“There is nothing for us to correct … We stand by our reporting.” That was the innocuous enough position from Greg Brock, New York Times “Senior Editor/Standards,” in reply to a Letter to the Editor sent to the Times by a reader of The BRAD BLOG requesting a correction to recent reportage from the “paper of record” concerning rightwing activist James O’Keefe, on the heels of his federal felony arrest late last month. O’Keefe was arrested in New Orleans as an alleged ringleader in a conspiracy with three others, attempting to gain access, for reasons still unknown, to the phone system of Louisiana’s Democratic U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.
Incredibly, Brock originally cited claims by Fox News and O’Keefe himself as sources for why the New York Times stood by their apparently unverified and apparently incorrect report. “We believe him,” Brock wrote, because he said as much on Fox News, apparently.
But the matter went from the absurd to the ridiculous in fairly short order, as Brock then seemed to contradict himself by claiming their source wasn’t actually Fox or O’Keefe, but that the Times stood by their reporting because of a mysterious, unpublished video said to back up the claim, along with testimony from ACORN employees.
Though both the video and statements from ACORN employees were cited as evidence their story was right, Brock would refuse to share evidence for either of the claims. That, even after an independent report from the former Attorney General of Massachusetts — released in early December, but never mentioned in the Times’ recent report (or any report at the paper to my knowledge) — directly contradicts their reportage….
In short, the Times suggested in an article a week ago Sunday — and at least seven others prior to it, all published after the release of the former MA Attorney General’s report — that O’Keefe was wearing his infamous pimp outfit inside the offices of ACORN while speaking to employees in his now-infamous hit videos. In actuality, according to the December 7th report by AG Scott Harshbarger, in direct contradiction to the Times reporting, he was not.
As Harshbarger writes:
Instead of acknowledging the Times’ error, and the fact that the “paper of record” never seems to have even reported the findings of the Harshbarger report at all, the remarkable email thread with Brock, published in full below, devolves into absurdity. He went on to suggest he didn’t actually speak for the Times; that his comments on their behalf in reply to a Letter to the Editor should not be published publicly; and that the video he claims to have seen which backs up the Times’ reporting was never actually released publicly and couldn’t be shared with me. Also, he explained, the interviews with ACORN employees, which he said described the pimp outfit that O’Keefe was wearing, were run elsewhere, not by the Times, though he was unable to cite exactly where it was that those comments were run.
The entire matter, after I eventually jumped into it myself in hopes of making sense of it all, would eventually include a request to the Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, to examine the puzzling “standards” applied by Brock, their “Senior Editor/Standards,” in the entire bizarre affair.
That bizarre affair is likely best illustrated by the actual emails themselves, posted below, in order, in full. But first, the background as to what happened here, and why this particular original request from a reader, for an important correction from the “paper of record,” is no small matter, particularly as the investigations move forward on O’Keefe’s righwing dirty tricks schemes and several alleged state and federal crimes. The country and the bulk of the corporate media relies in no small part — and apparently, at their own peril — on the New York Times to get these sorts of stories right. If this incident is any indication, the country is in big trouble…
The Background…
The original Letter to the Editor of the Times, from BRAD BLOG reader Bob F. (he has requested we do not use his full name here) sought a correction to a rather fawning Sunday, January 30th feature article in the Times on O’Keefe and his cohorts. The story, once again, forwarded the perception that O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp in his infamous, secretly — and apparently illegally — taped video interviews filmed inside ACORN offices around the country last year.
The BRAD BLOG discussed the Times’ somewhat embarrassing 2,250-word report, which seemed to make folk heroes out of the accused felons and rightwing operatives, following another report in which we detailed how horribly the media had misreported O’Keefe’s original ACORN video scam.
As noted in those two articles, O’Keefe’s heavily-edited hit videos showed ACORN employees appearing to behave stupidly, though not illegally, as clarified in two separate official, independent reports, one by the Congressional Research Service [PDF] released on December 22, 2009, and the other by AG Harshbarger [PDF], released several on December 7, 2009.
In Harshbarger’s report, “An Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN: The Path to Meaningful Reform” — commissioned by ACORN as an external review of alleged wrong-doing seemingly revealed by those video tapes — he notes quite specifically that O’Keefe was never actually dressed as a pimp in the ACORN offices, despite the tapes, as released on Republican activist Andrew Breitbart’s websites and played heavily on Fox “News,” showing him dressed as such in video cutaways outside of the offices.
Harshbarger noted clearly in his December 7, 2009 report, which concluded that no crimes appear to have been committed by ACORN employees:
Harshbarger also notes that the videos were “in some cases substantially” edited, including the use of over-dubbing and voiceovers such that it was “difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding.”
Of course, one of the many ginned-up criticisms of ACORN which unfairly poured forth following the release of those videos included the underlying notion of how dumb those stupid federally-subsidized ACORN employees must have been to have believed for even a second that this skinny little white kid was actually a pimp. Couldn’t these idiots tell he wasn’t — just by looking at his ridiculous get-up?
Of course not. Because he wasn’t dressed in that get-up, despite giving that impression in both the videos themselves, and his appearances on Fox “News” and elsewhere thereafter.
In fact, the New York Times helped create that false perception itself long ago. In a September 19, 2009 report by Scott Shane, for example, O’Keefe is directly quoted telling the paper: “‘I’m a skinny nerd, the least convincing pimp in the world,’ he said.”
Following the release of the videos, and the ginned-up outrage over them — helped in no small part by their purposeful misrepresentation by O’Keefe, Breitbart, and media outlets like Fox, New York Times, and many others that misreported them — Congress passed legislation to deny federal funding to the non-profit community organization. That legislation was subsequently found to be an unconstitutional “bill of attainder” by a federal judge, but the damage was done to the anti-poverty group whose “crimes” were little more than having the temerity to legally register millions of low- and middle-income (and thus, largely Democratic-leaning) voters so they could legally participate in their own democracy.
But the tapes were, in no small part, a scam. They were, for example, misrepresented as an “ACORN child prostitution investigation” by O’Keefe and Breitbart to this day. They were anything but that. And they never, to either my knowledge or Harshbarger’s, included shots of O’Keefe actually dressed as a pimp in any of the offices. O’Keefe’s partner in the videos, Hannah Giles, was dressed as a fairly conservative looking prostitute, and was represented as such to ACORN employees. But O’Keefe represented himself to the ACORN employees as her college boyfriend who was considering a Congressional run someday, and who was now trying to help rescue Giles from an abusive pimp.
And yet, the Times’ “Senior Editor/Standards” Greg Brock first claimed in his original email to Bob F. that the Times stands by their reporting that O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp because — get this — “Mr. O’Keefe himself explained how he was dressed — and appeared on a live Fox show wearing what HE said was the same exact costume he wore to ACORN’s offices.”
For evidence, Brock then went on to link to a video clip of O’Keefe’s live appearance on Fox where he sat on the couch, dressed in his pimp get-up, and was introduced by Fox’s Steve Doocy as being “dressed exactly in the same outfit he wore in these ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard.” O’Keefe confirmed Doocy’s inaccurate introduction, and that was apparently good enough for the Times.
Brock then told Bob F. that if he had any further concerns, he should take them up with Fox News if he believed “they doctored his imagine in this television interview” or “check with Mr. O’Keefe and ask him if he was lying when he went on this live Fox show and told the anchors that he was dressed on the show exactly the way he was dressed when he went into the ACORN offices.”
In other words, as Brock confirmed in concluding his very first note, he was taking Fox and O’Keefe’s word for it, even though it’s clear that O’Keefe was lying, at least according to both the report from the former MA Attorney General, and the publicly released videos that also show otherwise.
But the New York Times apparently believes Fox and O’Keefe instead, according to Brock!
“If there is a correction to be made, it seems it would start with Mr. O’Keefe himself. We believe him,” Brock incredibly asserted. “Therefore there is nothing for us to correct.”
But things got quickly even worse, as Brock seemed to dig himself deeper and deeper into the hole with new, unsupported assertions in each note following Bob F.’s follow-up which pointed to the quote from Harshbarger’s report. It then got worse still, after I eventually jumped into the conversation myself following Brock’s assertion — seemingly pulled out of thin air — that:
It was then, with Bob F.’s permission, after he’d shared the full email exchange to date with me, that I jumped in to politely request a link to the video Brock alluded to in the comment above, and to the report which he said quoted “ACORN employees who…described [O’Keefe’s] costume.”
At that point, things went even farther down the rabbit hole with Brock first telling me he would have no comment to me, then asserting he didn’t speak for the Times, even though every email was sent from his Times email address, SeniorEditor@NYTimes.com, and originally signed as “Greg Brock, Senior Editor/Standards.”
The thread continued to devolve, as I grew increasingly gobsmacked by Brock’s unsupported assertions, and as he was clearly unable and/or unwilling to provide any of the requested cites to either the video he specifically mentioned as evidence that supported the Times’ reporting, or the comments from ACORN employees which allegedly did the same.
With each new note, new, puzzling explanations and apparent backtracking emerged for Brock’s unwillingness to offer actual support for his contentions. E.g.:
- “My response wasn’t addressed to the public and wasn’t a statement on behalf of The Times.”
- “…just because I send an email response to one reader does not mean that the content of that email is THE official statement to the public and all media outlets on behalf of The Times.”
- “Perhaps … you read more into my note to Mr. F. [full name redacted for privacy] than was there. I said our statement was based on a video. I did not say that we saw the video online or that it ever was online. … Many of our reporters have done a great deal of reporting on Acorn over a good period of time. And through that reporting — whether it was watching videos, interviewing sources (who would not always go on the record) or doing other research — we feel we have confirmed the information we reported. Just because I am not willing to give you a link — or don’t even have a link — doesn’t mean our reporting is in error.”
- “On my reference to comments by ACORN employees, I made that point to Mr. F. [full name redacted] based on my having read ad naseum [sic] about this case for months on end. I was not saying that the specific comment about “dressed as a pimp” was from our interviews with ACORN employees. But others have reported such comments.”
And near the end of our exchange, in one of the final notes, Brock finally asserted this extraordinary claim in reference to his very first note to Bob F: “Please re-read that reference to Fox and Mr. O’Keefe. I did not cite that as our source.”
Yet, in his very first reference to Fox and O’Keefe, again, who Brock says he “did not cite … as our source” was this very first sentence he ever wrote to Bob F.:
…And that very first note then concluded with:
At this point, I’ll refer you to the emails with Brock in full, as posted below, to fully appreciate it all. Also, in hopes that you may be able to help me understand what I may be missing here — including any information about the supposed evidence that Brock asserts actually exists somewhere to back up the Times’ reporting, even though he still refuses to do so himself and continues to stand by their reporting nonetheless.
The willingness of O’Keefe and Breitbart to allow this sort of massive misrepresentation of their ACORN scam — considered to be a successful one — is a very important point. It should be accurately reported and kept in mind when examining their current claims concerning the more recent scam which resulted in the felony arrests of O’Keefe and his buddies, one of them the son of the acting US Attorney in Louisiana, inside a U.S. Senator’s office, attempting to gain access to her phone system!
If O’Keefe, and Breitbart, who still employs him, were that willing to out-and-out lie about the ACORN scam, seen as a successful one, just how far would the two GOP operatives be willing to go to get off the hook for what appears to be a very serious federal felony?
As O’Keefe quickly published a statement explaining his version of what he was doing in Landrieu’s office, and as that explanation just as quickly was shot full of holes, his past willingness to lie is very much a matter to keep in mind at present as the federal criminal prosecution in Louisiana moves forward.
That’s the background, as we wait to hear if the Times’ Public Editor Clark Hoyt wishes to jump in and help sort out this disturbing matter at the same “paper of record” which somehow managed to bring us a full year of Judith Miller’s horrific and inaccurate front page reports concerning “evidence” of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those reports, of course, eventually helped lead the nation into an unnecessary, seemingly endless, trillion-dollar war and an uncountable death toll of U.S. and others’ troops, private contractors, and Iraqi citizens alike.
Where I used to scratch my head in wonder as to how that could have happened at the once-great newspaper, I now look at the exchange below, and the paper’s failures — by their most senior editors — seem to begin to make a lot more sense.
The emails with Brock follow below, right after a few quick examples of…
The Times‘ Ongoing Misreporting on O’Keefe “Posing” as a Pimp…
For the record, it was not just the Times’ 2,250-word January 31st feature story headlined “High Jinks to Handcuffs for Landreiu Provocateur” on O’Keefe and his alleged co-conspirators which clearly suggested O’Keefe was wearing his pimp outfit when seeking advice from secretly video-taped ACORN employees. The paper consistently misreported as much, time and again, in at least eight different instances since the release of Harshbarger’s December 7th report which directly contradicts that point.
