In a piece in the October 2009 issue of The Atlantic, “The Story Behind the Story,” journalist Mark Bowden examines the source of the Sonia Sotomayor video clips that surfaced during her Supreme Court nomination—and what happens when ideologues step forward to provide the reporting that journalists don’t have the resources to do.
The background: within minutes of Sotomayor’s nomination ceremony at the White House, two now-infamous sound bytes were all over television news. One showed Sotomayor at Berkeley Law School in 2001 appearing to claim that her life experience as a “wise Latina woman” would make her judgment better than that of a white male; the other was shot at Duke University in 2005, where Sotomayor appeared to make the assertion that appellate judges should legislate from the bench.
The videos weren’t unearthed by enterprising journalists at Fox News or CNN. And they weren’t broken by CBS or ABC, either—although all four aired the incendiary clips, almost simultaneously. In fact, the videos were dug up by two conservative bloggers to serve a singular political purpose: sink Sotomayor.
On its own, that’s not a problem. The problem instead, Bowden puts it, is that working journalists failed to vet the videos before they aired them. If they had, they would have seen that the clips were taken out of context. And if they had done the digging themselves, they would have never flagged them to begin with. Bowden writes:
The reporting we saw on TV and on the Internet that day was the work not of journalists, but of political hit men.
Bowden calls his piece a “lament” for troubling times in journalism. In an age where time and money are scarce resources and the news hole is larger than ever thanks to twenty-four-hour cable news and the insatiable maw of the Internet, Bowden says that the people who will step up to fill the void and work for free will not be journalists. They’ll be, rather, political activists.
People like Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe—the duo who spent $1,300 of their own money to finance the ACORN sting that is dominating headlines this week.
“The young woman and filmmaker who visited those ACORN offices were political activists, and they put together what is, in essence, a very effective political protest against an organization they would like to damage,” Bowden said in a telephone interview today. “And they’ve done a very effective job of doing that. But I think they’re clearly not journalists.”
The question is: does that matter?
Ken Silverstein, the Washington, D.C. editor for Harper’s magazine—who came under fire for his own undercover investigation of D.C. lobbyists in 2007—said it doesn’t matter where the videos came from. Their damning evidence is what counts.
“This is a revelation, and it doesn’t matter what their agenda is,” Silverstein said of O’Keefe and Giles. “To suggest that they don’t have the right to do it because they’re political operatives or that it’s less valid or credible—no. Let’s roll the videotape, as they say.”
Bowden agrees that the videotape is valid. But calling it journalism, he says, is not. “In our exhausting, twenty-four-seven news cycle, demand for timely information and analysis is greater than ever,” he points out.
With journalists being laid off in droves, savvy political operatives have stepped eagerly into the breach. What’s most troubling is not that TV news producers mistake their work for journalism, which is bad enough, but that young people drawn to journalism increasingly see no distinction between disinterested reporting and hit-jobbery. The very smart and capable young men…who actually dug up and initially posted the Sotomayor clips both originally described themselves to me as part-time, or aspiring, journalists.
Giles appears to fit this mold exactly. In an interview with Glenn Beck, Giles told her host that the idea to pose as a prostitute to set up ACORN came to her this summer, when she worked as an intern at the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C.—a foundation established with hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the Bradley and Olin foundations, both prominent conservative donors. Its alumni include Ann Coulter and Debbie Schlussel.

During a Democratic Administration, none of the major Newspapers, NYT, LAT, Washington Post, and CJR ever investigate during these times.
Ms. fenwick, most reporters in these places (not counting Newsweek [which reports on the Obama Admin talking points of the Day] and Time [which has yet to profile a GOP candidate postively during an election year since I was born]) want to be hagiogrophers, stenogrophers, not reporters or journalists.
Where are the Woodward and bernsteins during Democratic Administrations. Hint: Reporters don't care about speaking truth to power then.
#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 05:56 PM
During a Democratic Administration, none of the major Newspapers, NYT, LAT, Washington Post, and CJR ever investigate during these times.
Ms. fenwick, most reporters in these places (not counting Newsweek [which reports on the Obama Admin talking points of the Day] and Time [which has yet to profile a GOP candidate postively during an election year since I was born]) want to be hagiogrophers, stenogrophers, not reporters or journalists.
Where are the Woodward and bernsteins during Democratic Administrations. Hint: Reporters don't care about speaking truth to power then.
