Mattera just ambushes people to sell his books. He’s not doing it based on any form of journalistic principle.

The kid wouldn’t even let Bill O’Reilly talk. Half this segment is him interrupting Bill.

He is not a journalist.

Maybe Mattera is a fan of that other fake journalist, Bret Baier?

That’s cold, Roxsteady, but largely correct.

It’s hilarious. Jason Mattera wipes his ass with the taxpayers. He doesn’t give a crap. He’s a rambling loser that got picked on in High School.

This is the same Jason Mattera who claims the My Lai Massacre never happened. What a slimy little prick.

Mattera will pretty much be soon long gone and forgotten. His book might sell a couple of copies cause it flashed for a second on Bill’s show. But next year he’ll just be a complete nobody doing nothing.

I’m not a fan of ambush interviews in general because I don’t think they ever really shed much light. The person being ambushed never looks good. Why? It’s sort of like the old saying that treason doth never prosper because if it does none dare call it treason. Similarly, if an ambushed interviewee looks good, then no one ever sees the interview.

Here, Mattera was way, way out of line. The factual predicates of his question are weak, he wouldn’t give Franken even a chance to answer, and the “Senator Smalley” thing was way over the line. Personally, if I had been Franken, I would have punched the kid.

I do think its worth noting, however, that this is another example of the Right adopting the Alinsky-like tactics of the Left. As a conservative (on most, but not all, issues) that worries me. Watching the undercover video of ACORN workers offering help to set up a child prostitution ring is satisfying on some level, but the ends don’t justify the means. It reminds me of watching a sporting event and seeing a ref royal blow a call, but in way that helps the team you’re routing for. Yeah, you’ll take the win–justified or not–but in your heart you know your team didn’t deserve it.

And where do these tactics lead when taken to their logical conclusion? You get people like Michael Moore “grilling” an Alzheimer’s patient while his sycophantic audience self-righteously chuckles about how dumb and uncivilized Charlton Heston supposedly looks in the exchange. I don’t think that’s how you win an argument, but even if it is, I, for one, would rather lose with my dignity in tact.

You’re such a liar. Heston didn’t announce that he had Alzheimer’s until after the movie was in the can. Besides, he didn’t come off badly in the interview anyway.

I’ll gladly take the hit for this smirking adolescent being on “my side”.

I suspect he is as likely to change sides as quickly and easily as David Brock so one day he may be a millstone around the other side’s neck.

Dare I point out that if I could trade him, like a baseball card, I would gleefully let you guys keep Jeanine Garafolo (?), Behar, Big Ed Schultz etc. :)

regardless of the alzheimer’s, the Heston part of Bowling for Columbine was not Michael Moore’s proudest moment. that was a painful scene for all the wrong reasons.

Jelperman:

Most people have Alzheimer’s for years before it is diagnosed. I think anybody looking at that exchange recognizes that Heston was in the beginning stages of the disease, particularly since his entire life (up to and including just a few years before) he was incredibly poised and well-spoken.

I’m not saying Moore knew that Heston had the disease and went after him for that reason. I’m just saying that once the film was developed, that scene would have hit floor in my editing room.

And for the record, according to Wikipedia Heston announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s on August 9, 2002. According to IMDB, Bowling for Columbine was released exactly two months later (October 9, 2002). Again, that footage should have been left on the editing room floor, and when Moore’s sycophants sat there chuckling in the audience, they knew they were watching a sick old man being abused by an even sicker young man.

OK – yet another conservative liar. Someday we’ll hear about him being arrested like the joker O’Keefe.

I agree with Finch. The ambush interviews rarely accomplish anything, and are best left to the Michael Moores of the world. But at least they are more honest than the old 60 Minutes approach of interviewing someone for three hours, and then finding ten-second sound bites that conform the story angle already decided by the CBS overseers.

Say what ever you want but I have never seen Franken not be able to get a chance to say what he wanted to say, weather the other person was talking or not. Franken’s “let me answer” was nothing more than a stall tactic because he had NO answer . Now if anyone wants to dispute me on that feel free to post ANY link when Franken was shut out because he was interrupted.

