…to hear about shoddy and libelous reporting at the WaPo:
“I’m missing some important context: what did Woodward’s father do for a living? Hard to pin down his motivation otherwise. And Bernstein’s mom, what was her deal?”
As noted, if they had gone after a “right wing” organization, they’d be up for Pulitzers. But because it’s the leftist thugs at ACORN, they get slimed. And they’re aided and abetted by those “layers of fact checkers and editors.”
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
what did Woodward’s father do for a living?
Giles is 20. It’s routine for parents to be mentioned when a person of that age is the subject of a news piece, even when the parent is not, say, the author of “Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate”. The Powerline comparison of Giles to Woodward is hilarious, but I’d expect any piece written about Woodward in 1973 (when he was 30) to include information about his personal and professional background.
I don’t see any slime in the Post piece. It’s O’Keefe that says “Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,” and “No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them.” The second statement is false (if anything the press has oversold the ACORN voter registration fraud story), and the first is something he can’t know to be true. O’Keefe does plenty to discredit himself as a journalist in just those few sentences.
if anything the press has oversold the ACORN voter registration fraud story
Wow, maybe the first time Jim has referred to “Faux News” as “the press”. If we mean “the press” in the literal/historical sense in terms of printing presses, it’s fair to say that, if anything, the press buried that story.
I think O’Keefe and Giles fit the Pulitzer category for “Breaking News Reporting”, and I hope someone submits their work to Columbia.
if anything, the press buried that story
I’m referring to headlines like this one from the AP, earlier this month:
ACORN Turns in Fla. Workers on Voter Fraud Charges
The charges aren’t for voter fraud — they’re for voter registration fraud. Registering Mikey Mouse to vote is a way for ACORN employees to rip off their employer, and it’s a crime, but it has no effect on election results.
The right’s problem with ACORN is what it does lawfully: register voters who are likely to vote for Democrats.
I’m referring to headlines like this one from the AP, earlier this month
Also mostly buried (unless page 5 counts as “oversold”).
Registering Mikey Mouse to vote is a way for ACORN employees to rip off their employer, and it’s a crime, but it has no effect on election results.
But registering non-Micky Mouse names coupled with no-ID-required voting does. Right now we have no idea how much actual fraud occured, regardless of how the Left dismisses that possibility (because Democrats are saints who’d never rig elections, unlike wicked Rethuglikkkans who stole it in 2000).
The Powerline comparison of Giles to Woodward is hilarious, but I’d expect any piece written about Woodward in 1973 (when he was 30) to include information about his personal and professional background.
“Jim,” do you think it would have been appropriate for a piece by The Washington Post to have noted that Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists? This was not common knowledge at the time, but shouldn’t the Post have known and disclosed the background of their own employee? Ben Bradlee knew who “Deep Throat” was; do you really believe he didn’t know who and what Bernstein’s parents were?
Even today, how many articles in the media about Watergate and Woodward and Bernstein mention this fact?
“‘“Jim,’ do you think it would have been appropriate for a piece by The Washington Post to have noted that Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists?”
I would guess not, since that wouldn’t have served the interest of The Hive.
You know, I actually read the Washington Post articles Powerline linked to, and I am hard-pressed to find any sliming there at all. The Post articles reported facts, in an impartial way.
There’s a very simple reason O’Keefe and Giles’ background gets mentioned – nobody’s heard of them. When some unknown person goes and does something noteworthy, it’s common to provide a little background about who they are.
Woodward and Bernstein, by contrast, were merely doing their jobs as paid reporters. In that job, Bernstein’s parents background was as relevant as Woodward’s (son of a Republican lawyer and judge).
“There’s a very simple reason O’Keefe and Giles’ background gets mentioned – nobody’s heard of them.” In contrast to the household names that Woodwward and Bernstein were pre-Watergate.
Right now we have no idea how much actual fraud occured
In other words, there is no proof that any actual fraud occurred.
Which makes sense. You’d need to recruit and organize thousands of fraudulent voters (all of them willing to commit felonies, and sworn to secrecy) to have a chance of affecting even a close Congressional election, much less a Presidential race. Everything that we know about ACORN suggests that they are the last organization that could pull off such a conspiracy.
“Jim,” do you think it would have been appropriate for a piece by The Washington Post to have noted that Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists?
Yes, if Bernstein had been a 20-year-old freelance journalist who’d single-handedly brought attention to the Watergate scandal, and the Post was writing about Bernstein’s work (rather than publishing it).
