Fox’s O’Reilly Producer Ambushes GE Shareholder Meeting

Media • Views: 7,966

MSNBC’s extreme leftward bias is obvious to any honest observer; Keith Olbermann is the poster boy for it, and was the winner of our 2007 Fiskie award.

But with this little stunt, Fox News crossed a whole lot of journalistic lines into behavior that borders on unethical: Drama at GE shareholders meeting.

The hostility between Fox News Channel and MSNBC reached a fever pitch Wednesday when a Fox producer infiltrated the GE shareholders meeting.

Just before GE re-elected board members, company brass were hit with questions from shareholders critical of an alleged leftward political slant at MSNBC.

But one of those questions came from Jesse Waters, a producer on “The O’Reilly Factor” whose criticisms were cut short when his microphone was cut off, according to several attendees. Waters apparently did not publicly identify himself as a Fox employee.

Waters has built a reputation as an ambush interviewer, specializing in on-the-street confrontations. But this is arguably the boldest move by a Fox newsie to utilize the tactic inside their chief rival’s tent, as it were.

Jump to bottom

357 comments
1 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:41:40am

Yellow fever journalism!

2 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:41:45am
3 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:42:11am

(I.e. "yellow journalism" which has reached a fever pitch.)

4 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:42:59am

Charles, Jesse Waters is a GE shareholder... Disclosed on TV this morning...

5 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:43:17am

re: #1 zombie

Yellow fever journalism!

They'll keep at it until it Hearst!

6 Buck  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:43:31am

I think it is perfectly ethical. GE is a target for any news organization. Just because they also own NBC should not make them immune from PRESS questions.

GE does many anti -american things. FOX is obligated to question them, and expose them.

7 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:44:02am

I don't see how it's an "ambush."

8 Van Helsing  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:44:03am

Doesn't make him wrong.
Sleazy, but not wrong.

9 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:00am

re: #4 tfc3rid

Charles, Jesse Waters is a GE shareholder... Disclosed on TV this morning...

If so (just being cautious) it'd give him a right to ask questions, but wouldn't justify ignoring a conflict of interest.

10 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:05am

The left has perfected the art of ambush journalism. They're fair game.

11 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:19am

I thought the bigget story was the other GE shareholders that called GE out over MSNBC's moonbattery.

12 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:27am

re: #4 tfc3rid

Charles, Jesse Waters is a GE shareholder... Disclosed on TV this morning...


I thought I heard that too.

13 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:29am

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

14 CommonCents  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:36am

re: #9 pre-Boomer Marine brat

If so (just being cautious) it'd give him a right to ask questions, but wouldn't justify ignoring a conflict of interest.

How is it a conflict of interest? Where's the conflict?

15 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:45:58am

re: #11 Ben Hur

I thought the bigget story was the other GE shareholders that called GE out over MSNBC's moonbattery.

Very telling story.

16 pittrader1988  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:46:02am

News reporters no matter what their political stripe should ask questions during a shareholder meeting, unless they themselves are shareholders.

But then, the questions should be asked for their own personal benefit. Not to advance an agenda.

Companies have conference calls for earnings, and SHOULD have press conferences for the press to ask their own questions. IF GE didn't have an earnings call, or a press conference, then O' Reilly still doesn't get a pass-but some empathy for another corporation dodging questions about it's business conduct.

Corporations use all sorts of legal maneuvers to avoid answering anything. Shareholders have virtually no rights. This needs to be changed so that there is some sort of check the shareholders can place on the board and management besides selling the stock.

17 CIA Reject  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:46:19am

Fox news meets Michael Moore (ie "Roger and Me").

18 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:46:28am

re: #6 Buck

I think it is perfectly ethical. GE is a target for any news organization. Just because they also own NBC should not make them immune from PRESS questions.

GE does many anti -american things. FOX is obligated to question them, and expose them.

An unanswered question is:

Is Jesse Walters a shareholder of GE? If so, he did indeed have the right to ask a question at the meeting, whatever his daytime job is.

But if he isn't, then it was a somewhat unethical stunt.

(And if he is a shareholder, it's still a stunt, just not nearly as unethical.)

19 StillAMarine  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:46:45am

Truth be told, I have no sympathies whatsoever with GE, given its leftist position, and given the fact they helped Iran with the development of IED's that killed our men and women in Iraq. Yes, Fox's actions may have been a tad over the top, but at least their target was deserving of such treatment.

20 jwb7605  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:47:08am

It is "ambush journalism" for sure.
I found this interesting:

Attendees who spoke to The Hollywood Reporter said shareholders asked about 10 politically charged questions concerning MSNBC as well as one about CNBC.

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which CEO Jeff Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not to say about politics.

During the woman's follow-up question, her microphone was apparently cut off. A short time later, Waters asked a question and his mic was cut, too.

"The crowd was very upset with MSNBC because of its leftward tilt," one attendee said. "Some former employees said they were embarrassed by it."


Apparently the issue isn't confined to Jesse Waters (and FOX).

21 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:47:12am

re: #14 CommonCents

How is it a conflict of interest? Where's the conflict?

Because he owns stock in a company but works for a rival. That's a significant conflict of interest. Any annual corporate training program would tell you that.

22 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:47:20am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

Disclosure would have been good but not necessary.

Was it done for ratings, of course... Have O'Reilly's attacks on GE been legit? Absolutely...

23 CommonCents  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:47:42am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

I don't think the fact he asked the question is sleazy. When O'Reilly airs it as part of his show, then it will become sleazy.

24 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:47:48am
Attendees who spoke to The Hollywood Reporter said shareholders asked about 10 politically charged questions concerning MSNBC as well as one about CNBC.

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which CEO Jeff Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not to say about politics.

During the woman's follow-up question, her microphone was apparently cut off. A short time later, Waters asked a question and his mic was cut, too.

"The crowd was very upset with MSNBC because of its leftward tilt," one attendee said. "Some former employees said they were embarrassed by it."

When he got the floor, Waters focused his question about MSNBC on Olbermann's interview of actress Janeane Garofalo, who likened conservatives to racists and spoke of "the limbic brain inside a right-winger."

"He (Waters) was complaining that Olbermann didn't bother to challenge her," another GE shareholder said.

Immelt told the assembled he takes a hands-off approach to what is reported on the company's news networks, which prompted a shareholder to criticize him for not managing NBC Uni more effectively.

He was not the first. The mic was cut for those before him. Not an ambush.

25 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:47:57am

re: #4 tfc3rid

Charles, Jesse Waters is a GE shareholder... Disclosed on TV this morning...

Ah, OK. Then is was a legal thing to do.

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

Sleazy, but still legal.

Still only about 1% as sleazy as Michael Moore.

26 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:48:19am

re: #18 zombie

I figure as with all shareholder meetings, only shareholders may attend.

27 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:48:34am

re: #14 CommonCents

How is it a conflict of interest? Where's the conflict?

It's technical, rather than flagrant/blatant/stinking to high heaven. He works for a competitor.

In my eyes, it's a matter of honor.

/not that many in the news media give a shit about that anymore.

28 lawhawk  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:13am

Thanks to this stunt, the actual question about MSNBC/NBC bias gets tossed in the garbage and the focus becomes the rivalry between MSNBC and Fox because an O'Reilly producer asked questions that GE shareholders should be asking. It took a rival news outlet to ask 'em?

It seems that the problems are multiple:
1) Fox should be ashamed for carrying out this particular stunt.
2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value.
3) Shareholders should be demanding more accountability for the NBC value dilution.

29 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:22am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

You don't need to sign on to it and sure, it may be underhanded to some. But considering GE's stock is in the tank the shareholders have a right to raise the question.

O'Reilly's giving them some payback for some of the vicious crap he's received from them. Sure, he should probably stay above the fray and let the ratings speak for themselves, but with him and GE it's personal.

30 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:36am

re: #7 Ben Hur

I don't see how it's an "ambush."

Are shareholder meetings closed to the public?

31 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:40am
32 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:43am

My thinking is that he is a GE shareholder simply to get the invite to the annual shareholder meeting...

There lies the moral dilemma.

33 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:45am

It appears from the article that he is a shareholder. Do other shareholders have to identify their employer before asking questions?

34 CommonCents  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:49:58am

re: #20 jwb7605

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which CEO Jeff Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not to say about politics.

This is one of those nuance things. You can say whatever you like, just as long as it falls within these parameters. That gives Immelt the out that he didn't explicitly tell them what to say.

35 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:50:15am

If more shareholders, regardless of occupation or political leanings, asked more questions and made more corporate officers uncomfortable, we'd all be better off.

36 MikeAlv77  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:50:17am

re: #25 zombie

Sleazy, but still legal.

Still only about 1% as sleazy as Michael Moore.

Totally agree. As a shareholder he was perfectly within his rights to ask. Also telling was all the other shareholders who asked similar questions and were ignored.

37 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:50:36am

re: #30 Ben Hur

Are shareholder meetings closed to the public?

Usually.

38 CIA Reject  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:50:48am

re: #28 lawhawk

Thanks to this stunt, the actual question about MSNBC/NBC bias gets tossed in the garbage and the focus becomes the rivalry between MSNBC and Fox because an O'Reilly producer asked questions that GE shareholders should be asking. It took a rival news outlet to ask 'em?

It seems that the problems are multiple:
1) Fox should be ashamed for carrying out this particular stunt.
2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value.
3) Shareholders should be demanding more accountability for the NBC value dilution.

Exactly! Fox has sabotaged it's own premise with this stupid stunt.

39 lawhawk  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:51:19am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

Since Waters is a shareholder, he had every right to be there and ask the questions. He should have announced his affiliations though. It's the appearance of impropriety.

But as noted before, the real story and the question gets buried while everyone focuses on the MSNBC/Fox spat. GE shareholders get screwed out of learning how GE is dealing (if at all) with the mess at NBC.

40 jcbunga  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:51:20am

I may be thicker skinned than others, but I think I can live with this one. Was he tazed? That would have completed the loop.

41 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:51:24am

re: #38 CIA Reject

Exactly! Fox has sabotaged it's own premise with this stupid stunt.

But it's ratings for The Factor! Ugh...

42 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:51:45am

re: #39 lawhawk

True... Of course, Immelt and Waters have 'met' before...

43 Adrenalyn  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:51:50am

kudos for him
MSNBC is the enemy

or at least part of it

44 KenJen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:51:53am

re: #12 Crimsonfisted

I thought I heard that too.

Its in the article. 2nd page.

45 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:52:12am

re: #37 tfc3rid

Usually.

Ah. OK.

If others before him didn't ask the same question........I don't know, maybe "Ambush Lite?"

I wonder if we would've heard about the questions about MSNBC and mics getting cut off if he wasn't there.

Ambush Lite.

46 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:53:05am

Truth to Power, man.

47 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:53:36am

I see this as two dying network lashing out for attention.

I wouldn't watch MSNBC or Fox with a ten-foot remote control.

48 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:53:45am

re: #45 Ben Hur

There were also some questions put to Immelt about GE doing business with Iran...

Apparently it was a very hostile meeting...

I recall a similar hostility a few years ago at the Disney shareholders meeting I attended, where Michael Eisner was actually voted out as Chairman...

49 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:54:04am
50 Wyatt Earp  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:54:13am

If FOXNews were smart, they would have Megyn Kelly infiltrate the meetings. No one would have minded at all.

51 hartabuna  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:54:20am

I concur some of the previous comments.
If Waters held a GE stock, he is entitled to show up in the shareholders meeting and ask anything he wants.

If for example, Mr. Waters think that the bias on MSNBC is hurting the profits of GE (say, by not attracting the number of viewers their competitor does) then he is directly affected.

Of course, one can say that what he did was an A-la Michael Moore's tactic. so like Van Helsing said in comment #8

Doesn't make him wrong.
Sleazy, but not wrong.
52 jwb7605  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:54:57am

re: #39 lawhawk

Since Waters is a shareholder, he had every right to be there and ask the questions. He should have announced his affiliations though. It's the appearance of impropriety.

But as noted before, the real story and the question gets buried while everyone focuses on the MSNBC/Fox spat. GE shareholders get screwed out of learning how GE is dealing (if at all) with the mess at NBC.

I actually hope this turns into a very public spat.
I don't particularly care whether Fox gains or loses.
MSNBC's "journalism" needs to be publicized front and center. Otherwise, we're looking at two-term Obama and Pelosi/Reid majorities as far as the eye can see.

53 MikeAlv77  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:00am

re: #47 zombie

I see this as two dying network lashing out for attention.

I wouldn't watch MSNBC or Fox with a ten-foot remote control.

Fox is not dying according to the ratings. It may be dying due to the "weirdness" and unprofessonalism of Napolaitano and O'Reilly getting more stupid than usual. Add the Glenn Beck Meltdown... now you are talking but I still trust Fox more than MSNBC

54 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:18am
55 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:21am
56 MikeAlv77  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:29am

re: #50 Wyatt Earp

If FOXNews were smart, they would have Megyn Kelly infiltrate the meetings. No one would have minded at all.

Amen on that... Beauty and Brains... Yowza!

57 slartybartfast  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:34am

The Gateway Pundit apparently quotes Reuters here:

One shareholder at the Orlando, Fla., meeting was Jesse Waters, a producer of "The O'Reilly Factor." Waters asked a question at the meeting, then turned on the Fox News Channel cameras outside the venue and interviewed other shareholders who attended the meeting.

Oddly, the Reuters article linked from GP doesn't contain that particular paragraph. In fact, there are a number of discrepancies.

What's up with that?

58 realwest  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:34am

re: #28 lawhawk
"2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value."
You mean he's not a legitimate shareholder?

59 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:37am

re: #25 zombie

Sleazy, but still legal.

Reporters, regardless of political stripe, do a lot of sleazy things that are legal. However, simply because the action is legal does not make it the right course of action to take.

60 KenJen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:39am

re: #39 lawhawk

Since Waters is a shareholder, he had every right to be there and ask the questions. He should have announced his affiliations though. It's the appearance of impropriety.

But as noted before, the real story and the question gets buried while everyone focuses on the MSNBC/Fox spat. GE shareholders get screwed out of learning how GE is dealing (if at all) with the mess at NBC.


What bugged me most was GE wanting stimulus money, which means MSNBC and NBC receive stimulus money. Did I read that right?

61 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:53am

re: #49 buzzsawmonkey

Since it was GE, "power" indeed.

Thanks to you for bringing this good thing to light.

62 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:55:54am

re: #47 zombie

I see this as two dying network lashing out for attention.

