Pat-down
July 11, 2013 4:11 PM   Subscribe

"All of us in TV have had people try to sabotage one of our reports before, so I figured if they want to be on TV so badly, I'll put them on TV." Parts 1 and 2, and related.
posted by mudpuppie (35 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
Okay, this was obnoxious, but the scream from the jumping-jacks guy made me LAUGH!!

I'm actually embarrassed by how many of these made me laugh, but I'll admit it: the woman who farted, the guy on the sex offender's list, the kids going down the stairs, as the reporter called the cops, "We didn't DO anything!").
posted by MoxieProxy at 4:25 PM on July 11, 2013


Always Pat-up. If you Pat-down, you look like a jerk.
posted by boo_radley at 4:30 PM on July 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


So that was a lot of "Ha ha, wouldn't it be embarrassing if YOU had non-traditional sexual practices‽"
posted by Apropos of Something at 4:44 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ugh, it seems like a funny concept, but the way the guy pulls it off, it's just petty and smug and lame all at the same time. I thought it'd be more "hey, let's all laugh at ourselves" instead of how it came out, which is "hey, let's laugh at this random people".
posted by mathowie at 4:47 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Half the time it seemed he was just dragging random passers-by in front of the camera. Besides, the only thing more obnoxious than a vacuous talking head is an aggressive, fighty talking head. They do look good in their dress-up clothes, though.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:55 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


I thought it was just kinda lame until he got to the not-pregnant woman and asked her when she was due. Then I thought "ehhh...asshole".
posted by orme at 4:56 PM on July 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


The whole premise of mocking people whose only failure is not acting like nice little compliant background scenery while you film in a public place is a bad idea right from the start. People aren't props. If you want compliant background actors, there is no doubt an extras casting agency in Chicago that would be happy to supply some at a low daily rate.

It might be possible to do something relatively good-natured from there and aim for silliness or confusion, but instead, it just gets increasingly offensive and unlikable. I gave up after the panties thing.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:56 PM on July 11, 2013 [25 favorites]


This is probably pretty great if you think every TV reporter has some sort of right to stand in the middle of a busy thoroughfare with his sound guy and camera crew and equipment - and be politely ignored by every single passerby. Just stand back people, they're doing journalism there.
posted by klarck at 4:58 PM on July 11, 2013 [7 favorites]


This isn't my favorite thing the show's created, but you all should understand this originates from the WGN Morning News in Chicago, and their whole schtick is making fun of themselves for being a poor excuse for a news program. They are famous, for instance, for missing a live shot of a bridge implosion by cutting away at precisely the wrong moment, and for mistaking a filming set for an actual plane crash.
posted by dnash at 5:01 PM on July 11, 2013 [8 favorites]


So is there a blooper real of all the times he was stabbed?
posted by mannequito at 5:35 PM on July 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


klarck: "Just stand back people, they're doing journalism there."

Super important journalism. You know, hard hitting stuff about car shows.
posted by Apropos of Something at 5:36 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Huh. It had the potential to be both funny and heartwarming, but instead he's just sort of being a dick. I guess it's understandable, since dealing with that kind of thing is probably really annoying for a reporter and crew. But still.

Also, whenever I hear "Chicagoland" I wish it was an amusement park instead of a stupid name for a metropolitan area.
posted by The World Famous at 5:37 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


I like the idea, but his demeanor and attempts to assert authority remind me of a mean-spirited cop. At 2:16 in the first video, some random guy is pointing out something to his friends and then it's "Sir! You were waving! Get over here right now so I can humiliate you in front of your friends."
posted by antonymous at 5:47 PM on July 11, 2013


Huh. It had the potential to be both funny and heartwarming, but instead he's just sort of being a dick.

I thought it was funny enough. These criticisms in this thread are weird.
posted by Unified Theory at 6:09 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can't they just start swearing if they don't want to be on TV?
posted by ceribus peribus at 6:32 PM on July 11, 2013


It would be funny if it was an actual clever way he dealt with the obnoxious people he encounters while doing live stories, instead of this phoney thing where he baits people so he can unleash his awesome humiliation skillz while the muted trombone comedy music! plays on the soundtrack so we know it's funny.

Also, good luck to him ever doing a live piece ever again because now people will be prepared.
posted by chococat at 6:54 PM on July 11, 2013


I performed on a segment this guy hosted many many mornings ago, and he seemed like a bit of a mutton head.
posted by damehex at 6:55 PM on July 11, 2013


Can't they just start swearing if they don't want to be on TV?

Given that some of the people have their faces blurred, those without blurred faces presumably signed something after the fact consenting to be on TV.
posted by The World Famous at 7:14 PM on July 11, 2013


To all of you non-Chicago area people, yes, this guy is as annoying as he appears to be. Perhaps more. I don't even want to imagine how bad he is in real life.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:41 PM on July 11, 2013


I thought it was funny enough. These criticisms in this thread are weird.