In contrast to the household names that Woodwward and Bernstein were pre-Watergate.
Woodstein’s work was in the Post, and the Washington Post was a household name.
Well, that settles it — O’Keefe should have gone to work for the WaPo— where his attempts to cover ACORN’s ethical problems would have been quashed and his career threatened if he continued to pursue them.
In other words, there is no proof that any actual fraud occurred.
No, indeterminant != non-existent.
I simply haven’t delved into it enough (I don’t care — this is your red herring, remember?) to say either way. It goes without saying that haven’t either (because you’re an apologist).
Yes, if Bernstein had been a 20-year-old freelance journalist who’d single-handedly brought attention to the Watergate scandal, and the Post was writing about Bernstein’s work (rather than publishing it).
Hmm. Why the qualifier? You were OK with the Post disclosing the 30-year-old Woodward’s relatively conservative background:
The Powerline comparison of Giles to Woodward is hilarious, but I’d expect any piece written about Woodward in 1973 (when he was 30) to include information about his personal and professional background.
So why the weasel-wording about whether the newspaper should have disclosed that 29-year-old Carl Bernstein was a red diaper baby?
I can think of three possibilities here: (1) perhaps it’s good for the readers to know the backgrounds and possible prejudices of the reporters who write the stories, (2) perhaps that’s a bad thing from your point of view, or (3) perhaps you think the backgrounds and possible prejudices of journalists are irrelevant. If it’s (1), then I’d think an honest person would want to be consistent. If it’s (2), then it looks as though advancing The Narrative takes priority over telling the whole truth. And if it’s (3), then it’s odd that you haven’t been citing exposés from such purveyors of facts as World Net Daily without regard to whether their journalists have some particular political orientation.
So why the weasel-wording about whether the newspaper should have disclosed that 29-year-old Carl Bernstein was a red diaper baby?
Read what I wrote: there’s no weasel wording. I wouldn’t expect an article about a 29 or 30 year old to talk about his parents (and did not say so about Woodward), unless they were famous or extraordinary in some way. Instead I’d expect it to talk about his previous job(s), educational background, and so forth. You wouldn’t expect a 20 year old to have much of an adult “backstory”, so you’d mention parents instead. The Washington Post story in question mentioned Giles’ father, but not O’Keefe’s (O’Keefe being 25, and having an adult work history).
FWIW, I don’t think that the political views of an adult journalists’ parents are very interesting or relevant when it comes to judging the journalist’s work.
To bring this back to the original post: the article in question is not “shoddy” much less “libelous”, and does not slime anyone.
“Giles is 20. It’s routine for parents to be mentioned when a person of that age is the subject of a news piece”
Since bloody when? I’ve never heard of such a practice before; and a 20-year-old is hardly a minor whose actions can’t be considered without referring to the parents. They are adults who are being treated patronizingly by the bigshot mainstream press: “Ooh, does your mommy and daddy know what you are up to?” They’re also acting, as usual, like Christians are some sort of force of zombie killers. “Aaah! One of them is the child of a Christian minister! Run for your lives!”
And yes, I’d say it’s “sliming” to imply racist motives on the part of O’Keefe and Giles by clever use of paraphrasing and alluding to statements without actually quoting any. MSM personnel these days know that most people who read them don’t bother parsing between the lines like people in the old USSR used to have to do with Pravda; they know that most of their readers have a naive faith that newspapers still print “the truth.” They’ll read the article and come away thinking “those nasty racist youngsters going after those nice ACORN folks who just want to help minorities!”
“In contrast to the household names that Woodwward and Bernstein were pre-Watergate.
Woodstein’s work was in the Post, and the Washington Post was a household name.”
Oh, yeah. I guess by extension that did make Woodward a household name. Silly me.
Anyone who thinks that in the WaPo editorial office, someone didn’t say somethiong like, “I want you to dig up something to undercut those kids, and I want it now!” must be naive to believe that Obama is a moderate.
Bilwik1 – except nothing in the Washington Post articles actually undercuts either individual. Nor, Andrea Harris, is their any allegation of racism. O’Keefe is quoted as saying ACORN gets people elected and that he wants to hold them accountable. How that spins as racism is beyond me.
When people asked who Woodward and Bernstein were, the answer was “reporters.” Although I was only a child during Watergate, I would be very surprised to hear that nobody attacked the background of the reporters. But in the end, the background of the reporters is irrelevant, in that Nixon and his staff in fact committed crimes. Here in America, we care about the truth, not whether the people telling us the truth are nice or not.
