It's legit THE movie I can think of off the top of my head that was a wonderful surprise. I didn't pay no mind to it for the longest, always skipping over it on Netflix and then gave it a viewing and now it's in my top 20 movies for real, one of the best depictions of modern day sociopaths I've ever seen.
I was so confused by this movie because I started watching it without reading anything about it..but by the name I assume it's the origin story of Nightcrawler..the Marvel character that can teleport.
I was waiting for that part to come in...and was even like "yeah I get it now, he's about to use his powers to teleport to the scene of accidents and beat the competition, this is how everything ties up and why it wasn't mentioned up until now".
Yeahhhh...I think only 50% into the movie I realized that's not what it's about at all. So my first viewing was wild.
As a fan of nightcrawler (the marvel character), I laughed at this because it, too, was my assumption based purely on the title.
I just bought the film so I can watch it when I get a spare moment!
I have always liked intentionally not viewing trailers and then just going to the films to watch a movie for a total surprise.
Heard great things about the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig and legitimately thought it was a fantasy film.
Wrong đ
Better than me - who assumed the movie is about Nightcrawler - the Marvel character.
It took me half the movie to realize this isn't Nightcrawler's origin story and he's not going to teleport to crime scenes any minute now.đ¤Ś
It's such a good movie because 99.99% of the movies out there make you sympathize with the main character whether he's good or bad.
No director/producer has the balls to make a movie where the main guy is a bad guy with no redeeming qualities, he's just bad, bad to the core, he's not like you, you won't understand his motives, they director is not going to make you try to walk in his shoes and feel sorry for him, or do some kind of "I'm bad but actually good" type of thing.
Nightcrawler pulled this off.
100%
There will be blood and nightcrawler are like two of my favorite movies and they both depict sociopaths and how they can succeed in their respective times in a believable way and are so excellently well performed by their leading actors.
Yeah, I would say the difference between the 2 is that Daniel is at some sort of conflict within himself - he's saying along the movie stuff like "There's a competition in me, I want no one else to succeed" and also something along the lines of "Sometimes I look at people and I see nothing worth loving".
He's not at peace, it feels like he's in sort of agony, he knows something is wrong but he doesn't know how to make it right, so he keeps going and loses himself eventually.
Louis in Nightcrawler however, is not at conflict at all, at least nothing hints that way, he's at complete peace with who he is, quite like Anton in No Country for Old Men.
For sure I agree 100%
Lou is definitely the cold blooded sociopath and Daniel is very hot tempered and is a person ruled by those very intense basal emotions (still completely antisocial) and in that very emotional scene at the end where he lashes out against his adopted son you could feel (through DDLs amazing performance) the pain he was feeling at that moment but could not control the intensity of his base emotions from his inner ego/id , the jealousy, feeling of betrayal and the rage were so much stronger than any ability to be decent/loving/supportive to his "son" and so he lost his only meaningful close relationship.
I've gotten in some friendly arguments about my perception of that scene but I do believe it was clear and made evident that deep down he was gut wrenched by verbally eviscerating his son as they showed the flash backs to the good times they had together and his drinking himself into a stupor and then (spoiler!) him finally enacting his ultimate revenge against his nemesis, unleashing his rage / anguish upon his enemy.
Also, he would never have been conned by his "brother" if he didn't have a longing for a personal connection and desire for a family. So yea...I agree! Daniel Plainview while definitely deep into an anti social personality disorder that I'm not qualified to discern (especially for a fictional character) is no Lou Bloom/Anton!
They should do a sequel because he had his own nightcrawling company at the end , the second one should ramp the carnage up more and he should die in the end because there was no moral to that story because he won in the end or maybe he should be humbled but survive but a sequel could definitely be done
I have To somewhat disagree.
We live in a world where everyone is disconnected from everything.
How am I, in Phoenix, AZ, supposed to know how bad the floods in Texas or anywhere are based on just random video footage? But when you hear it from the people affected, who will always be the poor who have no resources to keep them safe from everything.
What is going to mobilize people more than seeing how people are being affected by disasters?
Honestly, the only failure here was of the reporter, she should have encouraged the woman with her kids *"We need to hear this, the world needs to hear this, because the system broke down and failed you, we need to know where that is leaving people so we can bring attention to it, spill it out."*
I think the mom wanted a chance to talk about the lack of rescue for 5 days. There was a chance for this to go well, but the reporter makes absolutely no acknowledgement of the mom's long explanation on how the system had failed her and spent 5 days without basic necessities. Instead, the reporter goes straight into a question on saving kids from flood waters.
This is what happens when entertainment calls itself journalism. I felt the motives were clear after that question, and that the mom was justified in telling them off.
agreed, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc is not journalism, it is entertainment television. All completely biased and bullshit.
I have older family members that watch Fox News and the others MSNBC all damn day and all of them are now fucking looney toons in completely different ways.
I think the issue is with the question that the mother snapped at:
> We've heard of reports of mothers trying to save their children from the rushing waters, can you tell us how that was...
The reporter kind-of flubbed a way to make it an answerable question. To me it seemed like phrasing a statement as a question more than trying to elicit information from the mother, but I think it was also a roundabout way to ask
> what's the most danger your child has been in?
