"Don't touch me!" Story & video --this is incredible!

[unsinkable]

An investigative reporter is doing a story about the misuse of a patient gift fund. A touch-feely hospital employee just can't get the "don't touch me!" message that the reporter so clearly gives!

 

The hospital employee's behavior just kills me!

 

http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2010/05/laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund-1.html

[fivetails]

I saw that a few days ago ~ so weird! :laugh:

[KnitWit]

The reporter is remarkably controlled. It *is* freaky.

 

I am not a physically violent person...but...I don't like being touched. In fact, I don't like people who enter my *personal bubble of space*. LOL! I'm afraid I would have punched him in the end.

[Jennifer in MI]

Wow! That made me SO uncomfortable! What is wrong with that guy???

 

That guy was just looking for a reason to cancel the meeting.

[Remudamom]

Huh. I think the reporter's mistake was not doing what he said. Tell once, take action.

[JudoMom]

It was like watching a clip from The Office. If it wasn't real, it would be funny stuff. Though I've got to admit I :lol: when he said "Channel 7 is here to disrupt the community meeting."

 

Bizarre. I do think he was trying to tick to reporter off, but why he didn't think about the fact there was a video camera is beyond me.

[DarlaS]

Oh, he got it all right. His behavior was very thought out and completely intentional. None of the other employees at the meeting seemed even slightly surprised.

[Perry]

Oh, he got it all right. His behavior was very thought out and completely intentional. None of the other employees at the meeting seemed even slightly surprised.

:iagree:

 

I thought it was deliberately passive-aggressive.

[TammyinTN]

Creepy!:confused:

[KnitWit]

It was like watching a clip from The Office. If it wasn't real, it would be funny stuff. Though I've got to admit I :lol: when he said "Channel 7 is here to disrupt the community meeting."

 

 

 

SO TRUE!

[JenC3]

He was totally doing that to get rid of Channel 7 and stop the inquiry. It was a complete ploy, unfortunately Channel 7 fell for it and should have just ignored him and continued to focus on the Director.

[angela in ohio]

At first I thought he was just trying to physically re-direct the reporter as he physically intimidated the shorter woman. Then I thought maybe he had just had a bit too much "counselor" training (touch the person to establisha bond and calm them.) In the end, I think he was trying to use physical re-direction on the wrong person (it's usually used for those with mental impairments.) He was obviously trying to keep the reporter from interrupting the woman during her meeting or talking to her by staying in his way and keeping the reporter's attention on him.

 

Honestly, I think both the reporter and the other man were jerks. The reporter seems pretty tall and appears to use that to try to intimidate others. The employee should have stopped touching him when asked.

[Julie in CA]

At first I thought he was just trying to physically re-direct the reporter as he physically intimidated the shorter woman. Then I thought maybe he had just had a bit too much "counselor" training (touch the person to establisha bond and calm them.) In the end, I think he was trying to use physical re-direction on the wrong person (it's usually used for those with mental impairments.) He was obviously trying to keep the reporter from interrupting the woman during her meeting or talking to her by staying in his way and keeping the reporter's attention on him.

 

I don't think that's what's going on here. It appears that the constant patting even after being clearly told not to was a ploy intended to provoke the reporter to "assault". When that didn't work, he tried it with the camera operator too. It's clearly not re-direction once he touches the camera, probably in an effort to provoke the camera operator.

[Cindyg]

I thought the reporter was absurd. Who threatens to call the police when someone puts their hand on your shoulder in conversation? He was not being assaulted. Yes, the man at the center should have backed off. But the reporter has issues. He wasn't being threatened. He's used to throwing his "authority" around. Much ado about nothing.

[angela in ohio]

I don't think that's what's going on here. It appears that the constant patting even after being clearly told not to was a ploy intended to provoke the reporter to "assault". When that didn't work, he tried it with the camera operator too. It's clearly not re-direction once he touches the camera, probably in an effort to provoke the camera operator.