The Times, from my quick search of its website, apparently never bothered to report, even once, the findings of that report or those from the Congressional Research Service. Both reports determined that ACORN staffers committed no crimes. Nonetheless, the paper has filed one story after another on the O’Keefe/Breitbart ACORN videos, including these which misreport the O’Keefe’s pimp costume, even after Harshbarger’s December 7th report:
• After Arrest, Provocateur’s Tactics Questioned
Campbell Robertson and Liz Robbins, Published: January 27, 2010:
“Mr. O’Keefe is a conservative activist who gained fame last year by posing as a pimp and secretly recording members of the community group Acorn giving him advice on how to set up a brothel.”• High Jinks to Handcuffs for Landrieu Provocateur
Jim Rutenberg and Campbell Robertson, Published: January 31, 2010:
“Mr. O’Keefe made his biggest national splash last year when he dressed up as a pimp and trained his secret camera on counselors with the liberal community group Acorn – eliciting advice on financing a brothel on videos that would threaten to become Acorn’s undoing.”• O’Keefe Talks to Fox About His Landrieu-Office Arrest
Kate Phillips, Published: February 2, 2010:
“James O’Keefe, the young videographer who caused an uproar last year by surreptitiously recording himself and an associate, posing as a pimp and prostitute, getting business advice from workers at Acorn…”
The Times website also published a number of reports from wire services such as Reuters and Associated Press which forwarded the same inaccurate assertions:
• Activist Accused Of Tampering With Senator’s Phone
By REUTERS, Published: January 26, 2010:
“…among those arrested on Monday was James O’Keefe, who, posing as a pimp and accompanied by a woman pretending to be a prostitute, filmed workers with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN…”• 4 Men Accused of Scheme With La. Senator’s Phones
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 26, 2010:
“A hero of conservatives who bruised the liberal group ACORN by posing as a pimp on hidden camera…”• Phone-Tampering Case: Prank or Political Spying?
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 27, 2010:
“Last year, O’Keefe, a 25-year-old self-described investigative journalist, posed as a pimp in the hidden-camera videos that embarrassed the community organizing group ACORN.”• Activist Touted ‘Project’ Before Phone Tamper Case
[The above article was replaced on the Times site by the next one for some reason. The old link is still there when searching NYTimes.com, but it now goes to the following story instead]
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press, Published: January 27, 2010:
“Last year, O’Keefe, a 25-year-old self-described investigative journalist, posed as a pimp in the hidden-camera videos that embarrassed the community organizing group ACORN.”• Lawyer: Phone Scheme Meant to Embarrass Senator
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 28, 2010:
“…activist James O’Keefe, known for posing as a pimp and using a hidden camera to target the community-organizing group ACORN…”
Complete Email Thread with Greg Brock, New York Times, Senior Editor/Standards…
With the Times have firmly established to their readers, over and again, in at least eight reports under their own masthead, that O’Keefe “posed” as a pimp, in the period following former MA AG Harshbarger’s report finding that “at each and every office, [O’Keefe] was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt”, here is the complete, extraordinary email exchange with Greg Brock, Times “Senior Editor/Standards”…
To: Letters, NYT
Subject: James O’Keefe
Dear Times,
In your Sunday article on James O’Keefe, you stated that he went into Acorn offices dressed as a pimp.
Are going to run a correction – someplace where readers will actually see it?
He did NOT enter those offices dressed as a pimp. That was only video he shot on the street.
In the offices, he dressed conservatively as the boyfriend trying to rescue the girl from her abusive pimp.
The videos were also doctored and overdubbed.
When will you run a major article on this?
Thanks.
To: [Bob F. email address redacted for privacy] Subject: FW: James O’Keefe
Dear Mr. F. [full name retracted for privacy]:
Our article included that description because Mr. O’Keefe himself explained how he was dressed — and appeared on a live Fox show wearing what HE said was the same exact costume he wore to ACORN’s offices.
Here is a clip from Fox New which Mr. O’Keefe is being interviewed, wearing the costume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL68WFEw2Gk
If you feel the other ACORN videos have been doctored, then perhaps you will want to contact Fox news and ask them how and why they doctored his image in this television interview. Was Mr. O’Keefe dressed in normal street clothes on their show and they somehow manipulated the image while he was on live TV? Or you might want to check with Mr. O’Keefe and ask him if he was lying when he went on this live Fox show and told the anchors that he was dressed on the show exactly the way he was dressed when he went into the ACORN offices.
If there is a correction to be made, it seems it would start with Mr. O’Keefe himself. We believe him. Therefore there is nothing for us to correct.
Best regards,
Greg Brock
Senior Editor/Standards
To: NYTimes, Senioreditor
Subject: RE: James O’Keefe
Dear Mr. Brock,
Thank you very much for your response, but I was somewhat confused by your email. I got my information from an independent report found here (Pg. 42 / Appendix D – Video Narratives):
www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf
“Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt.”
Now, I understand you could claim this report provides no PROOF he did not wear his pimp costume into those offices.
Similarly, there is no proof whatsoever that he did.
Is there a reason (especially given his recent actions) I should trust the word of James O’Keefe and not this independent report?
At minimum, there should have been some kind of qualifier to NYT’s blind repetition of his claims.
Again, will you be issuing a correction / article on this?
I really do want to be able to trust the Times as a news source.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bob F. [full name redacted for privacy]
To: Bob F.
Subject: RE: James O’Keefe
As I said, we see nothing to correct. It is not merely a matter of accepting his version. He was videotaping some of the action, including when he left some of the offices. At one point, the camera was turned in such a way to catch part of the “costume” he was wearing. And ACORN employees who saw him described his costume.
The report you cite acknowledges that the employees were not interviewed and that much of this report concerning the videos are based on “hearsay.” We stand by our reporting.
We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were made. In addition, we could not offer them – or our own notes – confidentiality or privileged communications status. We also did not have the opportunity to speak with the videographers. In fact, they either declined or ignored our requests.
Therefore, while we have formed opinions about the videos, and have offered our findings and comments to the extent we felt it appropriate to do so, the following narratives (except for the Philadelphia office) are based on hearsay alone – albeit reflecting the perspective of the ACORN employees and volunteers, and their supervisors
At this point, after Bob F. shared all of the above with me, I jumped in with my own note to Brock in order to request the specific cites to which he was referring. After 24 hours or so without a reply, I resent the message to him in case he missed it. That message is below, and includes the original email. [Emphasis was mine, as included in the original note to him].
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 7:51 PM
To: NYTimes, Senioreditor
Cc: ‘Bob F. [full name redacted for privacy]’
Subject: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
Greg – Resending the below in case you missed it previously today. Was sent late last night. – BF
______________________________________________________________
Greg –
Bob F. [full name redacted for privacy] shared some of your comments in response to his emailed concerns asking the Times about the assertion that James O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp inside the ACORN offices in his videos, and whether a correction would be appropriate despite former MA Attorney General Scott Harshbarger’s assertion that:
Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt.
Apparently you wrote Bob back in reply and said:
At one point, the camera was turned in such a way to catch part of the “costume” he was wearing. And ACORN employees who saw him described his costume. … We stand by our reporting.
I’m working on a story on the Times (and others) reporting here. Do you have the link to the video where you say we “catch part of the ‘costume’ he was wearing”? I’ve not been able to find that video.
As well, if you have a cite to the “employees who saw him [who] described his costume” it would be much appreciated as well, as I haven’t been able to find that either.
Thanks. As you may imagine, working on deadline here, so your prompt reply would be much appreciated.
Best,
Brad
[phone number redacted for privacy]
—
Brad Friedman
Publisher/Editor, The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com
To: Brad Friedman
Cc: ‘Bob F. [full name redacted for privacy]’
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
I don’t have any comment on our coverage. My previous comments were addressed to Mr. F. [full name redacted] and intended for him.
thanks,
Greg
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 3:29 PM
To: NYTimes, Senioreditor
Cc: ‘Bob F. [full named redacted for privacy]’
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
As the Senior Editor at NYTimes, responding to a reader in that role, with very specific information, given as the reason you stand by your reporting, I’d think you’d be able to support that information with cites that back it up, no?
What does that mean that your “previous comments were addressed to Mr. F. [full name redacted] and intended for him”. Are you responding on behalf of the New York Times as Senior Editor or not??
You asserted, very specifically, that: “At one point, the camera was turned in such a way to catch part of the ‘costume’ he was wearing. And ACORN employees who saw him described his costume. … We stand by our reporting.”
So I’m simply asking for the link to the video which supports your claim, and a cite to the reportage concerning the “ACORN employees who saw him [who] described his costume”.
Isn’t that public information and part of your public defense of the story?? I’m confused, but have no interest in being unfair. You make the assertions in order to “stand by” your own reporting, so why would you not be willing to provide that information to anybody who asked for it??
Brad
To: Brad Friedman
Cc: ‘Bob F. [full name redacted for privacy]’
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
I was answering Mr. F’s [full name redacted] question. My response wasn’t addressed to the public and wasn’t a statement on behalf of The Times. I respond to readers’ individual questions about coverage in The Times. I don’t release statements on behalf of the newspaper or the company. Had Mr. F. [full name redacted] told me he was seeking a public comment that he could pass along or use or for publication — as you did in identifying yourself — I would have told him the same as I told you. That I had no public comment. He certainly has the right to tell you or anyone his position on an issue or what questions he has asked The Times or anyone else. But I never share with anyone else an email that a reader sends me; I would never post it without that reader’s permission and it would never be published as a Letter to the Editor without that reader’s permission. I expect the same courtesy. That is why I said my response was intended for him.
Anytime a question is raised about an article, we check the information, talk to editors or reporters or whatever is necessary. If we were wrong, we correct it; if we are confident of our reporting, we say we stand behind it and the content of the story.
Best regards,
Greg
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:26 PM
To: ‘NYTimes, Senioreditor’; ‘public@nytimes.com’
Cc: ‘Bob F. [full name redacted for privacy]’
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
Allow me to get this straight, Greg: You reply to a reader who sent an emailed query/concern about a Times story, to a public Times email address (SeniorEditor@nytimes.com); you send the reply from that public Times email address; “sign” the note “Greg Brock Senior Editor/Standards”; reply again several times to follow-ups to the same reader, from that same NYTimes address; make assertions about a story/reportage on behalf of the Times that “We stand by our reporting” and include with that several specific reasons for standing behind it based, based on alleged evidence that, when asked to provide it, you then say that you say you “don’t have any comment on our coverage”; and then when called on that by me, you are now saying that your emails from the NYTimes address, on behalf of the Times, as the “Senior Editor/Standards” is not a “statement on behalf of the newspaper or the company” and suggest that your emails and/or the comments within it should not be posted without your permission????
Really?
Of course, posting a private citizen’s email without their permission is one thing. But you are a public newspaper, writing from a newspaper address, speaking on behalf of the newspaper in reply to a private citizen who has given their permission to share their email publicly.
I’m astounded on several levels here, Greg. Would you offer that same courtesy to a public official whose emails you obtained? Or, let’s say, to some climate scientists who actually were writing private emails with the expectation that their emails would not be published in the New York Times? Or anybody whose emails revealed a news worthy story, as yours clearly do?
And, beyond that, while your emails have not (yet) been made public, you still refuse to back up, with any evidence at all, the very specific assertions you made to a reader, from a Times email address, on behalf of the Times, signed by the “Senior Editor/Standards” of the Times, concerning reasons why, as you wrote to him, “We [presumably the Times] stand by our reporting”???
What I thought was likely shoddy reporting, and a possibly lazy and inaccurate response to it, has just become an absurdity.
My request for the evidence to back up the assertions you made as the reasons why you “stand by [your] reporting” still stands. I hope you will offer it, since, as noted several times, I’ve so far been unable to verify your assertions, but I’d think you’d be able to. But I’m also now CC’ing the Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, at this point in hopes that he may either be able to point out what it is that I’m seeing incorrectly here, or correct for the record what seems clearly to be an outrageous misrepresentation of your position/job at best or an extraordinarily hypocritical CYA move at worse, from you (or both).
For his reference, I’m including the original exchange between you and Bob at the bottom of this note, just below the exchanges between you and I, in my hopes to respectfully follow up on Bob’s concerns. (Mr. Hoyt, you can review this entire bizarre/disturbing affair by reading the thread below from the bottom up.)
Best,
Brad
[phone number redacted for privacy]
At this point, Brock replied, but only to me. No longer did he REPLY ALL to those who were CC’d on the thread to date (which had included Bob F. and New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt by that point)…
To: Brad Friedman
Subject: Re: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
Dear Brad,
By all means, take your query to Clark Hoyt. That is why his position exists.