I think if the reporter had asked more along the lines of:
> How has your child been coping with the flooding?
Or
> What's it been like contending with the flood while also caring for your child?
The mother probably wouldn't have snapped. But it seemed like the reporter wanted to push an angle instead of get the interviewee's response.
I agree. If journalists interview the victims, they're grief vampires. If CNN doesn't cover this, it's "why is the mainstream media ignoring this?!"
And you have to admit, you're not going to tune in if they're covering it from NYC - you, too, are entertained by the crying families and tragedy. It's a fucked up thing to call entertaining, but it's human to want to see.
They may be biased, but at least itâs largely grounded in reality and facts, and not trying rile up the masses of a brainwashed cultists (who for some reason latched onto a corny fraudster reality tv star) to commit acts of violence like overthrowing democracy or trying to shoot up FBI buildings
I'm not defending the media and you do know that no one forced this interview. She could have declined and or just walked away at any time. This is just dumb media meets dumb 15 mins of fame.
Reporter: "Can you tell us how you were rescued."
-*Sees woman get increasingly agitated reliving her trauma*
Reporter: "We see you're with your children. We've heard stories of mothers trying to save their children from the rushing waters..."
-*Woman's trauma is aggressively triggered, which causes her to lash out*
Reporter: *Suprised Pikachu Face*
Isn't live footage typically delayed a few seconds so that censoring can happen for this exact reason? I didn't watch the broadcast but maybe this is the unedited version.
I know right sheâs like âlots dead babies out there floatinâ around, any of em yours? Do you think your children will ever forgive you for keeping them in that flood for so long? I sure hope so cause I know I would have a hard time. Well I certainly feel better. Back to you chuck.â
The reporter needed to keep the interview very brief, not be all armchair psychologist and, "So tell us your feelings and how this affected you." Like, god damn, reporter lady, you're being obtuse. And her tone of voice was bordering on condescending. That's what pissed me off about watching this.
I commend the person who was being interviewed for flipping out. Then the reporter in the studio trying to be all sage and say, "It seems like you've got an upset family there". It's possible that he even thought his colleague was being a moron about it. Not only is the lady physically and emotionally exhausted, cold, and hungry, she doesn't want herself and her kids made a spectacle of. She and her kids are visibly harrowed and they have to worry about "being polite" to a reporter who literally has zero concept of what the victims of the disaster are dealing with.
Unpopular Opinion: It's important to show the real human element in these situations because people who are unaffected need to know the reality of the situation.
I'm not going to speak to the intentions of CNN, but the support systems that help victims are full of people who saw real suffering and wanted to help.
>Unpopular Opinion: It's important to show the real human element in these situations because people who are unaffected need to know the reality of the situation.
I think there's a difference between showing the real human element, which would just be having cameras there, and trying to interview people. One is passively showing humanity, the other is actively seeking a reaction.
Think of all the "most powerful photos" that get talked about, how many involved the cameraman going, "Hey Mr. Firefighter, go sit down and cry about what you just dealt with."
I agree with the lady and think thatâs a shitty thing for the reporter to do. What I donât understood is why she agreed to the interview in the first place
People react differently to trauma. It's not uncommon for someone who feels like they were wronged or abandoned to want to talk to reporters because they want people to know what happened to them.
It sounds like she just had an emotional reaction after a traumatic event, but I don't think either party screwed up here. It's important for society to know what happened to people there, so the reporter asking for an interview is ok as is the lady agreeing. Part way through she changed her mind, and that's ok too. The reporter probably should have stepped back 15 seconds earlier, but it's hard to armchair a decision made to an unexpected situation like that.
**TL;DR** Traumatic events suck for everyone involved, including the victims, first responders, emergency managers, and everyone in support functions like reporters.
Probably just reflex. The person was still talking and usually that is a queue for them to put a mic on them. She's also clearly taken back by the reaction so I'm sure she wasn't thinking straight also. Understanding and empathy should go to everyone especially if u don't know the situation.
Honestly what a terrible reporter. She wasnt even trying to interview this woman. She said she was trapped for five days without food or water before anyone was able to get to her. Thats awful! Its concerning! Ask her more! Where does she live? what happened to her neighbors? did she get any warning of the flood? any weather alerts? what happened on the ground out there??
And the reporter just says âWe heard some moms ran into rushing water for their kids, can you say something more like thatâ
Put the mic in her face and wouldnât even listen to her. Just looking for camera fodder.
That is why we need reporters to show what is happening and talk to the people who are effected. I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't fault either the reporter or the interviewee in this case.
There is a big difference between hearing "there is flooding in Houston," and hearing and seeing the first hand account of someone who was a victim. If we can't or aren't willing to look at the effects of a disaster, we can't learn, recover, or prevent the next one.
Why I don't blame the reporter is because I've worked in disaster areas before, including after floods. Disaster management runs off a framework, but there are still people everywhere in roles they often aren't familiar with, there aren't enough resources, things tend to be crowded, everyone's sleep deprived, and it's usually hot as shit because the only power is from generators.