BTW, reporting facts is never shoddy and libelous. You may not like the facts, but they are by definition relevant.
When people ask who O’Keefe and Giles are, the answer is “O’Keefe is an independent film-maker and Giles lives at home with her parents and this is her first job.” That makes the parents (vaguely) relevant.
Anyone who thinks that in the WaPo editorial office, someone didn’t say somethiong like, “I want you to dig up something to undercut those kids, and I want it now!” must be naive to believe that Obama is a moderate.
Indeed, which indicates that these kids a relatively clean. Had their closets contained any real skeletons, we’d have seen them by now. Kudos for them.
“That makes the parents (vaguely) relevant.” Emphasis on “vaguely.” I’m sure the gang at WaPo seriously weighed the relevance of the parents. (Sarcastic eye-rolling.)
No party-line-ism to see here; just move along, folks . . .
“Giles is 20. It’s routine for parents to be mentioned when a person of that age is the subject of a news piece”
Since bloody when?
Since it conveniently fits a narrative. Just like we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
Leland – so Giles decided to dress up like a hooker and do an undercover investigation of ACORN all on her own? The fact that she was raised in a conservative family had nothing to do with it? It’s (again vaguely) relevant to the story. As / if she makes a name for herself as an investigative reporter, or otherwise establishes a career, her parents become less relevant.
Woodward and Bernstein, by contrast, were reporters, with established careers. It was their job to investigate newsworthy events, which by any definition include criminal activity committed against a political party.
None of the whining about the backgrounds of either group of reporters does anything to change the facts of what they reported. Nixon was willing to go along with committing a crime, ACORN employees were willing to go along with the commission of crimes.
Hey Chris, did you miss the part in the WaPo story that read:
‘Though O’Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.
“Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,” he said. “No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find.” ‘
It says right there, in black and white, that O’Keefe targeted ACORN because “its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.”
He said no such thing, as the quotes in the next paragraph point out.
Reading comprehension, my friend, isn’t just for breakfast anymore.
Leland – O’Keefe did say he was targeting ACORN because politicians were getting elected.
It is a fact that ACORN’s voter registration drives turn out (mostly) poor African Americans and Latinos. That’s because ACORN works (mostly) with poor African Americans and Latinos. I did not read that statement as something O’Keefe said, nor is it racist to point out that fact.
Saying that O’Keefe targeted an organization because it gets people elected does not make O’Keefe a racist. It does suggest that he doesn’t like who ACORN gets elected. Presumably, if he liked who they got elected, he’d be trying to help them.
You’re reading “2 + 2 = 4” as “2 + 2 = 15” and reacting accordingly.
Ah, look at the strawmen!!! I want to make some…
so Giles decided to dress up like a hooker and do an undercover investigation of ACORN all on her own?
If she was convinced to do this by someone, does that make ACORN assistance of child prostituting pimps more appealing to you?
The fact that she was raised in a conservative family had nothing to do with it?
What does her being raised by a conservative family have to do with ACORN assisting child prostitution? Or are you suggesting she was compelled by her upbringing to find this activity repugnant, and she should be more open minded to child sex slavery rather than exposing it as something bad?
Wow, that was easy. Now being serious:
None of the whining about the backgrounds of either group of reporters does anything to change the facts of what they reported.
Indeed. So why did you write this:
Woodward and Bernstein, by contrast, were reporters, with established careers. It was their job to investigate newsworthy events
If their background doesn’t matter, neither does their job. If Giles was paid by her parents to do the activity, then it was her job. If she wasn’t paid at first, but then sold her material, then she is an entrepreneur stringer. If she never makes a dime, then she is philantropist. The fact still remains, ACORN was assisting illegal activity, on many fronts, and someone decided to expose this fact without waiting for a governmental inquiry of the illegal action. Giles action will serve the public good in shutting down an operation that was wiling to assist in the trafficking of child prostitutes.
And besides, your comment is anachronistic. Welcome to the age when any pathetic sci-fi writer can create a blog and become published, whether it is their job or not. Or a christian minister’s daughter can post a video expose on YouTube without first getting a gig with the establish DC media.
I refuse to communicate with someone who thinks English words mean different things than they actually mean.
