If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Excuse me, sir. I see you waved at the camera during my live broadcast and assumed you wanted to be on TV, so tell me--what's your favorite brand of panties to wear in public? And did that cream take care of your jock itch?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 53
    More: Amusing, Nile River, Shibuya, WGN  
•       •       •

11361 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 5:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-03 04:37:42 PM  
Ok, that was funny.  I expected it to be completely lame, but I laughed.
 
2013-07-03 05:28:08 PM  
Hanes her way and yes it did.

Next questions please.

/Unflappable.
 
2013-07-03 05:28:55 PM  
Incredibly terrible. I want my 4 minutes back.
 
2013-07-03 05:29:22 PM  
guy:

"duh wut?"

yeah that's about right
 
2013-07-03 05:30:31 PM  
Pat's always funny, but what's up with the HuffPo running local TV skits from six months ago?

Way to stay current.
 
2013-07-03 05:31:27 PM  
False light is one of the four categories of "privacy torts" (the others being misappropriation, intrusion, and publication of private facts). While the nature of false light claims vary by state, they generally protect people from offensive and false facts stated about them to the public.


Generally speaking, a false light claim requires the following:


The defendant published the information widely (i.e., not to just a single person, as in defamation);

the publication identifies the plaintiff;

it places the plaintiff in a "false light" that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and

the defendant was at fault in publishing the information.


See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E.


False light is similar to defamation. Most states that allow false light claims recognize some differences between false light and defamation, but there is still a great deal of overlap. In fact, a number of states do not recognize false light claims at all because of the overlap with defamation and because the vague nature of the tort might chill free speech.


Several states that allow both false light claims and defamation claims differentiate the two by saying they protect people against different harms flowing from false statements. These states indicate that defamation protects a person's public reputation while false light remedies the victim of a false statement for his or her emotional distress.


Some states, including California, hold that unlike defamation, false light concerns untrue implications rather than directly false statements. For instance, an article about sex offenders illustrated with a stock photograph of an individual who is not, in fact, a sex offender could give rise to a false light claim, even if the article and photo caption never make the explicit false statement (i.e., identifying the person in the photo as a sex offender) that would support a defamation claim.
 
2013-07-03 05:31:28 PM  
"Maidenform, but I only wear them on my head."

" . . . why on your head?"

"Well, otherwise they cause me terrible jock itch that that cream doesn't take care of."
 
2013-07-03 05:36:57 PM  
"Only panties in my possession are from your wife, I'm taking them to the CDC for analysis so I can get rid of the terrible rash she gave me."
 
2013-07-03 05:40:14 PM  
wow - that was completely stupid - completely unfunny.  Subby should feel bad, whoever greenlit this crap should feel bad and the reporter should be chopped into little pieces and buried alive.

get over yourself - most of those passers by weren't even being obnoxious.

It is interesting to note that only 2 people apparently didn't sign consent forms and thus got their faces blurred out so most of them didn't really feel too bad.
 
2013-07-03 05:41:56 PM  

gfid: get over yourself - most of those passers by weren't even being obnoxious.


They were all being obnoxious.
 
2013-07-03 05:42:54 PM  

JosephFinn: gfid: get over yourself - most of those passers by weren't even being obnoxious.

They were all being obnoxious.


Leather Man wasn't... I'm not even sure he was waving at the camera, since he was looking waaaaay off to one side and it was long before he got to the camera. I think he was waving at someone he knew.
 
2013-07-03 05:43:37 PM  
He only wears only type? Weirdo.

/I gird my loins with Hello Kitty print
 
2013-07-03 05:44:24 PM  
WGN Morning News FTW.

Come for the laughs stay for Erin Mcelroy.

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-03 05:45:33 PM  
Saw a reporter doing a recorded segment on the street, and in the middle of it a car blasted its horn. The reporter started swearing up a storm at the driver "You farking asshole piece of shiat", because the segment had to be recorded from the beginning.
 
2013-07-03 05:46:32 PM  
Nice
 
2013-07-03 05:50:42 PM  
I clicked it knowing it would be lame and it was.  I know better than that.  At least I thought I did.
 
2013-07-03 05:52:07 PM  

Theaetetus: JosephFinn: gfid: get over yourself - most of those passers by weren't even being obnoxious.

They were all being obnoxious.

Leather Man wasn't... I'm not even sure he was waving at the camera, since he was looking waaaaay off to one side and it was long before he got to the camera. I think he was waving at someone he knew.


Over 50% of them didn't do anything obnoxious and only looked at the camera.  Some of them were pretty funny.  The sexual offender one was uncool.  That's a complete defamation of character, especially since he said the guy's name.  I'd have seriously considered suing him.
 
2013-07-03 05:55:50 PM  
I would guess some of this could be actionable.  Hope that station has deep pockets.

Reporters do not have the right to peace and quiet in public, live shot or not.
 
2013-07-03 05:59:06 PM  
I thought the baby part at the end was the best because it was also true. He should have really laid into it.