It’s pointless for us to continue to argue. I am sorry you do not agree with my approach. But I think I was clear in my explanation of why I told you I would not comment to you beyond stating that we stand behind the reporting.
Mr. F. [full name redacted] wrote to me as a reader. I answered him in my official Times capacity — which is to respond as best as I can to readers. Yes, my emails are on a Times e-mail address and, of course, any reader can take my emails and do whatever they want to with them (including sharing them with you). They can publish them in a book if they choose. I am aware of that every time I send an email message. But just because I send an email response to one reader does not mean that the content of that email is THE official statement to the public and all media outlets on behalf of The Times. That’s not my job. That’s what our corporate communications department does. (In fact, my job often conflicts with those statements. As Mr. Hoyt and many others can tell you, I often disagree with a decision by The Times and I say so — in emails to readers. But those comments are under my name and represent my opinions in the context of my job; they are not the official position of The Times. Fortunately, we are allowed to disagree here. We don’t march in lockstep.)
You wrote to me not as a reader but as someone who identified himself as the editor of a blog who was seeking a comment from The Times that would be published. (And as I said before, I appreciated that. It gives you credibility for being upfront.) But I’m not going to have our corporate communications folks wake up tomorrow and discover that I have issued some official statement for publication. They decide when and how to do that. By the same token, they know that I do not want to wake up one morning and find that they have been sending individual responses to readers about specific questions on our content when they themselves have not been involved in or even talked to an editor or reporter about it.
I don’t know a clearer way to make the distinction.
Best regards,
Greg
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:51 PM
To: NYTimes, Senioreditor
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
To be frank, while I appreciate the distinctions you’re trying/hoping to make here, the fact is you made very specific assertions in response to a reader that I’d think the Senior Editor who made them would be willing, able to back up.
My request was very simple. You referred to a specific video and to specific comments from ACORN employees to back up your reportage. I asked for links to that specific video and/or specific comments from ACORN employees and no matter what your point is now about who does or doesn’t speak “officially” for the NYTimes, I’d think you’d be forthcoming with those links.
Are you able to offer them or not?
This is not personal, Greg. This is merely journalism. And as someone who works at the country’s “paper of record”, I’d hope you’d be able to support your journalism as you had claimed to “stand behind” in response to a reader.
Am I to presume, at this point, that you simply refuse to do so? I understood that was your stated intention from your original reply to me, but I’m trying to give you every benefit of the doubt here in hopes that you will simply do the right thing by offering the support for the claims that you made.
Brad
To: Brad Friedman
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
Dear Brad,
I think it is great that you are examining this coverage. But I am definitely not the person who can speak on behalf of The Times as to our handling of that coverage.
However, I can offer one clarification that might help. Given the nature of your article, you were/are correct to seek as much confirmation of information as possible. Perhaps in that mission, you read more into my note to Mr. F than was there. I said our statement was based on a video. I did not say that we saw the video online or that it ever was online. I guess this day and time that would seem logical to assume since everything else is. Many of our reporters have done a great deal of reporting on Acorn over a good period of time. And through that reporting — whether it was watching videos, interviewing sources (who would not always go on the record) or doing other research — we feel we have confirmed the information we reported. Just because I am not willing to give you a link — or don’t even have a link — doesn’t mean our reporting is in error. We’re also not going to give out the names and phone numbers of sources so anyone who wants to call them up and ask for confirmation can do so. And in cases where someone might have let us listen to an audio tape or view a video on some subject, we are not going to break our commitment to them not to divulge the source. It’s just like when we quote from a document and say: which The Times was allowed to read….. Meaning that we saw it; we took notes, but we don’t have the document in our possession. The fact that we can’t post the document online doesn’t undercut our reporting. If someone chooses not to believe us, then that’s part of the process.
So while I don’t have anymore to offer you than: “we stand by our reporting,” there may be other options for you to find this video. Below is a sampling of the many news organizations and Web sites that have reported that Mr. O’Keefe entered the offices “dressed as a pimp.” Everyone from the NYPost to the AP to Huffington Post, Slate, Rawstory and dozens of other sites. I assume you are checking with them to see what they based their statement on. They may very well have a video tape in their possession and will be happy to share it with you. Or they may be able to give out the information on their source, in which you can call that source directly.
On my reference to comments by ACORN employees, I made that point to Mr. F. [full name redacted] based on my having read ad naseum about this case for months on end. I was not saying that the specific comment about “dressed as a pimp” was from our interviews with ACORN employees. But others have reported such comments.
I hope this helps clarifies these points.
Best,
Greg
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:07 PM
To: ‘NYTimes, Senioreditor’
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
Of course, I would never ask you to divulge such a confidential source, Greg. But that was clearly not the assertion that you were making. In fact, your first response to Bob referenced your source as being Fox News and James O’Keefe, not some confidential source. You referenced his appearance on Fox in the costume, and suggested video they showed would have had to have been “somehow manipulated”. You further suggested Bob might want “might want to check with Mr. O’Keefe and ask him if he was lying when he went on this live Fox show and told the anchors that he was dressed on the show exactly the way he was dressed when he went into the ACORN offices.”
You concluded that note with: “If there is a correction to be made, it seems it would start with Mr. O’Keefe himself. We believe him. Therefore there is nothing for us to correct.”
To now say you had some secret source who you cannot reveal would seem to strain the bounds of credulity, frankly.
As to the other news sources who you correctly note have also gotten this aspect of the story wrong, I agree, and where I can highlight that point, I certainly will. But the NYTimes is, as you know, “the paper of record”. And simply because others fail should hardly keep *you* from doing the right thing and correcting your reporting transparently and with the same prominence that you misreported the information in the first place.
Moreover, to my knowledge, none of those other news sources, much less a “Senior Editor/Standards” at any of them replied to a reader query/concern by citing Fox News and James O’Keefe as their source for standing by their story because they “believe him” and feel that “therefore there is nothing for us to correct”, only to suggest ownership of new, yet uncited ‘evidence’ later to support the claim (allegedly unreleased videos as well as comments from ACORN employees which you now say you’ve gleaned “based on my having read ad naseum about this case for months on end” though they were not “from our interviews with ACORN employees. But others have reported such comments”, but you still fail to supply any cite to any such reportage anywhere. Was it from Fox News? Did someone there say they spoke to some ACORN employee who described the costume? If so, does that meet the “standards” for appearing in the pages of the New York Times unconfirmed and unverifiable?!)
I believe you would have been wiser to quit while you were not quite as deep in the hole as you seem more determined to be with each note, should have copped to the original bad judgment/hasty reply to Bob, apologized for it, and attempted to correct the record in the “paper of record” as clearly and as thoroughly and as appropriately as possible, Greg.
I’m sorry, but this is no small matter. The scam that O’Keefe, Breitbart and gang have been running — as expectedly aided and abetted by Fox “News” — against ACORN largely for having the temerity to legally register millions of low and middle-income (read Democratic-leaning) voters strikes at the very heart of our democracy and our electoral system.
Surely you know that. And surely you don’t actually think it appropriate for the New York Times to aid and abet that scam as we would expect Fox, but not necessarily the Times, to do. Surely the standards for the Times are a tad higher than those at Fox. But perhaps my expectations for the Times are still far too high.
Brad
To: Brad Friedman
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
Please re-read that reference to Fox and Mr. O’Keefe. I did not cite that as our source. I simply made the point to Mr. F [redacted for privacy] that that had occurred. And that if there was indeed a question about how he was dressed, it would be a good starting point to ask him and Fox about that report: was he honest in that report? Did Fox try to verify his contention that he was dressed like that? . My reference to manipulated was in reference to Mr F[redacted]’s comment about how videos had been manipulated. My point was: I guess now someone will say that Fox maniuplated the live images while he was on TV. I didn’t say they did.
But here is the bottom line, Brad: Mr. F. [redacted for privacy] asked a specific question. I tried to answer it. You followed up asking for more information on that answer. In the end, I have written several emails to you now trying to help as best I can on this point — given that I am not the right person to make some sweeping statement on behelf of The Times.
I feel like I have bent over backward to help. I am sorry you do not feel I have and that you are so disappointed in me and what you feel is The Times’s low standards.
Greg.
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 2:51 PM
To: NYTimes, Senioreditor
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
“Please re-read that reference to Fox and Mr. O’Keefe. I did not cite that as our source. I simply made the point to Mr. F. [full name redacted] that that had occurred.”
Greg, with all due respect, I have read and re-read all of your notes. You were quite clear to Bob in your very first sentence sent to him, in reply to his charge that the Times had misreported O’Keefe as wearing the pimp outfit inside ACORN’s offices. The very first thing you said to him in reply was:
“Our article included that description because Mr. O’Keefe himself explained how he was dressed — and appeared on a live Fox show wearing what HE said was the same exact costume he wore to ACORN’s offices.”
To backtrack now, and suggest you “did not cite that as our source”, does, as previously mentioned, seem to strain credulity. But we can let Clark Hoyt and the general public decide by reviewing the full thread for themselves.
I do thank you for your responsiveness, of course, and for what you feel has been bending over backwards to respond to my concerns. I’m happy to let others decide what is what and what has gone on here and at the Times.
Best,
Brad
To: Brad Friedman
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
The main thing I cited was the video. Which prompted you to ask for the link to it or a copy, etc. That was the central point. If you took my comment to mean just the Fox video, then you could have linked to that and you would have had what you asked for. It’s all over the Internet. I went on to make the point that he had made these comments on TV and that what he said matched what we had seen on video.
I think we have discussed this thoroughly. Again, I am sorry you did not find my efforts helpful.
Greg
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:37 PM
To: ‘NYTimes, Senioreditor’
Subject: RE: (2nd Attempt) MEDIA REQUEST RE: James O’Keefe
“I went on to make the point that he had made these comments on TV and that what he said matched what we had seen on video.”
As I believe you and I both know, you referenced a different video later that you did not offer a link to. You did offer a link to the Fox News video which did not show O’Keefe dressed as a pimp in any of the offices, even though, as you originally said in your first several notes, the Times took O’Keefe at his word. “We believe him. Therefore there is nothing for us to correct,” you wrote.
The video you suggested later as existing someplace, seen only by the Times, was referred to as your evidence only after you deferred to Fox’s and O’Keefe’s unverified explanations as fact to support the Times reporting.
Anyway, you’ve had your say, I’ve had mine. We’ll let others decide what happened here.
Best,
Brad
UPDATE 2/10/10, 11:55am PT: Reactions from around blogosphere, summarized version of emails, Randi Rhodes interview, more, now here…
UPDATE 2/10/10, 8:24pm PT: ACORN calls emails from Times Senior Editor “troubling and disturbing”, seeks meeting with NYT Public Editor. Details now here…
UPDATE 2/11/10: Rightwing blogger attacks both us, and our coverage. Swings and misses on both counts…
UPDATE 2/15/10: Media watchdog org demands retractions from NYTimes…
UPDATE 2/17/10: Breitbart Lied About ACORN ‘Pimp’ Videos When Selling Story in His Own Washington Times Column. Full details…
UPDATE 2/19/10: Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘It Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’. Woman who posed as prostitute confirms repeated misreporting by NYTimes, many others. Full details…
UPDATE 2/21/10: “In CPAC Meltdown, Breitbart Forced to ‘Apologize’ for ‘Apparently’ Lying About ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story”. Full details…
UPDATE 2/23/10: “Exclusive: NYTimes Public Editor Declines to Recommend Retraction for Multiple Erroneous Reports on False ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story” Full story, Hoyt’s emails…
UPDATE 2/24/10: Hoyt responds to our publication of his emails and accuses The BRAD BLOG of having a “political agenda” on par with O’Keefe and Breitbart. Also, blogosphere issues blistering response, petition, call for Hoyt to step down. Full details, Hoyt’s email response, right here…
3/1/10: Exclusive Video: Breitbart offers manic admissions about O’Keefe ACORN hoax, says he “had no idea” O’Keefe not dressed as pimp, compares it to Borat. Details…
UPDATE 3/1/10: Exclusive Video: Breitbart offers manic admissions about O’Keefe ACORN hoax, says he “had no idea” O’Keefe not dressed as pimp, compares it to Borat. Details…
UPDATE 3/1/10: Brooklyn D.A. ends 5-month ACORN probe, finds “no criminality” in tapes, calls them “highly edited splice job”. Full details…
UPDATE 3/2/10: NYT Public Editor Hoyt depicted “as weasel” in political cartoon for comments made to The BRAD BLOG. Details…
UPDATE 3/10/10: Another legal victory for ACORN. Federal judge rules Congressional funding ban ‘unconstitutional’. Details…
UPDATE 3/11/10: Media watchdog FAIR slams ‘wildly misleading’ coverage by NYT. Details…
UPDATE 3/12/10: ‘The Times Botched Story’ says author, President of National Housing Inst. on Democracy Now!. Details, video…
UPDATE 3/20/10: NYT PUBLIC EDITOR FINALLY ADMITS ACORN ‘PIMP’ HOAX REPORTING FAILURE: ‘TIMES WAS WRONG, I HAVE BEEN WRONG DEFENDING PAPER’ … Clark Hoyt says in Sunday column ‘editors considering correction’. Full details here…
Wow, people can be quite convoluted (and rather insulting in a polite sort of way) while defending their particular brand of bullcrap. Brad, you seem to have followed all the convolutions very well.