#2 Posted by JSF, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 05:57 PM
So Acorn got "caught", but "don't call it journalism"...
Right...
And this distinction leaves the readers where, exactly?
Who's going to "catch" corruption if the self-proclaimed "journalists" can't be bothered to do the job?
Let me see if I can get this straight... We'll wait around for kids with camcorders to produce the "raw information" and then let the "professional journalists" craft "stories" with the appropriate "context", right?
Yeah, that'll work.
Now, a whole lot of people have been griping about ACORN for many years. I don't suppose Ms. Fenwick can explain the reluctance of her colleagues to actually initiate an "investigation thingie"? Huh? Do they still have a course at Columbia dealing with such reporting?
Of course they do!
If we're talking about a liberal Democratic nut with a handful of forged documents designed to take down the President - well then that's a different story! Let's get that "raw information" out there just before the election for maximum effect - screw the "context"!
Lest we forget, in 2004 CJR in fact sent Paul McLeary on a quixotic mission to Texas in a desperate pre-election bid to locate/animate the fictitious Lucy Ramirez and to find the magical 1970 typewriter that mimics the default settings of MS Word 2003.
There seems to be this thing going on that looks a lot like some sort of political bias among the self-proclaimed journalists of the world.
Ms. Fenwick's readers would be better served by an analysis of the impact of this bias upon the MSM's (in)ability to investigate corruption in liberal organizations than in her apology for the MSM's preference for "stories" over "information".
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 07:09 PM
"With journalists being laid off in droves, savvy political operatives have stepped eagerly into the breach. "
Oh yes, oh yes...,. the Recession ate my coworkers excuse. And pure garbage. These bozos have been scooped because they don't care to get the real scoops any more.
This story and hundreds of others is just lying around waiting to be done. Just lying there saying "Report me."
Yet..,.. crickets.
More, many more, journalists deserve to be canned. Starting with all those who like Gibbs didn't know nothing about the story.
#4 Posted by vanderleun, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 07:31 PM
Columbia University is way over-rated.
#5 Posted by rasachema, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 07:33 PM
Oh, by the way Fenwick, if you believe there really is a distinction in "Still, though, what they obtained was raw information; what journalists produce are stories." you need to start looking for a new career path, because the one you're on is going nowhere. And I've got more than 30 years in the "business," hundreds of books edited, thousands of articles edited, and more at the door.
Trust me. It's over for that kind of thinking.
#6 Posted by vanderleun, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 07:34 PM
Time's covers, and positive articles on Republican candidates can be found here:http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20021118,00.html
I realize that facts don't matter in Republican rhetoric, but at least avoid making arguments that can be refuted in 30 seconds or less. Unless you are 9 years old, Time has profiled Republicans positively in your lifetime.
The sad thing about ACORN is that it's taking all the attention, while the fact that 50x that money has been dispensed to directors of Lehman is being swept under the rug.
#7 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 08:10 PM
You need to take another look at your history Ms. Fenwick. Would you deny that Ida Tarbell was a journalist? Her best known work, "The History of the Standard Oil Company," was an expose of the oil company, and its owner, John D. Rockefeller, who bankrupted her father. Prior to 1833 "journalism" was not "objective," and we frequently refer to it now as the "Partisan Press." Or, how about Michael Moore? Do you think the videos he has done can be called journalism? Or, documentaries? I suspect you think they are, even though they are loaded with editing gimmicks that are done to make a point, rather than illuminate the truth.
Go back to Journalism 100 Ms. Fenwick. You might learn something.
#8 Posted by Chuck Whitten, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 05:22 AM
Amazing to see all these commenters come out of the woodwork on these ACORN pieces. It almost feels targeted. I'm beginning to suspect the conservative strategy is merely to continue to spew the same tired lines in as many venues as possible in an attempt to drown out rational discourse.
Thalia points out that MSM outlets have covered Republican politicians positively, and dug up plenty of dirt on Democratic politicians. Why this "left-leaning media" lie won't lay down and die I don't know. I think it was the biggest lie that paved the way for the rabidly partisan "journalism" we all know and love today, and for the continuous and unkillable small lies that follow in its wake.
#9 Posted by laura k, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 12:04 PM
"Thalia points out that MSM outlets have covered Republican politicians positively, and dug up plenty of dirt on Democratic politicians"
LOL!