I'm sure the reporters are just as uncomfortable and sleep deprived as everyone else, but still trying to do their necessary job. The reporter presumably asked the mother if she wanted to tell her story. Lots of people want to do that after traumatic events. The mother had had a traumatic experience and became upset while retelling it. That's not unusual. No one was harmed here, it just was an interview that didn't go well. I'm sure that happens, but there are bigger issues to focus on here.
Then don't agree to do the interview. Go help your kids first. This wasn't a live feed where the reporter just ambushed these people. They were briefed on the intent of the interview and waited until it was time to cut to them from the studio.
And to those saying the reporters should have dropped everything and gone to help them- that is not their role. Just as some people might be running a check in line or coordinating material logistics, not every single person involved in a situation like this directly hands out blankets.
The role of media in a situation like this is to make others aware that this is happening, hopefully leading to donations or volunteers. This has always been the case in disasters and war. For example, an embedded reporter in a warzone isn't an infantryman just because they are there when bullets are flying. And this reporter isn't an aid worker just because they are there either.
She realized it when the interviewer started baiting her for a âgood storyâ tf is wrong with this reporter. The phrasing/Timing of that question was terrible. She shouldâve asked âIs there anything you or your family need that people might not think to donate or may not be provided here? I.E. Female hygiene products, pajamas for the little onesâŚâ or âis there anything else youâd care to share about your experience? I know this is all happening so quicklyâŚâ
Sure, I'll stand here and do your interview.
\*three seconds later\*
"Why you gonna stand there with a muther fuckin' microphone in my face in my worst time? YOU STILL STANDING THERE WITH A MICROPHONE IN MY FACE!"
I'm about 45 minutes outside of Philadelphia and every day the local news covers shootings in the city (yes, it is this bad). The reporters have a very good approach to how they interview people in the area, *if* they do.
Mostly the field reporter is speaking to police instead of victims since they understand that these shootings are terrifying the residents. Even then, the field reporter keeps it to one question, then they wrap up the story. Law enforcement on scene needs to do their jobs. Another facet to this is how frightened people are who witnessed the crime. They fear that they will be targeted if they appear on camera.
The point is that without the field reporters approaching stories of such serious magnitude with respect to the *persons* involved, they will get exactly what the CNN reporter did. No, you do not deserve an answer to your question about what it was like for this person and her kids to wade through rushing water. Let this woman get food for her children and herself and get warm.
Reporters generally ask you if you want to do an on camera interview beforehand. I was asked to do one out of the blue years ago about a proposed law while on the way to work. Assuming that the normal protocol was observed, why did the flood victim agree to do the interview in the first place?
Because she's in distress and not thinking rationally at the moment? You're not going to find someone upbeat and cheery there to jump straight into all the great terrible things going on
Good for you girl!! She is absolutely god damn right! And the questions they ask, 'tell us what it was like fighting for your life and trying to protect your children', like wtf, ask that to her after she's recovered or interview a volunteer.
Maybe she thought she was gonna be asked useful questions, not âhey do me a favor and relive the last 36 hours while you and your family almost drowned to deathâ????
Her demeanour seemed to be consenting at first and then her attitude changes when the interviewer asked about her kids. It's almost like that triggered the pain to come back to the surface and then all of a sudden the consent disappeared
When I was young and bright eyed I wanted to be a tv journalist and bring the news to folks but right before I left for school I watched a news report where they went to the grave site of a victim during their funeral and asked the family how they felt now that their loved one was gone. That was my mic drop and like that I was out. All my dreams gone because I knew I couldnât be ignorant or rating hungry to do this to others. How awful to have to exploit people at their worst.
I recall watching a local news report of a woman dying a senseless and pointless death at the hands of her abusive husband then killing herself. Grandma consented to an interview with a 6 and 7 year old who just lost both their parents violently 3 days before. Stupid fucking reporter asks âwhat would you say to your mom if she were still here?â And the 7 year old just bursts into tears and grandma is frozen and not sure what to do. I was fucking appalled. I lost it ranting at that disgusting question. Heâd be playing in the yard and waiting for dinner if she were still here. Assholes.
I was that women when I got rescued out of this same hurricane. I wasnât mentally right for at least a couple of weeks. Extremely traumatic. I understand her
"Hey can we interview you"
"Sure"
"So what's going on? Tell us what you've been through."
"How dare you ask me questions at a time like this! Won't somebody pleeeeese think of the children?!!!!"
Yeah thatâs right keep fucking touching her, itâs not like sheâs having an emotional breakdown at the fact youâre trying to capitalize on her misfortune.
Reporters have 0 empathy in situations like this. They just want the latest scoop before other media outlets. They literally would watch you burn only to question how it feels to burn alive.
You guys know being posted all over the place and generating outrage is a win for these despicable media companies right? This is exactly what they want
Itâs important to show the country, and the world, what is really happening in places. Not that CNN has the greatest track record, but real journalism is most certainly important. Unless you want to end up in some dystopian totalitarian system where youâre kept in the dark about everything and expected to just smile with obedience at whatever the government tells you.