Here’s a little analysis:
Greg:
I’m taking this to mean a video that Greg has seen (or thinks he’s seen) in which O’Keefe himself did the videotaping, and Greg’s contention is that O’Keefe swung the camera around, possibly by accident, and caught himself on the tape. The inference is that the camera caught him in his pimp costume inside an Acorn office.
The fact that Greg infers this without coming out and saying what the video actually shows strikes me as dishonest and that he is hiding something (perhaps only his fuzzy memory or his abysmal lack of checking sources).
Greg:
Possible Translation:
I can’t say for sure if I ever actually saw the video or not. I think I did but I don’t remember which video it was or where O’Keefe was standing when the camera swung, or what he was actually wearing in that clip. ‘Cause if I did, I would have told you and it would have proven my point.
Greg:
Possible translation:
Now I’m wondering if maybe I heard about that camera angle from another reporter. Can’t remember who but I ran with it and I figure if it’s not 100% accurate, nobody’s gonna know or care except some fool like you and I’ll just politely put you in your place and that will be that.
Greg:
Possible Translation:
Damn, my whole argument is hanging on this one video clip I can’t even remember the particulars of, or even if it actually showed what I think it did! Hmmm, well here’s a smoke screen about not betraying confidential sources which will make you out to be an idiot for not realizing this and me sound like a pompous (though polite) jerk. That should take care of it, especially when I invite you to disbelieve the NYT, if you dare.
Greg:
[The rest too boring to repeat]
Possible Translation:
Hey, everybody else said the same damn thing, so bugger off already! And yeah just to obscure the matter further, maybe you thought I was talking about the Fox interview. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Go watch it and you’ll see that everything I said was the way it was on that Fox video. Jeez, you can’t even find the Fox video? What kind of investigator are you, anyway? Sheesh.
I’m sure there are plenty of lovely words to describe Greg’s behavior — “obfuscate” is the first to come to mind.
ACORN has lawsuits against O’ Keefe in two states for secretly filming their employees which violates the state law,according to my understanding.
As such, could the ACORN lawyers subpoena the tape that the Times allegedly has in theeir posession that would show O’Keefe dressed in pimp suit?
It dosen’t matter Brad. they will always believe him becaue his accuastion is against black people. apparently congress is still standing behind felony pimp’s word, i haven’t heard of any of them apologizing.
The whole ACORN fiasco was so unprofessionally faked. I have been amazed that the airwaves were not filled with interviews with those who lost their jobs at ACORN. They never had a forum to give their side of the story and I am sure they had one. The truth will come out as long as folks like you at Brad Blog keep digging. Good start. Now let all the blogs join in and find out the truth. And we will.
T.R.O asked:
Well, they could certainly subpoena O’Keefe/Breitbart for the full, unedited tapes. They could *try* to subpoena the NYTimes, but if they actually had such a tape (which remains highly dubious, in my personal opinion), they would not/should not turn it over unless their source okays it.
That said, a subpoena might at least be answered with the response: “Tape? We never had any tapes other than the ones O’Keefe/Breitbart released. Never mind what we told that BRAD BLOG guy.”
Thanks, LJ. PLEASE spread the word wherever you all can!
I have two words for Greg Brock: Judith Miller.
Damn that was a lot of work.
I think it would be a good idea to point out, once again, that “the media” (including the NY Times and James O’Keefe) successfully damaged ACORN without cause.
The Times’ resistance to adhere to any minimal journalistic standard can be interpreted as nothing short of malice. They’re out to get ACORN.
Read through your whole exchange. Remarkable. Just remarkable. Is this some strange, contemporary, hyper-dysfunction symptom? Maybe it’s always been around. Or maybe it’s always been a part of Western Culture and it’s just more prevalent/exaggerated these days.
I’m a continuity guy. When people prefer to duck and weave and perform amazing feats of acrobatic contortion with the English language, sense, and history to avoid SOMETHING, it’s just astonishing. What the hell is going on?
I don’t know what this is here, but it seems to be a common phenomenon these days. In a way it’s beautiful and creative. Just making up all kinds of crazy shit on the fly to avoid acnowledging some simple truth. Impossible to pin down. A master of escape. But only a master because the old commonly accepted rules of language and meaning are abandoned while the pretense is offered that they are still in place. Makes no sense except in Bizarro World, Alice in Wonderland, 1984.
I have no idea really, but my guess is this guy is not conscious of what he’s doing. My guess is he has a need to not acknowledge something here. So he doesn’t.
I would like to go further out on my limb and venture another guess that he doesn’t know how important this issue is, as you suggested he did. I’m gonna guess he has not connected the Acorn dots that your regulars here have been staring at for years.
I don’t know what this magic thinking is but I think there’s a lot of it going around. On all sorts of subjects.
Finally–I think it well may not matter in the slightest what tack you would have taken here but I was wanting there to be more focus in the back and forths on Harshbarger’s study. Didn’t Harshbarger look at all of O’Keefe’s tapes? That was the sense I had from reading your other reports. Isn’t that right?
Cuz if Harshbarger did look at all of O’Keefe’s tapes and the tapes show nothing corroborating O’Keefe’s claims but do show plenty contradicting them, isn’t that the context we should be putting the story/questions in? Isn’t that what we’re asking the NYT to reconcile? Wouldn’t that be a little harder to squirm out of?
I know you brought the Harshbarger study up but Greg barely acknowleged that you did and then went right back to claim and counter-claim. Woould it have possibly born more fruit to keep the Harshbarger study as the anchor in the debate?
And now for a little stickling–
Near the end of the email where you first mention including Mr. Hoyt in the communications you write–“..just below the exchanges between you and I…”– It should be you and “me”. This is the only english grammar rule I care about. I’ve even heard Obama make this mistake. It always drives me crazy. I can’t help myself cuz it’s the only english grammar rule I really care about.
I love that their sources are Fox News’ live shows, video on the internet, hearsay and what they’ve read “ad naseum.” I mean, what the hell happened to investigation?
They really are in the business of just reprinting press releases, it seems.
LoL, the Right Wing Times doesn’t support getting to the truth?…I wonder if Brock knows the guy that ran back inside the building…maybe its him?
Greg Brock is a wingnut spin machine, grew up in Mississippi, went to Ole Miss. Not saying he’s a racist or anything, but;
Guilt by association? We retort, you deride.
Aw shit, do we have to absolve him of any editorial faux pas because of his sexual orientation now? I’m not even going to go there. Yous guys can fight it out with him.
Brad @#6
But you see ,that is precisely my point.
It would force the NYT’s hand on the issue if they even have a tape in their possession that purports O’Keefe being in the ACORN offices in “pimp” attire.
Does anyone recall the full page ad that ran over a year go in the Times,entitled Rotten ACORN?Eventually it was revealed that it was a group associated with Richard Berman,PR spinmeister aka Mr. Evil.This was just prior to the Presidential elections.Incidentally,McCain was FOR ACORN,before he was AGAINST it.
The courts have exonerated ACORN, yet there is little effort on the part of the media in general,or the Times in particular, to give equal coverage to that FACT.
Well sure the Times will slant the news for the O’Keefes and Brocks of this world. They all work for the same company. They NY Times is a propaganda spewer.
Remember the run up to the Iraq war?The question now since they are not to be trusted and subscriptions have fallen WAY off. Are they too big to fail?
@#12
The South has produced some remarkable American literature.
I consider it a cheap shot to denigrate one’s birthplace or alma mater.
Its an even cheaper shot to aid and abet the railroading of an organization that has been doing yeoman’s work for years.
And I am not saying Mr. Brock IS doing this, I am saying that intentional harm has been perpetrated upon ACORN .
There needs to be a reckoning,imho.
Ha! Using the Fox way of reporting (#12&13) has gotten TRO’s panties in a bunch…it does work.
Of course you might have forgotten that is exactly how Fox (R-mouthpiece) does things to Obama. And the way the NYT is letting this slide is aiding and abetting Fox’s story about ACORN.
Point proven. Thanks. 😉
Brad, do we know exactly how many and which ACORN offices were visited? Or at least could you restate the list of states that have been publicly acknowledged as having been targeted.
Great Job. So far. Can we help you turn up the heat? I’m snowed in w/another storm approaching, but I could call a bunch of ACORN offices, try to maybe get some more folks on the record?
@#17
I fail to see how the Fox way of reprting “Works”.
I do,however, see why you chose your screen name.
The fact that nytimes didn’t print the Harshbarger’s report says it all. They’re sticking to the hearsay they choose with the same disastrous results of j miller proportions on innocent people. Personally, I see it as more evidence of the very prevalent good-cop-bad cop syndrome/scam that has permeated our politics/media to corporate advantage.
This is what I think I’m seeing, what I’m not seeing much difference between, what appears to me part of the same dysfunction, what I think we need a strategy for bridging. I’ll put it in the form of questions–
What’s the difference between-
1.Greg at the NYT refusing to acknowledge the simple facts Brad is asking clarification for?
2.My friend Jennifer(liberal)refusing to look at election fraud issues or listen to criticisms of Obama that make her uncomfortable?
3.Barney Frank(famous gay liberal)refusing to acknowledge the possible realities of election fraud or expressing any real interest in investigating the issue?
4.My sister and her husband(teapeople)refusing to look at any information that contradicts their narrative?(I read Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck to understand them. They can not read the littlest Howard Zinn booklet-Failure To Quit-to understand me.)
5.Jill, old girlfriend and a progressive, baling on her commitment(etched in stone, she said)to friendship and communication when we break up and refusing to discuss the matter?
To me these refusals to examine uncomfortable information from people across the political spectrum on varying subjects look much alike.
To me these refusals seem like manifestations of fear and expressions of our extreme disconnect from the earth, each other, and what really matters. There is precious little harmony. We are not together.
I think the challenge is to come up with, create, manifest a way of being that is all about truth, bridges, and coming together.
I also think our efforts in this direction must be done with an awareness that whether we’re too late or not in derailing the widespread disasters it looks like we’re headed for, we well may not see many results from our labors. Still I suspect whether we see the results in our lifetimes or not, this sort of bridging is the essential work that must be engaged if our culture is to stand a chance of awakening from this deep, deep trance of fear and ignorance in which we currently walk.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
… David Lasagna said on 2/8/2010 @ 10:22 pm PT…
Read through your whole exchange. Remarkable. Just remarkable. Is this some strange, contemporary, hyper-dysfunction symptom? Maybe it’s always been around. Or maybe it’s always been a part of Western Culture and it’s just more prevalent/exaggerated these days.
I’m a continuity guy. When people prefer to duck and weave and perform amazing feats of acrobatic contortion with the English language, sense, and history to avoid SOMETHING, it’s just astonishing. What the hell is going on?
It’s actually scary. It’s as if Brad caught the NYTimes red-handed, and no one ever pressed them for answers and they don’t know what to do, that someone is actually following up on their non-answers and non-retractions!
I feel the same way, the fact that even when people out the mainstream media for false stories or ignoring stories, they don’t “finish the job” by pounding home the most important thing: that the media isn’t liberal. All stories should end with: “this is proof the media isn’t liberal and we’re being propogandized to believe it”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic&feature=player_embedded
Just pointing out false things in the media and not tying it all together with the reason for doing it is dropping the ball in my opinion. You can point out all the false or ignored stories in the mainstream media, the corporate owned media we’re supposed to think is liberal…but if you don’t pound home that fact that it’s not liberal, you may as well not even point out the false or ignored stories. Because we need to know why they want us to think the MSM is liberal, even though it isn’t.
We need to know why!!!
Someone caught them (Times) doing a pro Exxon retraction and were told that there is no way of going back (no database) to confirm his hunch…
They have it all fixed now (right)
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-104.php
How about poining out that MSM media are liars,not liberals?
My Dear fellow “hubris-propelled intellectuals”:
I’m tempted to write this reminder in red-bolded, italicized, super-caps with several screaming exclamation points:
PLEASE DIGG / RE-TWEET / CIRCULATE this article as much as you can. Do it from several different computers. Ask friends to do it. Send it out in massive mailings to like minded folks. Ask friends to do the same. If you don’t have a twitter account, get one. Even if you never use it except for Bradblog articles. It’s free. If you have questions, I’ll be happy to answer them for you (by email).