I wouldn't watch MSNBC or Fox with a ten-foot remote control.


I'm not a huge fan of most things on FOX, but it's sure as sh*t not dying. MSNBC is. Maddow is tanking. All are tanking. And FOX cleans house.

63 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:56:01am

O'Reilly should have the decency not to perpetuate this. He probably won't. I'm to the point where I hardly ever turn on network or cable news any more. I'd rather pick headlines from the web out of specialty outlets (WSJ, ESPN, etc.) and leave the preponderance of Hollywood egos and pundits turned off.

However, the reaction of the GE execs says quite a bit about how leaders are insulated from criticism. You would think these guys would get a clue and not look so flapped when someone sneaks past their advance men and asks them a hardball. It reminds me of the whole fake town hall meeting set up for Hillary and Obama during the elections.

64 Wyatt Earp  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:56:22am

re: #56 MikeAlv77

Amen on that... Beauty and Brains... Yowza!

I'd take her before Rachel Maddow seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

65 Hooray for Captain Spaulding  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:56:27am

As stunts go, this was on the mild and amusing side.
I'm glad Fox is striking back.

66 Mr. In get Mr. Out  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:56:27am

It'll be a good day when GE dies.

67 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:56:38am

re: #49 buzzsawmonkey

Since it was GE, "power" indeed.

Of course, that's exactly what I meant. LOL!

68 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:56:45am

I guarantee that if an MSNBC employee had pulled this kind of stunt at a Fox shareholders' meeting, nobody on the right would be making excuses for them.

Crappy behavior is crappy behavior, and this was simply wrong.

69 JohnnyReb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:57:09am

re: #57 slartybartfast

The Gateway Pundit apparently quotes Reuters here:


Oddly, the Reuters article linked from GP doesn't contain that particular paragraph. In fact, there are a number of discrepancies.

What's up with that?

Selective reporting and/or releasing. Obama is trying the same thing with the torture memos as we speak.

70 CommonCents  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:57:35am

re: #28 lawhawk


...
2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value.
...

Even NBC's primetime programming has dove into the political abyss. You can't watch an episode of Law & Order without getting at least one political smack against the right. Some episode story lines are written exclusively around current issues and ALWAYS come from a particular angle.

71 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:57:49am

re: #60 KenJen

What bugged me most was GE wanting stimulus money, which means MSNBC and NBC receive stimulus money. Did I read that right?

GE has received some stimulus (or maybe even bailout) money. So in effect you're paying a slice of Keith Olbermann's bloated salary.

Change!

72 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:57:56am

re: #57 slartybartfast

The Gateway Pundit apparently quotes Reuters here:


Oddly, the Reuters article linked from GP doesn't contain that particular paragraph. In fact, there are a number of discrepancies.

What's up with that?

Important point that his cameras were not on inside the meting.

73 Noam Chumpski  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:00am

That's not cool. Journalism no longer has any ethics.

If you want an interview, ask for one. It's not complicated.

74 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:08am

re: #68 Charles

I guarantee that if an MSNBC employee had pulled this kind of stunt at a Fox shareholders' meeting, nobody on the right would be making excuses for them.

Crappy behavior is crappy behavior, and this was simply wrong.

They will pull it now.

75 Render  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:08am

None of the media principles involved provides a product that I'm the slightest bit interested in.

If I were a shareholder in GE I might be more then a bit concerned at NBC's obvious and open anti-military bias, considering the number of GE products used by the US military - like jet engines. That too seems like a conflict of interest.

AND THE
WAR
CONTINUES,
R

76 Rancher  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:27am

re: #11 Ben Hur

I thought the bigget story was the other GE shareholders that called GE out over MSNBC's moonbattery.

Another shareholder had their mike shutoff too. Also reported was a lot of grumbling when MSNBC was first mentioned, shareholders are not happy with the agenda or the loss in shareprice or the past dealings with Iran. GE sucks.

77 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:36am

re: #63 DaddyG PIMF - O'Reilly robably won't have the decency I meant to say...

78 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:37am

re: #58 realwest

"2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value."
You mean he's not a legitimate shareholder?

As far I've read, they were asked by other shareholders as well...

79 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:58:51am

Legal, needed to be done, but sleazy. Fox/News Corp./whoever should expect retaliation.

It's also stupid, because the affiliation of the perps will be used to overshadow the questions being asked... "OMG HES FROM FAUX NEWS LOL"

80 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:59:05am

re: #47 zombie

I see this as two dying network lashing out for attention.

I wouldn't watch MSNBC or Fox with a ten-foot remote control.

Fox is blowing the competition away, basically tripling the ratings of the others combined.

Hardly dying.

81 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:59:13am
82 jwb7605  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:00:10am

re: #68 Charles

I guarantee that if an MSNBC employee had pulled this kind of stunt at a Fox shareholders' meeting, nobody on the right would be making excuses for them.

Crappy behavior is crappy behavior, and this was simply wrong.

How much of this do you think would reach the public without the crappy behavior? Do you think the other negative shareholder opinions are also crappy?

83 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:00:33am

The legacy of Heraldo Riviera and Michael Moore. sigh

84 Irish Rose  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:00am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

Kudos.
I second.

85 KenJen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:13am

re: #71 JammieWearingFool

GE has received some stimulus (or maybe even bailout) money. So in effect you're paying a slice of Keith Olbermann's bloated salary.

Change!

So your saying I'm a shareholder and your a shareholder. We should have been at that meeting.

86 subsailor68  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:20am

I think if I were a shareholder (not a reporter, just a regular joe), and the mic was switched off while I was asking a question, my initial response would be,

"Hmm...you build nuclear reactors, medical equipment, other high-tech equipment, and own broadcast networks, but for some reason you can't figure out how to make a simple microphone work."

"Think I'll go ahead and sell my stock while it's still worth more than a Sheryl Crow share of toilet paper."

87 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:28am

By all means, our side must play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

88 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:31am

re: #80 JammieWearingFool

Fox is blowing the competition away, basically tripling the ratings of the others combined.

Hardly dying.

Well, its soul is dying.

Not that I've ever watched it. But from the reports I've heard.

The National Enquirer sells a lot of copies too.

89 realwest  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:38am

re: #72 tfc3rid
"Important point that his cameras were not on inside the meting." Well that's only important if he really wasn't a shareholder, ya know? If he was a legitimate shareholder he had the right to ask questions at the shareholders meeting. If he also brought his cameras into the meeting that would be sleezy.

90 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:01:54am

re: #75 Render

Hello there.

91 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:02:05am
Waters asked a question at the meeting, then turned on the Fox News Channel cameras outside the venue and interviewed other shareholders who attended the meeting.

So much for the benefit of the doubt. That does look like a set-up to me. If he were there primarily as a shareholder he would have left the news crew at the office.

92 razorbacker  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:02:10am

For years, activists against (fill in the blank here) have bought a single share of stock in a company, then attended shareholder's meetings to raise their pet concerns.

Chickenssssssss, coming home to roosssssssst.

Sucks, don't it? But commonplace in today's corporate world.

93 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:02:40am

re: #89 realwest

"Important point that his cameras were not on inside the meting." Well that's only important if he really wasn't a shareholder, ya know? If he was a legitimate shareholder he had the right to ask questions at the shareholders meeting. If he also brought his cameras into the meeting that would be sleezy.

Well he is a shareholder and to me, the fact the the cams were not inside is a very good thing...

94 lawhawk  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:03:11am

re: #58 realwest

"2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value."
You mean he's not a legitimate shareholder?

At the point I wrote that, I hadn't seen evidence he was a legitimate shareholder. Now, there is evidence, in which case he did have every right to ask them.

Fact is that GE has been allowing NBC to run hard left at every opportunity and shareholders have not demanded an accounting. Maybe they don't mind going for a niche market, but when you've got a brand that NBC does, you'd expect it to be more than a niche market.

95 Wyatt Earp  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:03:22am

re: #87 panamahat

By all means, our side must play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

And they play by Marquis de Sade rules.

96 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:03:30am

re: #88 zombie

Well, its soul is dying.

Not that I've ever watched it. But from the reports I've heard.

The National Enquirer sells a lot of copies too.

I think they should just go ahead and hire Ron Paul to be their new program director. Now that would be must-see TV.

97 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:03:32am

re: #88 zombie

Well, its soul is dying.

Not that I've ever watched it. But from the reports I've heard.

The National Enquirer sells a lot of copies too.

Pre-9/11 Fox used to be the most tabloid-esque of the cable news networks. They're simply returning to their roots, IMHO.

98 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:03:49am

re: #85 KenJen

So your saying I'm a shareholder and your a shareholder. We should have been at that meeting.

Funny. I wasn't invited.

99 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:04:00am

re: #94 lawhawk

...when you've got a brand that NBC does, you'd expect it to be more than a niche market.

There working on that. Give them a few more seasons and they will be.

100 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:04:01am

re: #91 DaddyG

So much for the benefit of the doubt. That does look like a set-up to me. If he were there primarily as a shareholder he would have left the news crew at the office.

Yeah but turning the cameras on outside the meeting is legit... I mean, a local affiliate can ask questions outside of the meeting... Anyone can...

101 lawhawk  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:04:01am

re: #60 KenJen

GE has a financial business - GE Capital, which got hit in the credit crisis. The money would have gone to shoring up that, not NBC or MSNBC.

102 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:04:03am

I wish I could agree that politicizing shareholders' meetings is a whole new escalation in the ideological wars, but it isn't. For decades (at least since the 1960s) there have been political investment funds on the left that pressure boards of directors by using similar tactics. And frankly, Sharpton and Jackson have made an art form out of shaking down large corporations with threats of exposure for "racist" or sexist" employment practices.

I don't like these tactics from either direction, but the sad truth is that the right now is employing the tactics of the left. Does that make the situation better, or worse?

103 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:04:22am

re: #94 lawhawk

At the point I wrote that, I hadn't seen evidence he was a legitimate shareholder. Now, there is evidence, in which case he did have every right to ask them.

Fact is that GE has been allowing NBC to run hard left at every opportunity and shareholders have not demanded an accounting. Maybe they don't mind going for a niche market, but when you've got a brand that NBC does, you'd expect it to be more than a niche market.

He may have had a right to ask the questions, but it was simply improper not to identify himself as an employee of a competitor.

104 calcajun  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:04:27am

The problem is that no one likes to see that game played--irrespective of your poilitical views.

Besides, the right is just not very good at it.

105 Irish Rose  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:05:00am

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

106 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:05:01am

re: #88 zombie

Well, its soul is dying.

Not that I've ever watched it. But from the reports I've heard.

The National Enquirer sells a lot of copies too.

Usually best to get your information firsthand. This is like all the people who hate Rush Limbaugh but have never heard him before.

107 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:05:01am

re: #103 Charles

He may have had a right to ask the questions, but it was simply improper not to identify himself as an employee of a competitor.

Precisely.

108 Wyatt Earp  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:05:26am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

And they're never coming back.

109 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:05:43am

re: #95 Wyatt Earp

well done

110 Wyatt Earp  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:06:00am

re: #109 panamahat

well done

Thank you.

111 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:06:10am

re: #100 tfc3rid

Yeah but turning the cameras on outside the meeting is legit... I mean, a local affiliate can ask questions outside of the meeting... Anyone can...


Its the combination of setting up the crew outside and then asking pointed questions inside. Do one or the other but not both.

112 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:06:20am

Maybe he should have brought a shark into the meeting:
Shark dumped on Australian newspaper’s doorstep

But reporters at an Australian paper may have received the scariest threat of the day when a live shark was left on their doorstep.

Police said the two-foot creature was spotted early Wednesday by a man who was leaving a McDonald’s restaurant next door to the offices of The Standard in the small Victoria state town of Warrnambool.

When police arrived, the animal — believed to be a relatively harmless Port Jackson shark — was still breathing, Warrnambool police Sgt. Tom Revell said Thursday.


The shark was still alive and released back into the ocean.

113 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:06:53am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

When did they ever exist? Seriously. Newspapers have been lampooned and characatured as sleaze dens full of sleazy reporters and bosses for years, if not a hundred years.

114 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:07:12am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

If they ever existed.

115 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:07:27am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

Watching tapes of Kennedy press conferences at the White House is almost surreal anymore. There was a lot more decorum.

116 SpartanWoman  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:07:39am

re: #95 Wyatt Earp

And they play by Marquis de Sade rules.

But surely we should let ourselves be butchered as we will be so freaking noble in absolute defeat.

117 jwb7605  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:07:43am

re: #111 DaddyG

Its the combination of setting up the crew outside and then asking pointed questions inside. Do one or the other but not both.

Setting up a crew outside ... I might have taken that as a heads up.
G.E. didn't.
Call me paranoid ...

118 Guanxi88  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:07:47am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

I should just let them go but....

Youtube Video
119 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:07:51am

re: #111 DaddyG

Its the combination of setting up the crew outside and then asking pointed questions inside. Do one or the other but not both.

Why? As a shareholder, he can ask something inside. As a Factor producer, he can ask questions of shareholders outside...

120 calcajun  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:05am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

When were those days, exactly?

121 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:15am

re: #20 jwb7605

It is "ambush journalism" for sure.
I found this interesting:

Attendees who spoke to The Hollywood Reporter said shareholders asked about 10 politically charged questions concerning MSNBC as well as one about CNBC.

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which CEO Jeff Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not to say about politics.

During the woman's follow-up question, her microphone was apparently cut off. A short time later, Waters asked a question and his mic was cut, too.

"The crowd was very upset with MSNBC because of its leftward tilt," one attendee said. "Some former employees said they were embarrassed by it."


Apparently the issue isn't confined to Jesse Waters (and FOX).

Unfortunately, despite the newsworthy questions that were asked by other shareholders, Waters completely took the focus off those questions and placed it squarely on himself instead. What seems to have been a very interesting shareholder's meeting, indeed, has not taken a backseat to these grandstanding antics. They have become the news, rather than the news itself.

122 kay1212  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:37am

Cameras aren't allowed inside shareholder meetings.

Non-shareholders aren't allowed inside shareholder meetings.

Sometimes shareholders aren't allowed to ask any questions at all, Nardelli when he was at Home Depot didn't even show up.

Directors cannot be voted against. Shareholders can only vote FOR directors or abstain.

123 realwest  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:41am

re: #95 Wyatt Earp
Howdy Wyatt! Uh, no they don't play by the Marquis de Sade rules; they don't play by any rules at all. How many LEFTISTS have bought one share in a company just to go to the company shareholder meeting to make waves - not to question a HUGE company with both military contracts and control of the most LeftWing TV channel there is?

