Andrew Breitbart is well on his way to building an online media empire to call his own. I’d call him the right’s version of Arianna Huffington, but I’m worried that might make him send his alpaca after me.
Let me explain.
In late January, after James O’Keefe was arrested for allegedly tampering with Senator Mary Landrieu’s office phones, Breitbart’s new Big Journalism Web site began featuring posts from “Retracto, the Correction Alpaca,” who was identified as “a Senior Fellow at Breitbart.com” and given an adorable headshot to boot.
Over the ensuing weeks, Retracto has been one busy alpaca. He’s published posts pointing out errors and requesting corrections from news organizations such as the Associated Press, Huffington Post, The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times, Talking Points Memo… the list goes on. Mostly, Retracto tries to call attention to incorrect reporting about O’Keefe.
There are already over twenty posts from Retracto on the site, and he’s been able to coax corrections out of many of his targets. Others seem to ignore this insistent, yet polite, camelid. Retracto is also on Twitter, and, in a series of tweets sent on February 23, he recently did his best to get the attention of political reporter Tommy Christopher, who recently had a rather public spat with Andrew Breitbart. Christopher directed his tweets at Breitbart and ignored Retracto. Being a Correction Alpaca appears is sometimes a thankless job. I wanted to learn more about his lot in life, so I contacted the folks at Big Journalism to request an interview with Retracto.
I had a lot of questions. Has he even been driven to spit by an unresponsive media outlet? And how exactly does an alpaca get into the correction business?
The nameless person who responded to my e-mail offered to have “Retracto, through his assistant,” respond to questions via e-mail. I e-mailed back some of my more straightforward questions ranging from “So far, what kind of reaction have you been getting from media outlets that have been featured on Retracto?” and “Is there one particular request for correction that ended up being labor-intensive, controversial? Please share the details,” to “What are Retracto’s qualifications for doing this?”
I didn’t hear back by deadline. So I’m writing a column about a “Correction Alpaca” without the benefit of his own words. Which, I have to admit, makes it all the more likely that I too will face the wrath of Retracto. Or some of his supporters. It’s important to note that Retracto has lots of friends. In fact, he already inspired his very own tribute song. Some sample lyrics:
The story’s gonna come out whether they like it or not
If they told it like it is they wouldn’t be in this spot
Lyin’ to the people gets a psychotic reaction
But Retracto calls them out now they’re makin’ retractions
I can honestly say it’s the best song ever written about an alpaca, hands down. And it generated over 100 comments on the site. That’s a lot for a Retracto post, though many of them generate a decent amount of feedback from Big Journalism’s readers. Republican blogger Moe Lane, for one, loved Retracto at first sight:
Breitbart has far too much fun with this medium, sometimes. “Retracto, the Correction Alpaca” is apparently going to be Big Journalism’s go-to camelid for issues involving media oopsies. Currently Retracto is calling for corrections in the O’Keefe affair…
I’m sorry. “Retracto, the Correction Alpaca.” If you don’t find that funny – not even a little – not only are you at the wrong site, but there might not actually be hope for you.
I tend to agree. Corrections—whether you are requesting them, writing them, or responding to requests for them—are not one of the more sexy and enjoyable parts of practicing journalism. They are necessary, important, and occasionally humorous. But no one ever sat in a journalism class daydreaming about one day handling corrections for a media outlet. No, not even me.
So if it helps the cause to invent an imaginary alpaca and put him on the corrections beat, then I’m ready to start a herd.
Seems that there is plenty of work out there for Retracto ... Go little Alpaca!
#1 Posted by SteveCan, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:30 PM
I am trying to figure out why this post fails to acknowledge even once the extreme irony of Breitbart, of all people, setting himself up as some kind of honesty-in-reporting vigilante. Especially where the O'Keefe/ACORN story is concerned. Having "too much fun"? Well, that's one way to put it. But if getting the facts straight is so important, let's see "Retracto" turn his politely insistent critical eye on "Big Journalism" itself.
#2 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:44 PM
You forgot to mention, Craig, that Breitbart is financing O'Keefe's illegal and morally depraved forays into these trumped-up "investigations." That's another whole layer of this silly invention to browbeat reporters into making submissive apologies for doing their job.