By the way, the political right doesn’t target ACORN because of “its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.” We target ACORN because they are a corrupt organization that misuses public (taxpayer, you and me) funds. We have nothing against voter registration drives of any size that target any group as long as those groups contain real qualified-to-vote citizens. And though we are against bloated government “help everybody with other peoples’ money” (a.k.a. taxes) departments in general, we’d like them to at least operate within the law — which means don’t use taxpayer-funded programs to help people set up brothels and what-have-you.
Which brings me to a question — what if this had happened under a Republican administration (under a white president), the reporters been black, and the government employees white, and the help requested was to set up a meth lab in the Shenandoah Valley? I’ll bet you that the big news organs would be all over that story, and there would have been no snide references to Christian parents or inferences of racism.
Gerrib,
You ignorant slut. Who are you writing too?
O’Keefe did say he was targeting ACORN because politicians were getting elected.
Yeah, so? I didn’t deny it. In fact I made no mention of it, one way or another. I didn’t mention it, because I don’t find it to matter one way or another.
It is a fact that ACORN’s voter registration drives turn out (mostly) poor African Americans and Latinos. That’s because ACORN works (mostly) with poor African Americans and Latinos.
It is also a fact that ACORN registered Mickie Mouse. And it is now a known fact that they help pimps handle the tax implications of managing child prostitutes, probably from the same poor African American and Latino communities. So what?
Saying that O’Keefe targeted an organization because it gets people elected does not make O’Keefe a racist.
Ok. Who is saying that? Because you seem to be the only one putting that thought to words.
You’re reading “2 + 2 = 4″ as “2 + 2 = 15″ and reacting accordingly.
I don’t know who you are reading, because you are reacting to things I didn’t write.
Leland – the discussion about Giles and O’Keefes background came about because they weren’t reporters. If they’d stopped a bank robbery, we’d be discussing their background. If a police officer had stopped a bank robbery, we wouldn’t discuss the officer’s background. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or a “hit job.”
ACORN assistance of child prostituting pimps more appealing to you? No. But that’s not the question. She didn’t know ACORN was supporting child prostitution. She targeted ACORN “in the blind” to see what she could get.
As far as who’s making claims of racism, that would be Powerline, since they are arguing that these articles are “smears.”
Andrea Harris – We target ACORN because they are a corrupt organization that misuses public funds. That may be why you’re upset with ACORN. O’Keefe was specifically quoted as saying he was upset at them getting politicians elected. Now, is that plain enough English for you?
Gerrib
the discussion about Giles and O’Keefes background came about because they weren’t reporters.
Not my discussion.
If they’d stopped a bank robbery, we’d be discussing their background.
I’m not sure if agree with that statement, nor do I think the analogy applies.
Here, is a story of a civilian stopping a bank robbery yesterday. Perhaps you can tell us the religious or political views of this citizen? Moreover, maybe you can explain how the citizen’s religious or political views are more important for a jury to know than the crime of the bank robber?
Personally, I’m glad the guy caught the bank robbery, and don’t give a damn on the personal motivations for stopping him.
If a police officer had stopped a bank robbery, we wouldn’t discuss the officer’s background.
Well, I think you are wrong on that as well. Police officers go through background checks. Their background and history is often reviewed by defense counsel, and sometimes brought to trial. Maybe you are too young to remember the O.J. Simpson trial, and the background of police investigator Mark Furhman.
But hey, enough with the tangents. Have you noticed yet that you are continuing to attribute comments to me that I have not made, and then argue the points of those comments as if I made them? I’m starting to think you are trying to prove the point Powerline is making. Your assuming I made some statement and then attack me for making those assumed statements. You are certain to win that argument, you control both sides of the debate. You just look like an idiot to everyone else.
“’Keefe was specifically quoted as saying he was upset at them getting politicians elected. Now, is that plain enough English for you?”
Well, they aren’t supposed to be in the business of “getting politicians elected.” It’s one thing to help people get to the voting booth. It’s another thing to try to influence the vote. One is fine; the other one is not. Is that plain enough English for you?
Hey, Chris —
The Post has printed an update:
So much for that.
I don’t know why the Post printed a correction. The original article did not say “that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls.” It said that O’Keefe targeted ACORN because of its voter registration drives, and it said that those drives “turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans” — both statements are true.
I don’t think that motive implies racism on O’Keefe’s part; if poor blacks were reliable GOP voters he’d be all for registering them.
I don’t know why the Post printed a correction.
Well then, it seems that the folks at the Washington Post understand something that you don’t. That doesn’t surprise me.