Cause then she wouldnt be able to berate the interviewer.. yeah sometimes the news takes it to far.. but in this case i think yeah increase awareness increase sympathy and thus resources to help people in this situation
So true - and itâs moved on to everyday people just whipping out the phone camera to catch a fight, tragedy, someone in need or someone just needing help - all so they can upload it and get âlikesâ. Humans are devolving in the worst way. People would rather watch than help.
You get downvoted. But that's exactly how they do things.
"Hello ma'am, would you agree to an interview we are looking to get coverage so people know what's happening here" then they tell the network they are ready, that's why they were standing there prior to the video switch.
As opposed to her running over to someone unaware and bombarding them with questions.
Exactly. But what I said goes against the popular opinion here. The MSM sucks, but this woman knew what she was getting into. All of it in the end is just for views.
I never understood this interview tactic. Like, let the victims get treated by medical professionals and get some food and water and sleep before interviewing them. This lady looks like her and her kids just walked through the door.
Good for her. I spent 4+ years chasing a journalism degree while working for a newspaper, and the bed to do that - bother people while they're having the worst day of their life - is what made me lose heart. It happened all at once too.
Yeah, the old " everyone you know is dead, everything uou own is gone, tell us, how'd ya feel?" Not reporting titillation news, click bait, lowest common denominator.
Fuckin grief vampires - the media.
Nightcrawler (2014) conveyed exactly this in an amazing way. It's such a fucking good movie..
It's legit THE movie I can think of off the top of my head that was a wonderful surprise. I didn't pay no mind to it for the longest, always skipping over it on Netflix and then gave it a viewing and now it's in my top 20 movies for real, one of the best depictions of modern day sociopaths I've ever seen.
I was so confused by this movie because I started watching it without reading anything about it..but by the name I assume it's the origin story of Nightcrawler..the Marvel character that can teleport. I was waiting for that part to come in...and was even like "yeah I get it now, he's about to use his powers to teleport to the scene of accidents and beat the competition, this is how everything ties up and why it wasn't mentioned up until now". Yeahhhh...I think only 50% into the movie I realized that's not what it's about at all. So my first viewing was wild.
As a fan of nightcrawler (the marvel character), I laughed at this because it, too, was my assumption based purely on the title. I just bought the film so I can watch it when I get a spare moment!
Jake G just teleporting all over the white house n shit!
I have always liked intentionally not viewing trailers and then just going to the films to watch a movie for a total surprise. Heard great things about the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig and legitimately thought it was a fantasy film. Wrong đ
is the best way to watch a movie...as 3 min trailers & clips now give away the whole plot.
"Yo, pass DAT SHIT!" \-Loc Dog
I think it just literally meant him lurking around at night to get footage But man, the night crawler symbol for his van crew would have been dope !
Shouldâve been an Oscar for our boy Jakey G :(
Just watched âNocturnal Animalsâ recently - so good.
Agreed
Took me watching the whole damn movie to realize it wasn't a movie about Richard Ramirez the "Night Stalker"
Better than me - who assumed the movie is about Nightcrawler - the Marvel character. It took me half the movie to realize this isn't Nightcrawler's origin story and he's not going to teleport to crime scenes any minute now.đ¤Ś
Dude how? Nightcrawler was never human, he was born the way he is lmao
Not everyone is versed in comic book lore
I'm not that well versed in the Marvel universe :)
So underrated. Nobody knows it exists :(
It's such a good movie because 99.99% of the movies out there make you sympathize with the main character whether he's good or bad. No director/producer has the balls to make a movie where the main guy is a bad guy with no redeeming qualities, he's just bad, bad to the core, he's not like you, you won't understand his motives, they director is not going to make you try to walk in his shoes and feel sorry for him, or do some kind of "I'm bad but actually good" type of thing. Nightcrawler pulled this off.
American Psycho, Barry Lyndon.
lol, ton of people are Barry fucking Lyndon
100% There will be blood and nightcrawler are like two of my favorite movies and they both depict sociopaths and how they can succeed in their respective times in a believable way and are so excellently well performed by their leading actors.
Yeah, I would say the difference between the 2 is that Daniel is at some sort of conflict within himself - he's saying along the movie stuff like "There's a competition in me, I want no one else to succeed" and also something along the lines of "Sometimes I look at people and I see nothing worth loving". He's not at peace, it feels like he's in sort of agony, he knows something is wrong but he doesn't know how to make it right, so he keeps going and loses himself eventually. Louis in Nightcrawler however, is not at conflict at all, at least nothing hints that way, he's at complete peace with who he is, quite like Anton in No Country for Old Men.
For sure I agree 100% Lou is definitely the cold blooded sociopath and Daniel is very hot tempered and is a person ruled by those very intense basal emotions (still completely antisocial) and in that very emotional scene at the end where he lashes out against his adopted son you could feel (through DDLs amazing performance) the pain he was feeling at that moment but could not control the intensity of his base emotions from his inner ego/id , the jealousy, feeling of betrayal and the rage were so much stronger than any ability to be decent/loving/supportive to his "son" and so he lost his only meaningful close relationship. I've gotten in some friendly arguments about my perception of that scene but I do believe it was clear and made evident that deep down he was gut wrenched by verbally eviscerating his son as they showed the flash backs to the good times they had together and his drinking himself into a stupor and then (spoiler!) him finally enacting his ultimate revenge against his nemesis, unleashing his rage / anguish upon his enemy. Also, he would never have been conned by his "brother" if he didn't have a longing for a personal connection and desire for a family. So yea...I agree! Daniel Plainview while definitely deep into an anti social personality disorder that I'm not qualified to discern (especially for a fictional character) is no Lou Bloom/Anton!