I would have like to see a public conversation about this:
"One thing that could've stretched out this Austin Wacko story out quite a bit longer is if the mainstream media had been bolder about connecting it to the larger anti-tax political phenomenon in this country today: the Tea Party. But most of us weren't willing to go there. Why? Because we are perceived as being dismissive and condescending toward the movement—OK, we *are* dismissive and condescending toward the movement. In short, we tend to treat them like wackos and we are gun-shy about going the full Monty and suggesting they are this close to being *violent* wackos. The FBI is skittish about that blurry line, and so is the media. Better to leave it alone and move onto Tiger Woods. Hey, how about THAT guy, huh?"
From When Should We Use the ‘Terrorist’ Label? - Newsweek.com
And here we have another rightwing wacko in a shootout at the Pentagon last night.
#3 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 02:24 PM
Tom,
I assume you are talking about the registered Democrat who shot two members of the Pentagon security detail and who was killed by that security detail. His name was John Patrick Bedell and he was a registered Democrat and active voter in California, who also just happened to hate Bush and believed in the 9/11 government conspiracy nut roll. Retracto is popular because It's people like you who keep him busy.
#4 Posted by Jason, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 02:46 PM
Tom, you're a libtard moron. The kook that flew into IRS building in Austin was a LEFY NUT-COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER who BASHED BUSH and CAPITALISM while PRAISING COMMUNISM in his suicide note. And this new kook, was an ANTI-BUSH, 9/11 TRUTHER LEFTY LOONIE. So there goes your absurd grasping for straws argument, idiot.
#5 Posted by Tom's Pwner, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 02:50 PM
"And here we have another rightwing wacko in a shootout at the Pentagon last night."
Yeah Tom, because we all know how those wacko right-wingers all hate Bush, loved their weed, and believe 9-11 was an inside job!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CSM-writes-that-truther-Bush-hating-Pentagon-shooter-was-a-right-wing-terrorist-86619422.html
#6 Posted by Tim, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 02:56 PM
John Patrick Bedell was a follower of Ron Paul and associated with a number of Libertarian groups and other rightwing extremist, pseudo-fascist organizations. When are you wackos going to take responsibility for the consequences of your seething hatred?
#7 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 03:16 PM
Your weak argument has already been dubunked, hippy. And speaking of hatred, should we be "tolerant" lefties like the Dems that started the Klan, turned fire hoses and dogs on blacks, created all the racist "colored" laws, fought against civil rights and keep poor minorities oppressed by steering them away from self-reliance with false-hope entitlement programs? If anyone has "hatred" it's you Libtards.
#8 Posted by Tom's Pwner, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 03:33 PM
Craig,
I wonder if you or your fellow bloggers here at CJR have any thoughts about the quality of your commenters. Recently your threads have been dominated by a gang of thugs whose major purpose, it seems, is to shut down any dialogue about journalism, and to disrupt and attack other commenters. The thugs, and the outright spam you at CJR are hosting, I think, are driving away intelligent discourse on journalism. I miss the comments you used to have by actual journalists who would occasionally drop in the defend or explain or otherwise significantly add to the conversation.
#9 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 05:22 PM
Wouldn't this post more aptly be titled: "Meet CJR: Fake Journalist Andrew Breitbart's PR Team"?
It's extraordinary that the Columbia Journalism Review -- of all places -- has chosen to write a fluff piece on a gimmick put in place by partisan propagandists not interested in journalistic accuracy, but in their partisan agenda.
There is no interest by Breitbart or "Retracto" to demand credible journalism from the NYTimes or from either Breitbart or even his very own websites. Incredibly, there seems to be little interest in that from CJR either.
Why have there been no reports on the NYTimes extraordinary misreporting of the ACORN "pimp" hoax and even more extraordinary excuses for NOT correcting their erroneous -- and very damaging reporting -- by the paper's Sr. Editor of Standards Greg Brock (see his disturbing and revealing emails on this point here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7689) or by the paper's Public Editor Clark Hoyt (his disturbing and inaccurate emails are documented here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7715).
Of course, Breitbart and "Retracto" have failed to call for corrections from the Times, and the dozens of other papers who completely misreported the phony ACORN "pimp" story, because it suited their propaganda purposes, and even Breitbart himself lied about the story in his own Washington Times column (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7705), but has yet to issue a correction or retraction, even after admitting himself that he was wrong in his column (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7719).
Where he once argued that O'Keefe and Giles' ACORN work was worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, now that the fraud has been revealed, he argues that it was all little more than "Borat".
Furthermore, on Breitbart's own site, there has been one uncorrected "error" after another in regard to this story. O'Keefe has said (without correction) that ACORN recieves "billions" from the federal government, when in fact they've received an average of $3.5 million over each of the last 15 years. That's a far cry from "billions".