Yeah, the NY Times was right there to tell the story of John Edward's Baby Mama and his little Love Baby....NOT.
Of course, the National Enquirer that went out and got the story that the MSM refused to investigate for more than a year. Now there's some journalism!
And Dan Rather was all over Jawn Kerry's mythological Secret Cambodian Mission from President Nixon in December of 1969 (during the
And the press went nuts trying to get to the bottom of Sandy Berger's felonious little larcenous visit to the National Archives.
Yeah... the press is ALL over the liberals. Like white on rice..
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 12:41 PM
“What journalists produce are stories.” The public trust in the media is at an all-time low because no one trusts them to craft a story line any more.
Alexandra, you are desperate to maintain control of the narrative, but the days when the MSM could play “gate keeper” are over. Because both sides of the ideological spectrum are now revealed online, news media are defined as much by what they don’t print as what they do.
The common thread in ACORN, Van Jones, John Edward’s love child, Reverend Wright, etc., etc. is a news media who steadfastly refuse to report anything that might show their favorites (Obama and liberal politicians) in a bad light. Just imagine if an enterprising young ACLU lawyer did a similar sting on a Christian organization that supported Bush, or if a senior bush appointee were revealed to be a Truther. It would be on the front pages of every paper in the country, and the Times would play it for weeks on end. The Times’ explanation of why they didn’t cover the Van Jones story (not enough resources) reveals their utter contempt for their readers. Where are the follow up stories questioning Obama’s judgment in selecting Jones?
So what are the consequences? If the Times et. al. refuse to pursue a story, the alternative media has no choice but to replay it until it is recognized. This leads to an ever-expanding gulf between the left-leaning MSM and the few available alternatives. Each side trumpets its take on the news until we have the shrill dissonance of today.
But people are paying attention – note Congress’ swift vote to defund ACORN. So stories happen, and have an effect, while the traditional MSM is caught sitting on its collective hands, hoping it will all go away. And your reaction is to sniff that this ”isn’t journalism?” What bunk.
#11 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 06:11 PM
There were plenty of Woodward-Bernsteins at the nation's largerst media outlets probling the alleged Whitewater misdeeds of the Clintons during the 1990s.
The reality is that newspapers are in a crisis-triage mode right now. Anyone who doesn't understand is just another armchair reporters wannabe who never worked in a newsroom. At a time of war, a financial meltdown, health care reform jamming the agenda, ACORN was not a high priority.
#12 Posted by tubmeister, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 07:41 PM
Tub,
Name them.
Again, I am looking to see if these reporters came from the NYT, LA TIMES, Washington Post and CJR.
And isn't the idee fixe of Journalism is "Speaking Truth to Power,"? It seems to be on hold every time a Democratic Administration (or Congress) is elected.
And is there any nominations from those same places for 2008 and 2009?
Prove me wrong.
#13 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 07:56 PM
Don Van Atta Jr. and Jeff Gerth's distinguished investigative work for the NYT on the entire Whitewater affair...then there was Michael Isikoff's full-time work for the WP and later for Newsweek. There are countless others and it was done without the armchair-blogoshphere carping that remporters now have to endure on almost an hourly basis.
I could spend the rest of the night compiling a lengthy list of incontrovertible proof of unrelenting, mainstream scrutiny on the Clintons, but it wouldn't matter. It's evident that you can only see the world through a partisan lens.
#14 Posted by tubmeister, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 11:47 PM
Tub,
I'm going to surprise you and say good job, but you ruined by seing it through your own partisan lens.
What about 2009?
I am listening.
#15 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 20 Sep 2009 at 01:17 AM
Here are some suggestions for a few simple investigations that you crack "professional journalists" could undertake:
1. Track down Obama's coke dealer and see if he's still pushing coke on kids in Hawaii (and anywhere else Obama used drugs). Ask President Obama what he's done to make sure that this drug pusher has faced justice.
2. Hop on down to Martinique and get the skinny on Vera Baker, who was Obama's extremely good-looking, single. "Campaign Finance Director" (although he already had another Campaign Finance Director). Find out exactly what Ms. Baker's relationship was to Obama. Find out why it was that Ms. Baker got shuffled off once Michelle Obama got wind of her.
3. Speaking of Michelle Obama, how about looking into the $200,000 raise she got at her "charitable hospital" in 2004 when Barry was elected to the Senate?
