASA faked the moon landing, lured Buzz to that location under the pretense of doing an interview for Japanese television. He didn't walk up to Aldrin on the street. Sibrel then proceed to get Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he'd landed on the moon. When Aldrin dismissed him he proceeded to call Buzz a coward and a liar. You see Buzz's response. The verbal attack was such that the LA DA would not pursue charges and when Sibrel attempted to sue Aldrin over the incident, the presiding judge threw it out of court. By the way, nice shot from a 72 year old man. Buzz is 80 now and I'm not sure I'd want to mix it up with him still.

 

I see nothing in either incident that remotely relates to the other.

 

I hate the "media", student or otherwise, sticking mics and cameras into the faces of anybody they want, including elected officials. However, the response of the congressman was way out of line. You would think a politician would have more tact.

 

I am quite familiar with Sibrel and his despicable tactics. Honestly, I'd punch him myself if I had a change. (Notice the lack of a smilie here.) However, the incidents are related. Both sets of interviewers were asking things of a public nature, however stupidly, (could you be a little more specific than the "Obama agenda"?) Further, does being a crazy conspiracy theorist preclude someone from being able to ask questions about public issues? Additionally, what do we know of the "students"? Do we know what school that they are from and for what purpose they are approaching an elected official on the street and sticking a microphone in his face and videotaping him? Could they be conspiracy theorists, too? I'd still like to see the uncut film.

[woodsrider]

I am quite familiar with Sibrel and his despicable tactics. Honestly, I'd punch him myself if I had a change. (Notice the lack of a smilie here.) However, the incidents are related. Both sets of interviewers were asking things of a public nature, however stupidly, (could you be a little more specific than the "Obama agenda"?) Further, does being a crazy conspiracy theorist preclude someone from being able to ask questions about public issues? Additionally, what do we know of the "students"? Do we know what school that they are from and for what purpose they are approaching an elected official on the street and sticking a microphone in his face and videotaping him? Could they be conspiracy theorists, too? I'd still like to see the uncut film.

 

Actually I would disagree that Sibrel was asking anything. He started with a question but never really gave Aldrin the chance to answer.

[Voice of Reason]

Here is Etheridge's apology as the internet works its magic to blow this story up:

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/etheridge-caught-on-video-apologizes/

 

Should the creators of this video come forward and identify themselves and what they were doing? Should this video be circulated without any explanation? Bottom line, the Rep apologized and therefore he clearly feels there was no justification unseen in the clip that led to his actions. But what of the ongoing issue of guerilla media in the interent age? Are there no rules at all? Or do we start seeing oneupsmanship with political rivals targeting each other and entrapping them? I fully expect to see more and more "gotcha" media hits like this going forward.

[spindoc]

I am quite familiar with Sibrel and his despicable tactics. Honestly, I'd punch him myself if I had a change. (Notice the lack of a smilie here.) However, the incidents are related. Both sets of interviewers were asking things of a public nature, however stupidly, (could you be a little more specific than the "Obama agenda"?) Further, does being a crazy conspiracy theorist preclude someone from being able to ask questions about public issues? Additionally, what do we know of the "students"? Do we know what school that they are from and for what purpose they are approaching an elected official on the street and sticking a microphone in his face and videotaping him? Could they be conspiracy theorists, too? I'd still like to see the uncut film.

Had Aldrin been elected to his position by the public, I could see your stance here. However, they aren't remotely related incidents considering that fact.

[swamprat]

Here is Etheridge's apology as the internet works its magic to blow this story up:

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/etheridge-caught-on-video-apologizes/

 

Should the creators of this video come forward and identify themselves and what they were doing? Should this video be circulated without any explanation? Bottom line, the Rep apologized and therefore he clearly feels there was no justification unseen in the clip that led to his actions. But what of the ongoing issue of guerilla media in the interent age? Are there no rules at all? Or do we start seeing oneupsmanship with political rivals targeting each other and entrapping them? I fully expect to see more and more "gotcha" media hits like this going forward.

There are no rules and this is nothing new, just a new type of media. Smear campaigns are as old as politics. The gotcha has always been there. The results just keep getting to the public in faster and faster rates of time. Look at the race between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, where Adams and Jackson used news papers the way the internet is used now. Wasn't it a Cincinnati paper that insinuated that Rachel Jackson was a prostitute? See the Johnson/Goldwater race in 1964 where TV ads had their first big impact on an election. In every case, there was an outcry and in every case politicians adjusted. They will now, too.

[True blue (and gold)]

Had Aldrin been elected to his position by the public, I could see your stance here. However, they aren't remotely related incidents considering that fact.

 

I did not say equal incidents. I said related. If you cannot see that they are related, as Sibrel wasn't asking Aldrin about his personal life, but about one of the most significant public events in American history, paid for by American tax-payers dollars, then I feel as though you aren't being intellectually honest.

 

As it is, Sibrel is a cowardly thug. I have no time for the "moon hoax" conspiracy believers, even if they "play nice." However, this was the first incident that came to mind when I saw the video in the original post this morning.

[Voice of Reason]

There are no rules and this is nothing new, just a new type of media. Smear campaigns are as old as politics. The gotcha has always been there. The results just keep getting to the public in faster and faster rates of time. Look at the race between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, where Adams and Jackson used news papers the way the internet is used now. See the Johnson/Goldwater race in 1964 where TV ads had their first big impact on an election. In every case, there was an outcry and in every case politicians adjusted. They will now, too.

 

I agree with one exception. In today's media there is no fact checking or verification done on many of these items. Anyone with a camera who watches people get punked can go out and goad someone, put it on youtube and away we go. Gossip mongering is the way of the internet and there is very little professionalism or true journalism involved in a lot of it. The one thing that I do like about today's immediate media, those in power can not use influence to bury stories. Information is readily available and easy to circulate to the masses. So on that side of things our public figures have to be on their best behavior more so than at any time in history.