He mocked a couple's small child.

TV news people are such leeches.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:05 PM on July 11, 2013


It's like a terrible comedian trying to deal with a heckler and failing so bad that the entire audience sides with the heckler.
posted by straight at 9:07 PM on July 11, 2013


Whoo-wee! Now THAT is a smug dude!
posted by Kloryne at 10:01 PM on July 11, 2013


This would be funny if he expended enough effort to be absurd and silly instead of just churlish and demeaning. But that would require him to actually funny, as opposed to half-clever.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:05 PM on July 11, 2013


Also, some of his chosen targets must have been quick enough to get back in his face. Small wonder those don't make the reel. Like if I was asked how I'd fathered such an unremarkable child, it would take me about a millisecond to say "the same way you got this job."
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:07 PM on July 11, 2013


Ok, it's really funny when you mock idiots. Fat people and children -- less funny.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:12 PM on July 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


His premise is off from the very first sentence...

"all of us in TV have had people try and sabotage one of our reports..."

Dude, the people who wave to the camera are not part of some plot to undermine you.

I used to have a dog that would get confused by rain, and bark at the sky. Much like this reporter's schtick, it sounds slightly humorous in theory, but in reality was extremely annoying.
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:55 AM on July 12, 2013


Small children aren't mockable? Mine are going to be so pissed about their childhood when they find out. Also their friends. That's sort of all they were good for for years.

The comments seem weird cause a lot of folks around here have very, very serious important faces all the time. I'm waiting for the Three Stooges thread to descend into whinery about slapstick engendering child abuse. Cause that's much more serious than just enjoying three guys slapping each other around. And being serious makes you importanter.
posted by umberto at 1:59 AM on July 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wait, actual news airtime was given to this?
posted by WPW at 3:21 AM on July 12, 2013


And he wonders why people don't respect TV reporters.
posted by WPW at 3:22 AM on July 12, 2013


whose only failure is not acting like nice little compliant background scenery

This is not a characterization I would apply if they were waving in the background of everyday people's public photos, and I don't think it's much more relevant when you do it to a professional crew. I lol my fair share at local news too, and the smug is definitely strong with this one, but in general I think showing a little courtesy for the fact that they're trying to report on something that Isn't You would be the adult way to behave.

(pregnancy joke annoyed me for being hostile and sexist rather than snarky, kid joke dodged it by going with "average" rather than "ugly" or "stupid")
posted by Riki tiki at 4:03 AM on July 12, 2013


Pat edits these things late into the night, pausing only to glare at the framed rejection letter from The Daily Show that hangs on his office wall. It gives him focus. It gives him power.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:36 AM on July 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


A quick wave while passing thru the back ground of the frame is not sabotaging a reporter. Now if you want to go after the much rarer people who pop in and out of the edge of the frame mugging for the camera or who get right up behind the reporter and a performing for the camera, that is different.
Maybe you should set up your shot different so you don't get so many people passing thru the frame? He just comes off as petty and annoying.
posted by MrBobaFett at 5:00 AM on July 12, 2013


Small children aren't mockable? Mine are going to be so pissed about their childhood when they find out.

This was my Dad's child-rearing style.

Protip: they're pissed now.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:25 AM on July 12, 2013


Mkay, I DID like the fake cop call. That one struck me as a bit funny.
posted by Samizdata at 5:53 AM on July 12, 2013


This is not a characterization I would apply if they were waving in the background of everyday people's public photos, and I don't think it's much more relevant when you do it to a professional crew.

The professional crew set up that shot specifically so there would be people in the background of it. They could easily set up a shot against a blank wall or in front of a large banner or something that would make it weird and difficult for people to try and jump into the shot. But that would be boring -- they want those people in the background. If you try to use a bunch of random strangers as little more than set dressing, then I don't think you should be surprised or more than briefly and mildly irritated when they choose not to just go along with that. And some of those little acts of rebellion/interest were incredibly tiny -- there were a couple where I had to jump back in the video and watch again to even see them. This guy may have dealt with some insufferable jagholes who just wouldn't get out of his fucking shot and let him do his job in his life, but most of these people were not those people.

But really, that's just a philosophical problem with the premise. Even with that, I could still imagine this being silly and fun, so I watched for a few minutes, some of the first couple of edits and then bouncing around a bit to see some of the other stuff.

The reason I actually stopped watching was because the things he chose as subject to mock them about were awful. Because nothing perpetuates the idea that virginity is shameful and embarrassing quite like using the suggestion that someone is a virgin to shame and embarrass them. Likewise the variety of medical issues he chose. When you use something like that as a reason to mock people, you're also mocking everyone who is genuinely in those situations. It's shitty, juvenile and not funny.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:58 AM on July 12, 2013


« Older I'm the new Jean Michel, surrounded by Warhols   |   Because life is sometimes surprising... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments