Gawker Ambushes Watters….Watters Runs Away…
Gawker reveals the details, with video, of its stalking and ambushing of FNC Ambusher-at-Large, Jesse Watters…
At about 8:45 a.m., Watters walked out on to his driveway with his wife, Noelle, and we hopped out to talk to him. When Watters ambushes people, he rushes at them in a deliberate attempt to rattle them, and asks hostile questions. Not being complete dicks, we decided to approach it differently. We introduced ourselves, said hello, and calmly approached him. He got in his car and drove away. We could have engaged some of the tactics that Fox has used in these situations—by say, running to meet him at his car and positioning ourselves so that he couldn’t close the door—but we didn’t want to, because we weren’t trying to engineer a confrontation. We were trying to engineer an interview.
Even though Jesse didn’t submit to that interview, we did get one answer: His hurried departure leaves no doubt in our minds that his ambush tactics have nothing to do with the answers he claims to be seeking from O’Reilly’s enemies and everything to do with the theater of humiliation that Fox News thrives on and the us-against-them “culture war” that his boss believes he is waging. If Watters honestly believed that people like ThinkProgress blogger Amanda Terkel and the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg—two targets that he ambushed without even inviting them on O’Reilly’s show first—have an obligation to answer for the things they do and say in the name of journalism, he would have recognized that obligation in himself. If he honestly believed that people ought to defend themselves to his cameras, he would have been happy to defend himself. And if he honestly believed that stalking and ambushing is a noble pursuit, he would have treated his own ambushers with professional courtesy and let us use his bathroom. (OK, we wouldn’t have let us use the bathroom either.)
Come on Watters. Man up. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. This’ll make Countdown for sure…
Inside Cable News 
June 22, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The Video is a complete Joke! Again so when News Organizations use this tactic it’s called “Investigative Journalism”, but since its Jesse Waters and Fox News it’s ambush or stalking! Is it because the leftist darling Amanda Terkel was exposed for not knowing her facts and its pay back for the embarrassment?
Remember this is the same Gawker who published photoshopped images of Conservative Michele Malkin on their website claiming to be her pictures, but admitted that it wasn’t her and hid behind “satire” defense like a bunch of leftist cowards…
June 22, 2009 at 1:05 pm
^
That the right can call ANYONE a coward with a straight face is hilarious.
June 22, 2009 at 1:10 pm
^
I will call Gawker a bunch of cowards for smearing someone on a website with Photoshopped Pics and then hide behind satire defense. I wonder if Nick Denton would find it satire if someone photoshopped him at a “NAMBLA” meeting…
June 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The Video is a complete Joke! Again so when News Organizations use this tactic it’s called “Investigative Journalism”, but since its Jesse Waters and Fox News it’s ambush or stalking!
I’m not a fan of ambush interviews in general because they don’t really give any news. I don’t buy the “investigative journalism” angle. It’s more like gratuitous grandstanding if you ask me. If the target wasn’t willing to talk the first time you contacted them for a reaction, how is shoving a camera in their face going to change the equation any?
What I really don’t like is what Watters has been doing lately; going out and ambushing people without even trying to approach them through regular channels first. So it’s sort of poetic justice that Gawker did the same thing to him.
June 22, 2009 at 1:15 pm
And of course Gawker’s motives have to be questioned. But that still doesn’t change the fact that Watters can dish it out but can’t take it.
June 22, 2009 at 1:19 pm
^
I’m sorry when I see people like Judges who gives a child rapist 1 year in prison and won’t come on camera for an interview to explain the reasoning. I think this so called “AMBUSHING” is needed!
June 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Speaking on people can dish it out but can’t take it. We know Keith Olbermann will out of the bathtub to air this video…
June 22, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I’m sorry when I see people like Judges who gives a child rapist 1 year in prison and won’t come on camera for an interview to explain the reasoning. I think this so called “AMBUSHING” is needed!