4. Staying on topic, how about interviewing Dontae Adams and his family about his experience after being dumped as a patient by Michelle Obama's hospital, under the patient-dumping program she helped to orchestrate?
How about it? How snowy a day in Hell do you think it would be before we see any self-proclaimed "professional journalist" investigate any of these stories?
Huh?
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 20 Sep 2009 at 08:21 AM
Style notes for readers deciphering the vocabulary of the mainstream media, #317 in a series: conservatives are 'ideologues', while liberals are 'activists' when engaging in guerrilla political media stunts. One recalls that ABC's ill-fated 'Food Lion' muckraker some years back employed Ralph Nader munchkins bearing hidden cameras to do the heavy lifting - hmm, did they count as 'journalists'? 'Ideologues?'
Fenwick neglects to provide some important context here - that The New York Times had a reporter on the trail of ACORN shenanigans in the run-up to the 2008 elections, with a disaffected former 'activist' (I guess) as an informant, but the editors decided to spike the story in October. CJR is again deploring the rise of an alternative 'conservative' media that has gained power precisely due to the unwillingness of the mainstream media to acknowledge that there is a wider definition of what constitutes 'the news' than simply the concerns of the hip, urban middle class.
#17 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 20 Sep 2009 at 03:55 PM
Maybe we can get Leonard Nimoy to track down Obama's coke dealer?
God knows we're not going to see any self-proclaimed "professional journalists" doing the job.
Even though the MSM sent dozens of their minions up to Maine to dig up dirt on W's DUI.
Go figure.
#18 Posted by In Search Of... Obama's Coke Dealer, CJR on Sun 20 Sep 2009 at 10:18 PM
And where would and Mary Mapes fit into this equation with their false expose of George W. Bush? Were they journalists, bad journalists, or hitmen (hitpersons, to be politically correct)?
#19 Posted by Horace, CJR on Mon 21 Sep 2009 at 09:08 AM
One other thing very worthy of note is the MSM's strategy - followed here by CJR - of attacking the messenger. Read Briebart's op ed today and get an eyeful of what can happen to anyone who dares to not toe the MSM liberal line.
#20 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 21 Sep 2009 at 02:05 PM
Selling is legal. F***ing is legal. So why isn't selling f***ing legal?
Why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? I can't follow the logic on that one at all. Of all the things you can do to a person, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world.
In the army, they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people. In civilian life, you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm.
#21 Posted by George Carlin, CJR on Mon 21 Sep 2009 at 11:25 PM
Breitbart noticed that the Washington Post was 'investigating' the two kids who busted ACORN in their hidden video stunt. Fair enough. Now the editors can get to work investigating who is 'behind' any number of political activists on the Left. Consciously or unconsciously, people on the Right are held by our chattering classes to a much higher standard of honesty, accuracy, and fairness than their opponents. For example, there is still hysteria in media/show biz circles over Sarah Palin which boils down to her politics, while John Edwards, who was the Democratic VP nominee a mere four years before Palin was the Republican VP hopeful, while treated critically, has suffered nothing near the same level of ridicule. Edwards' hollowness was obvious at least by 2004, but he got a free ride from mainstream journalists. Next time a media/entertainment type goes after Palin, ask yourself exactly what standard she is being held to, and where were these astute minds when Edwards was making a fool of himself?
#22 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 12:38 PM
So Lisa Ling's undercover, hidden camera work in North Korea, where she posed as a member of a humanitarian mission team--was that journalism? The footage was aired on National Geographic. True, ACORN's not a totalitarian state, but it's a big, tax $$ gobbling octopus of organizations, with plenty of corrupt, shifty dealings in its past.
If Ling's footage is journalism, so is this.
#23 Posted by Belinda Gomez, CJR on Wed 23 Sep 2009 at 06:42 PM
So if someone posts a good story but has an agenda it's not journalism??? Here YOU have a stronger critique of the MSM than many conservatives do. You are saying that any story the MSM media does is not journalism unless the person(s) behind it are completely objective. Do you seriously believe that every "journalistic" report put out by the MSM is done by persons who are completely objective? And you ask us to just trust that they are completely objective when we usually know nothing about them other than that they are publlished in a big paper or wire service? By your standard, nothing should be trusted as journalism unless it is unbiased. To get to that, we need journalists to honestly disclose their and their news organizations' biases and then we can draw our own conclusions. It's odd that so many people in the media espouse post-modernism but then claim that they themselves can be totally objective and somehow get beyond their own biases. I know the people in J-school are brainwashed with this BS but maybe you need to challenge some of your professions flawed assumptions and consider different points of view (but that would be a truly journalistic thing to do).