At the time I’m writing this, we’re at 8 diggs / 9 retweets. While I hope to see the comment thread skyrocket for this piece, I’m always amazed and disappointed that for all the Bradbloggers desperately asking how can we get this (or any) critical story more oxygen – no one will simply click on the digg button making the article more visible to search engines. (And yes, I know how some of you feel about tweeting – outright, defiant refusal sprinkled with condescension for those of us understand what it could be capable of and who try to utilize it to that effect. So be it. But it works and it’s such an easy thing to do. Please consider it.)
Brad’s (typical) ratio of readers to diggers is downright shameful. Hundreds of readers, dozens of long comments, hours of invested passion and heated debate = 2 diggs. 1 retweet…
Friends, don’t you get it?
It’s your internet VOTE.
Wow. NYTimes “caught” again. “All the news that’s fit to print” their points of view. (I like the comment noting Judith Miller.)
…and I intend to drop Greg AND his bosses at the NYT a friendly howdy-hey and what-the-fuck letter, as well.
But it’s the bloggers, you see, who base their posts on complete fabrications and innuendo, poorly sourced if at all. Makes total sense, New York Times.
Can someone please start a petition or something to demand that the NY Times and other media print retractions/corrections to the ACORN stories to point out the fact that O’Kweefe was NOT dressed as a pimp INSIDE the offices? Please?
Also, it seems clear that the SENIOR editor of STANDARDS at the NY Times is both an idiot, and a fan of FOX “News”. Which is to say, either he’s an idiot because he watches FOX News, or he watches FOX News because he’s an idiot.
Great work Brad!
Is there a reason why not one ACORN employee did not call the police, or anyone else to report the “fact” that they were “trying to protect the young girls”?
@#32-
Harry, that’s not true, according to a Salon article,by Joe Conason . Here’s an excerpt:
Here are a couple of links relating to #33.
Acorn – Salon.comDec 11, 2009 … ACORN videos were propaganda. By Joe Conason …
http://www.salon.com/news/acorn/index.html?story=/opinion/…/acorn – Cached
“ACORN videos were propaganda”. December 12, 2009 9:16 am ET by Eric Boehlert. From his recent Salon column, Joe Conason details what former …
mediamatters.org/blog/200912120001 – Cached
Harry @ 32 said:
Of course they did, Harry. Is there a reason yu’re misinformed on this? Oh, right, because Breitbart and O’Keefe and Fox misinformed you about the entire thing.
In other words, you’ve been played for a chump by your “news sources”, Harry.
(TRO, thanks for offering links to Harry. Harry, there are many more out that which confirm same.)
Thank you, Jeannie Dean. Hope others read what you wrote very carefully above! You are right on target (‘cept for the “hundreds of readers” part. It’s thousands, often tens of thousands, in truth. Making the absurdly low number of DIGGS/REDDIT/Tweets even more sorry, frankly.)
Yes, it is your Internet VOTE.
I have never Digged (Dug?), nor really know anything about it. I am uninformed as to the art or science of Internet — what, praising? Advertising? Getting out the vote? (I went on Digg’s site and read about it a bit but I still feel utterly clueless about what it is and how it works. I guess not enough specifics were supplied for my taste. Like, what’s a “critical number?” What is THE critical number? Is there only one? What’s the time frame involved? Is it the same for everyone? Etc, etc. Ok, ok, just a BIT OCD here…)
This is not something I have ever had any interest in or desire to learn about, but I’m getting the message that it’s a free and easy way to help the Brad Blog. So, although it’s against my general temperament to do this sort of thing, I will Digg.
Lora – The formula used at DIGG (and the other places) is actually a closely guarded secret. So we don’t really know how many and over what time period launches stories to the front pages at DIGG and REDDIT, etc.
But as registering is free and really easy, and you can then stay logged in always, it’s then very easy to hit the DIGG and REDDIT buttons while here next time. And yes, it very much helps to get eyeballs on these stories. Especially when they hit the front pages over there!
Heard the Nicole Sullivan (am I right about the last name, I don’t get her much up here in the NW) bit tonight. Nice work.
Thanks, Soul. That was Nicole Sandler (filling in on the Randi Rhodes Show). For folks who missed it, it’s now here for ya [MP3]. (Appx. 15 mins)
Now having read the entirety of that ludicrous exchange…if Greg Brock won’t back up the reporting, will Hoyt? I find it hard to believe that there would be any secrecy in that supposed video – in fact, if it really exist, wouldn’t it “prove” O’Keefe’s claim against ACORN in the first place? I fail to understand the inability to provide any video – hell, it doesn’t even have to come from a “source” (thus, blowing someone’s informant cover, say huhwhat?), just make it available for the world to see. Why would they not do that, if it existed? In fact, doesn’t the refusal/inability to provide the video effectively destroy the notion that such a video ever even existed??!!
WTF, NYT, you’ve done some crap-tastic work in the past, but this really takes the cake. From Judith Miller.
NYT. No longer a credible source. Don’t quote from it ever again.
Perhaps we should get Greg Brock a spot on the next season of Dancing With the Stars. His c.v is now stacked after that exchange. He’d probably even qualify as a judge.
All I did was ask- thank you for your answers. It is obvious that since I found my way here that my “news” sources include progressive radio.
Harry, we have been inundated with a host of TeaBagger trolls lately. (Hi Brook. Hi RHM.) Seems that you’re not one of them. Stick around a bit.
The right-wing media narrative that the Obama administration endangered security by giving Miranda rights to alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is falling apart. Contrary to claims based on unnamed sources in the right-wing media, Obama administration officials agree that Abdulmutallab gave valuable intelligence during his first interrogation and that Abdulmutallab has begun divulging intelligence again.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090037
Palin headlines birther conference; press pretends not to notice
http://mediamatters.org/columns/201002090002
Funny, how Sarah Palin never produced Trig’s birth certificate but the birthers don’t care, nor does the mainstream media:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/sarah-palin-has-now-made-two-very-clear-public-statements-in-the-last-day.html
Who is it journalists work for? According to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, in their seminal work, “Elements of Journalism,” journalism’ s first loyalty is to citizens. They tell of a young Adolph Ochs who bought a struggling New York Times in 1896, and published this promise the first day of his ownership: “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interest involved.”
How far it has fallen.
Brad, ultimately, what evidence do you have that O’Keefe was not wearing the pimp costume in any of the ACORN offices?
You cite the Harshbarger “independent” investigation. Wasn’t Harshbarger hired by ACORN? Are you claiming that a Democrat politician and lawyer, hired by the people that he is supposed to be investigating is truly independent?
Let’s cut to the chase here: Did Harshbarger locate any video of O’Keefe in the ACORN offices NOT dressed in the pimp costume?
Dear Harry, @32
Unless he knows something I missed in your email there, I think Brad bit your head off prematurely. Usually he doesn’t bite like that. (I’ve been feeling sorta premenstrual myself lately.) We’re generally more into gumming a person’s head here. This leaves the head and neck connected(if a bit slippery with saliva)and more likely to promote expanding conversations.
Sorry for the inconvenience of the head bite.
love,
Dave
Calfed @49
I think that’s the point. I believe Harshbarger saw the original tapes and O’Keefe is never in pimp attire in the Acorn offices. Only adorned as La Pimpo Villa outside. That’s my understanding, anyway.
David @ 51
Since the original tapes are presumably in either Breitbart or O’Keefe’s possession, and Harshbarger was hired by and working for ACORN, how would he have had access to the original tapes?
Is Harshbarger’s assertion that O’Keefe never wore the pimp costume into an ACORN office based on any hard evidence, or merely based on statements that he took from ACORN employees, who may have had reason to lie about what O’Keefe was wearing?
Calfed- what proof do you have that George W. Bush WASN’T sent here from Planet Zargon to prepare Earth for an alien invasion?
The burden of proof is on O’Keefe and his enablers at the NY Times to show him in the ACORN offices dressed as a pimp, NOT on the Bradblog to prove otherwise.
The point of the first question is, you can’t prove a negative, that’s not how logic works.
Here’s another question for you- if O’Keefe WAS dressed as a pimp inside ANY of the ACORN offices, why do not ONE of his videos shown ad nauseam on FOX News show that? Wouldn’t you think that would be a damning piece of evidence in that “sting” operation that would have been included without a doubt? Or even after the fact, if there were such video, wouldn’t they show it to put any doubt to rest?
Coming here with questions and reasoning like yours is like bringing a dull butter knife to an AK-47 fight. The ones with grenade launchers on ’em.
Colin, what you have posted is nonsense. Brad has created an entire blog post that is based on his demand that the NYT’s retract its statement that O’Keefe was dressed in his pimp costume in the ACORN offices. I’ve asked what evidence this demand is based upon. Now you come along and assert that Brad needs no evidence to demand a retraction.
Say what?
I got news for you, Colin–having some reliable evidence in your pocket that a statement is incorrect is the sine qua non of getting any newspaper to issue a retraction. If you don’t know that, what the hell are you doing posting on this blog.
As to why none of the video shown so far depicts how O’Keefe was dressed, I offer this–If the camera was secreted in something that O’Keefe was wearing, how the hell COULD it show how he was dressed?
Incidentally, the issue of whether O’Keefe WAS or WAS NOT dressed in his pimp costume is really a collateral issue, since it is clear from the video that he was representing himself as a pimp who wished to import under-aged girls to work in his stable.
Finally, Colin, if you want to get personal, let me just say that based on your analysis so far, if you were any duller, we would have to water you twice a week.
Calfed: What proof is there that O’Keefe was dressed in his pimp costume in the ACORN offices? Actually, that costume was so outrageous, it’s pretty hard for the average rational person to believe he was dressed like that.
Do YOU believe he was dressed like that in the ACORN offices?
And you say that O’Keefe being dressed OUTRAGEOUSLY is a “collateral issue”. It’s not. Because of how outrageous his costume was, it’s not collateral or irrelevant.
If he was dressed like that and talking to them, that is VERY IMPORTANT for several reasons, including how outrageous the costume was AND if he wasn’t dressed like that, he absolutely wanted everyone to think he was by editing the videos.
That’s outrageous, in fact, that YOU don’t think that’s important!
Also, Calfed, you say “Democrat politician” instead of “Democratic politician”, so I think we all know where you’re coming from.
Calfed said, parroting the wingnut propagandists:
Really? Which video is that “clear” from? Because the transcripts that O’Keefe released (allegedly, of the uncut interviews, unlike his videos) show clearly that he represented himself as a college student and aspiring candidate for office hoping to save the prostitute from an abusive pimp.
Or did you just take O’Keefe/Breitbart’s deceptive videos at face value as they tried to falsely represent them? Like the NYTimes, Fox “News” et al?
“That’s outrageous, in fact, that YOU don’t think that’s important!”–Big Dan
Big Dan, what should be clear is that what is important is what O’Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees and what the ACORN employees TOLD him.
It is clear that O’Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees that he was a pimp, attempting to import under-age girls to work as prostitutes. What is also clear is that the ACORN employees TOLD O’Keefe what he should do to hide his activities from the authorities.
What is collateral is what O’Keefe was wearing at the time that this occurred.
You are trying to deflect attention from the activities of the ACORN employees, so I think we all know where YOU are coming from…
Calfed–
Excuse me, I was dead wrong about Harshbarger having seen all the videos. I guess I made that up.
Just went and checked Harshbarger’s study itself and he’s completely clear that he hasn’t been able to get the unedited versions.
Very embarrassing to be that wrong.
Re from your comment #58—It is clear that O’Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees that he was a pimp,—
I’d be obliged if you could direct me to the evidence for your claim here. As far as I can make out so far it’s only clear that O’Keefe CLAIMS he told Acorn employees he was a pimp.
From what I understand, we’ve got some edited videos on our hands and that there is not a helluva lot that is COMPLETELY clear. It sounds like Mr. O’Keefe is the one who could clarify a lot of this up by releasing all the original videos. It’d be good to see what’s on them. And it’d be good to see how much they may have been doctored, no?
“Because the transcripts that O’Keefe released (allegedly, of the uncut interviews, unlike his videos) show clearly that he represented himself as a college student and aspiring candidate for office hoping to save the prostitute from an abusive pimp.â€â€”Brad
Brad, this statement is why I have problems with your characterization of these matters. It glosses over the fact that O’Keefe represented himself college student and aspiring candidate for office—who was deriving income from prostitution and attempting to derive income from underage prostitution.
Most of us would call that pimping and pandering.
And the ACORN employees were oh so helpful in instructing O’Keefe in how to hide his activities from the authorities.