"You have a completely normal, absolutely average baby that is not unique or special in any way but is in fact the nominal, statistical inevitability of an activity that humans -- and all animals -- have been doing every day for the past 1.2 billion years. How pointless and meaningless does it make you?"
 
2013-07-03 06:04:37 PM  
It's just as rude to broadcast video of people that didn't sign consent forms as it is for people to wave at the camera.

(Of course they signed consent forms AFTER the interview. But if I'm at the mall and you're filming me without asking, it's only fair that I wave or give the finger or whatever.)
 
2013-07-03 06:14:52 PM  
Well, it was for comedy effect, but I'd think he'd reserve that for serious hecklers.
 
2013-07-03 06:14:54 PM  
I laughed at the baby one. That one was pretty damn funny.

And yes, except for the blurries, every one of these jokers signed a consent form. They still wanted to be on television, even if it was as the butt of a joke.

/America. Fornication yes.
 
2013-07-03 06:15:57 PM  

Krieghund: It's just as rude to broadcast video of people that didn't sign consent forms as it is for people to wave at the camera.

(Of course they signed consent forms AFTER the interview. But if I'm at the mall and you're filming me without asking, it's only fair that I wave or give the finger or whatever.)


Since there were a few that were blurred, I'm guessing all of the "pranked" victims were more than happy to give consent after the vicious tongue lashing he dished out.
 
2013-07-03 06:16:28 PM  
its a bit.  you know, absurd and funny shenanigans?  I've seen much worse attempts at comedy at frickin comedy clubs FFS.  Lighten up you pretentious douches.
 
2013-07-03 06:24:55 PM  

nickerj1: I'd have seriously considered suing him.

mjbok: I would guess some of this could be actionable.  Hope that station has deep pockets.


This, and that, except for this:

Torchsong: And yes, except for the blurries, every one of these jokers signed a consent form. They still wanted to be on television, even if it was as the butt of a joke.


Guaranteed that those consent forms waive any tort claims for invasion of privacy or false light.
 
2013-07-03 06:25:30 PM  
Oh, and of course, they weren't really live, and they don't air the ones where the people refuse to waive those claims.
 
2013-07-03 06:26:23 PM  
The news reporter was not covering a breaking news story (something of major importance to the general public.The talking head was doing a fluff piece, not news.  News people are not the news or celebrities and should not be treated as them,

If you want to muzzle the type of reporter  and get the chance, throw in one of George Carlin's seven words you can;t say on television. On a live shot (without a delay) that would raise a few eyebrows in station management (and possible a Notice of Violation from the FCC).The downside of doing this is your video will be widely spread on the net.
 
2013-07-03 06:27:25 PM  
My favorite brand of panties is slutty thongs for slutty sluts and you already feel the burning answer to the second question. Call me.

/maybe...
 
2013-07-03 06:34:46 PM  

reaperducer: Pat's always funny, but what's up with the HuffPo running local TV skits from six months ago?

Way to stay current.


"Current events" = "what's going viral now."

It's not about news, it's about clicks.
 
2013-07-03 06:36:56 PM  
Asking guys about their erectile dysfunction and frilly panties is pretty safe, but asking a mom about her "average" baby takes giant brass balls.
 
2013-07-03 06:39:18 PM  
The "leather man" wasn't even waving at the camera.  He was waving at somebody 90 degrees from the camera.
 
2013-07-03 06:39:38 PM  
So these douchey, half-assed reporters do live standups rather than actual journalism, and they get pissed off when people act out for the camera?

The background is much more interesting than anything Pat has to say.
 
2013-07-03 06:39:44 PM  
1.Buy me a drink, and maybe you will find out ;-)

2.With all the STI's going around these days, you of all people know how important it is to ask these kind of questions. You will be happy to know that i'm disease free and ready for you to take home.
 
2013-07-03 06:50:30 PM  
Reporter is a pretentious, self-absorbed, whiny prima donna who needs to put on his Big Reporter Diapers and deal with the random shiat that he's going to get doing live feeds from a mall.
 
2013-07-03 07:08:24 PM  

DrZiffle: So these douchey, half-assed reporters do live standups rather than actual journalism, and they get pissed off when people act out for the camera?

The background is much more interesting than anything Pat has to say.


I'm pretty sure the whole segment was setup to catch people who wave to the camera. He didn't seem pissed about it.
 
2013-07-03 07:08:51 PM  

downstairs: Ok, that was funny.  I expected it to be completely lame, but I laughed.


me too
 
2013-07-03 07:10:39 PM  
He's lucky she didn't give him a swift kick when he asked when she was due.
 
2013-07-03 07:13:22 PM  
I click the page and suddenly auto advertisements are screaming at me from somewhere. I frantically search the page with the corresponding video to mute them or turn them off and can't find it anywhere...what's up with that? Are they just dubbing ads over pages now??
 
2013-07-03 07:17:19 PM  
Most of the people just waved at the camera, big deal.  If people see a camera, some have a natural tendency to wave.  If the reporter didn't want people in the background for his "big story" he could have stayed in the studio.
 