124 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:42am

re: #95 Wyatt Earp

slow thinking.......
should have said: Touché !

125 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:43am

re: #103 Charles

He may have had a right to ask the questions, but it was simply improper not to identify himself as an employee of a competitor.

I worked and owned stock for a homebuilder. I also owned stock at another homebuilder. if I had an issue with the other homebuilder's business operations that were affecting my share price and I attended their meeting, would I have had to first identify myself as an employee of the other homebuilder?

126 Guanxi88  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:08:56am

re: #120 calcajun

When were those days, exactly?

Now don't go and ruin a perfectly good rantlette by dragging that sort of thing into it.

127 formercorpsman  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:09:26am

re: #19 StillAMarine

Where is that information?

I am not doubting you, but I never heard that.

128 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:09:36am

re: #112 Kosh's Shadow

Maybe he should have brought a shark into the meeting:
Shark dumped on Australian newspaper’s doorstep


The shark was still alive and released back into the ocean.

'Relatively harmless'. Two feet long. They're not venomous, for heaven's sake. That's a little shark, having a very bad day.

I'm glad the shark survived the ordeal.

129 ORD neighbor  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:09:48am

Which part of separating the making of news from reporting of news is too difficult to understand?

130 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:09:57am

re: #106 JammieWearingFool

Usually best to get your information firsthand. This is like all the people who hate Rush Limbaugh but have never heard him before.

There has been so much written about Fox News over the last three months, I feel like I have seen it.

BTW: I'm one of those people who's never heard Rush Limbaugh either.

It's not that I'm avoiding right-wing news outlets: I avoid ALL MSM news outlets. I don't watch TV news at all. (And I don't get cable in any case.)

131 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:09:59am

re: #117 jwb7605
Good point. GE execs didn't exactly come prepared to be questioned. Too many sycophants on the staff convincing them of their own brilliance?

132 jwb7605  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:10:26am

re: #121 SixDegrees

Unfortunately, despite the newsworthy questions that were asked by other shareholders, Waters completely took the focus off those questions and placed it squarely on himself instead. What seems to have been a very interesting shareholder's meeting, indeed, has not taken a backseat to these grandstanding antics. They have become the news, rather than the news itself.

I respectfully disagree. What might have otherwise been an interesting meeting would IMO been an unpublished interesting meeting. If you want to clean up sewer systems, you're going to get your boots soiled.

133 Wyatt Earp  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:10:27am

re: #123 realwest

Howdy Wyatt! Uh, no they don't play by the Marquis de Sade rules; they don't play by any rules at all. How many LEFTISTS have bought one share in a company just to go to the company shareholder meeting to make waves - not to question a HUGE company with both military contracts and control of the most LeftWing TV channel there is?

Hey, Real! Yeah, it is a shame that this sort of stuff happens at all. The lefty media certainly has no scruples, but now it seems like no one remembers what journalism is all about.

134 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:10:27am

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

I hate to break it to you, but that's mostly Hollywood, not reality. Respectful, rational discourse in journalism has been the exception, not the rule. The idea of the news being unbiased and neutral is a mid-20th Century invention. It was never regarded as unbiased before that, and a lot of reporters lacked integrity. This even went to the highest levels in the news business.

"You provide the pictures; I'll provide the war."
-William Randolph Hearst.

135 Guanxi88  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:10:38am

re: #131 DaddyG

Good point. GE execs didn't exactly come prepared to be questioned. Too many sycophants on the staff convincing them of their own brilliance?

You really think a high-powered executive needs a staff to remind him of his brilliance?

136 Bagua  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:10:56am

re: #128 SanFranciscoZionist

'Relatively harmless'. Two feet long. They're not venomous, for heaven's sake. That's a little shark, having a very bad day.

I'm glad the shark survived the ordeal.

I feel sorry for the shark, the MSM are the far more dangerous predators.

137 OldLineTexan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:12am

re: #114 Leonidas Hoplite

If they ever existed.

Journalism's "integrity" facade is a early to mid-20th century occurrence, and was eroded by television.

Two main events in my lifetime:

Walter Cronkite misreported the Tet Offensive to fit his anti-war agenda.
Woodward and Bernstein "brought down" Nixon, and the Media Establishment has been looking for a "big kill" since then (IMO). This has further eroded any pretense of detachment, since reporters overwhelmingly self-identify as liberals and/or Dems.

138 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:20am

re: #128 SanFranciscoZionist

'Relatively harmless'. Two feet long. They're not venomous, for heaven's sake. That's a little shark, having a very bad day.

I'm glad the shark survived the ordeal.

Maybe it was a Land Shark.

139 calcajun  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:20am

re: #126 Guanxi88

Now don't go and ruin a perfectly good rantlette by dragging that sort of thing into it.

Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking by asking for facts. I am so ashamed./

140 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:22am

re: #112 Kosh's Shadow

Maybe he should have brought a shark into the meeting:
Shark dumped on Australian newspaper’s doorstep


The shark was still alive and released back into the ocean.

I wonder if the perp had any remoras.

141 JustABill  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:30am

Just because he has a right, doesn't make it right...

This has been one of my main issues with social liberalism for some time. To see Fox employing such tactics blurs the distinction...

142 razorbacker  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:30am

I've been digging through this current economy, and I think that I may have found a pony.

Principled conservatives have for years decried the government's raiding of the Social Security surplus to finance general governmental operations. They think that this is theft from future generations.

Now, Social Security is operating at a deficit. No surplus monies coming in to finance current general obligations. So the raid must cease until income once again exceeds outgo.

What? Don't you like ponies?

143 subsailor68  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:46am

re: #123 realwest

Howdy Wyatt! Uh, no they don't play by the Marquis de Sade rules; they don't play by any rules at all. How many LEFTISTS have bought one share in a company just to go to the company shareholder meeting to make waves - not to question a HUGE company with both military contracts and control of the most LeftWing TV channel there is?

Mornin' RW! Hope your feeling well today. LOL! I think you were thinking of the Marquis of Queensbury there, but if not, Marquis de Sade does fit perfectly!

144 MikeAlv77  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:47am

re: #113 Russkilitlover

When did they ever exist? Seriously. Newspapers have been lampooned and characatured as sleaze dens full of sleazy reporters and bosses for years, if not a hundred years.

This is so true. Look at the way newspapers talked about Adams or any of the other early presidents. I am not trying to excuse it but there has not been a clean journalist in a long time. The "good old days" were not that good.

145 danshelb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:11:54am

What's the big deal, he's a shareholder so he's aloud to be there. The running (into the ground) of the GE properties is atrocious, and at least on the broadcasting side, part of that is due to the heavy left lean.

This may be a little dirty pool, but I don't think it was an "ambush" nor do I think it was unethical. If Charles, as one who runs a right leaning blog, were to ask a question like this it would be just as valid.

This is far less a deal than Larry King, asking on a supposed main stream news show, where Bristol and Levi got it on.

146 Guanxi88  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:12:04am

re: #138 Kosh's Shadow

Maybe it was a Land Shark.

Flowers for Ms. (muffled).

UNICEF!

Avon!

147 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:12:10am

I've got some Verizon stock, but I sure don't go to their shareholder meetings. There are ethics involved. If this turns into "a fox news exclusive" then this is miles worse than just asking the question as an unidentified shareholder.

(Waters, who is a shareholder, had attended last year as well and had tried then too to record the proceedings.)

148 J.S.  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:12:14am

re: #94 lawhawk

What I also find curious is shouldn't a corporation be able to have a closed door share-holder's meeting? (something that's privately conducted? without some intrusion by the media?)

149 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:12:20am
150 calcajun  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:12:43am

re: #140 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I wonder if the perp had any remoras.

Nope. Probably still nursing a grudge.

151 JammieWearingFool  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:12:57am

re: #130 zombie

There has been so much written about Fox News over the last three months, I feel like I have seen it.

BTW: I'm one of those people who's never heard Rush Limbaugh either.

It's not that I'm avoiding right-wing news outlets: I avoid ALL MSM news outlets. I don't watch TV news at all. (And I don't get cable in any case.)

I know what you're saying. Some of their hosts are moving into alternate reality, but as a news source it's preferable to the other junk out there. I was so little news myself any more. My television viewing is almost strictly sports at this point.

You might like Rush. Takes a little getting used to at first, but I find him amusing.

152 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:13:34am

re: #135 Guanxi88

You really think a high-powered executive needs a staff to remind him of his brilliance?

Probably not. Heh.
But it happens all the time. Getting good intelligence from your own organization is tough, especially when people get punished for bringing bad news.

153 zombie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:13:48am

re: #129 ORD neighbor

Which part of separating the making of news from reporting of news is too difficult to understand?

That's the whole point: These networks have learned that they're more popular when they're part of the story.

Viewers don't seem to be interested in the inert, neutral news anchor any more.

If Fox didn't do stunts like this, their shareholders might complain that they weren't doing everything possible to make Fox the subject of the news, hence raising their ratings.

154 jwb7605  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:13:58am

re: #145 danshelb

What's the big deal, he's a shareholder so he's aloud to be there. The running (into the ground) of the GE properties is atrocious, and at least on the broadcasting side, part of that is due to the heavy left lean.

This may be a little dirty pool, but I don't think it was an "ambush" nor do I think it was unethical. If Charles, as one who runs a right leaning blog, were to ask a question like this it would be just as valid.

This is far less a deal than Larry King, asking on a supposed main stream news show, where Bristol and Levi got it on.

Excellent point!
Jesse Waters/Fox is trying to take our eye off the ball! Shiny thing over there!
///

155 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:14:40am
156 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:15:05am

If he had truly "infiltrated" the shareholders meeting, I'd understand why people questioned him on it. I believe he was invited (at least implicitly) in his capacity as a shareholder.

157 Dustoff-507  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:15:17am

Sorry. I just can't get worked up over this.

158 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:15:35am

re: #144 MikeAlv77

This is so true. Look at the way newspapers talked about Adams or any of the other early presidents. I am not trying to excuse it but there has not been a clean journalist in a long time. The "good old days" were not that good.


At least you could challenge your opponent to a duel and shoot the lying bastard - unless of course you were the poor bastard being shot.

159 KenJen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:15:43am

re: #101 lawhawk

GE has a financial business - GE Capital, which got hit in the credit crisis. The money would have gone to shoring up that, not NBC or MSNBC.

Thanks for clearing that up.

160 Guanxi88  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:15:46am

re: #152 DaddyG

Probably not. Heh.
But it happens all the time. Getting good intelligence from your own organization is tough, especially when people get punished for bringing bad news.

I'm thinking of Czar Nicholas as an excellent example.

161 realwest  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:16:02am

re: #143 subsailor68 Hey sub! Nope, I was just quoting Wyatt!

162 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:16:07am

re: #30 Ben Hur

Are shareholder meetings closed to the public?

Normally, yes.

Also, simply being a shareholder doesn't guarantee the right to ask questions. Although in this case, that's presumably why Waters was handed the mic in the first place.

And yes, there is a shrieking conflict of interest. As a shareholder, Waters cannot possibly be objective in his reporting.

Being a shareholder is a smokescreen being used to divert attention from the real issue, which is Waters professional misconduct. He generated news instead of reporting it. If this sort of thing were acceptable, reporters could simply buy shares in an index mutual fund and gain access to shareholders meetings of every company on, for example, the S&P 500. Even the incredibly sleazy present-day American press hasn't seen fit to stoop that low. Until now.

163 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:16:09am

re: #149 buzzsawmonkey

Obviously we don't want a return to some of the underhanded tactics you describe, but I almost wish newspapers would just be openly partisan. If I pay my 50 cents for the New York Times-Socialist, I know what I'm getting. (Birdcage liner, but honest birdcage liner.)

164 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:16:20am

re: #125 Russkilitlover

I worked and owned stock for a homebuilder. I also owned stock at another homebuilder. if I had an issue with the other homebuilder's business operations that were affecting my share price and I attended their meeting, would I have had to first identify myself as an employee of the other homebuilder?

Yes. Owning stock in a company while working for a competitor is a conflict of interest; you'd still have a right to attend a shareholders' meeting and ask questions, but if you concealed the potential conflict of interest, that would be unethical behavior.

165 subsailor68  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:16:55am

re: #161 realwest

Hey sub! Nope, I was just quoting Wyatt!

Ah! Gotcha! Didn't notice at first.

;-)

166 J.S.  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:16:56am

re: #153 zombie

lol -- that's also why CNN gets really, really ticked whenever someone states that "CNN -- the most trusted name in the news" -- as opposed to stating "CNN -- the most trusted name in news" (to say, "in the news" suggests that CNN is putting itself, CNN, into the news...as opposed to simply reporting on the news.)

167 Walk Not So Softly  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:17:45am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

To which do you refer, the article you posted which conveniently left out the fact that Waters is a shareholder and perfectly within his rights to ask a question regardless of his affiliation or to Waters for not announcing his affiliation, which is immaterial unless you think every GE shareholder is obligated to announce their line or work or affiliations before asking a question. After all, GE has LOTS of competition in all many different arenas.

The real story is how CNBC failed to recognize Waters in the first place. Perhaps just another example of how out of touch NBC is with their competition, and why their ratings blow.

168 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:17:49am

re: #123 realwest

Howdy Wyatt! Uh, no they don't play by the Marquis de Sade rules; they don't play by any rules at all. How many LEFTISTS have bought one share in a company just to go to the company shareholder meeting to make waves - not to question a HUGE company with both military contracts and control of the most LeftWing TV channel there is?

Probably none. You typically have to buy stocks in blocks of 100 shares.

Lots, however, have simply flaunted the rules altogether and crashed shareholder's meetings in order to create a scene.

169 jcbunga  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:18:01am

Flashback to my high school journalism class...the teacher asks the class "Why do newspapers exists?"

After several variations on the theme of "to uphold justice" or "to fight for truth", I raised my hand and said, of course, "To make a profit."

The teacher was pleased, the class was like huh? Pretty astute for a punk, eh?

So whether it's the frothing rantings of MSNBC or a Fox guy crashing a shareholder's meeting, there will always be a profit motive somewhere in the all that egalitarianism.

I still wish they would have tazed him :)

170 DaddyG  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:18:03am

re: #160 Guanxi88

I'm thinking of Czar Nicholas as an excellent example.

Right! I'm also thinking of any number of people I have worked with and currently work with... best not elaborate.

171 jcbunga  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:19:22am

re: #169 jcbunga

Flashback to my high school journalism class...the teacher asks the class "Why do newspapers exists?"