You can label that “wingnut propagandaâ€, but ACORN itself found the activities of its employees sufficiently embarrassing as to require them to be terminated. And ACORN is not an easily embarrassed institution.
Anyone can go to the Big Government website and read the transcripts for themselves.
http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/
Brad, you don’t REALLY want me to cut and post the exchanges between O’Keefe, Giles and innumerable ACORN employees, do you? It won’t help your side in this matter, I assure you.
David, I would direct you to the Big Government website where the videos and transcripts are posted:
http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/
I suggest scrolling to the bottom and working up–I found it easier going as it is in chronological order (m/l) that way. I believe any fair interpretation of those transcripts support my characterizations.
As for releasing the unedited videos–yes, it would probably be helpful to us. however, I point out several issues:
–ACORN itself is pressing for charges against O’Keefe and Giles for taping ACORN employees. As a result, the audio of the ACORN employees on some of the later videos is being suppressed on the Big Government website. Wouldn’t it also be helpful if ACORN dropped it’s request for criminal charges so that there were no legal issues involved with releasing the unedited video?
If ACORN REALLY thought that the unedited videos would inure to their benefit, wouldn’t they naturally want to pave the way for their release, by dropping their demands for criminal prosecution of Giles and O’Keefe?
–O’Keefe and Giles consider themselves “journalist” (I’m not crazy enough not to realize that many posters at this website disagree with that description). “Journalists” would rather walk through fire (or spend months in jail on a contempt citation) before they turn over unedited material to the public. Tell you what–try to get ALL of the unedited video from “60 minutes”. Good luck.
Calfed said @ various:
Yup. But that wasn’t the meal ticket here for O’Keefe/Breitbart, was it? It was that astrounding expose in which dumb ACORN employees were so stupid, they couldn’t even see that this guy wasn’t a pimp. A storyline helped by the fact that he appeared on Fox in the get up, in photos, etc. and stood by as everyone characterized that that’s how he was dressed.
Furthermore, they dishonestly characterized the entire thing as an “ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation”. That’s how they label the videos at YouTube, in fact. There was no “Child Prostitution” at ACORN, and you know it, because you’re at least intellectually honest enough to show up here and review what I’ve been reporting and respond to it (unlike the cowards Breitbart, O’Keefe, BigGovernment.com et al).
Hopefully you’ve also read the transcripts — because the videos completely twist all of this up — to see that in most of the cases, the employees were encouraging the two to pay their taxes, even if it was taxes on illegal business. They did not tell them “don’t pay the taxes!” (most of them, anyway) as was the picture portrayed, deceptively by Breitbart/O’Keefe in their hit job.
Moreover, the “journalists” were so dishonest here that they didn’t report the employees who *didn’t* take the bait and who called the police or through them out of the offices, etc.
If 60 Minutes wanted to catch low-level employees — from among some 13,000 — saying and doing stupid things, they would not hide those who didn’t say or do stupid things. They would not manipulate the video (at least I’d like to think!) in order to make them look stupider and/or like they were doing things they weren’t actually doing.
ACORN took appropriate action by firing those who needed to be fired, doing an internal and external investigation to change practices, finding out that there was not an institutional instruction to commit “child prostitution” as the GOP operative Breitbart and O’Keefe have purposely and deceptively tried to convince people of.
In the meantime, the actual companies of folks like Halliburton, Blackwater, Exxon, etc. who receive BILLIONS of tax-payer dollars from the federal government, more than ACORN has received in their lifetimes, have admitted to billions of dollars in fraud, have been taken to court on actual crimes like manslaughter, rape, murder, etc. and the intrepid crime fighters like Breibart, O’Keefe and Giles couldn’t give a damn about it — even as they make the claim they are fighting against government corruption.
It’s a complete, and utter scam. They are fighting against government Democrats. Period.
That’s otherwise known as extortion, Calfed. Are you that out of touch with conservative values such as the Rule of Law, that you’d even suggest such a thing?
None of it is “journalism”. It’s dirty tricks, propaganda, and yes, extortion.
Meant to also respond to this from Calfed:
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. Journalists (real ones, not ones that have to be put in quote marks) refuse to release material in order to protect sources. Not to protect themselves from scrutiny and justifiable criticism that they’ve been dishonest and have misrepresented the material.
You appear to know nothing about journalism, but apparently plenty about “journalism” — Breitbart/O’Keefe style “journalism” anyway — and seem as willing to torture the truth as did Greg Brock of the NYTimes in hopes of making excuses for utter failures of both journalism (in the case of NYTimes) and “journalism” (in the case of hoaxsters Breitbart & O’Keefe).
Dear Calfed @ comment #61–
Thanks for the link. Wasn’t ’til I went to it that I realized it was Breitbart’s.
I just read Glenn Beck’s latest–Arguing With Idiots–cuz I have a sister who loves him.
I just can’t do Breitbart right now. I just spent days tracking down Glenn Beck’s misrepresentation after misrepresentation and I’m tired of it. These guys–Glenn and Breitbart–offer an awful lot of anger and obfuscation. They don’t talk straight or listen well. These two and their compatriots are constantly calling me an idiot, in one way or another, while never honestly acknowledging my point of view, and occasionally encouraging people to do me physical harm.
Not a lot to work with there.
Maybe I can find the transcripts somewhere else.
“Yup. But that wasn’t the meal ticket here for O’Keefe/Breitbart, was it? It was that astrounding expose in which dumb ACORN employees were so stupid, they couldn’t even see that this guy wasn’t a pimp. A storyline helped by the fact that he appeared on Fox in the get up, in photos, etc. and stood by as everyone characterized that that’s how he was dressed.‖ Brad
Brad, you don’t honestly believe that the scandal in the ACORN story was that ACORN employs people who can’t tell the difference between REAL pimps and guys who play pimps on TV, do you?
The scandal in the ACORN story is that an organization that receives millions in tax payer funding was caught on tape counseling a “pimp†and a “prostitute†on the best way to avoid getting caught importing under age girls to be used in their prostitution “businessâ€. Claiming that the major issue here is what O’Keefe was wearing at the time that he received this counseling is really obfuscation.
BTW, what real evidence do you have that O’Keefe wasn’t dressed in his pimp suit when he visited the ACORN offices? I mean real evidence—you know, tapes, photographs, etc—not just statements from ACORN employees that have every reason to lie about it.
“There was no “Child Prostitution” at ACORN, and you know it†— Brad
You claim that this was dishonestly portrayed as an “ACORN child prostitution investigationâ€. That is more obfuscation on your part. No one ever claimed that ACORN engaged in child prostitution. What ACORN DID do was provided assistance to people posing as child pimps and panderers. Both the tapes and the transcripts bear that out.
“…in most of the cases, the employees were encouraging the two to pay their taxes, even if it was taxes on illegal business. They did not tell them “don’t pay the taxes!”—Brad
This is another “Straw man†argument. The scandal wasn’t that ACORN employees told O’Keefe and Giles not to pay their taxes. The scandal was that ACORN employees explained to the pair how to file a false return, so that they could pay their taxes without disclosing the illegal source of their income.
You claim that O’Keefe “didn’t report the employees who *didn’t* take the bait and who called the police or through (sic) them out of the offices, etc.â€. That’s an interesting point. What I remember is ACORN claiming that O’Keefe and Giles were thrown out of ACORN offices and then seeing video of O’Keefe and Giles being helped at those same offices. As for police reports—there are a few. And they are posted on the Big Government website. There are also kudos to an ACORN employee who DID refuse to help O’Keefe.
You claim that ACORN took “appropriate action†by firing those who needed to be fired and to the extent that is true, I applaud ACORN. But to pretend that ACORN isn’t a troubled organization, with lax internal controls is to miss the point. The brother of ACORN’s founder, who was a high-level ACORN employee, embezzled a million dollars and the current management has been covering up this fact for years.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/acorn.investigation/
“It’s a complete, and utter scam. They are fighting against government Democrats. Period.’—Brad
-as opposed to this bog, which goes after Democrats and Republicans alike. I guess I missed all those exposé’s of Democrat organizations that you have posted here. Be real–ALL media outlets have a political POV.
‘That’s otherwise known as extortion, Calfed. Are you that out of touch with conservative values such as the Rule of Law, that you’d even suggest such a thing?â€-Brad
Uh, no. But I’m also not so out of touch that I can’t see the hypocrisy of calling for criminal charges against someone for secretly video taping ACORN and then criticizing them for not releasing more of the tapes.
David–I don’t blame you. I’m conservative (gasp! shocking!)–lol–, but I can’t stand Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. To me, they are the conservative obverse of the same coin that Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz exist on.
“Rubbish. Complete rubbish. Journalists (real ones, not ones that have to be put in quote marks) refuse to release material in order to protect sources. Not to protect themselves from scrutiny and justifiable criticism that they’ve been dishonest and have misrepresented the material.â€â€”Brad
With all due respect, Brad, it is you who doesn’t know anything about journalism and journalist shield laws. Journalists routinely refuse to hand over outtakes of their video work. Frequently the courts support them in their refusal-
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/mar/12/bn12wuterich204444-outtakes/?zIndex=66194
Do you really argue that Journalists release their notes, unused work product and outtakes to anyone that questions their work? Puhleez! Reporters show that stuff to their editors and then the editors issue a statement to the effect that “we stand behind the reporting†on the questioned issue. That stuff usually get released, if at all, after a long bitter court battle.
Calfed said:
I honestly believe that that was the lie the entire gimmick was lynchpinned on, yup. And have had many express same, with shock, when they learned that that headliner claim was an utter fabrication.
That was the story line that was created, yes. It’s veracity, however, is thinner than ever once one reads the transcripts, and realizes so much of the rest of the story (eg. O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp) was a publicity scam and fabrication.
An honest journalist might have consider that before risking his/her story, if it was legitimate in the first place, on an entirely phony premise.
Um, really? Besides the videos which do not show him in that outfit, the former MA Attorney General who says he wasn’t wearing the outfit and the ACORN employees who say he wasn’t wearing that outfit, and O’Keefe’s own statements in the video transcripts that he told the employees he was a college student, hoping to run for Congress someday, the boyfriend of the prostitute and trying to save her from an abusive pimp? I know that’s pretty thin. So that’s why I asked the NYTimes for the evidence that, they now claim they have seen, supporting that he was dressed that way.
Unfortunately, they are unwilling to supply that evidence or any link, or anything else that independently verifies their claim. Which is why I described it as a “contested”.
That said, what evidence do you have that O’Keefe wasn’t holding a gun behind that camera and pointing it at ACORN workers? Just the statements to the contrary from the partisan propagandists who have every reason to lie about it? (I hope you’re smart enough to understand the point of this graf. I believe you are.)
I guess the video, as titled “ACORN San Bernadino Child Prostitution Investigation”, as posted on James O’Keefe’s article at Big Government.com headlined “ACORN Prostitution Scandal: California Here We Come!” must have posted itself. (That page, btw, promises Part II to the video, which never came, after the first tape included a secretly taped video in which an ACORN employee makes suckers out of O’Keefe and Giles by saying she killed her husband, despite the fact that the county sheriff said the woman’s husband was very much alive, and the dishonest O’Keefe and Breitbart never even bothered to retract their story, or even update readers to that fact, six months and 1,241 comments later. Yup, there’s your “journalism”.)
Or there’s the first video posted called “ACORN Baltimore Prostitution Investigation” Parts I and II and . No, not deceptive or misleading at all from the folks who claim to be combating “journalistic malpractice” of the corporate media.
And there’s the DC videos posted at BigGov in an article called “Washington, DC ACORN Video: Child Prostitution Investigation”. And, there’s “ACORN NYC Child Prostitution Investigation” and “ACORN San Diego Child Prostiutiont Smuggling”, etc. etc. Of course, you can go to YouTube and search for “ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation” and many more dishonestly titled videos from Breitbart and O’Keefe. But never mind any of that. Yeesh. They’re just doing good “journalism”.
Other than that and hundreds of other similar examples, you’re right, “No one ever claimed that ACORN engaged in child prostitution”.
Yup. Apparently you did.
“Um, really? Besides the videos which do not show him in that outfit, the former MA Attorney General who says he wasn’t wearing the outfit and the ACORN employees who say he wasn’t wearing that outfit, and O’Keefe’s own statements in the video transcripts that he told the employees he was a college student, hoping to run for Congress someday, the boyfriend of the prostitute and trying to save her from an abusive pimp? I know that’s pretty thin. “—Brad
So, no, you do not have any solid evidence that O’Keefe wasn’t wearing his pimp suit at the ACORN office. And one line in your rationale sums up the weakness in your argument.