 

The camera thing was really dumb of him. If it is a privately owned facility, he could have just told them to leave rather than trying to cover the camera. I was surprised that he never just told them to get out.

[angela in ohio]

I thought the reporter was absurd. Who threatens to call the police when someone puts their hand on your shoulder in conversation? He was not being assaulted. Yes, the man at the center should have backed off. But the reporter has issues. He wasn't being threatened. He's used to throwing his "authority" around. Much ado about nothing.

 

Precisely. I smell a small time reporter with dreams (delusions) of the big time. :D

 

The employees and directors likely can't and won't make a statement. They have lawyers for that. The reporter knows that, but he's looking for a scene.

[Remudamom]

Yep, I think that the employee was trying to get himself punched. Too big a deal, but I despise being touched by men I don't know, if I was the woman I'd have gone ballistic.

[Julie in CA]

I thought the reporter was absurd. Who threatens to call the police when someone puts their hand on your shoulder in conversation? He was not being assaulted. Yes, the man at the center should have backed off. But the reporter has issues. He wasn't being threatened. He's used to throwing his "authority" around. Much ado about nothing.

Just to frame it another way, if you were in the grocery, and a man walked up to you and continued to touch you in that way, no matter how strongly you told him not to, but you really wanted to get your groceries, how upset would you be? If he followed you around the store with his hand on your shoulder, how upset would you be? I'd definitely be calling the store manager, *and the police*. The touching was provocative, and clearly intended to be so. I was amazed at the restraint of the reporter. It's assault, just doesn't look as clear-cut because of the size of the perpetrator vs. victim, and because the perpetrator is couching it in soothing words.

[SproutMamaK]

I see the manager as blatantly doing everything possible to cause a disruption, so there was an excuse to cancel the meeting. Frankly, I'm wondering what they were going to do to get this meeting cancelled (or shortened to next to nothing) BEFORE he saw the opportunity to pull this stunt. If he was this desperate, he must have had something else up his sleeve to get the meeting cancelled before this opportunity presented itself, kwim?

 

As for forgetting about the camera, I'm guessing he took his chances that since there's no real "news" in the video, it wouldn't really matter to anyone and wouldn't really get out there. Bad gamble on his part. I wonder if he'll be fired for this. Aside from this incident, there's obvious corruption that they were trying to cover up (which is why the reporters were there in the first place), which hopefully will come to light and the role that he (and the director, obviously) will be obvious.

[mom4him]

Huh. I think the reporter's mistake was not doing what he said. Tell once, take action.

:iagree:

[KidsHappen]

Ok, I am bi-polar. I have personal space issues. It is possible that I would have asked him to stop the first time he touched me but I definitely would have started raising a ruckus the second time. I am sure there would have been a physical reaction on my part and I have absolutely no problem causing a commotion because well, I am crazy and I really don't care what other people think.

[myfunnybunch]

Aside from this incident, there's obvious corruption that they were trying to cover up (which is why the reporters were there in the first place)

 

I think we have to be careful about this line of thinking. Reporter presence doesn't automatically point to obvious corruption.

 

It was obvious that the director didn't want the meeting to take place, but we don't know why. You're probably right and they've got something to hide. That's the most likely explanation. But we need more information than the director not wanting to talk to point to corruption. It could just as well be that the legal department told them not to talk to the media for privacy reasons or to avoid remarks being edited for impact or misconstrued or twisted.

 

:)

 

I think both men handled that situation really poorly. It looked to me like they were both waiting for the other guy to really cross the line.

 

Cat

[happi duck]

"Interesting" that the woman who "couldn't" speak with the reporter because of the town hall meeting still "couldn't" speak to him when the town hall meeting was cancelled. You would think that would free up at least a few minutes. So strange and so sad for the patients.

[Cindyg]

Reporter presence doesn't automatically point to obvious corruption. Cat

 

Thank you! Innocent until proven guilty, and all that!