After several variations on the theme of "to uphold justice" or "to fight for truth", I raised my hand and said, of course, "To make a profit."

The teacher was pleased, the class was like huh? Pretty astute for a punk, eh?

So whether it's the frothing rantings of MSNBC or a Fox guy crashing a shareholder's meeting, there will always be a profit motive somewhere in the all that egalitarianism.

I still wish they would have tazed him :)

172 danshelb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:19:30am

re: #155 buzzsawmonkey

Oh, and by the way--in the 20s and 30s newspapers employed "circulation sluggers" to increase their sales. Sluggers were hired gangsters who would trash and burn the bundles of rival papers, and would beat up newsstand operators if they did not feature the "proper" paper prominently.

Um, you're not equating this little tempest in a teapot to beating up newstand operators by gangsters are you?

173 JohnnyReb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:19:45am

re: #157 Dustoff-507

Sorry. I just can't get worked up over this.

Me either. I mean he didn't ambush anybody. It isn't like he tried to sneak a hidden mic or camera into the meeting. He had every right to be in that meeting and to ask questions as a shareholder.

More importantly I think, he also had every right to be outside of the meeting as a Fox reporter asking questions.

174 pittrader1988  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:19:57am

re: #167 Walk Not So Softly

no one should have to announce their profession to ask a question-but there is journalistic integrity. This showed none.

175 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:20:21am

re: #164 Charles

Yes. Owning stock in a company while working for a competitor is a conflict of interest; you'd still have a right to attend a shareholders' meeting and ask questions, but if you concealed the potential conflict of interest, that would be unethical behavior.

Huh. I want to say that the conflict of interest doesn't exist, if I identify myself, it's more likely my question, no matter how valid, will be tossed out. I'm gonna have to think on that some more. Thanks.

176 realwest  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:20:29am

re: #148 J.S. Well suppose it HAD been a closed door meeting. As a shareholder he was apparently legally attending the meeting. So what if he then went back to Fox and reported on what happened at the meeting?
I don't disagree with Charles on very many things, but it seems to me that this was legit - Waters is a shareholder, went to a meeting (without, apparently, cameras in tow) and then reported on what he, as a shareholder had seen and heard.

177 danshelb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:21:11am

re: #164 Charles

Yes. Owning stock in a company while working for a competitor is a conflict of interest; you'd still have a right to attend a shareholders' meeting and ask questions, but if you concealed the potential conflict of interest, that would be unethical behavior.

Charles - is that a law or SEC regulation to disclose employment at a competitor or just something you *should* do in the interest of fairness and perception?

178 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:22:04am
179 tom from pv  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:22:13am

The GE Board has made it clear in the past that they don't want tough questions from people at Fox News. Like Democrats in the 2008 Primaries, GE executives decided not to give Fox News any interviews because they can't be controlled. They reasoned that MSNBC and other "friendly" news outlets would serve their cause better.

Now, if you're one of those people who think the mainstream media is "fair and balanced" and does a terrific job of asking the tough questions -- well, I guess you wouldn't think Fox News should push into the shareholder meeting. If you hold these views, doubtless you would want "uninvited reporters" to stay in their place and keep quiet. BTW, there are no "rules" on who can ask questions at a shareholders meeting.

Personally, I think the mainstream media does an awful job in most cases. And I don't have any problem with any news outlet asking the "tough" questions, as long as they are respectful and professional.

Hooray for Fox News! They pursued the story, asked respectfully, and showed us exactly how truthful the GE execs are (hint: they're crooks who can't stand the tough questions).

Given the staggering losses so many people have taken as a result of GE's godawful business practices -- the BOD should have kept the mike open for 2 weeks, 24/7. That board did a horrible job and deserved every tough question asked.

180 Lightspeed  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:22:31am

This was below the belt, but not by much. I think it is pretty minor and typical for O'Reilly. He cut his teeth doing this kind of stuff at Inside Editiion. I can't really get worked up about this when the New York Times publishes classified information that jeopardizes our national security and the lives of American soldiers.

181 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:23:25am
182 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:23:52am

re: #176 realwest

Well suppose it HAD been a closed door meeting. As a shareholder he was apparently legally attending the meeting. So what if he then went back to Fox and reported on what happened at the meeting?
I don't disagree with Charles on very many things, but it seems to me that this was legit - Waters is a shareholder, went to a meeting (without, apparently, cameras in tow) and then reported on what he, as a shareholder had seen and heard.

Agreed but I also see the point of view that the ethical issue is whether he did this simply because of his involvement with the Factor and the vicious O'Reilly/GE feud. If you don't watch The Factor, O'Reilly is incredibly vicious with GE...

183 jcbunga  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:25:06am

These shareholder meetings remind me of the WW2-era editorial cartoon of Hitler addressing a large political rally, "I think I can say without fear of contradiction...".

184 realwest  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:26:43am

re: #175 Russkilitlover
Well, given how many "pies" GE owns or owns a big piece of, I wonder if any shareholder of another competing company (not involved in the MSM) should disclose that information before taking the microphone in hand, so to speak.
I imagine, again because GE is SO BIG and has it's fingers in so many pies, that could really lengthen the meeting - hell, think how long it would take just for shareholders who are employees of other defense contractors had to disclose that information?
Maybe Charles thinks it's wrong ONLY because Waters was from an MSM competitor?

185 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:27:01am

As for the "journalistic ethics" of this thing, I'm not sure what the guy did wrong even if he was planning to produce a story as a result of his attendance. It's an important meeting, he got an invite, he was allowed to ask questions. Sounds like a journalist's wet dream.
If 60 Minutes had secretly snuck a camera into some "evil" corporate shareholder's meeting and planted questions, they would probably be up for an award.

186 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:27:13am

re: #167 Walk Not So Softly

To which do you refer, the article you posted which conveniently left out the fact that Waters is a shareholder and perfectly within his rights to ask a question regardless of his affiliation or to Waters for not announcing his affiliation, which is immaterial unless you think every GE shareholder is obligated to announce their line or work or affiliations before asking a question. After all, GE has LOTS of competition in all many different arenas.

The real story is how CNBC failed to recognize Waters in the first place. Perhaps just another example of how out of touch NBC is with their competition, and why their ratings blow.

I'm hearing, above, that Waters didn't simply attend and ask a question. He also videotaped the proceedings.

Every shareholder's meeting notice I've ever received has clearly stated that recording of any kind is strictly forbidden. No cameras, audio or video recorders are allowed.

Rules vary from company to company, but this one seems to be exceedingly common. If I cared more, I could probably track down the restrictions GE imposes on attendees, but I'd bet this is one of them.

You're also asked to identify yourself and your pertinent professional affiliations before speaking. Again, it appears that Waters sort of left out his job as a Fox News reporter.

Slime. Lots of it. The more I read here, the slimier it's getting.

187 J.S.  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:27:59am

re: #176 realwest

hmm...There are a whole set of journalistic practices (ethical issues) which professional journalists are supposed to adhere to...(The CBC, for example, has a whole list of practices which journalists are supposed to follow, and if they cross the line, they'll be reprimanded, and/or fired. I believe the CBC has a public document on what CBC reporters -- disguised as "normal" folk -- in order to get a story, can and cannot do...The moment you're working with hidden cameras and mics, you're into spying/deception, etc., and new "rules" apply...anyway, I'd have to look up the info...but off the top of my head, I don't think this FOX guy should have acted in this manner...it seems unprofessional.)

188 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:28:04am

re: #169 jcbunga

Flashback to my high school journalism class...the teacher asks the class "Why do newspapers exists?"

After several variations on the theme of "to uphold justice" or "to fight for truth", I raised my hand and said, of course, "To make a profit."

The teacher was pleased, the class was like huh? Pretty astute for a punk, eh?

So whether it's the frothing rantings of MSNBC or a Fox guy crashing a shareholder's meeting, there will always be a profit motive somewhere in the all that egalitarianism.

I still wish they would have tazed him :)

I bet General Electric could have tazed him real good, too.

189 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:28:14am

re: #177 danshelb

Charles - is that a law or SEC regulation to disclose employment at a competitor or just something you *should* do in the interest of fairness and perception?

I don't know if the SEC has a regulation on this, but they very probably do. There's no question about it, though -- if you ask hostile questions at a shareholders' meeting, and you work for a competitor of the company but hide that fact, it's an extremely obvious conflict of interest, and unethical. When you do it as an ambush journalist, it's even worse -- you're not only behaving unethically in the corporate sense, but in the journalistic sense as well.

190 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:28:24am

re: #186 SixDegrees

It sounds more like he taped people outside of the meeting... I did not see anything about recording things IN the meeting... That is not allowed...

191 danshelb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:28:48am

re: #178 buzzsawmonkey

Ah, OK. Yes it is quite a fragrant history :-)

192 tom from pv  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:29:13am

re: #175 Russkilitlover

Hmmm, so if I own shares of SPY (S&P 500), doubtless I own shares in companies that compete with my own. So that means I'm ethically prevented from asking questions at ANY of those 500 company shareholder meetings?

Where did that rule come from? I never heard of it before.

I mean, can people who work for NBC or MSNBC ever attend a shareholder meeting for a company that competes with one of GE's 100s of units? If we follow this line of argument the answer is no, it would be unethical.

Kind of a silly rule, it seems.

193 tfc3rid  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:29:24am

re: #189 Charles

Large accounting firms do not allow you or a spouse to hold shares of a company that their have a relationship with...

I think THAT is regulated by the SEC...

Not sure media outlets might be...

194 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:30:04am

re: #13 Charles

This is sleazy journalism at its worst. Sorry, whether Waters is a shareholder or not, I can't co-sign on this one.

I don't see this as any more sleazy than David Gregory, for example, trying to publicly embarrass President Bush by having him describe the things he's sorry for.

195 Irish Rose  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:30:32am

OT, but seriously Charles, I have no idea how you can get up in the morning and read some of the crap that your detractors put out without laughing yourself silly.

196 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:30:38am

re: #185 Lincolntf

As for the "journalistic ethics" of this thing, I'm not sure what the guy did wrong even if he was planning to produce a story as a result of his attendance. It's an important meeting, he got an invite, he was allowed to ask questions. Sounds like a journalist's wet dream.
If 60 Minutes had secretly snuck a camera into some "evil" corporate shareholder's meeting and planted questions, they would probably be up for an award.

He never identified himself as a member of the media - let alone the competition - and apparently videotaped the meeting, an act which was almost certainly forbidden.

And two wrongs don't make a right. If something is wrong for Waters, it's also wrong for 60 Minutes, and vice versa.

197 varmint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:31:55am

a shareholder standing up and asking a question during a question and answer period does not constitute an "ambush".

198 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:32:38am

re: #196 SixDegrees

Never saw anything about him "secretly videotaping" the meeting.
And like you said, it SHOULD be a two-way street, but it isn't. That's a whole different issue.
Is there a YouTube of this meeting yet? All I've seen are a few web-print stories.

199 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:32:45am

re: #192 tom from pv

Hmmm, so if I own shares of SPY (S&P 500), doubtless I own shares in companies that compete with my own. So that means I'm ethically prevented from asking questions at ANY of those 500 company shareholder meetings?

Where did that rule come from? I never heard of it before.

I mean, can people who work for NBC or MSNBC ever attend a shareholder meeting for a company that competes with one of GE's 100s of units? If we follow this line of argument the answer is no, it would be unethical.

Kind of a silly rule, it seems.

Asking the question isn't necessarily an issue. Failing to identify yourself and your professional affiliations is a problem; you're typically required to do so before speaking at these events.

200 Dustoff-507  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:33:15am

re: #173 JohnnyReb


Yep...
After the CNN reporter and the Tea party.
Now that was news that other services except FOX who reported on it.

201 SixDegrees  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:33:54am

re: #198 Lincolntf

Never saw anything about him "secretly videotaping" the meeting.
And like you said, it SHOULD be a two-way street, but it isn't. That's a whole different issue.
Is there a YouTube of this meeting yet? All I've seen are a few web-print stories.

That's the impression I've gotten from several posts, above. Could be a wrong impression.

Still leaves plenty of slime dripping off Waters and Fox.

202 danshelb  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:33:59am

re: #189 Charles

Agree that it is a breach (albeit in my eyes certainly not the worst) of journalistic ethics, but I'm not so sure it is a business one. Either way, I think most would agree that if he had asked the question as a "civilian" it would have been OK, but to do it with cameras outside the meeting smacks of the "gotcha-ism" school of journalism.

203 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:34:24am

re: #201 SixDegrees

I'm still not seeing the slime.

204 Ward Cleaver  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:34:47am

re: #4 tfc3rid

Charles, Jesse Waters is a GE shareholder... Disclosed on TV this morning...

If he's a shareholder, he's got every right to ask questions. It's gets kind of questionable if he then puts the story on the network.

205 Dartmouth  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:35:24am

re: #21 ConservatismNow!

Because he owns stock in a company but works for a rival. That's a significant conflict of interest.

That's not a big issue. It's not like he works for Fox Business or reports on financial issues where that could be a problem.

206 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:36:15am

GE really should have responded by bringing in Jack Donaghy, Head of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming, to issue a statement.

207 tom from pv  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:37:38am

re: #189 Charles

I don't know if the SEC has a regulation on this, but they very probably do. There's no question about it, though -- if you ask hostile questions at a shareholders' meeting, and you work for a competitor of the company but hide that fact, it's an extremely obvious conflict of interest, and unethical. When you do it as an ambush journalist, it's even worse -- you're not only behaving unethically in the corporate sense, but in the journalistic sense as well.

But, that would mean any reporter owning a mutual fund AUTOMATICALLY has a conflict of interest. Thus reporters or their editors can never be allowed to own stock of any form and ask a question. This makes no sense, imho.

And what exactly is "ambush journalism"? Where does it say in SEC rules that questions can only be asked that are "nice". I won't comment about "corporate ethics". :-)

I humbly suggest that IF the SEC has any rules that support your opinion here, MSNBC and NBC would be broadcasting them as we speak. I further humbly suggest that the outrage here is directed at the EFFECTIVENESS of Fox's Jesse Waters rather than any breach of some unknown ethical "rules".

208 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:37:56am

re: #196 SixDegrees

He never identified himself as a member of the media - let alone the competition - and apparently videotaped the meeting, an act which was almost certainly forbidden.

And two wrongs don't make a right. If something is wrong for Waters, it's also wrong for 60 Minutes, and vice versa.