2013-07-03 07:34:10 PM  

Wolf892: Are they just dubbing ads over pages now??


Better question, how are there people who still don't use adblock?
 
2013-07-03 07:38:49 PM  

YodaBlues: Wolf892: Are they just dubbing ads over pages now??

Better question, how are there people who still don't use adblock?


New computer with Win 8, I'm still figuring out how to use win 8 and once I have a handle on it I'll start doing things like researching how to use adblock. I'm not an IT guy, or very computer savvy. But thanks for the condescending tone.
 
2013-07-03 07:53:55 PM  

Wolf892: YodaBlues: Wolf892: Are they just dubbing ads over pages now??

Better question, how are there people who still don't use adblock?

New computer with Win 8, I'm still figuring out how to use win 8 and once I have a handle on it I'll start doing things like researching how to use adblock. I'm not an IT guy, or very computer savvy. But thanks for the condescending tone.


Download either Firefox or Chrome to replace Internet Explorer. If you're not terribly computer Savvy, Firefox will probably work better for you.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

After FF is installed, open it up, and point your browser to here:  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/ 

Install, and 99% of the ads you see now will be gone.

But please, for the children, stop using IE.
 
2013-07-03 07:54:00 PM  

Theaetetus: JosephFinn: gfid: get over yourself - most of those passers by weren't even being obnoxious.

They were all being obnoxious.

Leather Man wasn't... I'm not even sure he was waving at the camera, since he was looking waaaaay off to one side and it was long before he got to the camera. I think he was waving at someone he knew.


Yeah, I don't think they were getting enough actually bites from camera-bombers. In other videos of this I've seen, there are folks they accost just because they smile self consciously, realizing they're crossing the path of a news camera to reach their destination.
 
2013-07-03 07:57:14 PM  

Gilligann: DrZiffle: So these douchey, half-assed reporters do live standups rather than actual journalism, and they get pissed off when people act out for the camera?

The background is much more interesting than anything Pat has to say.

I'm pretty sure the whole segment was setup to catch people who wave to the camera. He didn't seem pissed about it.


I thought the whole point of the segment (based on the guy's intro) was to get back at people who mess up live stand-ups.
 
2013-07-03 08:23:28 PM  
When I worked for AFKN (late 80s-early 90s), I was so glad we didn't have the equipment to do live shots just because of crap like this. As it was, we had to "ditch" plenty of video of people standing behind the reporter and staring directly at the camera, ducking to try to avoid being captured in some "cone of video" being projected by the camera, etc.

We frequently had people request a copy of the "raw video" under the assumption that it contains all the really interesting stuff we "edit out" of a news story. For one of our network Christmas parties, I made a video called "A Copy of the Raw Footage." It was nothing but clips of people picking their noses, asses, crotches, staring, ducking, clearing their throats, VIPs stumbling through speeches, etc. Ya know, all the "interesting" stuff we "edit out" of something while we're putting together a news story. It was a fun little project. Hee hee.
 
2013-07-03 08:39:42 PM  
Zzzzz
 
2013-07-03 09:01:36 PM  
I saw a news blooper reel the other day where the reporter was covering some sporting event and a woman walked into view to wave hello. The reporter asked the woman something like, "Oh so you have an STD? We're doing a report. Which one do you have?" The woman was like, "Whaaaaat?"

Also, I thought if you were out in public, you were pretty much fair game and a consent form was only needed if the video was for monetary gain such as an MTV show or something similar. I guess I thougt wrong.
 
2013-07-03 09:14:58 PM  

Cappalotti: Also, I thought if you were out in public, you were pretty much fair game and a consent form was only needed if the video was for monetary gain such as an MTV show or something similar. I guess I thougt wrong.


Not if they accuse you of something (like having jock itch, for example), which (I believe) could be slander.
 
2013-07-03 09:21:52 PM  

Damnaged: Wolf892: YodaBlues: Wolf892: Are they just dubbing ads over pages now??

Better question, how are there people who still don't use adblock?

New computer with Win 8, I'm still figuring out how to use win 8 and once I have a handle on it I'll start doing things like researching how to use adblock. I'm not an IT guy, or very computer savvy. But thanks for the condescending tone.

Download either Firefox or Chrome to replace Internet Explorer. If you're not terribly computer Savvy, Firefox will probably work better for you.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

After FF is installed, open it up, and point your browser to here:  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/ 

Install, and 99% of the ads you see now will be gone.

But please, for the children, stop using IE.


Thanks! Great. Ill do that.
 
2013-07-03 10:23:43 PM  
It was pretty ballsy to go after the baby. He must not have kids, or be close to any kids, because he'd know how dangerous of an act that is. As far as the panties question I would say something like: "It varies from day to day. Depends on what your wife is wearing. I'm just messing with you. It's public knowledge you're out of the closet. Congrats on being able to get married now. I'm really happy for you and your partner."
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report