Mike G – I don’t think a correction was necessary. Frankly, I think it was a bone thrown to folks like you who seem to have manufactured some indignation at a perfectly reasonable article.
Andrea Harris – why, pray tell, is it not okay for ACORN to use private money to get people elected while it is okay for say, the NRA to use private money for the same purpose? (ACORN gets 99% of its funding from private sources – government money is used in limited-purpose grants – about $5 million a year). Full disclosure – I am a member of the NRA.
Leland – I think one of my comments should have been sent to Mike G. Sorry you got upset. But on your point, when Mickey Mouse actually shows up to vote, call me about voter fraud. In the meantime, you have voter registration fraud, which is not nearly as serious. Of course, since ACORN has even turned in its own workers for voter registration fraud, I find it hard to get worked up about that problem.
why, pray tell, is it not okay for ACORN to use private money to get people elected while it is okay for say, the NRA to use private money for the same purpose?
Because ACORN only gets Democrats elected, whereas the NRA is indifferent to political party, as long as it has the right stance on guns. It shares headquarters with Democrats, and is clearly in bed with them. Not that it’s not “okay” to do that, but it puts the lie to its claims to be “nonpartisan.”
Jim, Chris —
Here’s a sentence consisting of two true clauses (well, the first is at least plausible whether it’s specifically true or not) that nevertheless might give the reader an incorrect impression of reality:
See the problem?
You can even slant a true statement with only one clause:
If even the Washington Post admits there was a problem with what they printed … I’d be inclined to agree with them.
Original article:
Though O’Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.
The correction:
Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O’Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
To recap: The article attributes statements to O’Keefe that he did not make. The correction retracts the false attribution.
It really is just that simple.
you have voter registration fraud, which is not nearly as serious.
Yeah, it’s just a federal crime, not serious at all. Neither is paying your taxes, or neglecting to disclose property to the IRS a serious issue. When you are a Democrat; federal law is just a guideline, and not something to be taken seriously.
Rand – if ACORN could find a Republican who agreed with their issues, they’d offer support.
Leland & Mike G – okay, fine, have your temper tantrum, which is what this looks like to me. Far be it for me to suggest that you’re over-reacting. I mean, it’s not like the Post was in any way defending ACORN.
I’m having a temper tantrum? I think DSM IV would call this projection:
I wrote:
I think O’Keefe and Giles fit the Pulitzer category for “Breaking News Reporting”, and I hope someone submits their work to Columbia.
And Gerrib responded:
Leland – so Giles decided to dress up like a hooker and do an undercover investigation of ACORN all on her own? The fact that she was raised in a conservative family had nothing to do with it? It’s (again vaguely) relevant to the story. As / if she makes a name for herself as an investigative reporter, or otherwise establishes a career, her parents become less relevant.
Q.E.D.
okay, fine, have your temper tantrum, which is what this looks like to me. Far be it for me to suggest that you’re over-reacting.
So, we’re over-reacting, and by publishing a correction the Washington Post is over-reacting too. Even the co-author of the piece is over-reacting:
Poor Chris! The world is out of step with him!
It’s unfair to imply that O’Keefe “specifically mentioned” minorites from reading the article because that’s not what the article says. You have to read the article with an eye towards finding and manufacturing grievances in order to get that implication.
Like I said, this is a manufactured temper tantrum.
Because ACORN only gets Democrats elected, whereas the NRA is indifferent to political party, as long as it has the right stance on guns.
ACORN is indifferent too — they’d be just as happy to see the voters they register support Republicans who have what they consider the “right stance” on social justice issues. It isn’t their fault that there’s no one in the GOP on their side of those issues.
A poor example, because most uses of the word “cute” have nothing to do with pedophilia, while ACORN’s voter registration drives are always targeted at poor, minority communities.
A better example:
If Politician X never mentioned trial lawyers, would that paraphrase “slime” him? Would it be libelous?
Is being accused of talking about trial lawyers as bad as the implication that one is a racist?
My example was intended to illustrate two true statements in one sentence that nevertheless gave a false impression. Your example could have been much closer to the original. Let’s use wording that’s closer to what the Post used:
If Politician X opposed damage caps on medical malpractice claims because he didn’t want to limit the awards to plaintiffs, BUT he hadn’t mentioned trial lawyers and in fact didn’t want trial lawyers to continue to collect outrageously large fees … then yes, I’d say he’d been slimed. Would it be actionable? Probably not, since Times v. Sullivan set the bar pretty high for public figures.
Tisk, tisk…