Wow... what pricks!
God bless her! What an "Emperor's New Clothes" moment--every journalism student in America should be watching this.
All class, those guys (I won't call them gents).
She's my hero of the day. 
I honestly didn't see it that way. What I saw was on-air teasing among folks who at least seem to like each other. I didn't see any humiliation at all. Instead, the two gentlemen used the earnest protestations of the anchor as an opportunity to give her a good-natured hard time.
Those two little boys need to be sent home to their mommy and taught some manners.
I suspect some of you folks are taking this harder -- a lot harder -- than the admirable young anchor, who gracefully made her point while graciously taking some good-natured ribbing.
Mike - are you watching the same clip we were? Her co-journalists were rude; there was nothing good natured about them. She behaved professionally but their behaviour was totally inappropriate.
I'm with Petrik, but double. I thought it was hilarious. It even got cringe-making hilarious when the guy grabbed his microphone back. Whoa.
You other guys are SO-O-O-O-O sensitive. Wow, you're going to Heaven FOR SURE. You guys must just sweat blood when you think of people starving in Africa.
Good for the newsreader refusing to read about Paris. I found it humourous. It was clear to me, however, that Joe and his bud are mimicking a trait of Imus (whom they've replaced on MSNBC) to harass the newsreaders on the show. I don't recall Joe being that casual in his old show. [This is on top of his "pole" comment re: Fred T's wife.] [How do we know it wasn't all staged, part of a shtick they're trying to develop--to keep Imus viewers?]
I actually lean towards the schtick interpretation. I did get the impression all three were into horsing around I don't know the show; if I did, I might think differently.
Can someone tell me if that was actually live? I must tell you that I am sort of Rip Van Winkel when it comes to television. I last watched any real news programme in California in about 1959 or 1960, and have basically seen almost no television since then - and of that, only stuff like the Simpsons with my kids. I cannot imagine something like that happening live, but then maybe the character of public television has changed in the last not-quite-fifty years??
I seriously don't know if this was a spoof for YouTube, or what broadcast watchers actually saw.
jj
Three cheers for a real jounalist!
jj:
This is cable TV, not public TV (PBS). Nor is it broadcast, over the air, which is subject to greater content regulation than cable TV.
Whew! Well, I remember Edward R. Murrow, and Huntley-Brinkley - but I never imagined anything like that!
jj
Just reflecting on the whole business...
It seems to me rather more serious a matter than just some people, known to one another, engaged in some good-natured - or occasionally not so good-natured - messing about. It seems to me possible to argue that the loss of civility, respect, and good manners amongst people is a very bad business. I confess I find the usage of hostile language - with a pseudo-jocular edge that I suppose is intended to make it less offensive - and the use of crudities that is common in public discourse very disturbing. The convention that people don't act like that, however they may feel, seems to me a protection against underlying very real hostility and brutishness.
jj
On the other hand it could just be a bunch of news readers who figure out that it is the news that should be taken seriously, not themselves.
jj, I'm sure you're a great guy. But excuse me if I'd rather have a beer with either of those blokes, but most especially the admirable young reader lady in the middle. Or cricket.
I guess my point is that one can fairly lament the loss of civility without misconstruing the harmless banter portrayed on the video.
Agreed, Mike (Petrik) - I was just thinking about more general stuff, I guess - and was pretty much astonished at the newscast as I really have not seen television for a very long time.
jj
Fair enough, jj. I'll buy you a beer (or two) if you're ever in Atlanta.
Cheers!
I agree with Mike Petrik; Scarborough and the other guy seemed to be on Ms. Brezinski's side rather than mocking her. You should realize that if you look at the changing time in the bottom right-hand corner, it becomes clear that this is spliced together from three events that each happened an hour apart - in other words, every time Ms. Brezinski came back to read the news again, they went through the same routine again.
I am 11:37 anonymous. I forgot to put my name; sorry.
Admittedly, they sure sounded like idiots, but towards the end sarcasm from one of them showed through. I would wager a guess they both were taking her side.
Commenting by HaloScan