“former MA Attorney General who says he wasn’t wearing the outfitâ€
Only he doesn’t exactly say that, does he? What his report does say, with respect to his investigations of O’Keefe’s visits to the ACORN offices is this:
“The unedited videos have never been made publicâ€
So, he hasn’t seen any video that the rest of haven’t seen.
“We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were madeâ€
So Harshbarger didn’t even speak to the people who actually dealt with O’Keefe. Does the word “hearsay†ring a bell?
“We have described what we have been told were the specific circumstances of each visit
in narratives attached hereto as Appendix D, which stem from interviews of ACORN employees, MANY OF WHOM DID NOT DID NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS.â€
Jesus—double hearsay. And from people who apparently didn’t know anything themselves.
“We also did not have the opportunity to speak with the videographers. In fact, they either declined or ignored our requests.â€
So, they didn’t get to talk to O’Keefe, either.
“It is important to note that none of the ACORN offices visited has any written record of the visitsâ€
So no contemporaneous reports of the visits to fall back on.
Based on these caveats, contained in the Harshbarger report, your insistence that Scott Harshbarger assures us that O’Keefe was not wearing his pimp suit at the ACORN offices is inexplicable. And laughable. No wonder the NYT refuses to retract—they can read.
The evidence that you cite for your conjecture that O’Keefe wasn’t wearing his pimp suit during his visits to ACORN offices boils down to this:
Some ACORN employees, not the ones who actually dealt with O’Keefe, mind you, say he wasn’t wearing his pimp duds. Oh, and by the way, those ACORN employees, who are already looking pretty bad to begin with, and would look even worse if they admit that he was wearing his pimp duds, well they really aren’t in a position to know what O’Keefe was wearing, because as the Harshbarger report said, “ many…had no direct knowledge of the eventsâ€
To use your own words, Brad, “pretty thinâ€.
Oh, hey, one other thing. About that whole “video twisted the ACORN employees words†thing—the Hershbarger report had one nugget:
“We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were madeâ€
Harshbarger apparently gets it, Brad.
Where is the video? Why can we not see the video? Produce the video? Proof is in the pudding, why not just show the goddamn video? It’s really very simple.
Unless there is no video.
In which case, nobody saw the video.
Why such obfuscation in such a simple matter?
What video?
Lol!
Exactly.
you’re right Soul, there is no video.
And ACORN is nothing more than a small nut lying under an oak tree.
Dear Calfed,
This is all very interesting. Do you believe everything O’Keefe has been saying about the whole series of Acorn incidents? Do you find him an honest witness to events?
Do you find Harshbarger not credible? Yes, he acknowledges that his evidence is hearsay, but to me it sounds like part of his job was to piece together a coherent narrative of events. You claim he may be biased. So might Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Fox News, no? Biased or not Harshbarger offers a dramatically different narrative in Appendix D than the story promoted and perpetuated in the national media. His narrative seems consistent to me. He was hired to make an independent report. His report is wildly at odds with the “official” version. Does that make you curious? It makes me curious.
Because I’m hoping we can all agree that many of the details of Harshbarger and O’Keefe’s versions are mutually exclusive. Somebody’s telling a whopper.
I’m gonna go look for some harmony. Catch you cats later.
love,
Dave
“Biased or not Harshbarger offers a dramatically different narrative in Appendix D than the story promoted and perpetuated in the national media‖David
Yes David, a dramatically different narrative, but based on what? I’ll quote the Harshbarger report directly:
“We have described what we have been told were the specific circumstances of each visit in narratives attached hereto as Appendix D, which stem from interviews of ACORN employees, MANY OF WHOM DID NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS.â€
This is the take-away—Harshbarger’s “dramatically different narrative†is based on self serving, third hand accounts of people that Harshbarger acknowledges “DID NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS.â€
Of what value are those accounts?
Don’t you see that you are asking me, in effect: Who am I going to believe, the third hand accounts of people who have no direct knowledge of the events or my own lying eyes?
Do I have to answer that question?
Calfed:
Excellent points, all. You’ve convinced me. O’Keefe *was* wearing his pimp outfit in the ACORN offices! Just like you and the NYTimes said!
But just in case anybody asks, what’s your evidence for it? Because the NYTimes wasn’t able to offer any, and I’d sure like to be able to back up your story, and theirs, and Fox “News'”, in case anybody asks. Thanks in advance!
Excellent points, all. You’ve convinced me. O’Keefe *was* wearing his pimp outfit in the ACORN offices! Just like you and the NYTimes said!
Brad, you’re just inches from sincerity 🙂
Dear Calfed re comment #75,
You seem to be a thorough and thoughtful person. You also appear to me to be extremely biased against Acorn. That’s okay, we all have our biases. I’m extremely biased for Acorn having followed the Republican attempts to discredit them for years now.
Thanks for the Harshbarger quote but I’ve read it myself many times now and alrady have acknowledged that Harshbarger clearly states his conclusions are based on hearsay evidence. I feel you’re beating a dead horse there. In my view we are not lacking for dead horses. I’d love to get beyond the Land of the Dead Horses, if possible.
It’s interesting how we all see such different things. You see Harshbarger spewing nonsense based on testimony that is worthless(hope that’s accurate enough of your viewpoint.) Having just been through an extremely unpleasant legal business myself, I hear a lawyer being very careful and specific, the way good lawyers are.
Without knowing with greater certainty because I wasn’t actually there witnessing any of his investigation, what I make up is this–
Harshbarger talked to a bunch of Acorn people in the various offices visited by O’Keefe. Perhaps he talked to Acorn staff who witnessed O’Keefe and Giles entering their offices and/or he talked to Acorn staff who got a version of events from participants directly involved. I make up that his narrative is based on something that probably can be backed up with further investigation. You make up that it’s pretty much worthless bullshit(again, I hope I’m being accurate here in describing your viewpoint.)
Katherine Conway Russell’s narrative in Brad’s latest piece is consistent with my interpretation and I believe at odds with yours. Now maybe she’s a self-serving liar but maybe she’s not. When I checked O’Keefe’s version of his interaction with her I found it impossible to tell what was what because he’s constatnly interrupting and editing the video. This makes me not trust him.
Calfed, there’s also a lot of history here and I wonder how or if you factor that history into your interpretation of events.
David Iglesias was a Republican U.S. attorney with a very good job rating who was fired for not going after Acorn. Is he another self-serving Acorn worker? His story is consistent with what looks like a continuing witchhunt by Republicans against Acorn.
Finally when you ask— Who am I going to believe, the third hand accounts of people who have no direct knowledge of the events or my own lying eyes?–I think we’re getting closer to the heart of ths matter.
To me it appears you are choosing to believe the narrative of someone who gives every indication of having an extreme bias against Acorn. He is presenting highly edited versions of events and narrating over much of them. This makes it impossible for anyone to be able to tell what really is going down.(This also is exactly what Harshbarger points out.) Yet, you fully believe him. I’m calling that extreme bias on your part.
You seem to ignore all of O’Keefe’s shortcomings and inconsistencies while being ready at every turn to think the absolute worst of anything Acornish.
[Ed Note: Pornographic link removed. – BF]
“That’s outrageous, in fact, that YOU don’t think that’s important!”–Big Dan
Big Dan, what should be clear is that what is important is what O’Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees and what the ACORN employees TOLD him.
It is clear that O’Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees that he was a pimp, attempting to import under-age girls to work as prostitutes. What is also clear is that the ACORN employees TOLD O’Keefe what he should do to hide his activities from the authorities.
What is collateral is what O’Keefe was wearing at the time that this occurred.
You are trying to deflect attention from the activities of the ACORN employees, so I think we all know where YOU are coming from…
It is important if O’Keefe was wearing that outlandish pimp outfit…BECAUSE…it would make ACORN look even worse/stupid. That’s like saying it doesn’t matter if he had on a clown outfit.
So, you’re saying what you wear doesn’t matter, it’s what you say?
Go for an interview dressed in ripped blue jeans, uncombed hair, and a T-Shirt for a computer job and let me know if it matters what you wear or not.
THEN…go to an interview dressed in a suit, let me know if there’s a difference what one wears.
ANOTHER ridiculous statement by you!
Dan, what can I tell you…
Some people hear the story of the Titanic and wonder what caused a great ship to sink.
Others hear the same story and obsess over what the captain was wearing as the great ship went down.
I guess each of us deal with the issues that we feel competent dealing with.
Perhaps this You Tube cut will make my point for me—(with apologies to Marisa Tomei)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba7QvrreqU4
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I don’t “give a f— what kind of pants the son of a bitch was wearingâ€. And outside of a few caterwauling blogs, I don’t think anyone else does either.
And if you think the REAL story here is what O’Keefe was wearing when he got help from the ACORN employees in how to set up a child prostitution ring, then, as Chris Wallace says, you must live out where the trolleys don’t run after dark. .
Calfed,
You’re losing me cuz you’re not responding to most of my questions in #74 and #78.
This is giving me an uncomfortable feeling that I’ve gotten many times before. It happens when I’m discussing something with someone with a different viewpoint and we get to a conversational crossroads and they vaporize into silence.
This makes me wonder if the person is interested in pursuing truth wherever it goes.
It makes me suspect it’s more important to them to support/hold onto their narrative than to deeply examine the matter at hand.
I should add that the uncomfortable feeling has flavors of loneliness, despair, and a sense of hopelessness about how to make contact/maintain relationships with people of radically different viewpoints.
David, I think you have missed my point.
My point is not that the Harshbarger report spews “nonsense based on testimony that is worthless†Far from it. My problem is with people who selectively quote a single line out of it and pretend that quote settles an issue.
Less than 20% of the Harhbarger report deals with O’Keefe’s visits to ACORN offices. Most of his report deals with the serious management and ethical lapses at ACORN. With respect to “investigating†the O’Keefe videos, Harshbarger was honest in detailing his methodology:
– he didn’t view the unedited tapes
– He didn’t speak to any of the ACORN employees or former employees who are depicted on the video.
– The ACORN employees that he did talk to had no direct knowledge of the visits.
– There were no contemporaneous reports available for him to examine.
Given these limitations, which Harshbarger is open about, Brad’s (or anyone else’s) reliance on the Harshbarger report to make an authoritative claim about anything that occurred during O’Keefe’s visits to ACORN is laughable.
Further, the whole issue of what O’Keefe was wearing during these visits is a red herring. I think I have made myself clear on that point. The REAL issue is what were O’Keefe and Giles told by ACORN personnel during their visits. ACORN’s defenders claim that the videos were doctored and can’t be relied on. I don’t think so. They were certainly edited-as is almost every video that you see on TV. But doctored so as to be unreliable? Look to what Harshbarger says in his report about that:
“We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were madeâ€
It is right there in black and white—“we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were madeâ€.
Harshbarger doesn’t dispute what was on the tapes, why do you or anyone else?
Besides, I offered you the link to unedited audio and transcripts of the visits. It is all right there on the Big Government website. You chose not to listen. So, until you have listened to the audio and transcripts, stop complaining about the “heavily edited†videos.
You claim that I “appear to .. be extremely biased against Acornâ€. If “bias†means that I have disdain and antipathy for an organization that provides assistance to people whom they believe are engaged in child prostitution, then you are correct. Key directors of ACORN have a long history of unethical and illegal conduct, which has only come to light and been dealt with because of the activities of O’Keefe and other whistle blowers.
I might ask you—why do you defend that?
I can’t find the Katherine Conway Russell narrative that you refer to. If you link it, I’ll look at it. I take it that she is an ACORN employee or former employee who makes claims about O’Keefe’s visits. Meh. A story told after the fact to exonerate oneself is frequently not very persuasive. But I’ll look at it.
But again, Harshbarger has accepted what was shown on the tapes represents what occurred at the ACORN offices, so what does Russell’s story really prove?
As for David Iglesias, a man who was fired from his politically appointed job, I can’t see that his case has anything to do with O’Keefe. Iglesias was fired years before O’Keefe’s ACORN sting. O’Keefe had nothing to do with Iglesias’ firing. There simply is no “there†there.
Calfed: O’Keefe not wearing the pimp outfit in the ACORN offices is what amounts to LYING, correct? Because he edited his videos to absolutely mislead people that he was wearing it.
So, do you agree?
Big Dan–can you show me a quote where O’Keefe claimed that he did wear the pimp suit?
Can you prove that he didn’t?
Here’s what Calfed is saying: now that it’s exposed that O’Keefe didn’t wear the pimp outfit in ACORN offices…it’s not important.
Well, Calfed, I’m SURE if he was wearing the pimp outfit in the ACORN offices, he’d show the video. Why wouldn’t he?
Calfed: you don’t need a quote, the edited videos show O’Keefe was trying to mislead everyone into thinking he was wearing the pimp outfit in the ACORN offices. You just made up a rule that we need a quote from O’Keefe stating he did.