Excuse my cynicism but forbidden or not, if this was a Republican gathering, for example, anything the MFM did to do a gotcha would be hailed as speaking truth to power or whatever the latest slogan of the month happens to be. Tribunes of the people and all that shit.

209 kenprice  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:38:52am

Charles:

I am a former GE stockholder, and watched my shares become nearly worthless under the current "leadership". All FOX did was ask the questions many current and former stockholders would love to ask. It is too apparent that the current Board of GE cares nothing for the stockholders. Cutting off the microphones simply shows the total disregard for the small stockholders.

210 formercorpsman  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:39:00am

re: #199 SixDegrees

So prior to asking questions, declaring your affiliations would be commonplace? I own stock, and have been invited to shareholder's meetings, but have never gone.

211 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:39:56am

re: #23 CommonCents

I don't think the fact he asked the question is sleazy. When O'Reilly airs it as part of his show, then it will become sleazy.

I agree with this 100%. Asking the questions at the meeting is awesomely ethical and exactly the forum where it would be aired. I don't care if he works for a "rival", as a shareholder he can bring it up amongst other shareholders and they can do with it what they like.

Shutting off the microphone was unethical. GE is displaying the worst traits of lazy, spoilt, entrenched management on that one.

212 Buck  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:41:25am

re: #18 zombie

An unanswered question is:

Is Jesse Walters a shareholder of GE? If so, he did indeed have the right to ask a question at the meeting, whatever his daytime job is.

But if he isn't, then it was a somewhat unethical stunt.

(And if he is a shareholder, it's still a stunt, just not nearly as unethical.)

I don't see it that way. If McDonalds was poisoning kids, and when 60 minutes tried to get a comment/interview they were rebuffed.... Would showing up at a stockholders meeting really be over the top?

The problem as I see it, is that no one really knows the depth of the crimes. Why? Because no one is reporting it.

For example, doing business with IRAN, while IRAN is killing US soldiers in IRAQ. Sure they are using a loophole to get around the letter of the law. Since when does that excuse the behavior?

If Caterpillar were doing something similar, do you think the left would ignore it? (example used on purpose).

213 laser9999999  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:41:43am

Charles:
Have to disagree with you, as well...

GE is a big company. Waters could have owned the stock from before GE bought NBC, or he could have owned the stock because he liked the way the Aircraft Engine division was doing.

It really doesn't matter.

I like the way that the story didn't bring up his stock ownership until late in the article...

I'm sure Waters wanted to make a point - but, so did every other speaker at the meeting. I think the media is making WAAAAYYY too much of this and, as a result, it has become a big story. If I were Waters, I'd capitalize on it, too.

214 kay1212  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:41:49am

The SEC doesn't have any regulation about private shareholders announcing who they work for when they speak at shareholder meetings or any regulations about who can purchase stock in any publicly held company if they work for any competitor.

There are regulations against foreign ownership and there are regulations requiring disclosure when someone owns more than x% of a company.

There IS an SEC regulation called Reg. FD that stipulates that no information can be given to one group of shareholders or investors or analysts that is not made public to ALL. The FD stands for Fair Disclosure. So nothing secretive can ever be announced in shareholder meetings. The reason they are closed is so that management doesn't have to answer tough questions.

215 varmint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:42:35am

film maker, and haliburton shareholder, michael moore won countless awards doing this.

216 Buck  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:43:32am

Reporters will as a matter of course own minor shares stock in companies they are investigating. This gets them stockholder reports, and other 'inside' information.

I think it is perfectly legit.

The stockholder meeting is not a church. It is the one time the board has to been seen in public.

217 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:43:38am

re: #143 subsailor68

Mornin' RW! Hope your feeling well today. LOL! I think you were thinking of the Marquis of Queensbury there, but if not, Marquis de Sade does fit perfectly!

See #87 ;)

218 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:43:51am

re: #211 Orangutan

I agree with this 100%. Asking the questions at the meeting is awesomely ethical and exactly the forum where it would be aired. I don't care if he works for a "rival", as a shareholder he can bring it up amongst other shareholders and they can do with it what they like.

Shutting off the microphone was unethical. GE is displaying the worst traits of lazy, spoilt, entrenched management on that one.

I can just imagine the howls of outrage if a microphone was shut off for some liberal asking gotcha questions at a conservative gathering. It would be portrayed as the shadow of nazisim on the rise no doubt.

219 Spartacus50  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:44:19am

Journalism ethics have been tossed out a long time ago(as evidenced by the AP Obama spin Machine). May as well join the melee.

220 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:44:37am

re: #189 Charles

I don't know if the SEC has a regulation on this, but they very probably do. There's no question about it, though -- if you ask hostile questions at a shareholders' meeting, and you work for a competitor of the company but hide that fact, it's an extremely obvious conflict of interest, and unethical. When you do it as an ambush journalist, it's even worse -- you're not only behaving unethically in the corporate sense, but in the journalistic sense as well.

If you ask hostile questions at a shareholder meeting and are a shareholder, then the SEC doesn't get to do diddly squat.

Ownership in public companies is pretty open. That's the "public" part.

If you shut down the probing questions because you can't handle the heat, you are a whining moron who should stick to the school cafeteria. Remember when Jeff Skilling called someone who had probing questions something rude?

221 J.S.  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:45:26am

I don't know think the FOX news producer was using a hidden camera, mic (from the article it appears that the videocameras were awaiting him outside -- so when he left the meeting, the videocameras were there)...But this does involve journalistic deception...Here's the CBC's ethical journalistic guidelines about "Misrepresentation."

222 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:45:28am

re: #214 kay1212

The SEC doesn't have any regulation about private shareholders announcing who they work for when they speak at shareholder meetings or any regulations about who can purchase stock in any publicly held company if they work for any competitor.

There are regulations against foreign ownership and there are regulations requiring disclosure when someone owns more than x% of a company.

There IS an SEC regulation called Reg. FD that stipulates that no information can be given to one group of shareholders or investors or analysts that is not made public to ALL. The FD stands for Fair Disclosure. So nothing secretive can ever be announced in shareholder meetings. The reason they are closed is so that management doesn't have to answer tough questions.

Excuse me if I tend to doubt what you're saying about this -- you claimed a few days ago that you heard that completely bogus Navy SEAL Somalia rumor directly from a first-hand source. Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?

223 Athos  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:45:36am

In the shareholder meetings that I have attended, there is a check-in process during which you are verified as being a legal shareholder of record on the date that qualifies one to attend the shareholder meeting. In these same meetings, the only requirement to identify oneself would be to state their name and town / state of residence....I don't recall anyone specifying or declaring an occupation. (Hell, since it's a shareholder meeting, and everyone is a shareholder, the occupation would be investor.)

What Waters did was very little different from a corporate gadfly / stockholder would do to ask pointed embarassing questions towards the Board of Directors usually to further some individual agenda. The key is that it needs to be a pertinent question to the Board of Directors about some aspect of the business operations and policies. As such, it deserves an answer or expect that the non-answer will have repercussions. The question and answer can be time limited in order to ensure that most who want to speak have the opportunity.

Many gadfly's, particularly in the era of blogs and message boards, will run back to opine on the questions and answers / non-answers and further their own agenda. So, as long as Waters is a legal shareholder, and wasn't filming the meeting against the rules, he's entitled to ask a question regardless who he works for and then comment on that answer / non-answer regardless of who he works for. Fundamentally, its a legitimate question since the decision to focus on a certain aspect of the political spectrum has damaged the brands of CNBC, MSNBC, and NBC news.

224 WV.Hillbilly  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:48:52am

I don't see this is anything to get your panties in a wad over.

225 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:49:09am

re: #222 Charles

....Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?


Charles, I like your stuff, but you are asking someone to prove a negative. I ask you to prove your assertion that the SEC has a law regulating such questions at a shareholder meeting. OTOH, I can not provide you a link to something that does not exist.

Regards,

Orangutan

226 subsailor68  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:49:51am

re: #217 panamahat

See #87 ;)

Hi panamahat! LOL indeed. Great minds do think alike!

:-)

227 Athos  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:51:27am

re: #193 tfc3rid

Large accounting firms do not allow you or a spouse to hold shares of a company that their have a relationship with...

I think THAT is regulated by the SEC...

Not sure media outlets might be...

That is specific to the large public accounting firms to prevent conflicts of interests that may influence or provide an opportunity of impropriety around the auditing of public companies.

I've worked in a number of companies, primarily in the financial services industry, that has required me to declare each year my wife's and my investment holdings which may represent a conflict of interest. This would be direct stock / bond investments as opposed to owning a mutual fund that may own share of a competitor. I think this is defined on a company by company basis depending on the policies of the company and the position that one holds at the company. (The higher up the food chain, the more stringent the rules and requirements.)

Is this becoming another case of who is asking the question and why becoming far more important than the questions asked?

228 bolivar  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:51:33am

If this guy was a stockholder he has done nothing really wrong. To say otherwise is dishonest. If I owned GE stock I would do the same if given the opportunity. I see no such angst when the MSM does much worse - is this a double standard?

We are constantly held to a higher standard and the left always uses this "alleged superiority" to kick our ass repeatedly. I am tired of that and to listen to many of you it seems you have either resigned yourselves to it or just don't care. Which is true?

229 OnTheRightSide  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:51:36am

Good for Fox. They ask tough questions, don't just suck up to personalities and politicians, and produce an interesting product.

I wish we had a FoxNews-type news channel in Canada to confront our politicians and businesspeople.

230 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:53:33am

re: #225 Orangutan

I ask you to prove your assertion that the SEC has a law regulating such questions at a shareholder meeting.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I did not make any such assertion. I said I don't know if the SEC has a regulation like that, and I said it very clearly.

231 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:54:34am

re: #228 bolivar

If this guy was a stockholder he has done nothing really wrong. To say otherwise is dishonest. If I owned GE stock I would do the same if given the opportunity. I see no such angst when the MSM does much worse - is this a double standard?

We are constantly held to a higher standard and the left always uses this "alleged superiority" to kick our ass repeatedly. I am tired of that and to listen to many of you it seems you have either resigned yourselves to it or just don't care. Which is true?

Cool, so it's become a race to the bottom. Lovely.

232 kay1212  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:56:03am

re: #222 Charles

re: #222 Charles

I have an NASD Financial and Operations Principal certificate and I am a CPA and I ran the back office of a brokerage firm for many years.

Yes, I posted something a few days ago that you are now bringing up. I did hear that story from individuals I mentioned and it's too bad that they might have been telling me something already going around the internet. Not my fault. I first asked if it had already been posted on this site and I said it was something I had heard. I have occasion to talk to some of those types of people. It has no bearing on this issue. If you insist, I will send you a copy of my licenses and certificates.

233 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:56:03am

re: #226 subsailor68

Personally, I always put on gloves before I shake hands with a liberal.

234 Buck  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:57:00am

re: #222 Charles

Excuse me if I tend to doubt what you're saying about this -- you claimed a few days ago that you heard that completely bogus Navy SEAL Somalia rumor directly from a first-hand source. Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?

Well, I have my Canadian Securities license, and was a stockbroker in 1998-2000. I trade stocks for myself now. I hope I have some credibility

I have also worked for public companies, and served on Boards.

The shareholder meeting is not a sacred event. It is a meeting to be feared by board members who want to hide from the shareholders.

Shareholders are often told that they can 'bring it up at the shareholders meeting' if they want answers to questions.

When 60 Minutes was the king of this sort of journalism, we all applauded.

I say GO FOX! Only a guilty party would shut off the microphone...If I was the CEO, and I was innocent? I would welcome the opportunity to clear the air!

235 subsailor68  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 10:57:10am

re: #222 Charles

Excuse me if I tend to doubt what you're saying about this -- you claimed a few days ago that you heard that completely bogus Navy SEAL Somalia rumor directly from a first-hand source. Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?

Hi Charles! Gotta agree with ya on that Navy SEAL thing. Not sure if this guy will respond to your request, so here's a link to what I think he was talking about:

Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

236 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:00:05am

re: #234 Buck

When 60 Minutes was the king of this sort of journalism, we all applauded.

Speak for yourself. I never applauded 60 Minutes for ambush journalism, and always found it disturbing; in some extreme cases there might be a reason to use these tactics, but this was a pure publicity stunt, and yes -- I do think it's arguably unethical, both from a business and a journalistic standpoint.

237 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:00:25am

re: #231 Charles

Cool, so it's become a race to the bottom. Lovely.

No, I respectfully disagree. It is more a matter of engaging in the fight and a fight is what this is. A fight for providing the information that the American people need to make their decisions and judgments.
And it is not right that the MFM, which is demonstrably biased, be allowed one set of rules while holding the opposition to a completely different set of rules.

238 RaiderDan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:01:12am

CNN pulled stunts like this all the time. Remember when CNN stuffed the townhall with plants, including a gay veteran who served on Clinton's campaign asking questions at a Republican debate?

[Link: www.politico.com...]

FOX is just taking a page out of CNN's book. Good for them.

Ambush journalism used to be the tool of the left. Now the right is starting to figure it out.

Got no problem with this. MSNBC is beyond belief.

239 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:01:24am

re: #235 subsailor68

Hi Charles! Gotta agree with ya on that Navy SEAL thing. Not sure if this guy will respond to your request, so here's a link to what I think he was talking about:

Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

That regulation deals with insider trading and I don't see the relevance to this story.

240 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:03:11am

re: #237 LGoPs

No, I respectfully disagree. It is more a matter of engaging in the fight and a fight is what this is. A fight for providing the information that the American people need to make their decisions and judgments.

Bill O'Reilly is promoting Bill O'Reilly with stunts like this. What kind of "information" did anyone get out of it? None.

You're being played.

241 Bagua  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:03:48am

re: #236 Charles

Speak for yourself. I never applauded 60 Minutes for ambush journalism, and always found it disturbing; in some extreme cases there might be a reason to use these tactics, but this was a pure publicity stunt, and yes -- I do think it's arguably unethical, both from a business and a journalistic standpoint.

I agree, and its not especially relevant whether the SEC regulates this or not, the SEC does a horrible job in general.

242 subsailor68  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:04:55am

re: #239 Charles

That regulation deals with insider trading and I don't see the relevance to this story.

It's kind of a misleading title for sure. It appears to be an adoption of new rules and amendments to the existing reg, including adding the Fair Disclosure. For example, it includes:

Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) is a new issuer disclosure rule that addresses selective disclosure. The regulation provides that when an issuer, or person acting on its behalf, discloses material nonpublic information to certain enumerated persons (in general, securities market professionals and holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information), it must make public disclosure of that information.