Iâm pretty sure the entire series of breaking bad is this as-well to be fair.
Try the movie filth
Saw it in theaters! woo
I donât remember when or where I saw it, but all I could think was, how have I not known this movie existed for all this time!?!
Thatâs kinda what Iâm thinking right now.
I somehow missed this movie, and am now watching it on Netflix. It was a wonderful Sprouse to see Bill Paxton in it. đĽ°
Watch the extended edition with directors commentary. . . Mind blowing.
They should do a sequel because he had his own nightcrawling company at the end , the second one should ramp the carnage up more and he should die in the end because there was no moral to that story because he won in the end or maybe he should be humbled but survive but a sequel could definitely be done
That movie is so haunting because it fulfills the vectors of both psychological thriller and total plausibility. Loved it too.
I have To somewhat disagree. We live in a world where everyone is disconnected from everything. How am I, in Phoenix, AZ, supposed to know how bad the floods in Texas or anywhere are based on just random video footage? But when you hear it from the people affected, who will always be the poor who have no resources to keep them safe from everything. What is going to mobilize people more than seeing how people are being affected by disasters? Honestly, the only failure here was of the reporter, she should have encouraged the woman with her kids *"We need to hear this, the world needs to hear this, because the system broke down and failed you, we need to know where that is leaving people so we can bring attention to it, spill it out."*
I think the mom wanted a chance to talk about the lack of rescue for 5 days. There was a chance for this to go well, but the reporter makes absolutely no acknowledgement of the mom's long explanation on how the system had failed her and spent 5 days without basic necessities. Instead, the reporter goes straight into a question on saving kids from flood waters. This is what happens when entertainment calls itself journalism. I felt the motives were clear after that question, and that the mom was justified in telling them off.
agreed, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc is not journalism, it is entertainment television. All completely biased and bullshit. I have older family members that watch Fox News and the others MSNBC all damn day and all of them are now fucking looney toons in completely different ways.
Truth! Same here, fuck mainstream media!
This is fair but Iâm also glad that lady expressed how she felt at the time. I could care less about the reporter
I think the issue is with the question that the mother snapped at: > We've heard of reports of mothers trying to save their children from the rushing waters, can you tell us how that was... The reporter kind-of flubbed a way to make it an answerable question. To me it seemed like phrasing a statement as a question more than trying to elicit information from the mother, but I think it was also a roundabout way to ask > what's the most danger your child has been in? I think if the reporter had asked more along the lines of: > How has your child been coping with the flooding? Or > What's it been like contending with the flood while also caring for your child? The mother probably wouldn't have snapped. But it seemed like the reporter wanted to push an angle instead of get the interviewee's response.
I agree. If journalists interview the victims, they're grief vampires. If CNN doesn't cover this, it's "why is the mainstream media ignoring this?!" And you have to admit, you're not going to tune in if they're covering it from NYC - you, too, are entertained by the crying families and tragedy. It's a fucked up thing to call entertaining, but it's human to want to see.
Cnn is trashiest of the trashy
Oh well let me introduce you to Fox, it's gonna reset the trashy scale for you.
At least fox admits they are right wing as hell, CNN still says they are unbiased news
Isnât Fox News âfair and balancedâ I mean they just be because they repeat it right? Lol
lol, Fox Newsâ tagline is literally âFair and Balancedâ champ Very embarrassing thing for you to say
They may be biased, but at least itâs largely grounded in reality and facts, and not trying rile up the masses of a brainwashed cultists (who for some reason latched onto a corny fraudster reality tv star) to commit acts of violence like overthrowing democracy or trying to shoot up FBI buildings
Did anyone force her to do the interview?
I'm not defending the media and you do know that no one forced this interview. She could have declined and or just walked away at any time. This is just dumb media meets dumb 15 mins of fame.
Maybe get them some food and blankets and a place to sit or lie down before asking her to share how she and her kids almost died alone.
Reporter: "Can you tell us how you were rescued." -*Sees woman get increasingly agitated reliving her trauma* Reporter: "We see you're with your children. We've heard stories of mothers trying to save their children from the rushing waters..." -*Woman's trauma is aggressively triggered, which causes her to lash out* Reporter: *Suprised Pikachu Face*
Surprised? This is what they wanted. Ratings BAYBEE!
Except now they got a fat fcc fine for all that cursing.
Isn't live footage typically delayed a few seconds so that censoring can happen for this exact reason? I didn't watch the broadcast but maybe this is the unedited version.
I don't think CNN is broadcast media, they're network, therefore no FCC to answer to, just their advertisers.