It’s grandstanding. It doesn’t solve anything. And it has always been this way back to when people like Dan Rather and Mike Wallace were ambushing people back in the 70s on 60 Minutes…
June 22, 2009 at 1:41 pm
It’s a gimmick. I’ve never seen anything newsworthy come out of these efforts. While it seems to be just an effort to make the ‘ambushee’ look bad, it usually does that to all involved.
June 22, 2009 at 2:28 pm
While I think all ambushing stinks, the thing that stinks most about O’Reilly’s ambush interviews is that he sends Watters to do his dirty work for him. At least Wallace and Rather went themselves.
June 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm
He did go ambush Obama however…
June 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Heh.
June 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Spud…I have to respectfully disagree with you. Unfortunately in many states in this country the judiciary will often make decisions that goes outside the “minimum standards” set forth by judicial precedent. Unfortunately, the local news media will not focus on these judges & there is very little that can be done by the population of that community.
If BOR shines a bright light on these “judicial dimwits”, perhaps the next judge will realize that sentencing a child rapist or a sex offender to prison terms/probation will not be accepted by the vast majority in this country.
Focusing on the “bad” judges who issue these weak sentences provides the community with the knowledge & the information required to vote out these jurists.
June 22, 2009 at 3:58 pm
If BOR shines a bright light on these “judicial dimwits”, perhaps the next judge will realize that sentencing a child rapist or a sex offender to prison terms/probation will not be accepted by the vast majority in this country.
And do you seriously believe that by shoving a camera in their faces that you are going to get answers from them if they don’t want to takk? You want to cite the judge and the decision he made. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. But shoving a camera in their face isn’t going to gain you any new information if they aren’t inclined to talk. And that’s supposedly the reason for these ambush interviews…to get answers.
June 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm
This would have gone much better if Jesse would have walked them to the end of his property and answered any reasonable questions they had about the ambush sytle of journalism.
June 22, 2009 at 4:11 pm
And do you seriously believe that by shoving a camera in their faces that you are going to get answers from them if they don’t want to takk? You want to cite the judge and the decision he made. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. But shoving a camera in their face isn’t going to gain you any new information if they aren’t inclined to talk. And that’s supposedly the reason for these ambush interviews…to get answers.
Spud, in many instances BOR has requested an interview with a judge who has made one of these “controversial” decisions and in almost all instances the judge(s) have declined the invitation. I agree that shoving a camera in a judge’s face is not going to gain you any new information. However, perhaps shoving a camera in a judge’s face will possibly make them “wake up” & sentence individuals who sexually harm children to a sentence that falls within the judicial guidelines of that community/state. It may also help to “wake up” the citizens who either vote or can demanc a judge’s removal from the bench.
In many cases, we’re witnessing judges who are circumventing precedent & are now “making laws” outside the mandates set forth by the state legislatures.
Children are our precious & innocent members of our society & they deserve to be protected not only from the individuals who harm them but from the local/state judges who do not impose proper sentencing.
June 22, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Chips – I agree that bringing verdicts like the ones O’Reilly highlights (ie: child predators) is laudable, but I think we are talking about two different scenarios – 1) where O’Reilly can discuss the case on his show and pass along the e-mail address/phone number for the local attorney general (or whomever is relevant to the Judge’s conduct) as well as putting a national spotlight on the situation and 2) sensationalist journalism by sending Jesse out to chase the guy down.
I don’t see what these ambushes achieve.
June 22, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Chips, all that can be accomplished with standard reporting. You don’t need the stupid judge’s stupid comment, and ambushing him only wakes him up to “the terrible forces of conservatism waged against my righteous crusade.” BOR is a wuss for sending Watters and Watters is a wuss for running.
June 22, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Looks like BL and I commented at the same time with similar points.
June 22, 2009 at 5:58 pm
BL & Joe:
In a “perfect” world, I would agree with both of your assessments that standard reporting & reporting the judges to the appropriate attoney(s) generals would rectify the situation. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.
IMO, 95% of the judges are fine & upstanding jurists. However, we have 5% who have little or no regard for the rule of law & precedent.