Just provided the link because kay1212 didn't seem ready to do so. As to the relevance to this, yeah, I agree it's a side issue.

243 bolivar  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:05:10am

re: #237 LGoPs

No, I respectfully disagree. It is more a matter of engaging in the fight and a fight is what this is. A fight for providing the information that the American people need to make their decisions and judgments.
And it is not right that the MFM, which is demonstrably biased, be allowed one set of rules while holding the opposition to a completely different set of rules.

Thanks for your support. I am so mad at this kind of double standard and I don't know what to do about it. Write letters that will be shredded or read by underlings and ignored, emails that either hit the spam filter or are deleted, confront pols in public settings and risk arrest or worse. What can we all do to make change happen? I don't want to wallow in sleaze but, it is beginning to look like the only way to get things done. Is this the truth or does somebody HONESTLY HAVE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE?

244 Bagua  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:06:34am

Generally speaking, the SEC's role is to regulate securities, not journalism

245 varmint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:07:38am

re: #240 Charles

having a the guy running the question and answer session refuse to answer a question tells you everything you need to know.

246 Buck  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:07:55am

OK, let me ask..... if it were a HOME DEPOT Shareholder meeting, and the subject was the CEOs' big paydays while the stock falls.

If CBS had tried for a year to get an interview.....

Would that be legit?

247 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:08:21am

re: #243 bolivar

I don't want to wallow in sleaze but, it is beginning to look like the only way to get things done.

So what you're saying is, you DO want to wallow in sleaze.

248 Buck  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:11:20am

My last word on this....

I wish someone had done this to Freddie and Fannie 2 years ago.

249 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:12:40am

re: #243 bolivar

Thanks for your support. I am so mad at this kind of double standard and I don't know what to do about it. Write letters that will be shredded or read by underlings and ignored, emails that either hit the spam filter or are deleted, confront pols in public settings and risk arrest or worse. What can we all do to make change happen? I don't want to wallow in sleaze but, it is beginning to look like the only way to get things done. Is this the truth or does somebody HONESTLY HAVE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE?

Personally, I think this is one of the, if not the key battle we face as a Republic. The battle to be given the information any free people needs to make informed decisions - untainted by manipulation to support one sides agenda.
When this information is distorted, skewed or as importantly just plain excised or omitted - which is no different than censoring - then we have a direct assault on the foundations of this Republic.
What we have today from the overwhelming majority of the media culture is the American version of Pravda. Eisenhower warned about the miltary-industrial complex. A greater worry for me is the media-Democratic Party complex.

250 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:12:52am

re: #247 Charles

Charles, if we are always "above it all," we're liable to get buried by it all.

War is war.

251 bolivar  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:16:23am

re: #247 Charles

So what you're saying is, you DO want to wallow in sleaze.

No, how about the last question? Do you have an viable, effective alternative? I am waiting - being a "nice guy" just ain't getting the job done and the country is suffering for it.

Alexis de Tocqueville 1835: The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

252 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:21:11am

It sounds like he wasn't the first person to bring it up. His question came AFTER someone else got shut off. The elephant in the room on this is "Was the topic a plant?" If he was there to gather information (not report, since O'Reilly and Olberman are not reporters, their shows are commentary) and the topic came up independently, then he had every right, and in fact a DUTY to bring it up again. However, if the topic came up as a Plant by this guy, then I tend to agree with Charles that it was ambush reporting at it's best (or lowest).

253 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:21:32am

re: #250 panamahat

Charles, if we are always "above it all," we're liable to get buried by it all.

War is war.

Where have I heard this argument before? Go ahead and give yourself permission to be as nasty, unethical and dishonest as you like. I won't be joining you.

254 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:24:30am

re: #240 Charles

Bill O'Reilly is promoting Bill O'Reilly with stunts like this. What kind of "information" did anyone get out of it? None.

You're being played.

I've been played by the mainstream media for nearly as long as I can remember. I actually made a conscious decision to stop being played by them back around 1993 and sought my information from other sources. When Fox came along I saw them as a refreshing alternative. And while they no doubt have their faults, I still see them as a balance to the overwhelming skew in the rest of the television media. If I focus on their faults then I'm back to having nothing more than the media I rejected over 15 years ago.

255 eddiebear  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:25:29am

re: #251 bolivar
David Frum thinks that being a pushover RINO is the way to go, and since he is now on Newsweek's cover, he has to be correct.

256 n2stox  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:26:03am

Firstly, MSNBC does not have a "leftward tilt."

It is a collection of stark, raging, often over-the-line, proud-to-be-liberals.

Fox is sprinting to match them on the right.

That's probably the reason I get most of my current events now from The Onion.

257 eddiebear  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:26:42am

re: #254 LGoPs

Yeah. At least they haven't forged documents.

258 eddiebear  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:28:22am

All kidding aside, I wonder if BOR is just trying to outkook Glenn Beck.

259 bolivar  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:29:13am

To expect the left to "fight fair" is naive and as we have well discovered you're gonna get your butt handed to you. Do you suggest we just roll over and let em scratch our belly? I for one am not a dog and dammit I am tired of getting kicked around like one. I still am looking for viable alternatives and Pravda is what we have for most of the media. Fox is at least trying to get somebody to tell the TRUTH. We have been denied that for quite a while now.

By the way, I don't approve of gotcha journalism and long ago tuned out 60 minutes and Geraldo Rivera makes me want to puke as all he is out for is Rivera. I laughed myself silly when Al Capones "vault" was empty.

260 deacon  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:30:56am

so as a share holder (which means you own a part of the company) you have no right to comment or critize that company if you happen to also work for a competitor? What if I happen to own stock in GM and Ford, which would make me an owner in both. Does that mean I cannot attend meetings and demand answers of why they have lowered the value of my investment because of some perceived "conflict of interest"? Especially when the value of GE's stock has fallen from $60 to around $10.

261 eddiebear  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:31:11am

re: #259 bolivar

Do you suggest we just roll over and let em scratch our belly? I

George "Demon Denim" Will thinks so.

262 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:31:35am

re: #260 deacon

so as a share holder (which means you own a part of the company) you have no right to comment or critize that company if you happen to also work for a competitor?

Uh, no. That's not at all what I said.

263 Dainn  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:33:02am

I enjoy O'Reilly. It's been on my DVR list for years.

That said, I fast-forward through his segments with Waters and other similar ambushes. They are like FoxNews doing an episode of Cops, voyeuristic BS. While some of the jerks they corner do deserve to be embarassed on TV (judges that let child rapists out on parole or off easy), it doesn't interest me to watch them.

Evening opinion shows on cable are the media equivolent to Pro Wrestling sometimes. There are other times when I actually learn something from shows like that. But stuff like this makes me think that Harvy Levin will be hosting the next nightly political opinion show: call it "TMZ on FoxNews."

264 researchok  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:41:04am

Why ambush a guy when you can interview hundreds of irate shareholders and make your point that way?

The GE shareholders are by all account upset at management. Given today's business climate, making those managers look like SOB's is easy.

That shareholder anger is a gift- use it.

265 Blastforth  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:43:47am

Can anyone suggest an MSM outlet that still practices good jounalism?

266 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:44:00am

re: #264 researchok

Why ambush a guy when you can interview hundreds of irate shareholders and make your point that way?

Exactly. The ambush was a publicity stunt. It's Bill O'Reilly promoting Bill O'Reilly.

267 deacon  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:44:56am

re: #13 Charles

So what he did was okay then. Problem solved.

268 deacon  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:46:18am

hit the wrong button, grrrrr.

re: #262 Charles

Uh, no. That's not at all what I said.

So what he did was okay them, problem solved.

269 researchok  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:50:22am

re: #266 Charles

Yup- Like Dan Rather going Taliban with a $200 haircut under the turban.

I mean, you gotta look good for TV, right?

270 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:56:08am

re: #266 Charles

Exactly. The ambush was a publicity stunt. It's Bill O'Reilly promoting Bill O'Reilly.

Bill's just taking another personal shot at Olberman, Immelt et al. While having his fun he just wants them to know (for certain) where it originates.

271 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:58:58am

re: #267 deacon

So what he did was okay then. Problem solved.

And that's not what I said either.

There's a real epidemic lately of people trying to put words in my mouth.

272 HippieforLife  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:05:40pm

I just listened to a sound bite of this incident and it sounded as if when Mr. Waters asked about the Jeannine Garafolo statement that the other people in the room actually applauded. The answer that he received was met with boos.

I am not sure how this audio was made having never been to a shareholders meeting, but maybe it is always recorded. I can't seem to find what the question was that earned the microphone being cut off.

273 eddiebear  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:06:43pm

re: #272 HippieforLife

Uh-oh. Can't have that now.

274 Yashmak  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:12:55pm

re: #254 LGoPs

I've been played by the mainstream media for nearly as long as I can remember. . . . .If I focus on their faults then I'm back to having nothing more than the media I rejected over 15 years ago.

If you ignore their faults, aren't you really just being played again?

275 brent  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:16:01pm

Funny as hell, but alas, bad journalism. FOX is not taking any high roads, and it's a shame - they could have, should have been wiping the floor with the other networks.

All they had to do is report the news. The shock and awe of that would have been enough to win over the public.

276 shmuli  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:16:04pm

Excuse, but the vast majority of Annual Shareholder meetings are open to the public. Unless some of the big companies, like GE, actually require you to produce a proxy statement or evidence of ownership at the door, most all such meetings are open.

I have not heard (yet) that GE screens those at the door, nor heard that GE turns away media/press personnel (business media or otherwise) from such meetings. In fact, I think attendance of business news personnel is common at these meetings.

Was it unethical for him to be at the meeting? Certainly not, shareholder or no. Was it wrong for him to ask the question? I think Charles has a point, although I disagree that it is unethical, that it was just not "proper". He should have let others, who were raising the point, do the work for him.

Press and media ethics are NOT what you and I would prefer, and we have all seen such stunts by leftist-activist shareholders at many annual shareholder meetings. Sometimes you have to be as nasty as the left to make your point.

277 deacon  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:21:16pm

re: #271 Charles

And that's not what I said either.

There's a real epidemic lately of people trying to put words in my mouth.

I know, I am putting it in simplistic terms. This is your actually qoute.

Yes. Owning stock in a company while working for a competitor is a conflict of interest; you'd still have a right to attend a shareholders' meeting and ask questions, but if you concealed the potential conflict of interest, that would be unethical behavior.

First, there is no conflict of interest. If there was, I would not have the job I currently hold because of stocks I own. The conflict of interest would be if he wanted one company to succeed at the expense of the other. I cannot believe that or he would not own stock and ask questions that seem to show he is wanted MSNBC to succeed. Questions that were supported by the rest of the shareholders. Second, the Board of Directors have no right to know who you, as a shareholder, work for. You own a piece of their company. Unless if it involves trade secrets or insider information that you are using for your own gain, information which is not going to be available at a shareholders meeting, what he did was legit, and he had a moral right, as a shareholder, to ask those questions.

278 Yashmak  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:21:49pm

re: #275 brent

Funny as hell, but alas, bad journalism. FOX is not taking any high roads, and it's a shame - they could have, should have been wiping the floor with the other networks.

Sad part is, at first they were. Due to the extreme nature of some of their new talk show folks, and this sort of incident, voices on the left can more easily marginalize Fox, casting doubt on its integrity, which will likely result in the reluctance of moderates to trust it any more than its contemporaries on the left.

279 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:25:21pm

re: #277 deacon

If you work for a company's competitor, and go to a shareholders' meeting with the intent to ask questions that will damage the company, I think it's very obviously a conflict of interest -- especially when you conceal the fact you work for a competitor.

Apparently, you see nothing wrong with this kind of behavior, which is just sad.

280 Emerald  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:27:09pm

Buying a share in a company to disrupt a meeting is a tactic straight from the Jesse Jackson playbook. It doesn't matter how sleazy GE is, the tactic is sleazier. Something isn't right just because you don't like who it's being used against.

The real issue is this stunt neutralized the shareholders' anger. It's now going to be portrayed as a Fox stunt rather than legitimate complaints from shareholders. If this idiot had left well enough alone, there would have been a real story.

281 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:29:57pm

Also, it seems GE knew exactly who Jesse was and who he worked for, and that he was planning on broadcasting. So that kind of leaves most of the ethical questions high and dry except for "Was the topic a set up?"

FTA:

"As for Fox News producer Jesse Waters, he(my clarification here-Sheffer) had his say and left the gathering to do stand-up interviews with other attendees outside the proceeding. He was, Sheffer said, asked not to videotape during the meeting, which is not, per stated corporate policy, allowed by any shareholders during the event. (Waters, who is a shareholder, had attended last year as well and had tried then too to record the proceedings.)

282 Sabnen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:31:49pm

Stunts like this, Bill O'Rielly promoting Bill O'Rielly, do a disservice for GE shareholders.

GE is a conglomerate of 11 different businesses, one of which is NBC. What wasn't reported on was how well GE's 10 other businesses are doing. Keep in mind that GE has a large Financial (Consumer and Commercial) Business and Insurance Business. How are these businesses doing? Aren't these the businesses that are blowing up right now and what is management doing about it? I don't know, it wasn't reported. Instead I get a reporter reporting on a reporter kerfuffle. Boy, that's helpful!

Yes, I will go to the Annual reports and see what's up, but that is certainly not what is being reported on. Reporting in America is going to the dogs.

283 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:32:04pm

re: #279 Charles

When that competitor happens to be a bunch of slimeball lying pr**ks, I see little conflict.

284 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:33:06pm

re: #280 Emerald

How do we know he bought (a share) for this purpose?

285 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:33:18pm

re: #281 Fighton03

sorry...not clear....I wanted to say that Sheffer was the one speaking...I blew the annotation.

286 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:34:08pm

re: #284 unrealizedviewpoint

How do we know he bought (a share) for this purpose?

because he was also at last years meeting

287 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:34:51pm
re: #280 Emerald

It's now going to be portrayed as a Fox stunt rather than legitimate complaints from shareholders.

They're going to portray it that way anyway. We're not dealing with ethical folks over there at NBC.

288 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:35:25pm

re: #286 Fighton03

because he was also at last years meeting

I'll ask again:
How do we know he bought (a share) for this purpose?

289 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:37:16pm

re: #282 Sabnen

O"Reilly was getting nowhere attacking Olbershits, so he sent the fight upstairs and I love it.

290 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:38:01pm

re: #288 unrealizedviewpoint

I think I might have misinterpreted what you wrote.....were you implying that he bought 'a share' solely to disrupt the meeting....or that we really don't know why waters has stock?