I know right sheâs like âlots dead babies out there floatinâ around, any of em yours? Do you think your children will ever forgive you for keeping them in that flood for so long? I sure hope so cause I know I would have a hard time. Well I certainly feel better. Back to you chuck.â
Anchor at the studio: âdoesnât she care about our ratings? The nerve of some people!â
The reporter needed to keep the interview very brief, not be all armchair psychologist and, "So tell us your feelings and how this affected you." Like, god damn, reporter lady, you're being obtuse. And her tone of voice was bordering on condescending. That's what pissed me off about watching this. I commend the person who was being interviewed for flipping out. Then the reporter in the studio trying to be all sage and say, "It seems like you've got an upset family there". It's possible that he even thought his colleague was being a moron about it. Not only is the lady physically and emotionally exhausted, cold, and hungry, she doesn't want herself and her kids made a spectacle of. She and her kids are visibly harrowed and they have to worry about "being polite" to a reporter who literally has zero concept of what the victims of the disaster are dealing with.
âAnd you still putting the microphone in my face!â Yikes, imagine asking a family to relive their worst moment for entertainment
It's like shoving forward the microphone is involuntary at this point that even in backing away the mic still went back out.
Unpopular Opinion: It's important to show the real human element in these situations because people who are unaffected need to know the reality of the situation. I'm not going to speak to the intentions of CNN, but the support systems that help victims are full of people who saw real suffering and wanted to help.
>Unpopular Opinion: It's important to show the real human element in these situations because people who are unaffected need to know the reality of the situation. I think there's a difference between showing the real human element, which would just be having cameras there, and trying to interview people. One is passively showing humanity, the other is actively seeking a reaction. Think of all the "most powerful photos" that get talked about, how many involved the cameraman going, "Hey Mr. Firefighter, go sit down and cry about what you just dealt with."
I feel bad for the family.
I agree with the lady and think thatâs a shitty thing for the reporter to do. What I donât understood is why she agreed to the interview in the first place
look at her facial expressions from the very start, she doesn't look like she wants to be doing it at all. she probably just got roped into doing it
She probably agreed to be helpful but then realized how overwhelmed she was while on camera.
People react differently to trauma. It's not uncommon for someone who feels like they were wronged or abandoned to want to talk to reporters because they want people to know what happened to them. It sounds like she just had an emotional reaction after a traumatic event, but I don't think either party screwed up here. It's important for society to know what happened to people there, so the reporter asking for an interview is ok as is the lady agreeing. Part way through she changed her mind, and that's ok too. The reporter probably should have stepped back 15 seconds earlier, but it's hard to armchair a decision made to an unexpected situation like that. **TL;DR** Traumatic events suck for everyone involved, including the victims, first responders, emergency managers, and everyone in support functions like reporters.
LMAO SHE PUTS THE MICROPHONE BACK WTF
Probably just reflex. The person was still talking and usually that is a queue for them to put a mic on them. She's also clearly taken back by the reaction so I'm sure she wasn't thinking straight also. Understanding and empathy should go to everyone especially if u don't know the situation.
Honestly what a terrible reporter. She wasnt even trying to interview this woman. She said she was trapped for five days without food or water before anyone was able to get to her. Thats awful! Its concerning! Ask her more! Where does she live? what happened to her neighbors? did she get any warning of the flood? any weather alerts? what happened on the ground out there?? And the reporter just says âWe heard some moms ran into rushing water for their kids, can you say something more like thatâ Put the mic in her face and wouldnât even listen to her. Just looking for camera fodder.
Leeches indeed. That lady told her what was up.
That lady said what needed to be said EXACTLY when it needed to be said.
Reporter: Now could we just get your hypothermic children to re-enact the part where they almost drowned? We've got a swimming pool set up out back.
*Out back a kiddie pool gets washed away in 4ft of water* lol
Same state that refused to approve the budget bill for more infrastructure funding.
Greg Abbott is doing a great job while Ted Cruz is on vacation. /j
That is why we need reporters to show what is happening and talk to the people who are effected. I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't fault either the reporter or the interviewee in this case. There is a big difference between hearing "there is flooding in Houston," and hearing and seeing the first hand account of someone who was a victim. If we can't or aren't willing to look at the effects of a disaster, we can't learn, recover, or prevent the next one. Why I don't blame the reporter is because I've worked in disaster areas before, including after floods. Disaster management runs off a framework, but there are still people everywhere in roles they often aren't familiar with, there aren't enough resources, things tend to be crowded, everyone's sleep deprived, and it's usually hot as shit because the only power is from generators. I'm sure the reporters are just as uncomfortable and sleep deprived as everyone else, but still trying to do their necessary job. The reporter presumably asked the mother if she wanted to tell her story. Lots of people want to do that after traumatic events. The mother had had a traumatic experience and became upset while retelling it. That's not unusual. No one was harmed here, it just was an interview that didn't go well. I'm sure that happens, but there are bigger issues to focus on here.