Hannah and James are at least honest in that they (italics for the next 3 words) disclose their biases! I'm OK with the MSM being biased but they should disclose their biases...then we could understand why they don't report the ACORN story or otherwise report it so poorly.
#24 Posted by Gary Brown, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:39 PM
I honestly think Ms. Fenwick did a great job outlining the very real ethical problems in Giles & O'Keefe's video productions, & cheers to you Ms Fenwick!
Look, the kind of edited, choppy, politically-motivated "evidence" of the sort that O'Keefe is peddling is the same type that was used by the Inquisition during its sophisticated smear campaigns against the people it targetted for "heresy". Wasn't it Baron Delaubardemont who once said "give me 3 lines of a man's handwriting, and I'll hang him"? That's how O'Keefe works, and he has a history of that kind of muck-raking.
Remember, Breitbart has a somewhat "jihadist" attitude about this type of attack, which he explicitly states is aimed not just at ACORN, but at what he calls "the entire Democratic liberal media complex" (WHOOO! What a doozey!) And the wierd video-release method Breitbart employs (which he openly states is managed to "inflict maximum damage") speaks to a person who is interested in theatrical effect, not the truth. Now he's threatening AG Holder with a mass-video release before just before the next election (i guess to embarass democrats), unless his creepy little witch-hunt is indulged.
So, at the very least, Fenwick and Bowden are right: at its best, what Giles and O'Keefe offer is energized political activism, and not much more.
Furthermore, the BigGovernment.com crew often like to push the idea that they were "ignored" by the "liberal mainstream media", which is a crock. The day after his first release, O'Keefe wrote a deranged and paranoid ramble on his website entitled "Why I Refuse To Take Phone Calls From an Intrepid CNN Producer". In that statement, he openly refuses CNN's invitiation to an interview for a number really unconvincing & very paranoid reasons.
In the Washington Times article last Sept, Breitbart outlines his video-release strategy, in which he openly says that he would only give the exclusive on Giles and O'Keefe to Fox, & a select few others, so that he could show how "biased" the rest of the media is. Okay, that's just nutty. That's called "contriving a purportedly 'sponteneous' result", and that's just conniving. How dare he fault others for "ignoring" him while he actively refuses their invitations! What a boob!
So yes, Fenwick is right. James and Hannah arent journalists, they are activists. Actually, Fenwick is actually being quite sparing and kind with that characterization. I would call them character-assasins and political blackmailers of the worst Orwellian sort. MiniTrue on youtube, come join the world-wide 2 minute-hate!
On that note, if daming evidence for criminal activity can be found in choppy footage posted on youtube (sans context and with no accountability for material that is edited out), then Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coultre and countless others really would all get royally skewered.
#25 Posted by Sree, CJR on Mon 7 Dec 2009 at 01:38 AM
I just have to add one more thing, and I know this is really juvenille, but i cant help it.
Some of the really...um..."spirited" criticisms which Ms Fenwick has received in this comments section are so obnoxious, non-sensical and totally off-color, they are actually hilarious! I find them all repulsive, but a few are genuinely entertaining.
Consider the comment posted on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 at 07:34 PM. This one is my own personal favorite. Its a veritable "Golden Globe" winner as far the freak-factor goes. I mean, it's really just that PRECIOUS! And what other "Leading Lady" could have pulled it off than VANDERLEUN, the uniquely precocious success-story who has been a rising media-star for more than 3 decades!!!
I'll let her speak for herself. Behold, grace under pressure:
"you need to start looking for a new career path, because the one you're on is going nowhere. And I've got more than 30 years in the 'business,' hundreds of books edited, thousands of articles edited, and more at the door."
Or, minutes earlier:
"Oh yes, oh yes...,. the Recession ate my coworkers excuse. And pure garbage. These bozos have been scooped because they don't care to get the real scoops any more.
This story and hundreds of others is just lying around waiting to be done. Just lying there saying 'Report me.'
Yet..,.. crickets.
More, many more, journalists deserve to be canned. Starting with all those who like Gibbs didn't know nothing about the story."
