Media Malpractice documentarian handcuffed at awards ceremony

April 17th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

ziegler arrested

John Ziegler is conservative documentary film maker. He became famous earlier this year, when he released his latest documentary “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” The film exposes the blatant bias of the MSM, who tried their best to help Obama win the election, and who tried to destroy Governor Palin.

One of the journalists he criticizes in his documentary is CBS News’ Katie Couric. Couric interviewed the Alaska governor last year; the interview was broadcasted in two installments.

Before the interview, Palin’s approval ratings were extremely high. She had given Senator John McCain a tremendous boost.

After the interview was aired, however, Palin’s numbers fell flat and she was constantly portrayed as a beautiful but stupid conservative peasent from the middle of nowhere.

Many – including your’s truly – suspected that Couric had gone after Palin, in an attempt to ruin her image. But, I too said, the interview nonetheless proved that Palin was not ready for prime time just yet. She failed to deal with Couric in a satisfying manner, and she seemed unable to answer many important (and not so important) questions.

Ziegler shows in “Media Malpractice” that the suspicions were almost correct: yes, Couric tried to destroy Palin, but she acted even less like a professional than most thought. The interview was edited in a way that made Palin look even worse, for instance.It was, Ziegler shows, a hackjob.

But her fellow ‘journalists’ loved it nonetheless. She even received an award for the interview Wednesday. Ziegler went to the ceremony and tried to speak to some of those present. After a couple of minutes, however, security guards arrived, handcuffed him, and led him away. You can watch the video at Hot Air.

Ed Morrissey explains:

From the Someone Left the Irony On Department, John Ziegler gets arrested by security guards outside USC’s Annenberg School of Journalism for committing … er … journalism. He wanted to ask people attending their ceremony honoring Katie Couric with their Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism about the award, and the Annenberg School of Journalism apparently objected to … er … journalism.

His conclusion: “The Annenberg School of Journalism … teaching journalists how to stonewall and intimidate … journalists.”

Quite right.

Now, you have to keep in mind when you watch the video that you cannot truly blame the security guards for this minor controversy. They were – as I understand – following orders, which is what they are supposed to do. Neither should we pretend that Ziegler could not have dealt with it in a different manner; the guards say he refused to stay in the ‘designated area.’ Although it is certainly strange that they forced him to stay at one place, it is significantly better than being forcibly removed.

But still – most of the blame lies with USC’s School for Journalism. Ziegler should have been allowed to act like a journalist, to ask people questions, and to report about the event. Quite a disgrace.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Jay_C
    April 17th, 2009 at 05:51
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I agree, he was a little flamboyant about it, but still, let the guy practice Journalism? Isn’t that what they teach at the USC’s School for Journalism? He would not be the most “in your face” Jornalist in history. Heck, I would welcome more Journalists like him (asking legitimate questions) no matter what their political stripe.

  2. AliceP.
    April 30th, 2009 at 09:28
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I think both Hillary Clinton and Palin were absolutely set up and treated with dishonest report after report. I happen to know quite a lot about both of their careers and was astonished that Obama was getting credit for “community organizing” when indeed none of his projects were successful. He usurped the work of others and the one thing he did work on, on his own is a little park that stands in shambles and there was a question about a hundred thousand dollars that was paid to construction workers but, the work was never done. It’s all on video so this isn’t speculation…that was never covered but, instead Obama was painted as the friend to the south side. Nothing was further from the truth.

    Indeed if they wanted to talk community projects they had plenty to talk about with Clinton who had worked for children’s education, for a children’s hospital, done pro bono work for abused women and children and had done her first community project in Obama’s back yard on the south side when she babysat in highschool for new immigrant families for free so they could go to find work. None of this was mentioned and instead they said “she’s running on her record as first lady” totally ignoring everything else.

    It was the theater of the bizarre and a dis service to the country.

    McCain was painted as someone who might die at any moment and his skin cancer was mentioned more than his war record. It’s truly a hack job in favor of someone whose character is questionable to say the least.

    I really don’t watch cable news anymore. There is so very little that is factual in it. Much of it is shaping of opinion by those who stand to benefit by doing what their corporate owners tell them to. It’s a sad situation for voters and it has been for a very, very long time.

    Maybe next time we shouldn’t bother to vote at all. We’ll just do away with volunteering for candidates and donating and watch the newz to see who they picked. Yes, it has come to that.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.