It is evident that he was fed up with the Shipman and her innapropriate characterizations and looked to grab the microphone so that he could say his peace. Her hand happened to be attached to it. The only thing inappropriate were the lies and distortions created by reporters like Shipman and politicians like Feinstein and Boxer.

Oh brother.

I'm a long time watcher and reader of the news.  Big Media journalists don't want raw information coming from interviewees.  The entire course of an interview consists of leading premises and questions all designed to produce the story intended by the journalist.

It's always awesome when an interviewee breaks from the mold because it throws the journalist for a loop.  In this instance Arnold was not telling Shipman what she wanted to hear and she kept hounding him to say what she wanted him to say until he had to tell her in a kind but forceful way that she is wrong.

Of course the public doesn't care, they think of journalists to be as slimy as lawyers. Only big media journalists will complain about Arnold's "attack" on Shipman.

Frankly, I really don't give a shit what "most journalists" think.

Ironically, I find that MOST JOURNALISTS are inappropriate!

Haven’t heard the usual MSM ally, the Democrats, weigh in on this one.  The MSM and the Dems went after Arnold and his apparent history of groping the week before ballots were cast in the Recall Election…. remarkably, the public sided with the Republican candidate back then.  The MSM is waiting for the Dems to join them and go public over this current “outrage”….

Reflecting on the events, the most obvious conclusion is that the initial media reports were all wrong. This wasn’t about global warming, nor was it about missing National Guard troops over in Iraq. The smart and responsible people waited until the story developed and the facts came in before they formed conclusions. However, the hyperventilating reporters who were first on the scene were thirsty for quotes, so they interviewed whoever was willing to talk. Jumping to conclusions was what the reporters were hoping for. Naturally, the irresponsible politicians (namely, Barbara Boxer) rushed to the microphone to blame Bush, and the media ate it up.

Any conscientious reflection on the media here would start by acknowledging that immediate reports are always wrong. Why? Why don’t they examine that, and how to adjust to it? (Answer: because they know that fixing the problem would require them to challenge their own assumptions. That’s a non-starter with the professional media.) Every flaw of the media shows up in a story like this, but in their analysis, what do the media focus on? Whether Arnold Schwarzenegger touched a reporter!

• By the way, since when did the media become untouchable? Have you ever seen reporters elbow their way to grab an interviewee?
• Arnold was standing in front of cameras, Michael Chertoff, and half the police establishment – no sane person would have concluded that Arnold was preparing to thump her on her butt.
• Isn’t it a physical intrusion when you shove a microphone in someone’s face?

TV shows and 'media columns' that claim to analyze media behavior are not designed to challenge the media, but to blunt criticism of it. They're just lightning rods. After all, these shows all have reporters sitting in judgment of reporters. Their motives are too mixed to trust.

Let me throw this out there...Did Clinton poke some of Wallace's body parts (I saw this on TeeVee), when he was interviewed on FOX few months ago? Did some leftoids (Baldwin, DeVito and Hillary. I saw this too on clips too!) had a touchy-feely moments on "The View"? Just asking. And if my comments were true, why there was no commotion? Hmmmn. So, was Lewinski interviewing Billy hands-free? I forgot, it was hands-free microphone...

The Governator did his usual role as a leader. At least, he didn't call Shipman "girly". 

When she has her hand in his face telling whatever you did is not enough and why did you not do more like stop the wind and have 1000 aircraft ready go 24\7 what else could he do to stop the insulting questions by her than grab her hand that is right there.  

I don't find the hand grab at all inappropriate. The hand was holding the microphone. He grabbed the mic. It was a show of strength, control, or dominance over the interview.  Presenting the facts, instead of allowing her to spew politically charged misrepresentations over the airwaves. I respect him for that.

If they keep parroting this exchange as inappropriate, they will continue to remind their viewers of how they (the media) were trying to mark the response to the disaster as insufficient, when in fact, it was handled very well. It will be good for someone, but not for them.

There's another level of distortion that nobody's mentioned: the assertion by this guy Greppi that "At most TV news operations..."

OK, so where are the numbers? HOW MANY news operations were asked? Well, let's see - how may news operations are there? And MOST said that they regarded the action in the exact same way?

Who were they? Tell us who said so.

How was the question asked????? ("If you agree with my premise, then don't answer the phone." <click> "OK, Joe, we just got another one!")

So not only was there an attempt at distortion when Shipman was doing the interview, there was another when Greppi "reported" it!