They've erroneously claimed that ACORN workers caught in the highly-edited, heavily-overdubbed videos advised the pair to "evade" taxes (when, in fact, they all advised them on how to PAY their taxes, even on illegal income).
O'Keefe/Breitbart's San Bernardino video, as posted here: http://biggovernment.com/jokeefe/2009/09/15/acorn-prostitution-scandal-california-here-we-come/, shows the ACORN worker spoofing them by claiming she murdered her husband. Even though responsible news organizations immediately checked with the county sheriff who confirmed her ex-husbands were still very much alive, neither Breitbart nor O'Keefe has posted that information -- and "Retracto" hasn't demanded they do so.
Worse, all the videos were deceitfully described and titled as an "ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation" when they were nothing of the sort. Completely dishonest and reprehensible.
Of course, we expect those guys to lie and make stuff up. But we expect CJR to hold, if not them, then the NYTimes and the innumerable other actually-legitimate media outlets accountable. Instead, incredibly, we get a puff piece about a cynical gimmick from an agenda-driven righwing website disguising itself as "journalism".
Still waiting for CJR's expose the NYTimes' failure which I've painstakingly document for the last month, and even alerted CJR to several weeks ago. The choice you've made to instead cover this nonsense is disconcerting to say the least.
Brad Friedman
Creator/Publisher, The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com
Twitter: @TheBradBlog
#10 Posted by Brad Friedman, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 05:34 PM
Brad Friedman's post above illustrates the point I made above in linking to the Newsweek piece that these roving bands of thugs intimidate and browbeat legitimate reporters into submissive apologies and reluctance to take on these stories. There is no upside for New York Times to correct any of the reporting that they were forced to do after being browbeaten by Breitbart. To do so will unleash another barrage of venom, and at some point I think they just don't think it is worth the firestorm. This is how these thugs have had a chilling effect on legitimate journalism.
CJR, as well, especially Greg Marx, has been browbeaten into softening his coverage of the O'Keefe pimping scheme. He hasn't yet followed up after it became clear how extensively and dishonestly the videos were edited, after he was intimidated into writing that O'Keefe et al "had something there."
#11 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 06:51 PM
Wow, such nastiness! Tom, I think you need to chill out (and get a reality check).
Craig, thanks for a nice lighthearted piece. Given the vitriol this subject raises, I think using an alpaca was a brilliant move.
#12 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 12:07 AM
Now there's a good example of my complaint about these gangs of comment thugs who swoop in and start attacking your commenters, Craig and CJR. I wasn't addressing any comment to you or your rightwing freaks, JLD. Bite me.
#13 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 12:38 AM
Tom, your lame attempt at discrediting Breitbart's ACORN tapes is laughable. THEY WERE CAUGHT ON TAPE! Not only were FULL AUDIO and TRANSCRIPTS released, but Breitbart's gone ON RECORD several times, offering and challenging ANYONE in the MSM and Media Matters themselves, to VIDEO-TAPED FULL-VIEWING of RAW TAPES and MSM Q&A debate afterwards, but NOT ONE of the lefty bloggers, Media Matters or MSM members have taken the offer. Breitbart offers this pretty much EVERY SINGLE DAY on his twitter feed and has offered in repeatedly on ALL of his websites. Why are the lefty bloggers and MSM afraid to take the challenge? Because they KNOW the truth, as we all do. ACORN was caught on tape. Period.
So, Tom, stop trying to play the "mature" poster. YOU incorrectly and ignorantly claimed the Austin LEFTY COMMIE SYMPATHIZER KOOK and the Pentagon LEFTY 9/11 Truther KOOK were "right wing wackos." YOU started the attacks, imbecile. Typical lefty, calls people what HE, HIMSELF is. You're a pathetic joke and your party is a historically racist, pathetic joke.
#14 Posted by Tom's Pwner, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 11:00 AM
Mollie implies that there's something to retract in the ACORN story, but fails to mention what that might be. Not particularly helpful.
Tom: Thank you for representing your side of the argument. Saves a lot of time and effort for the other side.
#15 Posted by Jim Treacher, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 12:34 PM
Toms Pwner foolishly sycophanted:
They discredit themselves, amigo.
Doing what? And why have three official investigations of them so far found no criminality? (Other than by O'Keefe and Giles?)