As I said in my initial comment: Throughout a lot of the interview, O’Reilly was doing a “let me finish” kind of motion and the kid kept interrupting, though respectfully.

OK – Now that lip-service has been paid o the post topic.

@AnonymousFinch: It’s been years since I’ve watched Bowling for Columbine and though I have flash memories of the Heston interview, I have to say that I never really paid attention to it because that segment didn’t really impress me, either way.

I did notice the other day that the film has been added to Hulu, so I went back and watched the Heston segment (it starts after the last commercial break for anyone who’d like to skip ahead and watch).

Clearly Heston thought it was going to be something else, but I can’t say that he was “grilled” or that he came out of it any worse. Moore does pull the cheap stunt of leaving the kid’s picture on the stoop, but Heston looks okay, he says what he thought and when he knew Moore’s political position, he simply walked away.

And toward the point of this post — MM asked his questions and allowed the actor to reply.

First of all, Michael Moore won an Oscar for the film, so I doubt he needs your advice on film editing.

Second, I don’t see what the fuss was about. Heston didn’t come off badly at all. If anyone should have his panties in a wad over Bowling for Columbine, it would be Dick Clark -who really does look like an asshole in the movie.

Magister:

I just rewatched it to refresh my recollection. I see where you’re coming from in some ways. You could argue that by Michael Moore’s usual standards, he was being polite. But I do think that Heston was confused and didn’t understand most of the questions. He gave rambling answers, and then Moore would jump in to challenge him, and Heston seemed unsure of what he had just said. Moore tries to present that confusion as moral ambivalence. Also, I think Heston scores some points because he is, by disposition and training, a poised and dignified person. So when he gets confused and is clearly in over his head he falls back on politeness and excuses himself. I guess what mostly bothers me is that if it was the Charlton Heston of 5 or 10 years before, he would have cleaned Moore’s clock. So, to sum up, I disagree with your take, but I admit that it has some merit. You’re not being wholly unreasonable in the way you look at it.

Jelperman:

Do you really think that because the movie got Hollywood’s stamp of approval that immunizes it from criticism? I was complaining about Moore’s self-righteous, sycophantic fans; I can’t think of any better examples of that then the membership of the Academy.

@AnonymousFinch: Thanks for taking the time to go back and review. As I said, I really didn’t have a lot of memory from the Heston segment, but I did recall being impressed that he answered his own callbox and that he wasn’t surrounded by handlers.

I also never made the connection that Mr. Heston may have been ill at the time, but if you take that information and add it to this morning’s rewatching of his segment from Columbine, you may come away thinking that he had been used by both sides. In other words, quite possibly he was used as a front for the NRA, who’d send him where they wanted to help quell any uprisings in response to local tragedies and Moore clearly thought that he could trip him up to achieve his own political end.

So, if anything, I come away from the morning feeling a little more sorry for any “evil” motives, I may have assigned the actor at the time.

@AnonymousFinchWatching
“…the undercover video of ACORN workers offering help to set up a child prostitution ring is satisfying on some level, but the ends don’t justify the means”

Lets be clear, the facts are that at no time did O’Keefe show that “ACORN workers offering help to set up a child prostitution ring”.

WASHINGTON — A four-month investigation by the Brooklyn district attorney found no evidence that the local ACORN office had engaged in any criminal conduct, despite the hype conservative media gave to tapes of a fake prostitute asking for help from the organization.

“They edited the tape to meet their agenda,” a law enforcement source told the New York Daily News, which reported the investigation’s results on Monday.

This has been roundly disproven.

Furthermore, let us also note that, contrary to Breitbart’s insistent braying to the contrary, at no time have the fully unedited videos ever been made public.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either a) lying or b) grossly misinformed.

I use to be a fan of O’Reilly but, of late, simply don’t give a damn. I think he is more and more getting in line with the left out of fear of them and Obama. Hiding from the tough stands behind a facade of civility and journalistic integrity. Really, not once have I heard him in recent interviews with the pretenders of freedom ask questions and insist on answers, Americans really want answered. He seems to play the tough guy when he is interviewing conservatives and use kid gloves with the real culprits of discourse in this fine country. To me, O’Reilly has lost his credibility and I predict he will also lose his ratings and standing with the conservatives.
So have at it folks and your welcome for the opportunity to lambast somebody…

homie:

Let’s be clear, you are 100% wrong. Even the New York Times agrees that the tapes were not edited in a misleading way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html

Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”

The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

Homie:

Just to emphasize the point, you quoted a report from an anonymous source who works for an elected Democratic official in New York City and who only has jurisdiction over the New York office.