291 Sabnen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:46:01pm

re: #284 unrealizedviewpoint

How do we know he bought (a share) for this purpose?

Lots of organizations buy a few shares in companies like GE (Exxon/Mobile, 3M, etc.) so they can make shareholder proposals that, usually, have political ramifications. For instance Exxon has a shareholder proposal (from the Sisters of St. Dominic) regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Proposal 11) this year. What their interest in Greenhouse gasses is I haven't a clue, but there they are making a point they wanted made.

292 spartan5751  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:47:28pm

Since when did ethics become important in journalism? From 60 Minutes staging the Ford Truck fire danger issue many years ago to the slanted stories on Fox, CNN, MSNBC today - ethics have never been a cornerstone of for profit journalism.

293 deacon  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:48:19pm

re: #279 Charles

If you work for a company's competitor, and go to a shareholders' meeting with the intent to ask questions that will damage the company, I think it's very obviously a conflict of interest -- especially when you conceal the fact you work for a competitor.

Apparently, you see nothing wrong with this kind of behavior, which is just sad.

So you are saying that he works at Fox, so he can earns money to invest in GE, so that he can damage GE and eliminate his investment?
Sounds like a pretty bad investment strategy to me.

To me it seems that GE has already done the damage (stock price drop) and his question was to why they were letting this happen. I have heard a lot worse questions asked at stareholders meetings.

And it is being reported that GE was well aware of who he is.

294 panamahat  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:50:01pm

re: #253 Charles

Where have I heard this argument before? Go ahead and give yourself permission to be as nasty, unethical and dishonest as you like. I won't be joining you.

I don't consider it nasty, unethical or dishonest.

295 Sabnen  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:52:10pm

re: #289 unrealizedviewpoint

I still don't know what management had to say about their financial, technology, transportation, health, insurance, materials, energy, and other divisions.

Management is probably just as happy to have this distraction so they don't have to talk about anything else. Why talk about the most important nuts and bolts parts of your business when you can talk politics?

I think I'm beginning to understand why GE has gone from $60 to $11 a share.

296 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:56:11pm

re: #294 panamahat

I don't consider it nasty, unethical or dishonest.

Really? So you'd also be fine with it if Keith Olbermann sent an undercover reporter to a Fox News shareholder meeting?

Somehow I suspect you'd find a way to argue that was "different," and despicable.

297 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:57:15pm

re: #291 Sabnen

Lots of organizations buy a few shares in companies like GE (Exxon/Mobile, 3M, etc.) so they can make shareholder proposals that, usually, have political ramifications. For instance Exxon has a shareholder proposal (from the Sisters of St. Dominic) regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Proposal 11) this year. What their interest in Greenhouse gasses is I haven't a clue, but there they are making a point they wanted made.

There is no evidence Waters owns only 1 share. Like many folks who've lost their fortunes betting on Immelt & GE, Waters may simply be another broke shareholder.

298 Mardukhai  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:57:18pm

re: #103 Charles
You're right, Charles, it was improper for him not to identify himself as a reporter, BUT -- if it was the only way to ask the question, a journalist can go undercover.

I've done it. (I infiltrated a "Messianic Jewish" organization and found that it contained few, if any, Jews.)

My father did it. (He actually infiltrated the German-American Bund, a major nazi front before World War II.)

In this case, he should have broken cover the moment his mic went on.

299 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:16:24pm

This guy obviously wasn't speaking out of concern as a shareholder, but as part of a stunt which was carried out purely in the interests of his news network. Seems like a misuse of shareholders right to me.

300 Hooray for Captain Spaulding  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:18:26pm

re: #70 CommonCents

Even NBC's primetime programming has dove into the political abyss. You can't watch an episode of Law & Order without getting at least one political smack against the right. Some episode story lines are written exclusively around current issues and ALWAYS come from a particular angle.

Yes, I watched ONE episode. When one of the characters squawked that Hillary would have handled the situation better, I changed the channel and never looked back.

301 Stratergic Thinking  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:26:03pm

re: #32 tfc3rid

Actually, just about anybody with a mutual fund is likely a shareholder of GE.

I know several of mine have GE.

I hate GE's products I'd never buy their stock directly.

Their appliances simply suck.

302 Chasman  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:29:40pm

Way to go Jesse! Can't wait to see this on O'Reilly.

303 Stratergic Thinking  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:32:03pm

re: #125 Russkilitlover

NO you wouldn't. You're a shareholder and all that matters is the fact that you want your share price to go up. If the company is engaging in activities that work against that you have EVERY right to question them.

Charles is really off base on this one.

Of course saying so he'll likely throw a fit and ban me.

304 rexatosis  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:40:48pm

as a stockholder in GE I am glad GE's board got ambushed. The entire NBC unit is a drag on the company and it is almost entirely due to the insane leftist lunacy at MSNBC and CNBC (what the bleep is a "financial news network" doing with a bunch of left wingers on air, that's as nuts as an "arts" paper having a bunch of fundamentalists as columnists). Does anyone think GE's tactics of cutting off the mics of Shareholders asking tough questions would be out in the news without O'Reilly? I sure as hell don't. Maybe this will get some of the suits at NBC fired before the network crashes so much it trails the CW in the ratings. As far as I am concerned O'Reilly is helping my bottom line as an owner of GE, regardless of his journalistic ethics (isn't that an oxymoron?).

305 Stratergic Thinking  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:41:26pm

re: #164 Charles

Yes. Owning stock in a company while working for a competitor is a conflict of interest; you'd still have a right to attend a shareholders' meeting and ask questions, but if you concealed the potential conflict of interest, that would be unethical behavior.

With all due respect, absolutely not.

You're assuming that one company cannot do better at the same time as the other. You're not going to go to a shareholder meeting and discover some hidden nugget of information that is going to enhance your job/company. And even if you did.

Both companies can do well. Your thinking only works that somehow you benefit if one does better than the other. If you are in the booze business, you discover a competitor has a successful product from chatting up a distributor. You buy some stock in that company. YOUR interest is to make money. you get the salary from one source, AND price appreciation/dividends from the stock purchase. There is no conflict, as the success isn't dependent on one doing better over the other.

I hope that's clear.

306 rexatosis  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:44:40pm

RE #301 Strategic Thinking

I own a 19 inch GE color TV purchased in 1984 and a GE radio/alarm clock bought in 1977. Both still work fine. I have never had any problems with GE products just the current management.

307 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:45:36pm

re: #303 Stratergic Thinking

Charles is really off base on this one.

Of course saying so he'll likely throw a fit and ban me.

A lot of people have differed with my viewpoint on this thread.

People get banned for being jerks, and daring me to ban them. Not for expressing different opinions.

308 Stratergic Thinking  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:53:04pm

re: #222 Charles

Excuse me if I tend to doubt what you're saying about this -- you claimed a few days ago that you heard that completely bogus Navy SEAL Somalia rumor directly from a first-hand source. Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?

Well actually, the "disclosure" part is what got Martha Stewart in trouble. She was given information that wasn't widely distributed. so while Kay might be lost on the navy SEAL thing, the SEC stuff is reasonably accurate.

309 Ronnie Schreiber  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 1:55:08pm

Really? So you'd also be fine with it if Keith Olbermann sent an undercover reporter to a Fox News shareholder meeting?

I have no problem with it. That's called journalism. If reporters had to identify themselves all the time they'd never be able to break half the stories they do.

I get paid to write for PJM and The Truth About Cars. Does that mean I'm not ethical if I ask another publisher a hard question?

If you work for a company's competitor, and go to a shareholders' meeting with the intent to ask questions that will damage the company, I think it's very obviously a conflict of interest -- especially when you conceal the fact you work for a competitor.

There's a big difference between not volunteering the information and actively concealing it. Waters works as on-air talent for NBC's competitor and made no effort to hide that. Apparently the meeting organizers were aware of Waters' affiliation with Fox and had no problem with that as long as he didn't shoot video during the meeting.

It's perfectly legal for people or companies to own stock in their competitors. That's how hostile (and other) takeovers are effected. Stockholders are beholden to their own interest, not those of the executives, BOD or other shareholders.

Asking a competitor a damaging question is hardly a conflict of interest. Using stock ownership to gain a venue to ask those damaging questions is perfectly legal and no more unethical than using legal means to infiltrate CAIR or ISNA.

Charles, I had a teacher when I was a kid who was a Yemenite Jew and a native Arabic speaker. He'd go to meeting of Fatah sympathizers and ask troublemaking questions. Was that unethical? Should he have identified himself as a Jew before asking his questions?

As other posters have noted, the activist left has long used shareholder meetings to forward their agenda. It may be annoying, but it's legal and ethical. The word for buying one share of stock so you have some say in how a company is run is called "business".

I don't have a problem with a competitor acting like a competitor. If it's okay to use shareholder meetings for political purposes, I don't see anything wrong with using them to promote a competitor.

Business ain't beanbag.

310 Ronnie Schreiber  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:00:13pm
People get banned for being jerks, and daring me to ban them. Not for expressing different opinions.

If all it takes is a little dare then they are the ones controlling your behavior.

I do know that when the people who have known me the best and longest express reservations about my behavior that the prudent thing to do is consider that they have my interests at heart and give some heed to their concerns. I've found that digging in my heels and counterpunching is rarely in my best interests.

311 Stratergic Thinking  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:04:04pm

re: #306 rexatosis

I'm talking about "modern" GE appliances. My wife's house, was GE dishwasher, and stove.

the dishwasher could be more accurately described as a rinser. :)

the microwave struggled to heat water. the microwave/oven combo we had prior to the current was was a sears badged GE unit. it was under a recall. Turns out GE couldn't manage to make a sticker good enough to keep the serial number legible. after about 4 repair trips and a nice smoke and sparks episode. we didn't need the recall repair afterall. well after the smoke/sparks. I forced Sears to replace the unit.

OTOH, my parents are still using their Mitsibushi tv set from the Mid 80's.

We had GE appliances when I was growing up they did fine. the recent, last 10 years stuff isn't very good at all.

312 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:13:32pm

re: #230 Charles

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I did not make any such assertion. I said I don't know if the SEC has a regulation like that, and I said it very clearly.

I put no words in your mouth. You have, however, asked someone (and rudely at that) to prove a negative, which does not happen in statistics or the law, and with good reason. You have also acted as though your "positive" must somehow be enforced as true or ethical, when there is evidence to support neither provided.

Since you are espousing the positive, (although you try to skirt it), maybe you could back up your supposition or hope. Until then, we'll go with the null hypothesis that shareholder meetings are open season......for shareholders....be they journalists, bloggers, or beggars.

Again, I really enjoy the site and have for years. The dirty players in this escapade to date, IMHO, are the numbskulls who shut off the microphone. If this shows up on Fox, it will also not be a proud moment for them. We'll see.

313 ronnie schreiber  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:15:45pm

One problem with corporate America is the number of former GE execs, acolytes of Jack Welch, like Bob Nardelli, who have gotten CEO and other high level jobs at other companies. They don't have any real interest in what the company makes, they just follow Welch's paradigm no matter what the industry is.

314 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:17:15pm

re: #296 Charles

Really? So you'd also be fine with it if Keith Olbermann sent an undercover reporter to a Fox News shareholder meeting?

Somehow I suspect you'd find a way to argue that was "different," and despicable.

Not if it's a ... shareholder. No offense, but your "metaphor" left out what so many here have identified as a key piece of the equation.

As long as Newscorp is public, any shareholder should get their question addressed at the shareholder meeting.

315 ronnie schreiber  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:17:32pm
Again, I really enjoy the site and have for years. The dirty players in this escapade to date, IMHO, are the numbskulls who shut off the microphone.

Is shutting off a microphone the moral equivalent to a site banning a commenter?

316 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:24:48pm

re: #315 ronnie schreiber

Is shutting off a microphone the moral equivalent to a site banning a commenter?

No. Not on many levels.

We are talking about a public company dealing with its syndicated ownership at the very least. I would not make that parallel to a hosted discussion on a blog, not at all.

317 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:28:18pm

re: #312 Orangutan

Since you are espousing the positive, (although you try to skirt it), maybe you could back up your supposition or hope.

Complete bullshit. You wrote:

I ask you to prove your assertion that the SEC has a law regulating such questions at a shareholder meeting.

I made no such assertion. I said very clearly that I did not know if they had such a regulation.

318 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:28:45pm

I smell another meltdown approaching.

319 thatemailname  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:31:29pm

If GE doesn't want to deal with this kind of thing, they can divest themselves of their "news" organizations, and stick to their core business lines.

This is just a case of the left being beaten at their own game. This kind of thing is such a staple of the left's MO, it's almost a cliche.

320 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:34:08pm

re: #312 Orangutan

I put no words in your mouth. You have, however, asked someone (and rudely at that) to prove a negative, which does not happen in statistics or the law, and with good reason.

Again, you've completely mischaracterized my comment. It was not "rude" at all. Here is the exact comment you're distorting:

I don't know if the SEC has a regulation on this, but they very probably do. There's no question about it, though -- if you ask hostile questions at a shareholders' meeting, and you work for a competitor of the company but hide that fact, it's an extremely obvious conflict of interest, and unethical. When you do it as an ambush journalist, it's even worse -- you're not only behaving unethically in the corporate sense, but in the journalistic sense as well.

That is not rude, not one bit. And I did not ask anyone to prove a negative, either.

321 AMER1CAN  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:37:19pm

If owning stocks in a competitor is a conflict of interest then you should alert the SEC right away because they must not even know what their own rules are. Companies are allowed and many times do own small shares of stock (many times non-voting stock) in a competitor.

For awhile Microsoft owned some stock in Apple, and Intel owned stock in AMD. And how about a conflict of interest with the CEO of Google sitting on Apples board. No conflict of interest there? The SEC doesn't think so.

322 AMER1CAN  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:39:20pm

If this footage shows up on Fox, then I would just have a lower opinion of Fox, which is hard to do for me becauser I don't watch their garbage anyways. Someone else will have to tell me if it shows up on Fox. Which I have no doubts it will.

323 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:44:09pm

re: #321 AMER1CAN

If owning stocks in a competitor is a conflict of interest then you should alert the SEC right away because they must not even know what their own rules are.

I was unclear in that comment, but I've been quite clear in subsequent comments. Simply owning stock in a competitor's company is not a conflict of interest -- however, using that stock ownership to attend a shareholders' meeting with the express purpose of attacking the competitor company and staging a publicity stunt IS a conflict of interest.

