Last Thoughts on the Rebecca Aguilar Brouhaha
Okay, so I’m late to the game since I was gone last week when it was announced Rebecca Aguilar was canned from Fox 4, but — well, tough, I want to talk about it even though it’s almost a week old. Sorta feel the need to since we were the ones who got the blogosphere roiling about her report. I was pretty appalled by her treatment of an old man who twice in as many three weeks was so afraid for his life he had to shoot burglars who had broken into his home/business. Glenn had a great point last week that if you’re a reporter and you’re going to err, better to err on the side of aggressive. Still, her attitude and body language were insulting and condescending far beyond propriety. Thing is, it wasn’t a live feed. They could have edited the interview to remove the most egregious elements, including showing the man’s face when he specifically said he feared retaliation.
That’s where it gets interesting. Whoever was in charge of that night’s broadcast didn’t air that segment sight unseen. Any sanction levied against Aguilar should likewise have been levied against the night’s producer or director.
As for terminating Aguilar — that’s tough. Maybe too tough. Every single one of us in this field has made a mistake. (Lord knows I’ve made my share.) Credibility isn’t forged by being perfect because none of us are. Credibility is earned when we’re forthright about our mistakes and open about our biases. In this case, a week’s suspension and an on-air apology would have been fair enough, I would have thought.
Of course, it doesn’t help matters that Aguilar has steadfastly refused to even acknowledge any error in judgment. She’s played the victim role (race, gender, age — did I miss any?) so determinedly that I want to check her hands and ankles for nail holes. It would be a lot easier to offer her some quarter (the kind she didn’t offer her interview subject) if she’d just suck it up and ask for it.
11 Comments to “Last Thoughts on the Rebecca Aguilar Brouhaha”
Leave a Reply
All material copyright © 2008 D Magazine. All rights reserved.
It would be a lot easier to offer her some quarter (the kind she didn’t offer her interview subject) if she’d just suck it up and ask for it.
Absolutely spot-on, Trey.
A little remorse goes a long way, and if she’s too arrogant to offer any, perhaps some time in the unemployment line will adjust her attitude.
I’d almost forgotten that whole incident, but you folks did yeoman’s work in bringing it to light.
It was the lack of contrition, in the end that got her…
I don’t see why the producer or director should be fired. If this person hadn’t approved the footage for broadcast, none of this would have come to light. But I don’t know how TV news works — would the producer have urged Aguilar to take this aggressive stance? If so, then I would see your point.
Having worked in the PR world for more than a decade, I can say that after Ken Kalthoff and Brett Shipp, I think she was the least respected journalist in the area.
In my dealings with her, she always wrote her headline before she investigated her story. And, if you didn’t give her information that matched her agenda, then she ignored the information.
She will not be missed.
When the story aired, I thought it was badly executed and said so publicly. I still think that. But as Trey said, other eyes saw it before it aired. The photojournalist, the editor, the producer, the executive producer, the managing editors and maybe others. Someone could have said, “Whoa!, and didn’t. It was inflammatory. Her position on the piece notwithstanding, Aguilar took the fall alone - when she was far from alone in responsibility. And that’s just plain cowardly - especially so since they let her dangle in limbo for months before dropping her.
Send her a copy of D’s article on Scott Sams - maybe it’ll cause her to reach out to him and learn from his mistakes and restoration. A wise person learns from other’s…….
I still do not understand why people are saying others should be fired. If I was reporter and it was my image, I would demand control of how it was put on by the final cut of the tape (or digits nowadays?). She could have said she did not want certain parts of the interview broadcast AND she has had ample time to say that she wished those parts did not air. This really shows the disconnect that tv journalists have with the public.
I think there is another side to this matter that deserves to be heard.
I commented in another blog but it is buried 3 pages deep so I’ll take this fresh opportunity to share the comment below.
It is from Newsbusters.org blog and is a comment from one of their readers…
“I stll disagree. Here is what I see:
March 7, 2008 - 14:30 ET by ArcherB
“Walton said he needed a new weapon because Dallas police took away the shotgun he used to kill a burgler at his west Dallas salvage business. And on Sunday, police took away Waltons OTHER shotgun after he shot and killed Jimmy Gannon, who police say also broke into his place.”
If she were badgering him, she would have said something like, “After he killed two men, Dallas police confiscated both of Walton’s weapons. That won’t stop him as we caught up with buying a third shotgun at a local Academy.”
She led him in her questioning. “Are those tears of… of remorse.” I didn’t end quote that as a question mark, because she didn’t. She answered the question for him, saying he was remorseful.