The New York Times analyzed the full tapes and transcripts, and found that “the most damaging words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context.” Moreover, the investigator hired by ACORN to investigate itself admitted to the New York Times that: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

If the guy being paid by ACORN admits that “[t]here’s no way to make this look good,” why are you still trying to do so? Aren’t you the one who is “either a) lying or b) grossly misinformed”?

Magister:

Again, all fair points.

My gosh! Why ANYONE would still defend ACORN is beyond me.

For those inquiry minds…it’s NOT JUST THE OKEEFE Videos! The OKeefe Videos is just the icing on the cake to that corrupt organization…

besides…this is old news…

Feeling lazy today let me just copy a comment from Marcus and my response on another thread:

“marcus.lewis says:
March 31, 2010 at 7:19 pm

@bias-media

Just a point of clarification. The ACORN scandal that broke was edited tapes; I’m not exactly sure how you can say that video proves anything besides the fact that O’Keefe was willing to manipulate tapes to get famous.”

My response:

“Come on, Marcus. Are you really ready to argue that in our Democrat controlled by insurmountable numbers legislature that they voted to cut ACORN off from the federal trough based on nothing more than unfairly edited tapes?

Are you ready to argue that all the voter registration fraud cases brought in multiple states are just dirty politics?

Are you ready to argue that ACORN has reorganized under individual state charters were all the result of James O’Keefe playing dirty pool?

Are you ready to argue that ACORN itself fired ACORN workers based on evidence that was completely bogus?”

I agree with Bill. He should have just let Franken show what an ass he is.

“First of all, Michael Moore won an Oscar for the film, so I doubt he needs your advice on film editing.”

Totally irrelevant like you Jelperman.

The day will come…probably sooner before later..when one of these snot nosed “ambush-right-winged-activist” types gets in the wrong person’s face, and lo and behold…you’ll have a REAL You Tube hit on your hands.

Second, Mattera is purposely disingenuous. This is the Bill portion that Mattera refers to as “$7 Billion for Jungle Gyms”:

“In fact, there is no provision “giving $7 billion to fund jungle gyms”

The provision Mattera himself reads refers to giving grants to “provide physical activity opportunities” in order to reduce chronic disease. After falsely claiming that the bill contains a provision “giving $7 billion to fund jungle gyms,” Mattera reads the provision he’s referring to, which contains no mentions of “jungle gyms.” In the “Creating Healthier Communities” portion of the Senate version of the bill, under the section “Community Transformation Grants,” entities receiving grants may use them toward activities such as “creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases.” From the bill [emphasis added]:

(vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.”

http://mediamatters.org/research/201003290051

Childhood obesity is an EPIDEMIC. We are a FAT NATION and it’s costing us Trillions of dollars a year due to “Chronic illnesses.”

–Cobra

@Cobra: The truth wouldn’t have supported the illusion Mattera was trying to create with his repeated interruptions questions, nor would letting Sen. Franken answer..

AnonymousFinch writes:

“Let’s be clear, you are 100% wrong. Even the New York Times agrees that the tapes were not edited in a misleading way:”

THEN AnonymousFinch writes:

“The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police.”

How much airplay did Fox News give of the videos where Acorn Workers called the police, or seemed “concerned for Giles?” What…those portions didn’t fit the narrative of “evil Black folks being evil on the White man’s tax dollars” that O’Keefe wanted to depict? Yes, the war on poor people, especially minorities continues.

Like I said…one of these days, one of these right winged “activists” is going to stick his camcorder in the wrong face. I just hope someone posts it when it happens.

–Cobra

How, Cobra, are the last two lines in your post not a violent wish?
I swear, MSNBC is high on something if its commentators keep beating the drum that suggests (erroneously) that only conservatives are contributing to the fabric of a violent culture.
Can’t we all be more civil?