--didn't know nothing--!!!!
Such eloquence! No wonder she has 1,000s of articles edited, & more at the door! How deranged!
I like to imagine it all being spoken in the voice of Jerri Blank from "Strangers with Candy", with perhaps some complimentary table-pounding to drill the point home.
What a HOOT!!! At least, I hope Ms Fenwick finds all this as funny as i do.
#26 Posted by Sree, CJR on Mon 7 Dec 2009 at 02:33 AM
Barack Obama's ties with the highly corrupt ACORN organization have been extensive over the years, a fact almost entirely unreported by the liberal mainstream news media. Last year, the Obama campaign, according to the "Times," paid ACORN $800,000 to register voters and do other work. Obama, when serving on the board of the Woods Fund in Chicago, gave ACORN money. "Investor's Business Daily" has called Barack Obama "ACORN's Senator." And the Obama administration got up to $2 billion of taxpayer funding in Obama's first 60 days for organizations such as ACORN.
2008: The New York Post reported that ACORN submitted a voter registration card for a 7-year-old Bridgeport girl. Another 8,000 cards from the same city will be scrutinized for possible fraud.
2009: In September, 11 ACORN workers were accused of forging voter registration applications in Miami-Dade County during the last election. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the state attorney’s office scoured hundreds of suspicious applications provided by ACORN and found 197 of 260 contained personal ID information that did not match any living person.
2008: Election officials in Brevard County have given prosecutors more than 23 suspect registrations from ACORN. The state's Division of Elections is also investigating complaints in Orange and Broward Counties.
2008: Clerks in Detroit found a "sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent [voter] applications" from the Michigan branch of ACORN. Those applications have been turned over to the U.S. Attorney's office for investigation.
2008: Nearly 400 ACORN-submitted registrations in Kansas City have been rejected due to duplication or fake information.
2009: Nevada authorities indicted ACORN on 26 counts of voter registration fraud and 13 counts of illegally compensating canvassers. ACORN provided a bonus compensation program called “Blackjack” or “21+” for any canvasser who registered more than 20 voters per shift, which is illegal under Nevada law.
2008: Nevada state authorities raided ACORN's Las Vegas headquarters as part of a task force investigation of election fraud. Fraudulent registrations included players from the Dallas Cowboys.
2008: ACORN activists gave Ohio residents cash and cigarettes in exchange for filling out voter registration card, according to the New York Post. Some voters claim to have registered dozens of times, and one man says he signed up on 72 cards.
2009: Seven ACORN workers in the Pittsburgh area were indicted for submitting falsified voter registration forms. Six of the seven were also indicted for registering voters under an illegal quota system.
2008: An ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.
2008: In Harris County, nearly 10,000 ACORN-submitted registrations were found to be invalid, including many with clearly fraudulent addresses or other personal information.
2007: Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. More than 2,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted by the group during a voter registration drive.
2008: At least 33,000 ACORN-submitted registrations in Milwaukee have been called into question after it was found that the organizations had been using felons as registration workers, in violation of state election rules. Two people involved in the ongoing Wisconsin voter fraud investigation have been charged with felonies.
#27 Posted by call me Roy, CJR on Sat 19 Dec 2009 at 02:33 PM
Roy, here's an idea. Two simple words: "fact check".
If you posted the links to the articles on the incidents which you are citing, you'll find that the few which held water are incidents that were reported by ACORN staff.
Furthermore, if you really are concerned about corruption, consider that right-wing darling Anita Moncrief was fired from ACORN for credit fraud. Are you going to hold her to the same degree of accountability?
And on that note, how do you feel about KBR (and the republicans that keep funding them) trying to legitimize the gang-rape and kidnapping of an American citizen? Or do they even mention Jamie Leigh Jones at the Tea-Parties?
How about Halliburton (whose annual funding from the government FAR outweighs ACORNs), do you feel okay with them endangering soldiers on the field with shoddy equpiment, just so they can skim a fat profit from tax-payer money? Lockheed Martin? Blackwater? Any of this sinkin' in?
Once you can hold those groups (which do get federal funding) as culpabale as you'd like to hold ACORN, and once you can check your facts against reliable sources (that is, those who arent on the payroll of the Ayn Rand Institute), you might seem more convincing.
#28 Posted by Sree, CJR on Tue 22 Dec 2009 at 09:47 AM