And you've authenticated those as "FULL" exactly how? Or are you just taking the accused felon (O'Keefe's) word for it, along with the guy who admitted he lied about the tapes in the first place? (Breitbart)
Because that's Andy circus. That's not journalism. If he was a journalist, he'd simply release the unedited tapes to all, on the Internet, just as he released the phony ones. But he's a con-man, not a journalist, and he wants to play games to promote himself instead of promoting the truth. If the raw videos show such horrible ACORN "crimes" why wouldn't he have released them already if he was interested in accountability?
Answer: Exactly what even Rupert Murdoch's NYPose reported: The videos were "a 'heavily edited' splice job that only made it appear as though the organization's workers were advising a pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage ... Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister"
You've been pwned, Toms Pwner, but by Breitbart and O'Keefe and the folks that are counting on you to not look too closely, and continue to do their dishonest work for them. You haven't let them down!
#16 Posted by Brad Friedman, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 02:44 PM
@Craig,
I want to again point out the fact, relevant to your piece here, that Breitbart pays O'Keefe a salary, as he admitted to Hugh Hewitt, and you might want to mention that fact while writing about this puerile little gimmick of Breitbart's. I make the point, again, because I think it is germane to your piece. You should have included that fact here. This piece by TPM has a link to the HH transcript. Breitbart: I Pay A Salary To Alleged Landrieu Plotter O'Keefe | TPMMuckraker
In addition, I think you are guilty of false equivalence in your comparison with Huffington Post. Please show me where Huffington has sponsored criminal activity in the interest of destroying imagined political foes, or where Huffington has dishonestly or deceptively altered video or audio in the interest of political activism.
#17 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 04:59 PM
Brad Friedman, "because that's Andrew's circus!"
So if it's such a lie like you lefties claim, then ANY MSM lefty or blogger would call Breitbart's bluff and PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt, right? Right? Wouldn't that shut all the conservatives up?
But that hasn't and WON'T happen because ACORN was caught on tape. It REALLY is THAT simple. Spinning and repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Again, very SIMPLE: Come to TAPED-debate, watch full videos, Q&A session afterwards. Why has not ONE MSM lefty or blogger accepted? Not ONE.
Cut the b.s. and take the challenge. Call the "bluff" then, if it's such a lie.
Pwnage.
#18 Posted by Brad's Pwner, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 09:37 PM
Hey Brad, why are you taking valuable time away from your "investigations" as to who was really behind 9/11 to go after Brietbart? Don’t you know the Bush/Israel/Halliburton trifecta that was “really” behind the 9/11 attacks are using Brietbart and his Zionazi allies to distract you from you greater calling in life?
Loser.
#19 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 01:43 PM
"So if it's such a lie like you lefties claim, then ANY MSM lefty or blogger would call Breitbart's bluff and PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt, right? Right?"
I don't speak for "MSM lefties or bloggers". I speak for me. As a journalist, I have no interest in Andy's Circus. If he wants to be a grown up and a journalist, as he claims, and if ACORN's crimes are so terrible they must be exposed, then he ought to release the videos for all to see, so they can be exposed and so that ACORN can be held accountable.
He hasn't released them, which should tell you something, because so far, the hoax garbage and factually inaccurate material he HAS released in order to support it, has exposed no illegalities according to, so far, three different official investigations that have looked at it.
So if he and you believe that ACORN is supporting child prostitution -- as he loves to claim, without evidence -- it's a shame that he doesn't release that evidence. That's what a real journalist would do, and he is not one.
"Wouldn't that shut all the conservatives up?"
I don't care what would shut up "conservatives". Andy is not one of those either, since last I checked, real conservatives believed in the Rule of the Law and the Constitution and such, and Andy shows no sign of giving a damn about either of those things.
"But that hasn't and WON'T happen because ACORN was caught on tape. It REALLY is THAT simple. Spinning and repeating a lie doesn't make it true."
True. So when you stop spinning and repeating the lie, you'll see what everyone else who has looked at the edited hoax tapes has seen: No illegalities by ACORN.
"Again, very SIMPLE: Come to TAPED-debate, watch full videos, Q&A session afterwards. Why has not ONE MSM lefty or blogger accepted? Not ONE."
Don't know. Go ask one.
"Cut the b.s. and take the challenge. Call the "bluff" then, if it's such a lie."
No, thanks. I'll stick to journalism. You might want to ask your friend Andy to try it some day.
#20 Posted by Brad Friedman, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 05:38 PM
Mike H -
Thanks for the phony straw man! Good luck in your apparent support of criminals and conman. You do your country proud, amigo.