“It was obvious that Walton was upset over what has happened in the past three weeks” (this is where his shaking hands were shown). Notice that she did NOT say, “Walton has no remorse for killing two men who were at his business.”
At this point, notice where the microphone is. It is not in his face, but at her hip.
“Walton said he has owned his salvage business for thirty five years and was tired of burglers stealing his tools, cameras, ANYTHING they could carry away.” It doesn’t sound like she is standing up for the “burglers” here. It sounds more like this guy has been robbed many times and people were stealing whatever… well, “ANYTHING they could carry away”.
“Are you a trigger happy person? Is that what you wanted to do, shoot, to kill?” After his answer, “I haven’t shot a gun in 45 years, until…” she said, “OK. That’s what I wanted the viewers to know”. In other words, she wanted to viewers to know that he was NOT a trigger happy person. That he did NOT want to shoot to kill.
If she were badgering him, she would have pushed further on that point. She would have said something like, “You expect my viewers to believe that you killed not one, but TWO men, and you feel remorse? If you felt remorse after killing the first one, why didn’t you hesitate before killing the second?”
Instead, she led him further, “So basically, you were scared, for your own life?” She gave him the answer, “scared for your own life”. (Also, notice that she didn’t ask if the men were armed or had a gun pointed at him). She even allowed him to answer with, “What do you think? Do you think I invited those guys to my building? When they climb up eight foot outside, then they gotta climb down on the inside…” To a liberal, there is no valid reason to shoot someone. She would not have let him answer this or would have at least cut it from the interview.
Finally, she mentions that he broke no laws “shooting the men who broke into his business”.
Now, he says, “OK, bye” and reaches for the door. She moves out of the way and says, “bye”. She did not stand there. She did not block him from closing the door. She did not stick a mic in his face and ask more questions. She allowed him to leave.
“Walton left with his new shotgun. He says he may need it to protect himself, again.” She did NOT say, “Walton left with his new shotgun. He may need it to kill, again.”
Finally, she says, “Even though Dallas police says he broke no laws, the case will be turned over to a grand jury.” It sounds to me like she does not agree that it should be turned over to a grand jury. It sounded a whole lot like, “He didn’t break any laws, but the case will still be turned over to a grand jury anyway.”
So yeah, I believe it was objective. Actually, I think it was slanted towards Walton. She offered no defense for the burglers. She did not call them things like trespassers or “victims”. She called them burglers, every single time. She pointed out that he feared for his life (a must before killing someone). She pointed out that he felt remorse. How do you think the interview could have possibly been any more to Walton’s defense? “
CLIFF NOTES:
1) Aguilar was lousy that night and I said so and so did you.
2) She should not have been suspended alone, to your point. *If she had won a Pulitzer for the piece, I bet her boss would have been quick to spout about his or her “belief in Rebecca. That’s why I hired her!” (I know the concept of opportunistic and/or ‘bosses’ is a shock!)
All this smacks of the two people caught en flagrante in the broom closet, but the male manager is chastened and the female secretary is fired.
This is not how Aguilar’s otherwise notable career should have ended. It is scapegoat-ism and FOX4 grandstanding. Impure and simple.
Jody,
It wasn’t plain cowardly to let her dangle in limbo for months. Aguilar was getting paid to stay home while the stations legal team evaluated the best course of action to take. After dangling that long, do you think she was very surprised they cut her loose?
Metro,
As someone else said, he stated he didn’t want his face shown but it was at the beginning of the EDITED broadcast.
Maybe you missed the reports, I think from Aguilar herself, where she stated she ‘caught’ up to him at the store. She talked to him earlier in the day, off camera, and he stated that he had to buy a new shotgun. Does catching someone off guard in a parking lot seem sympathetic to you? It doesn’t to me.
Did she ask him how it felt to be robbed so many times?
Did she ask how it felt to have his home invaded, having reported 42 burglaries in a year?
Did she inform the audience that he lived at his business?
Did she ask about his age, infirmities, etc?
Did she mention the precautions Mr. Walton has taken to keep burglars out?
When he stated he didn’t want to be on camera, the perspective shifted to from behind. As if the camera was filming without his knowledge. The microphone, held down to be inconspicuous.
Where is the journalistic ethics in that?
Her approach to the story was one that appeared to be non-sympathetic to Mr. Walton.
Her actions after the fact were non-sympathetic to Mr. Walton.
The interview could have been more toward Mr. Walton’s defense by addressing his actions that night, by letting the audience walk through the emotions.
When she stated the tears of remorse comment, it appeared to be that she recognized she went too far and was trying to salvage the interview.
The tone of the interview appeared to be hostile to Mr. Walton and his right to self defense. Nothing she has said since then has changed my mind.