The Michael Grimm thing

[Moderator1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/congressman-threatens-reporter-on-camera/2014/01/29/a2a0b933-a155-4c02-b9d3-1f722c65b915_video.html?hpid=z5


Let's talk about the action and keep politics out of it - how should something like this be handled, whether it is a politician or an athlete or any public figure?

If this becomes a political thing, well, don't let it please. Be adults. Discuss the action. I have no clue if this guy is R or D or what. Well he is a D - for d-bag.

 

[YankeeFan]

Former Marine & FBI agent.

Scary to think about this guy having a badge and a gun.

I have no idea who the reporter is, but when Grimm tells him he isn't "man enough" and that he will break him in half, like a "boy", it makes me wonder if perhaps these are anti-gay slurs.

 

[YankeeFan]

He also doubled down in a statement he put out.

He was doing the reporter a "favor". He went "out of his way" for him and was upset he wasn't afforded the proper "professionalism and respect".

Caleb Hannan appreciates the lack of a quasi-apology, or a non-apology apology.

 

[cranberry]

Thuggish behavior?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Thuggish behavior?

Yes.

 

[YankeeFan]

Thuggish.

Yep.

Fellow NY1 reporter coins the term Congressthug:


Errol Louis ‏-- @errollouis

Michael Grimm Threatens Reporter During Interview: http://politicker.com/?p=79860 via @politicker With transcript of what congressthug said.

https://twitter.com/errollouis

 

[Boom_70]

From what I read Grimm made it clear that he did not have a lot
of time and would go on the discuss the SOU and that was it.
Reporter knew this upfront but obviously did not adhere to agreed
upon terms.

Politicians higher in pecking order just threaten to withhold access.

 

[MisterCreosote]

From what I read Grimm made it clear that he did not have a lot
of time and would go on the discuss the SOU and that was it.
Reporter knew this upfront but obviously did not adhere to agreed
upon terms.

"Tune in to NY1, where we ask the tough questions our subjects approve beforehand!"

 

[Boom_70]

From what I read Grimm made it clear that he did not have a lot
of time and would go on the discuss the SOU and that was it.
Reporter knew this upfront but obviously did not adhere to agreed
upon terms.

"Tune in to NY1, where we ask the tough questions our subjects approve beforehand!"

Right - "Tune in to MSNBC and watch us lob softball questions at your favorite politician."

 

[The Big Ragu]

From what I read Grimm made it clear that he did not have a lot
of time and would go on the discuss the SOU and that was it.
Reporter knew this upfront but obviously did not adhere to agreed
upon terms.

Politicians higher in pecking order just threaten to withhold access.

What you read was Grimm's explanation after the fact.

Even if he is telling the truth-- and do you assume that given his behavior with the camera rolling? -- that isn't an excuse to physically and verbally threaten someone the way he did.

As far as dealing with a reporter, he plays in the big leagues. There is no code of "adhering to agreed upon terms," when you are a Congressman. Especially when you are a Congressman who is embroiled in a campaign finance scandal. Either do interviews or don't. Answer the question about your campaign finance probe or decline to answer.

But he made himself look like a clueless gorilla by handling it that way.

 

[MisterCreosote]

He basically removed all doubt as to his guilt in the matter, that's for sure.

As someone who's almost been attacked three times while reporting, I can say with some certainty that's not how innocent people act.

 

[Boom_70]

From what I read Grimm made it clear that he did not have a lot
of time and would go on the discuss the SOU and that was it.
Reporter knew this upfront but obviously did not adhere to agreed
upon terms.

Politicians higher in pecking order just threaten to withhold access.

What you read was Grimm's explanation after the fact.

Even if he is telling the truth-- and do you assume that given his behavior with the camera rolling? -- that isn't an excuse to physically and verbally threaten someone the way he did.

