(Video) Giuliani mocks radio caller, later finds out man has Parkinson's

I agree. The caller started off by calling Giuliani the biggest criminal in the city! I wouldn't take that too seriously myself - and I probably would have done more than laugh.

Giuliani handled the call into his radio show just fine - but he perhaps did not handle the food stamp/medicaid issues just fine. Yeah, that was the caller's point, but the caller could have done a better job conveying that when he called in to the show.

He responded rudely to a rude man who happened to have Parkinson's.

Yup. He responded poorly. No question. Does if foreshadow his decision-making skills as president? No. I think that a moment of rudeness does not overshadow the character & grit he showed during the whole 911 tragedy. I like Guiliani as a person. I'm not so enamored with his politics. In some ways, he reminds me of Reagan - a genuinely likable guy who possesses some admirable qualities - strip away the differences in politics and he's a pretty decent fellow.

but his ability to act in the face of tragedy does not make him or his politics sound.

'Act' being the optimal word.

I was in NYC that day - I think Giuliani & his city administration did a fair job. What's your specific criticism?

I have no problem with the way Giuliani and Co. acted on 911. They responded quickly and appropriately. Unfortunately this is the only way the rest of America sees him. Hundreds of New Yorkers flocked towards ground zero and to hospitals to do what they can when all logic told them to head towards their families. New Yorkers are resilient and Rudy responded the only way he could.
It's the rest of his term in office I have a problem with.

Yeah, Charlie - while I actually felt safer than ever in NYC during Rudy's term, I know there many people who did not. He was not everyone's mayor, that's for sure. I happen to fit into the demographic of people he was working for, not against - but I can certainly see your point and agree ... that is a valid criticism.

I also agree with your characterization of 9/11 - they were quick, efficient, and capable overall on 9/11. Were there mistakes? Surely. Could it have been much worse? Surely. The fact that the PATH trains were running at 5:30pm again and those of us who lived off the island got home, for the most part, by 8:30 or 9:00pm is amazing. Compared to DC, the NYC team were rockstars.

who is next ?

in this order:
X mcCain
X obama

Yep. Terribly misleading and inflammatory headline.

It's possible to be accurate and misleading. Your headline implies the Parkinson's and the mockery are related, and you know this.

You might as well have written "Giuliani mocks [man of certain race]." It is completely irrelevant.

Why is the Parkinsan's noteworthy in the headline at all? If you don't think "Giuliani mocks man during radio call in" is sexy enough, why are you seeding the link?

"Giuliani mocks radio caller, later finds out man has Parkinson's," or something to that extent, is much more accurate.

Suppose that caller had been a woman...so headlines should include things like "Guiliani mocks woman who was raped"...even though the woman had been raped 20 years ago. How about "Guiliani mocks man who lost wife to cancer"? Those may be accurate titles, but they lead the reader to believe that Guiliani did something much worse than he actually did. What about the people who merely scan the headlines? Do they get an accurate idea of what the story is about? No.

For the record - since lazy language is one of my pet peeves - I do believe the onus is on the author to make sure the language they use is very clear and does not lend itself to misrepresentation. Journalism.org presents some analysis on the State of the News Media every year and has begun to criticize some news sources for their use of inflammatory or biased.

Even something as subtle as small descriptors like "Horrifying" and "Shocking" draw criticism because they imply that the listener/viewer should be horrified or shocked by the news story - in other words, telling the reader what to think. We are the ones that choose the language we use to describe these stories - it's up to us to be objective (if we want to be) and not appeal to emotional/whimsical reactions based on sensational headlines. I follow your stories and I do think you would like to be objective.

In this case, the subject was misleading. It implied that the reason Giuliani mocked the caller is because he had Parkinsons. In fact, as my earlier comment noted, I think the real meat of the story has absolutely nothing to do with the caller or Giuliani's reaction to the caller - it has everything to do with his administration's impact on Medicaid and food stamp benefits. That's the real zinger. What did he do and why? Those are the real important questions here.

A headline of "Giuliani Policies in NYC Deprived Thousands of Medicaid and Food Stamp Benefits" would have been accurate and quite "impactful" [sic].

Rather than pontificating upon the great injustice I've obviously perpetuated upon poor Mr Giuliani

I don't give a rodent's rear end about Giuliani or any perceived injustice to him. He can take care of himself, as you ably point out. I don't even like the guy. Someone gave me his self-serving book as a gift when it first came out, and I still haven't read it. The issue is, was, and has been about the misleading headline, and your insistence that it is not misleading. I would have said the same thing if the object of derision were Keith Obermann. The headline was misleading. I would not have challenged you (and didn't) to produce a better one. Actually, I don't think anyone challenged you to produce a better one, though everyone objected that it was misleading.

why don't you provide one which better fits the bill?

because it's not my problem, sir.

I'm not holding my breath.

I hope you'll reconsider.