Atrocious to Smear a Private Citizen

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Atrocious to Smear a Private Citizen
369
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 4:22pm
I think it is atrocious for the press to try to smear a private citizen who merely used his first amendment rights to question a candidate! He didn't ask for all this attention, and he has not stated who he will be voting for, but since John McCain received some points in the debate last night about an exchange "Joe the Plumber" had with Barack Obama the press is out to destroy this man. Good Grief! The man is a plumber! An average citizen. Now the left wing is trying to vilify him like he's George Bush! How HORRIBLE! And the extremists on the left seem to be following in lock step. No compassion for an ordinary man UNLESS he shares their socialist viewpoint. This is about as dirty as it gets!

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:37pm
I don't know.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:41pm
So do you think he deserves to have his privacy invaded and publicly smeared for not saying acceptable things? Do you applaud someone being punished for his free speech?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:43pm

As a journalist, I find your characterization of this event to be incredibly confusing. I think you don't have a good grasp of how the press works, which given your anger over this is not surprising. Good ol' Joe was what is called "on the record," when he gave his interviews. Whatever he said to a reporter at that time was fair game to be reported. Reporting includes not only telling the public what was said but checking the facts of the statements and vetting the source himself.

Surely, you want the press to have a good grasp of who is speaking, right? Let's turn things around to see if you have the same reaction. Let's say that a similar situation happened to McCain at a rally, and Obama brought up the incident in the debate. Wouldn't you want to know if this person was for real? Wouldn't you want to know if he was who he said he was? Wouldn't you want to know why he had a stake in issues?

I would be angry if the press didn't investigate this man's claims and why he would have a stake in questions about Obama's tax plan. And it goes beyond knowing whether or not he has a motive. Standard reporting includes checking the source's name, employment, address, etc. I provide this for even the fluffy stories that I write for national parenting publications. And then fact-checkers (often editors) call each source and verify that what I have written is absolutely true. It's standard.

I'm not understanding how you think the press forced or tricked him into the interviews. That makes no sense. IMO, it was their obligation to check into the claims McCain and Obama were making about this gentleman. And as someone else stated earlier in this thread, he could have simply said, "I don't want to be a part of any of this."

You sound incredibly angry at the press in general, which is a real shame. I'm not sure how you will find out what is what in this incredibly complex campaign. I suspect that you depend on Fox and other "news" organizations that tell you pretty much what you want to hear, instead of what you need to know.

Might I suggest that when you hear news that is offensive to you that you use the "off" button on your television or radio -- or recycle the newspaper before reading it.

>> publicly destroy him

I do not agree one whit that this man was publicly destroyed. If by some chance he was, he and McCain are at fault. Not the press. The press was doing its job.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:45pm
Do you approve of citizens being punished for their speech?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:46pm

>>(imagine yourself in this position - it would be flattering)

One more thing: I have far too much self esteem to be flattered by overtures that are intrusive. When I have given interviews -- or written about myself or my family -- I have very carefully weighed the pros and cons. If Joe the Plumber has skeletons in his closet or wants to keep certain parts of his life private, he should ignore whatever flattery he feels, and protect himself from the unwanted attention.

By the way, I think you're confusing the paparazzi with news reporters. I guess that's a common misunderstanding, but it's not valid.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:50pm

He isn't being punished.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:51pm
I agree with you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:51pm

This is the first time that I recall that an unsuspecting ordinary person voices his opinion AFTER BEING ASKED and then punished for that speech. Usually when the press has gone after someone it is because they put THEMSELVES into the situation. This guy didn't.

Take Bill Clinton's victims, for instance. They came forward and spilled the beans about his behavior. Then the press went after them with a vengeance. I think that was horribly wrong, too, but they were the ones who came forward pretty much knowing up front that things could get rough. I have sympathy for them, but this guy had no idea this would happen. This is truly unprecedented.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:53pm
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on how this guy got where he is.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 6:57pm
I believe that if someone shoves a mike in your face and you answer the question, you had better be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Pages