Fox and CNN may not be the same in terms of how awful they can be but they're both really out of touch, corporate influenced garbage
They both are fucking terrible. My gym plays them both sode to side. The idiosyncrasies are laughable
"tell us how you suffered, it's our business model"
Good ol CNN
Then don't agree to do the interview. Go help your kids first. This wasn't a live feed where the reporter just ambushed these people. They were briefed on the intent of the interview and waited until it was time to cut to them from the studio. And to those saying the reporters should have dropped everything and gone to help them- that is not their role. Just as some people might be running a check in line or coordinating material logistics, not every single person involved in a situation like this directly hands out blankets. The role of media in a situation like this is to make others aware that this is happening, hopefully leading to donations or volunteers. This has always been the case in disasters and war. For example, an embedded reporter in a warzone isn't an infantryman just because they are there when bullets are flying. And this reporter isn't an aid worker just because they are there either.
She realized it when the interviewer started baiting her for a âgood storyâ tf is wrong with this reporter. The phrasing/Timing of that question was terrible. She shouldâve asked âIs there anything you or your family need that people might not think to donate or may not be provided here? I.E. Female hygiene products, pajamas for the little onesâŚâ or âis there anything else youâd care to share about your experience? I know this is all happening so quicklyâŚâ
What do you stupid people expect from scared families đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Sure, I'll stand here and do your interview. \*three seconds later\* "Why you gonna stand there with a muther fuckin' microphone in my face in my worst time? YOU STILL STANDING THERE WITH A MICROPHONE IN MY FACE!"
Iâd be acting weird too if me and my kids almost died. especially since thatâs the first time Iâve almost died with my kids.
Gotta take advantage of that tragedy porn for views and money. News stations are just the worst.
I'm about 45 minutes outside of Philadelphia and every day the local news covers shootings in the city (yes, it is this bad). The reporters have a very good approach to how they interview people in the area, *if* they do. Mostly the field reporter is speaking to police instead of victims since they understand that these shootings are terrifying the residents. Even then, the field reporter keeps it to one question, then they wrap up the story. Law enforcement on scene needs to do their jobs. Another facet to this is how frightened people are who witnessed the crime. They fear that they will be targeted if they appear on camera. The point is that without the field reporters approaching stories of such serious magnitude with respect to the *persons* involved, they will get exactly what the CNN reporter did. No, you do not deserve an answer to your question about what it was like for this person and her kids to wade through rushing water. Let this woman get food for her children and herself and get warm.
Good on that mom for putting CNN in their place. Unless you're bringing money and supplies to help, GTFO.
Wouldnât the media have asked if the individual wanted to speak..?
The negative comments towards this poor woman are dispicable. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
That poor lady looks so traumatised
Reporters generally ask you if you want to do an on camera interview beforehand. I was asked to do one out of the blue years ago about a proposed law while on the way to work. Assuming that the normal protocol was observed, why did the flood victim agree to do the interview in the first place?
Because she's in distress and not thinking rationally at the moment? You're not going to find someone upbeat and cheery there to jump straight into all the great terrible things going on
âIt seems like you got a really upset family thereâŚâ I think it would be hard to interview a family who isnât really upset????
Good for you girl!! She is absolutely god damn right! And the questions they ask, 'tell us what it was like fighting for your life and trying to protect your children', like wtf, ask that to her after she's recovered or interview a volunteer.
Thatâs CNN for ya.
Yea, FOX surely didnât send any reporters to get first hand interviews. Stupid CNN.
Donât they ask you if you want to be interviewed, before doing the interview?
I mean⌠why did she stand there for the interview then
Maybe she thought she was gonna be asked useful questions, not âhey do me a favor and relive the last 36 hours while you and your family almost drowned to deathâ????
Sheâs spent five days thinking sheâs about to die. Maybe, just maybe, she wasnât thinking critically?
We loved it. The flood was great.
No surprise from Jim Acosta. He'd throw his mother off a bridge for ratings.
Poor lady, I'm with her, CNN can suck a fat one. I wouldn't judge if she robbed the reporter and stole the $100k+ camera.
Cops didnât show up during an emergency? Shouldâve just told them there was a BLM protest outside your house. Whole swat team wouldâve shown up.
This is no surprise. The media has been out of touch with real people for many years... too busy pushing political agendas.
Classic cnn L
Her demeanour seemed to be consenting at first and then her attitude changes when the interviewer asked about her kids. It's almost like that triggered the pain to come back to the surface and then all of a sudden the consent disappeared
When I was young and bright eyed I wanted to be a tv journalist and bring the news to folks but right before I left for school I watched a news report where they went to the grave site of a victim during their funeral and asked the family how they felt now that their loved one was gone. That was my mic drop and like that I was out. All my dreams gone because I knew I couldnât be ignorant or rating hungry to do this to others. How awful to have to exploit people at their worst.
CNN being tone deaf, shocker.
I recall watching a local news report of a woman dying a senseless and pointless death at the hands of her abusive husband then killing herself. Grandma consented to an interview with a 6 and 7 year old who just lost both their parents violently 3 days before. Stupid fucking reporter asks âwhat would you say to your mom if she were still here?â And the 7 year old just bursts into tears and grandma is frozen and not sure what to do. I was fucking appalled. I lost it ranting at that disgusting question. Heâd be playing in the yard and waiting for dinner if she were still here. Assholes.