Unfortunately, we continue to see a trend across the country where judges are not meeting the standards set forth by the state legislatures & by the communities they represent.
“If shining a bright light” is the worst thing that’s happening to them (incompetent judges) & they’re unable to perform their duties, perhaps it’s time for them to step down from the bench. I’m sorry, our children are our most precious resource & they deserve to be protected not only from the vicious predators of society but from the small minoriity of judges who do not properly perform their duties.
June 22, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“And do you seriously believe that by shoving a camera in their faces that you are going to get answers from them if they don’t want to takk? You want to cite the judge and the decision he made. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. But shoving a camera in their face isn’t going to gain you any new information if they aren’t inclined to talk. And that’s supposedly the reason for these ambush interviews…to get answers.” —- spud —-
A picture is worth a thousand words. Plus, it’s a lot more personal to the judge when they know someone is in front of them with a camera and not just talking about them on TV. When someone shows up at your doorstep, you no longer think your judgements will be forgotten with history.
June 22, 2009 at 6:17 pm
You’re dreamin’ LS. Ambushes do nothing but make the ambushed feel wronged.
June 22, 2009 at 7:22 pm
You’re dreamin’ LS. Ambushes do nothing but make the ambushed feel wronged.
You’re missing the point, Joe – what the O’Reilley apologists are advocating is PUNITIVE journalism.
June 23, 2009 at 3:42 am
You’re missing the point, Joe – what the O’Reilley apologists are advocating is PUNITIVE journalism.
Art, how is VERBALLY confronting a judge who imposes a light sentence on a child rapist or child sexual predator harmful to the judge? Again, as one of my favorite Presidents stated…”If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” (President Truman).
This is not a liberal/conservative or democrat/republican issue. This is a protecting the child vs. protecting the convicted felon & I will ALWAYS be on the side of the child.
June 23, 2009 at 7:24 am
This is not a liberal/conservative or democrat/republican issue. This is a protecting the child vs. protecting the convicted felon & I will ALWAYS be on the side of the child.
You’re pretending this is all about this one case. What’s the excuse for ambushing the editor of the CJR? for ambushing a blogger?
O’Reilly clearly practices ‘journalism’ as payback for perceived slights. What a brat.
June 23, 2009 at 9:40 am
Chips, you’re implying that those of us who think ambush “journalism” is a useless tactic are not “on the side of the children.” I would appreciate it if you would debate honestly, without throwing around veiled “I love children, you don’t” accusations.
June 23, 2009 at 10:04 am
I would appreciate it if you would debate honestly, without throwing around veiled “I love children, you don’t” accusations.
This is how they work. If you said before the Iraqi invasion that it was a big mistake, they said you were siding with tyrants or loved terrorists or hated America. Not that you disagreed with the strategy – you were actively on the wrong side.
It’s a tactic of schoolyard bullies, as refined and taught by Newt Gingrich.
June 23, 2009 at 10:23 am
Art, they did it during the 2002 mid-terms, too. Voting for a Democrat was voting for people who “don’t care about national security.” Lazy.
June 23, 2009 at 11:38 am
Chips, you’re implying that those of us who think ambush “journalism” is a useless tactic are not “on the side of the children.” I would appreciate it if you would debate honestly, without throwing around veiled “I love children, you don’t” accusations.
Joe, it has never been my intention to infer that anyone who does not support ambush journalism does not supprot the kids. My point has always been that children deserve special protection from all adults & from the courts.
However, let me ask a few relevant questions:
1) When the print media “ambushes” a city, county, or public official for a big “splashy” article, what is the difference?
2) Routinely during the “Sweeps Period” the local affiliates in Ohio will broadcast “shocking” news stories where they will “ambush/catch” a city employee or official doing something shocking. Is it wrong for the local news affiliates to be conducting this type of interview or story? Since I travel quite a bit, I see the same “type” of news stories broadcast across the country. What is the difference between BOR “ambushing” judges who do not impose the proper sentence & these same local affiliates?