As far as dealing with a reporter, he plays in the big leagues. There is no code of "adhering to agreed upon terms," when you are a Congressman. Especially when you are a Congressman who is embroiled in a campaign finance scandal. Either do interviews or don't. Answer the question about your campaign finance probe or decline to answer.

But he made himself look like a clueless gorilla by handling it that way.

Even if the reporter agreed to terms and then reneged?

 

[YankeeFan]

Even if the reporter agreed to terms and then reneged?

Bill Simmons sees no problem.

 

[The Big Ragu]

There is no reason to believe that. It's just not likely that happened, given what reporters do.

Either way, let's say they had a discussion beforehand, and the reporter said, "I am a reporter, but I am not going to do what reporters do. So I am not going to ask you about the campaign finance probe, for which your friend was just arrested for purported straw donations," and he then asked about it anyhow. ...

Physically threatening the reporter isn't an acceptable response.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Even if the reporter agreed to terms and then reneged?

Bill Simmons sees no problem.

Didn't someone point out that the golf putter reporter said the "conversation" would be about the science, not the scientist?

That is an enormous difference between saying the story would be about the science, not the scientist, and I think you sacrifice credibility in your objection to the story when you keep coming back to this. You're reaching.

 

[bigpern23]

From what I read Grimm made it clear that he did not have a lot
of time and would go on the discuss the SOU and that was it.
Reporter knew this upfront but obviously did not adhere to agreed
upon terms.

Politicians higher in pecking order just threaten to withhold access.

What you read was Grimm's explanation after the fact.

Even if he is telling the truth-- and do you assume that given his behavior with the camera rolling? -- that isn't an excuse to physically and verbally threaten someone the way he did.

As far as dealing with a reporter, he plays in the big leagues. There is no code of "adhering to agreed upon terms," when you are a Congressman. Especially when you are a Congressman who is embroiled in a campaign finance scandal. Either do interviews or don't. Answer the question about your campaign finance probe or decline to answer.

But he made himself look like a clueless gorilla by handling it that way.

Even if the reporter agreed to terms and then reneged?

Yep. Guy handled it properly at first by saying he was only there to talk about the topic at hand and would not answer questions off topic. He ends the interview and walks off. If he leaves it at that, there is no story.

Coming back after walking away shows he considered what had just happened and made a conscious decision to return and make a physical threat. He should be arrested.

 

[User 11148]

There is no reason to believe that. It's just not likely that happened, given what reporters do.

Either way, let's say they had a discussion beforehand, and the reporter said, "I am a reporter, but I am not going to do what reporters do. So I am not going to ask you about the campaign finance probe, for which your friend was just arrested for purported straw donations," and he then asked about it anyhow. ...

Physically threatening the reporter isn't an acceptable response.

I agree. Besides, if you were in that Congressman's position, wouldn't you just assume you're going to be asked about it and have a non-answer answer on the ready? I know I would.

 

[blacktitleist]

Not his first instance of exhibiting this kind of behavior.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/04/congressman-michael-grimm-at-the-caribbean-tropics.html

 

[Bob Cook]

There is no reason to believe that. It's just not likely that happened, given what reporters do.

Either way, let's say they had a discussion beforehand, and the reporter said, "I am a reporter, but I am not going to do what reporters do. So I am not going to ask you about the campaign finance probe, for which your friend was just arrested for purported straw donations," and he then asked about it anyhow. ...

Physically threatening the reporter isn't an acceptable response.

I agree. Besides, if you were in that Congressman's position, wouldn't you just assume you're going to be asked about it and have a non-answer answer on the ready? I know I would.

All he had to do was smile and say, "Look, I'm only talking about the State of the Union address right now. I won't address questions on any other topic." Or something. He can always, off camera and in his office, curse the reporter. The only thing I can figure is that he hired Ryan Leaf as his media consultant.

 

[Point of Order]

So the defense is that he was angry because the guy said one thing in order to get what he wanted and then did something entirely different from what he had previously promised.

I can see why he would be upset. Politicians never do that.