324 AMER1CAN  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:46:19pm

For the record, Bill O'Reilly is one of the most pathetic people on TV right now and his show hasn’t been relevant in years (was it ever?). He single handedly drove me away from Fox News about 3 years ago. I should thank him for it actually. I can see they have fallen even further. What's beyond the basement? Well, FOX. That's what.

Hannity drove me away from all political radio programs. His radio show was so frickin over the top corny I could not get myself to listen to him anymore. I felt myself getting dumber each passing hour of his radio show.

325 Orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:49:02pm

re: #320 Charles

That is not rude, not one bit. And I did not ask anyone to prove a negative, either.

You did both in post #222 on this thread. I quoted it earlier. I think we have a little drift here, but I am sure you have done both. Post #222.

Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from this - you weren't asking me to prove a negative or being rude to me. As you are not now.....which is one of the great things about this forum. People can "argue" rationally.

:)

326 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:51:47pm

re: #325 Orangutan

You did both in post #222 on this thread. I quoted it earlier. I think we have a little drift here, but I am sure you have done both. Post #222.

Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from this - you weren't asking me to prove a negative or being rude to me. As you are not now.....which is one of the great things about this forum. People can "argue" rationally.

:)

Post #222:

Excuse me if I tend to doubt what you're saying about this -- you claimed a few days ago that you heard that completely bogus Navy SEAL Somalia rumor directly from a first-hand source. Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?

How in the world is this asking to "prove a negative?"

As for it being rude, I'm not happy that people have used LGF to promote bogus rumors; call that rude if you like. I call it being direct.

327 AMER1CAN  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:53:23pm

re: #323 Charles

I was unclear in that comment, but I've been quite clear in subsequent comments. Simply owning stock in a competitor's company is not a conflict of interest -- however, using that stock ownership to attend a shareholders' meeting with the express purpose of attacking the competitor company and staging a publicity stunt IS a conflict of interest.

I agree with you mostly. What I don't agree with is probably only due to semanticts maybe. You are stringing together two actions, both of which are not a conflict of interest.

Attacking the competitor company at a shareholder meeting is not a conflict of interest.

Staging a publicity stunt based on this attack IS a conflict of interest.

Would we both agree on that?

328 AMER1CAN  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:59:38pm

re: #323 Charles

I was unclear in that comment, but I've been quite clear in subsequent comments. Simply owning stock in a competitor's company is not a conflict of interest -- however, using that stock ownership to attend a shareholders' meeting with the express purpose of attacking the competitor company and staging a publicity stunt IS a conflict of interest.

I see it now, was my mistake. You qualified it with the word AND and not OR.

So we agree.

329 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 3:05:26pm

re: #19 StillAMarine

Truth be told, I have no sympathies whatsoever with GE, given its leftist position, and given the fact they helped Iran with the development of IED's that killed our men and women in Iraq. Yes, Fox's actions may have been a tad over the top, but at least their target was deserving of such treatment.

I agree with Uncle Sam's Mis-Guided Lizard!

(Sorry for being so late to comment, I was working - OK!?)

The real question is whether GE's media properties - NBC, MSNBC & CNBC are hurting shareholder value. I submit that their left-leaning biased editorial positions adversely effects shareholder value.

For the record, we were but are no longer shareholders, in large part due to the policies and media bias of GE's media properties.

330 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 3:13:14pm

Charles and American,

I think there is a major unproven assumption in this discussion. That Waters went to the meeting with the intent of making this topic an issue. Already from the Article we know it wasn't an undercover operation since the GE spokesman mentioned contact prior to this meeting and that Waters had attended a prior meeting. Also, from the article, Waters was NOT the person to bring the topic up. To argue that he planned this as a publicity stunt is to argue that he planted questions in the audience, which I think everyone can agree is unethical. Shouldn't main topic of debate be the wisdom of him joining the discussion knowing that he would be targeted with the calls of 'ambush' or 'bias' and as such weaken his reporting?

331 Lee Coller  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 3:19:02pm

re: #330 Fighton03

Charles and American,

I think there is a major unproven assumption in this discussion. That Waters went to the meeting with the intent of making this topic an issue. Already from the Article we know it wasn't an undercover operation since the GE spokesman mentioned contact prior to this meeting and that Waters had attended a prior meeting. Also, from the article, Waters was NOT the person to bring the topic up. To argue that he planned this as a publicity stunt is to argue that he planted questions in the audience, which I think everyone can agree is unethical. Shouldn't main topic of debate be the wisdom of him joining the discussion knowing that he would be targeted with the calls of 'ambush' or 'bias' and as such weaken his reporting?

Wait, you expect me to believe that O'Reilly's "ambush" producer, who makes it a habit of ambushing executives and government officials about embarassing stories, just showed up at the meeting as an interested stockholder and decided later to ask a question given that it had already come up?

I have a bridge for sale, are you interested?

332 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 3:23:52pm

re: #331 Lee Coller

I expect you to believe what you want. It wasn't an undercover operation and given the fact that he did the same thing last year, ambush is even dubious.

But if you want to argue a conspiracy theory that he planted the question vs he saw an opportunity and jumped....knock yourself out. I don't know, but I will start with "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".

333 Wendya  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 3:28:47pm

re: #28 lawhawk


2) GE should have been asked these questions from legitimate shareholders as to why they're allowing its NBC brand to be drawn into the fever swamps where its ratings are dwindling - it's diluting share value.


First: Waters is a legitimate shareholder.
Second: Other shareholders asked the same questions before he ever got to the microphone.

If it is "illegitimate" for him to question the people who run the company he has ownership in, do you think it would be illegitimate for him to own GE stock while working at Fox as well? Is that a conflict?

334 ronnie schreiber  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 3:52:05pm
using that stock ownership to attend a shareholders' meeting with the express purpose of attacking the competitor company and staging a publicity stunt IS a conflict of interest.

It's only a conflict of interest if he has an interest in the attacked company. Simply owning stock doesn't put his interest on the side of GE if his primary interest is still his job at Fox. I see it as a means to an end, not a conflict of interest.

335 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 4:10:39pm

re: #331 Lee Coller

Wait, you expect me to believe that O'Reilly's "ambush" producer, who makes it a habit of ambushing executives and government officials about embarassing stories, just showed up at the meeting as an interested stockholder and decided later to ask a question given that it had already come up?

I have a bridge for sale, are you interested?

um no. but do tell me more about this bridge.

336 deacon  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 4:38:21pm

re: #323 Charles

I was unclear in that comment, but I've been quite clear in subsequent comments. Simply owning stock in a competitor's company is not a conflict of interest -- however, using that stock ownership to attend a shareholders' meeting with the express purpose of attacking the competitor company and staging a publicity stunt IS a conflict of interest.

Charles, I have to continue to disagree. Owning stock in a company makes you an owner. As such, you have the right to ask any question you want at a shareholders meeting, regardless of whom you are employed with. You own part of the company, that is it. Many organizations use their ownership positions for publicity stunts, it is not something new. He could even ask for the proxies and attempt a take over if he wished. Being a shareholder and working for a competitor does not oblige him to silently follow the boards wishes, nor is he compelled to only do what the board sees as good. Many shareholders disagree with the wishes of the board and protest them and attempt takeovers, such as Ross Perot attempted with GM, while being an employee of GM.

337 kansas  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 5:03:11pm

Not a good sign when your shareholders boo you, or laugh when you say your news branch has standards.

338 retief_99  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 5:37:11pm

I can't believe someone would criticize anyone for unethical behavior in the same sentence mentioning MSNBC. If the producer is a stockholder he has every right to be at the meetings and ask embarrassing questions. Every other stockholder has a right to hear the questions and hear the companies response. Mr. Immelt has presided over the decline of GE and its holdings. Perhaps if the performance of the company has been poor, perhaps the shareholders might want to make some changes.

339 Fighton03  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 5:45:42pm

re: #338 retief_99

The decline started when Immelt began importing cheap Groaci copies of quality Japanese merchandise!

340 Crossie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:18:15pm

re: #102 quickjustice

I wish I could agree that politicizing shareholders' meetings is a whole new escalation in the ideological wars, but it isn't. For decades (at least since the 1960s) there have been political investment funds on the left that pressure boards of directors by using similar tactics. And frankly, Sharpton and Jackson have made an art form out of shaking down large corporations with threats of exposure for "racist" or sexist" employment practices.

I don't like these tactics from either direction, but the sad truth is that the right now is employing the tactics of the left. Does that make the situation better, or worse?

It's a level playing field.

341 hurricane567  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:20:38pm

Sorry, Charles, i'll have to disagree with you. Headline: "GE shareholders angry" Subheadline:"Concerned about bias at MSNBC" BAM, there's the proof.

342 Crossie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:22:06pm

re: #105 Irish Rose

Oh, how I long for the good old days of respectful, rational discourse and journalistic integrity.

I guess those days are gone forever.

Those days never existed. The reason that blogosphere first came into being was to correct the imbalance.

343 Crossie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:28:57pm

re: #115 DaddyG

Watching tapes of Kennedy press conferences at the White House is almost surreal anymore. There was a lot more decorum.

Kennedy had the same deal as Obama.

344 6pat6  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:31:28pm

Waters is a GE stockholder. He had every right to be there AND ask questions. Period.

345 6pat6  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:36:22pm

GE's propaganda "news" arm (NBC/CNBC/MSNBC) has much to answer for in so many ways, in their unabashed being in the tank for everything BHO, their "Green Week" bullshit integrated into all of their programming (Weather Channel being the worst!); and yet people are actually pissed off at Waters? Say what?

As stated above, when the shareholders are openly hostile towards the Chairman of GE, and the board of directors has not yet fired the Chairman for flushing the company down the crapper, what are people supposed to do? I don't care if Waters is with Fox or the friggin' NYT - he has EVERY right to do what he did.

346 6pat6  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:39:17pm

re: #340 Crossie

It's a level playing field.

Actually, a level playing field is bad. You want drainage off the sides, so a playing field should be crowned, or higher, in the center to facilitate water to drain off. Else you have puddles and no one plays.

Same in life. You need a crowned playing field, so the strong stay on the field, and the weak "drain off" and don't make puddles.

347 orangutan  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 6:53:56pm

Re:Post #222:

Excuse me if I tend to doubt what you're saying about this -- you claimed a few days ago that you heard that completely bogus Navy SEAL Somalia rumor directly from a first-hand source. Why should I trust what you say about SEC regulations (without any links to sources) when you've shown that you'll make up stories?


re: #326 Charles

How in the world is this asking to "prove a negative?"

As for it being rude, I'm not happy that people have used LGF to promote bogus rumors; call that rude if you like. I call it being direct.


Simple. Kay (the poster to which you were referring in 222) was asserting there are no SEC regulations pertaining to the issue in question. Asking someone to substantiate something does not exist is asking them to prove a negative. You assert said regulations might exist (even if you say that you are unsure)....as for the rudeness, well, it's always in the eye of the beholder.

Again, no words put in your mouth.

cheers-

348 Blue_Knight  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 7:53:17pm

Jesse Waters, the 'ambush journalist' from O'Reilly Factor, is also a GE shareholder . He had every right to be there and asking questions and/or making a statement. The fact that he is a journalist does not preclude him from addressing his own personal interests.

Besides, this is really no different than any other 'undercover journalist' operation if you wanted to go that route too. The fact that he's a shareholder just made it that much easier for him to get some goods on the inept CEO of GE, the parent company of MSNBC. It doesn't cross any lines or border on unethical. Jesse Waters owns a little piece of the company like everyone else there does.

To get a better understanding of what he was able to do at the GE shareholder meeting (remember, he is also a GE shareholder himself), watch this video if you haven't watched it already.

349 hornsofthedevil  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:11:02pm

Charles, I don't chime in here much because I agree with you so often, but you have this completely upside down.

Its absurd for you to call out a shareholder exposing BLATANT AND IRREFUTABLE attempts at corruption at GE. Did you watch the report on O'Reilly?

I think you initial post needs an update because you are going to be proven woefully wrong in your assertions here.

350 Blue_Knight  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:19:18pm

Maybe it would have been better if Jesse Waters attended, and asked the questions he asked at the GE shareholders meeting like he had every right to as a GE shareholder... but had someone else unknown to him record it for him and hand it over to 'the competitor', Fox News?

I fail to see the difference whether Jesse Waters recorded it, or just some 'shmoe shareholder recorded it and submitted it to MSNBC's competitor(s), at all.

351 CurrentConflict  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:35:34pm

It was a question worth asking. It hit a nerve with the shareholders in the room. I think the real story is the response of the crowd not whom asked the question.

352 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:37:26pm

What I've learned from this thread:

Nobody really cares about ethical behavior any more. It's all about revenge, and payback. Anything goes.

353 tom from pv  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:05:02pm

I watched OReilly after all the advertising here. Nothing unethical happened, at all. The reporter entered a public meeting, asked a pointed question, and elicited an incredibly insipid reply from a CEO.

The lack of ethical standards exists at MSNBC and GE. Its outrageous that a so-called news program would allow a guest (Janene Garofalo) to make bigoted statements without the moderator voicing an objection. THAT would never happen on OReilly, to be sure.

Its also outrageous that GE would use both NBC and MSNBC to support the election of Obama.

354 jaunte  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:14:43pm

re: #353 tom from pv

- The reporter was working for a competing business interest, which made his motivation suspect.
- O'Reilly is perfectly capable of making his own bigoted statements.
- Businesses nominally neutral but supporting a candidate? Shocking!

355 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:35:18pm
356 LC LaWedgie  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 9:54:42pm

I'm sure the GE management knew full well that Waters was in attendance.
Sounds to me that the amount of applause showed there were many there that agreed with the tone of the question and were most upset with the vague response given. Also, there's no stunning revelation that "The Factor" is an opinion-based cable presentation - not a newscast (yeah, just like most MSNBC shows) - and that O'Reilly has it out for GE, he's been gunning them for years now...
That said, the only unethical I see in Waters is that he didn't sell his stock if he was fed up with the company.
Journalistic ethics:
"truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability"
Where do you cross the line when your opinion is stated in the form of a question versus calling right-wingers teabagging racist rednecks?

357 mrkwong  Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:51:10pm

Frankly, NBC and MSNBC have gotten away with so much under the GE umbrella (when it comes to climate nonsense they're almost as bad as the BBC) that I have no problem with this guy getting in there and popping their little bubble.

Corporate America's longest-running problem (not to say that they don't have enough of them these days) is the utter lack of board oversight and control over management. Perhaps this will at least get the board thinking about what the GE media properties have been up to.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
5 hours ago
Views: 52 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 161 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1