Really? Then what you can’t (or won’t) see is the systematic years of a well-orchestrated campaign against ACORN using Rove and Bush’s politicized DOJ. Iglesias was fired because he could find no evidence of “voter fraud” perpetrated by ACORN in NM. He chose not to prosecute them despite pressure from Rove, so he was canned.
C’mon, now Calfed. Everyone with a pulse knows that. Kind of a major thing to miss as it’s the basis for the reoccurring ACORN attacks that led up to O’Keefe’s potentially illegal and definitely misleading sting. You have now officially smothered your plausibility.
I think Lasagna’s onto you with “…it makes me suspect it’s more important to them (you) to support/hold onto their narrative than to deeply examine the matter at hand.”
Right. Your botched narrative is showing.
Oh, and by the way Calfed – there’s plenty of hard evidence of potential ELECTION FRAUD perpetrated by Rove et al from the second illegitimate term of GW Bush (see Brad’s lastest article on the Mike Connell story if you really care about government funded corruption) – but I’m guessing that doesn’t interest you at all.
FAKE VOTER FRAUD / FAKE CHILD PROSTITUTION CHARGES = intractable and vigilant witch hunt.
REAL ELECTION FRAUD resulting in the stealing of the highest office in the land and morphing our once great democratic republic into a Plutocracy = nothing to see here.
Big Dan, I take it that your answer is no, you don’t have any evidence that O’Keefe claimed to have worn the pimp suit into the ACORN office and no, you can’t prove that he didn’t.
But, as I’ve said, you want to keep talking about what O’Keefe wore in the ACORN Offices, because you DON’T want to talk about what the ACORN employees said during those visits.
Classic deflection.
But answer a simple question, were the ACORN employees wrong to offer advice to a couple who were ostensibly attempting to start a child prostitution ring? Advice that was designed to help them not get caught?
REAL ELECTION FRAUD resulting in the stealing of the highest office in the land and morphing our once great democratic republic into a Plutocracy = nothing to see here. -Jeannie
LOL… Pay no attention to the assistance that ACORN workers provided to people who were ostensibly setting up a child prostitution ring…this is really a story about the 2000 Florida election results.
Brilliant point, Calfed! And since I know your so concerned about prostitution and government corruption and all, why is it that Breitbart and BigGovernment.com hasn’t yet let their readers know about THIS case of worst ACORN corruption to date?
https://bradblog.com/?p=7696
And where is YOUR fake outrage about it for that matter?
Calfed @ 84
I’ll say it again–It’s interesting how people see different things. For instance–
You say–Further, the whole issue of what O’Keefe was wearing during these visits is a red herring.
You see a red herring. I see a person possibly misrepresenting reality in order to create the ugliest possible narrative in order to incite public opinion. Because it looks like I may be being lied to I am then skeptical of further claims made by this person.
You see no problem there.
2. You don’t think the tapes were doctored. You quote Harshbarger and ask a question–
“We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were madeâ€
It is right there in black and white—“we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were madeâ€.
Harshbarger doesn’t dispute what was on the tapes, why do you or anyone else?
For me you are committing the selective quoting that you earlier complained about because you left out that Harshbarger also says,
“The unedited videos have never been made public. The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms. Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which Acorn employees are responding.”
To me this says that the whole matter of who said what to whom is far from settled for Mr. Harshbarger as it is for me.
For you though it seems settled.
3. You say–Besides, I offered you the link to unedited audio and transcripts of the visits. It is all right there on the Big Government website. You chose not to listen. So, until you have listened to the audio and transcripts, stop complaining about the “heavily edited†videos.
Well, I did go to your link. I went there and I saw that Katherine Conway Russell was on one. I had just watched her little video in Brad’s article so I clicked on O’Keefe’s version.
It appeared to me to be just as Harshbarger advertised with multiple edits and voiceovers making it impossible to determine what was being said in response to what. At that point I decided not to watch more of O’Keefe’s videos because I am a mere mortal and there’s so much to do.
4. You say– Key directors of ACORN have a long history of unethical and illegal conduct, which has only come to light and been dealt with because of the activities of O’Keefe and other whistle blowers.
I might ask you—why do you defend that?
I didn’t know I was defending that. I am not aware of this long history of which you speak. I am aware of a long history of Republicans targeting Acorn because they legally register minority voters who tend to vote Democratic.
As far as I can tell that history does not exist for you.
5. You say–I can’t find the Katherine Conway Russell narrative that you refer to. If you link it, I’ll look at it. I take it that she is an ACORN employee or former employee who makes claims about O’Keefe’s visits. Meh. A story told after the fact to exonerate oneself is frequently not very persuasive. But I’ll look at it.
To me you again sound extremely biased. I say this because you sound so dismissive right off the bat. But thanks for looking at it. It’s under Brad’s article–ACORN CALLS NYT SR. EDITOR’S EMAIL ON MISREPORTING O’KEEFE’S ‘PIMP’ STORY ‘TROUBLING AND DISTURBING’
6. You say–But again, Harshbarger has accepted what was shown on the tapes represents what occurred at the ACORN offices, so what does Russell’s story really prove?
As I said, Harshbarger does not seem to have accepted O’Keefe’s version of events. Russell’s story is evidence that what Harshbarger suggests about manipulation may have in fact occurred.
7. Finally you say–As for David Iglesias, a man who was fired from his politically appointed job, I can’t see that his case has anything to do with O’Keefe. Iglesias was fired years before O’Keefe’s ACORN sting. O’Keefe had nothing to do with Iglesias’ firing. There simply is no “there†there.
This one makes me not trust you. A lot. Iglesias was fired for not prosecuting Acorn. I don’t know how to look at that as something other than the Republicans were/are very serious about attacking Acorn. If you can’t see a “there” there, I will miss talking with you.
I need to have some minimal agreements about observable reality. Without that, sadly I’m afraid I may have to withdraw from our discussion. There is too much work to do. I’m willing to put in the effort, but you have to give me something to work with.
Always happy to be proven wrong in my fears here.
Whew…that was a long one.
Well, David, let’s just leave it at this then…
You claim that the “whole matter of who said what to whom is far from settled for Mr. Harshbarger as it is for me.†The matter was settled enough for ACORN to fire the workers involved.
Why do you continue to defend conduct that ACORN itself refuses to defend and in fact, found so egregious that it fired the ACORN workers who engaged in it?
The unedited audio and the written transcripts are there. If it gives you a headache to listen, I guess I can understand that.
Finally, if you are unaware of ACORN’s troubled past, read the Harshbarger report-the long history of embezzlement, cover ups and mis-management is there. Then Google ACORN embezzlement.
re comment #96– Well no, Calfed, let’s not leave it at that.
1. To me you seem to be conflating Acorn firing some employees who behaved inappropriately and unprofessionally with an admission of guilt to running a child prostitution ring, or something.
2. I’m not defending inappropriate, unprofessional behavior by a few employees. I’m defending an organization, a very big complex organization, involved in many activities aimed at improving the lot of poor minorities from a relentless attacks by Republicans and from you. From everything I can tell this concerted, ongoing attack has nothing to do with voter fraud or child prostitution. To me all the signs, the very same ones you refuse to acknowledge again and again, have everything to do with helping poor people register to vote.
3. At your suggestion I checked out Harshbarger’s report more thoroughly.(This is the same Harshbarger that you initially dismissed as basically a hired Acorn shill, but who now you repeatedly cite because you think he helps your narrative).
I did not read it all. I did see mentioned the recently resolved longstanding embezzlement scandal of which I was unaware. So thank you for that.
I also saw that it was Acorn who hired this guy Harshbarger who was giving them serious criticism and serious recommendations. This says to me that Acorn is serious about doing their job better.
I also saw that Acorn is an enormous enterprise that really looks to be doing a lot of good work on behalf of the underpriviledged.
I did not see a long history of illegal activities. I saw the one embarrassing embezzlement scandal.
I also saw that–“The released videos offer no evidence of a pattern of illegal conduct by Acorn employees.”
I also saw that–“there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any Acorn employee on behalf of the videographers.”
I also saw that no organizers or supervisory level employees were videoed.
I also saw that a couple of police reports were filed after O’Keefe visited a couple of the offices.
I also saw that in the videos Acorn and Acorn Housing were inaccurately blended into one.
4. Most interesting at the bottom of one of the affidavits was a footnote from Harshbarger himself. It seemed straight out of Harvey. It said–
“David Lasagna. Stop it. Calfed is on a witchhunt. He can’t fully acknowledge your point of view or evidence. He needs his narrative. You will not unearth that need through these internet exchanges. Get off the computer. Rest your eyes.”
I always listen to pookas.
re: my own comment #97
2. Changed my mind. I do want to defend the people who got fired.
More than anything else this whole affair stinks of a cheap, possibly illegal, entrapment scheme successfully pulled off by a couple of misguided, young knuckleheads.
For all I know Acorn fired who they fired with regret. It’s not hard to imagine a few employees, possibly even good ones, making an error in judgment. And it’s not hard to imagine that with the constant vilification and pillorying in the media Acorn regretfully felt they had no choice.
Sounds like they didn’t break any laws. They made errors in judgment.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!” shouted the Red Queen.
“David Lasagna. Stop it. Calfed is on a witchhunt. He can’t fully acknowledge your point of view or evidence. He needs his narrative”
LOL– I knew eventually you would make it personal.
I sensed that this was becoming more about your pathological need to have the last word than an “exchange of ideas”
…10 points for quadruple irony, there, Cakefed with your getting in the last word about Lasagna having to get in the last word. But barring more embarrassing and transparent obfuscations from you, Cakefed, I get the last word:
“
Nice try, Puckerwog, but I never even mentioned Florida in 2000. Not only that, but the indiscretions of several low level ACORN employees has been acknowledged ad nauseum/ addressed AND rebuked by many of us in this thread, most succinctly above by David Lasagna, though once again – NOTHING THEY DID ON THOSE DOCTORED VIDEOS RESULTED IN ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING – the same can not be said of Mr. O’Keefe, now, can it? And *yawn* yes, we have also pointed out to you that no ACTUAL child prostitution ring ever existed.
See how you do? That Jedi mind trick shit might work on your less frequent thinkers from Tea-bag-Tatooine or where ever it is that you come from, but the grounded Earth rest of us who still read – can read between your not-so-subtle, pimp-disguised biases.
Cakefed, you’re a white, hot, ghetto mess of tortured logic and talking points.
Nice work. You’re a colossal fail.
Riding With Miss Jeannie @100
That was a thrill having you ride shotgun with me!
Dear Calfed @99,
Here’s where I’m coming from–
As soon as you and I enter into dialogue it IS personal. We enter into relationship.
Relationships can either be moving towards harmony or disharmony.
I feel I’ve paid a lifetime’s worth of dues for being in imbalanced relationships. Don’t have time for more. Life’s too short.
I do not feel that you and I are operating from the same place of reciprocity.
For instance–I acknowledged that I was wrong twice. First about Harshbarger having seen all the videos and recently at discovering there was a long embezzlement scheme at Acorn of which I was unaware.
Correct me if I’m wrong but besides acknowledging that you find some conservative pundits distasteful you’ve acknowledged nothing to my point of view, interpretations, and evidence.
You’ve repeatedly ignored the bulk of my questions.
You made a patently ridiculous claim that the David Iglesias business is completely unrelated to the O’Keefe story. When this is pointed out to you by several people there is no acknowledgment.
You repeatedly exhibit (what to me sure looks like) bias towards Acorn by being dismissive of Harshbarger, Russell, and anybody else who says anything supportive of them. But deny you have any bias except against child prostitution rings. You seem to grant no possibility that any version of events besides O’Keefe’s, the one you have chosen to believe, has any merit.
Get ready cuz I’m gonna get personal again.
After an extended back and forth with you, you have come to feel like a conversational tyrant. You give nothing in acknowledgment of the POSSIBILITY of merit to anything I say. You ignore much of what I say and ask. You never acknowledge being wrong to any degree on any point ever.
This feels really shitty. It feels like I’m not being treated as an equal. That my viewpoint is treated like it doesn’t exist. Then you have the gall to bitch at me for getting personal when I poke fun at you.
I exist. My points of view have been arrived at after much study. They have merit.
I am open to a joint pursuit of harmony through the landscape of differing opinions and realities. But from where I’m sitting, here in front of this computer screen, you do not appear ready for the give and take that harmony requires.
That’s what this feels like to me. That’s what makes sense to me. To me our whole conversation has been very personal. All of the exchanges here are personal.
And yes, I probably do often have a need to get in the last word if the previous last word feels like a shit sandwich. I don’t know if I’d call it pathological. But I’ll think about that.
I thought you were redacting the name of Brad F, but several of the emails have his full name (Brad Friedman)