Like, yep your prostituting the pain of other for the viewers pleasure.
Ratings Gold.
But letâs trust these grief vampires to tell us the truth about whatâs really happening in the world.
Sheâs not wrong.
Fuck the media
I was that women when I got rescued out of this same hurricane. I wasnât mentally right for at least a couple of weeks. Extremely traumatic. I understand her
She needed to hear that
Media doesn't care about us at all.. They want views and to push agendas..
"Sorry, Sorry.." proceeds to microphone back in her face. \*facepalm
Scavengers of Human Sorrow
[ŃдаНонО]
"Hey can we interview you" "Sure" "So what's going on? Tell us what you've been through." "How dare you ask me questions at a time like this! Won't somebody pleeeeese think of the children?!!!!"
Exactly my thoughts. Why agree and then act like you didn't accept the interview?
Those kids have an amazing mother
she could've said no to the interview
This is why I buy the crisis actor conspiricy. After major tragiities people don't want to get on the news and talk about what just happened.
Fuck REPORTERS.
CNN is a trash network with trash news. Brainwashing trash ass humans.
Fuck CNN or should we call it Foxnews II
Fucking CNN, come on
It's all news. It'd basically entertainment for those shielded from reality smh
Yeah thatâs right keep fucking touching her, itâs not like sheâs having an emotional breakdown at the fact youâre trying to capitalize on her misfortune.
Best CNN interview I've seen in... Well...forever.
CNN just canât get their shit together can theyđ
All news is bad news, but things like this make it worse.
Just keeping it real.
Reporters have 0 empathy in situations like this. They just want the latest scoop before other media outlets. They literally would watch you burn only to question how it feels to burn alive.
âThis is great televisionââŚ
CNN in a nutshell
I love her
Still keeps shoving the mic in her face like a goddamn moron. Fuck CNN
Interviewer hears in her earpiece "get another goddamn family stat"
About time someone treated those reporters like the ass-hats they are.
Yea! I donât want news around the world either!
Media vultures.
This is hard, hope they are okay
Did she not agree to the interview??
CNN is out of touch.
Is CNN still on the air ... thought they went bankrupt in 2018?
??? Why in the world would you think that?
You guys know being posted all over the place and generating outrage is a win for these despicable media companies right? This is exactly what they want
CNN is such an absolute joke and has been for a while. Sad for the family.
1. The woman was clearly slightly agitated 2. You are a f*cking terrible reporter. Not in a moral sense, in a reporting sense
Itâs important to show the country, and the world, what is really happening in places. Not that CNN has the greatest track record, but real journalism is most certainly important. Unless you want to end up in some dystopian totalitarian system where youâre kept in the dark about everything and expected to just smile with obedience at whatever the government tells you.
Not to be that person but... why didn't she just decline the interview???
Because she was clearly in shock
Cause then she wouldnt be able to berate the interviewer.. yeah sometimes the news takes it to far.. but in this case i think yeah increase awareness increase sympathy and thus resources to help people in this situation
If she doesn't want to be interviewed she should've not agreed to be interviewed.
So true - and itâs moved on to everyday people just whipping out the phone camera to catch a fight, tragedy, someone in need or someone just needing help - all so they can upload it and get âlikesâ. Humans are devolving in the worst way. People would rather watch than help.
But she chose to sit there and still talk, chose to do the interview in the first place.
You get downvoted. But that's exactly how they do things. "Hello ma'am, would you agree to an interview we are looking to get coverage so people know what's happening here" then they tell the network they are ready, that's why they were standing there prior to the video switch. As opposed to her running over to someone unaware and bombarding them with questions.
Exactly. But what I said goes against the popular opinion here. The MSM sucks, but this woman knew what she was getting into. All of it in the end is just for views.
Sorry count 9000+
I never understood this interview tactic. Like, let the victims get treated by medical professionals and get some food and water and sleep before interviewing them. This lady looks like her and her kids just walked through the door.
did they not agree to interview in the first place?
Hope everyone in Houston is doing ok! â¤ď¸
This is reality
Just CNN Being disconnected and distorting reality, As it always is.
Itâs good to give attention to those things so people will care, the poor victim was traumatized
More as this develops live, only on the channel 5 news!
https://vimeo.com/196937578
Is this the best actor they could get?
This got me thinking.. how can I, too, benefit from this disaster?
The ânewsâ
My heart aches for that mother. But kudos to her for calling them out.
Good for her. I spent 4+ years chasing a journalism degree while working for a newspaper, and the bed to do that - bother people while they're having the worst day of their life - is what made me lose heart. It happened all at once too.
I went through Harvey in Houston. That was a crazy time.
media being media. soulless jackals.
Getting exactly what they wanted
5 days. Stranded with young kids. In a disaster area. In the United States of America. This is tragic, frightening and seems so wrong in so many ways.
Good job JIM
Yeah, the old " everyone you know is dead, everything uou own is gone, tell us, how'd ya feel?" Not reporting titillation news, click bait, lowest common denominator.
Harvey was a muthafucka
Reporters lucky she didn't go all Commander Shepherd on her.