Art:
This is how they work. If you said before the Iraqi invasion that it was a big mistake, they said you were siding with tyrants or loved terrorists or hated America. Not that you disagreed with the strategy – you were actively on the wrong side.
It’s a tactic of schoolyard bullies, as refined and taught by Newt Gingrich.
Art:
You are the EXPERT in utilizing sources which meet your criteria but you routinely disparage others for using sources which do not meet your approval. Since you like to infer that conservatives are like Newt Gingrich perhaps I can now start to refer you as Congressman McDermott since you tend to utilize his style of debate.
Art, congratulations & I hope you wear your moniker well & proud.
June 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Art, congratulations
Moron. This wasn’t about SOURCES, it was about deflecting genuine arguments in favor of strawmen ‘why do you hate America?’ claptrap.
And there you go again.
June 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Moron. This wasn’t about SOURCES, it was about deflecting genuine arguments in favor of strawmen ‘why do you hate America?’ claptrap.
And there you go again.
Come on Art…tell me how you really feel? This has nothing to do with some strawman argument. I posed legitimate questions as to what is the difference between BOR & the local news media that utilize the same techniques as BOR when he “ambushes” judges.
Bear in mind, judges are ELECTED officials & are subject to questioning from the media & citizens to whom they represent.
Name calling is really juvenile…perhaps it’s time you get some new comebacks.
June 23, 2009 at 2:03 pm
This has nothing to do with some strawman argument. I posed legitimate questions as to what is the difference between BOR & the local news media that utilize the same techniques as BOR when he “ambushes” judges.
And it diverted to Joe’s calling you out on your “I love children more than you do” tactic and THAT is what I was referring to. So you had to fling up a non sequitor about sources. Keep up.
2) Routinely during the “Sweeps Period” the local affiliates in Ohio will broadcast “shocking” news stories where they will “ambush/catch” a city employee or official doing something shocking. Is it wrong for the local news affiliates to be conducting this type of interview or story?
O’Reilly’s reliance on Watters and the ambush have nothing to do with actually uncovering anything and everything to do with O’Reilly extracting his pound of flesh for offenses against HIM.
June 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm
In general I think ambush journalism is hackneyed and useless, but I do have to draw a line between using a camera to visually expose a wrongful practice in action – a common element of consumer protection reports on local news – and bringing a camera along just to shout questions at somebody.
June 23, 2009 at 3:49 pm
In general I think ambush journalism is hackneyed and useless, but I do have to draw a line between using a camera to visually expose a wrongful practice in action – a common element of consumer protection reports on local news – and bringing a camera along just to shout questions at somebody.
Joe:
You brought a smile to my face when I started to think about the White House Press Corps shouting questions at President Reagan & he would often times cup his hand to his hear shaking his head & telling them he couldn’t hear their respective questions. He always seemed to do this with a smile on his face.
There are different types of ambush journalism:
1) Going after judges who sentence a child predator or sex offender to a “light sentence” (I’m in favor, obviously).
2) Going after a city official/employee who is asleep on the job, drunk on the job, public corruption, etc…(I’m in favor).
3) Confronting a CEO who knowingly or unknowingly who is in violation of the law (I’m in favor).
4) Confronting a journalist or media member who BOR is upset with for a perceived bias (I’m against).
5) Confronting ACORN for possible voter fraud & misuse of taxpayer funds (I’m in favor).
If you really want to be technical, ambush journalism has been around since Watergate & the press has been adversarial since that time.
June 23, 2009 at 8:38 pm
If you really want to be technical, ambush journalism has been around since Watergate & the press has been adversarial since that time.
If you really want to be technical, ambush journalism had nothing to do with Watergate. that was called investigative journalism, and no one practices it any more. And the press is SUPPOSED to be adversarial. that’s kind of their job.
February 22, 2012 at 12:41 am
arts…
[…]Gawker Ambushes Watters….Watters Runs Away… « Inside Cable News[…]…