#21 Posted by Brad Friedman, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 05:40 PM
Yeah Brad, it's not like CJR should be unaware of the issues you brought up, I've informed them of these issues in recent past:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php
but they prefer the puff pieces since the slightest criticism of the "WHY DOES IT MATTER?" baboon (reference to the Stark Report video which you and Stark did of Breitbart, which much more interesting than his goddamn alpaca) and the GOONS invade the site right after breitbart links it.
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php
PS. if you put more than two links in a post, the spam filter eats it, but less than that is fine.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 09:02 PM
See?
Vastly more interesting and relevant, though some may ask with accentuated body language, "WHY DOES IT MATTER?!".
The answer being, "Sanity. It matters."
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 09:08 PM
Something about this O'Keefe kid just gets on Thimble's last nerve...
Hidden camera "journalism" has been around for a long time and it certainly isn't going anywhere as cameras get smaller. 60 Minutes patented these sting pieces.
I can't figure out why Thimbles goes nuts every time somebody mentions O'Keefe or Breitbart. O'Keefe guy is a nobody who just happens to have taken down ACORN and who happens to have been busted trying to sting Landrieu ignoring her constituents. It could have been anyone working these stings, it just happened to be O'Keefe. And for crying out loud, what difference does it make what kind of shirt he wore on his ridiculous sting mission? Or that Breitbart put him up to it?
Thimbles, what's the deal here? Were you beaten by an O'Keefe as a child? Did some kid named O'Keefe steal your lunch money?
Whatever it is... Get over it, dude.
Take a chill pill. Go to your happy place.
#24 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 12:03 AM
Ahem.. It's not about O'Keefe. It's not about Breitbart. It's about lying sacks of crap who steal elections and encourage financial fraud on a massive scale to the degree where it destabilizes the global economy.
Yes, I'm talking about the Republican party. How did you guess?
The rethuglicans have had a hard on for ACORN ever since they stole their first presidential election, therefore requiring them to find a propaganda target to point to so they can say "Oh YEAH?! The Democrats do it too!"
And because their claims are "Voter Fraud", they can figure out ways to "protect the system" by depressing a voter's ability to turn out and vote.
So John McCain can claim, on national tv, "ACORN is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy," after trying to succeed the greatest fraud in American History, Flightsuit JR.
So, it ain't about O'Keefe. It's about racially motivated cult who has made ACORN it's sin eater. Election Fraud? ACORN's fault. Global Economic Collapse? ACORN's fault. Unaccounted billions going to corrupt interests who waste money promoting their radical agenda?:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219818
ACORN. Federal money going to support prostitutes and law-breaking?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/us/11suit.html
Thanks to O'keefe, we think of ACORN.
The state of your nation and your garbage politics are never going to improve while jackasses like John Fund and Breitbart keep distracting the public with the message "The real problem is ACORN!"
There are other problems in the world, more serious, more pressing, but we know from our post history that we don't want to focus on those.
Better to train the magnifying glass on ACORN so you can pretend it's the huge problem.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 12:48 AM
Rethuglicans? I think you mean RethugliKKKan$$$. How can we take you seriously if you can't get it right?
#26 Posted by Jim Treacher, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 08:09 AM
I offer gross apologies if my typos caused offense to any RethugliKKK*ant$$$ and Libertaryans who are affiliated with Beavis and ButtBart.
*Hey, I could have used a 'u', but didn't. Why? 'Cause I'm classy that way.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 10:29 AM
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265498/march-04-2010/tip-wag---james-o-keefe---sean-hannity
While CJR watches the alpacas, Steven Fricken Colbert is being the watchdawg.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265498/march-04-2010/tip-wag---james-o-keefe---sean-hannity
Are you embarrassed yet?
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 11:13 AM
There's an old joke that 'radical right-wing anti-communists' should have loved Stalin, because he killed more communists than anyone else in history. In an analogous way, the Republicans should be strong supporters of some of the posters on these threads, who appear to be so saturated with hate and entitlement that they do the Obama administration far more harm among open-minded readers than Fox News or Limbaugh or whoever. The message is that 'we represent compassion and tolerance', so it is OK if we use hatred and intolerance to fight our enemies. Orwell was writing about bourgeois left-wing poliitical discourse, remember. There's a reason for that.
#29 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 12:30 PM
There's a joke to be made about skunks who complain about the stink of others, but I'm not going to make it since, it appears, some people lack a sense of humor.
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 04:24 PM
With 'humor' and irony such as displayed in the specimens above, I guess we don't need sledgehammers . . . Also, you might want to rein in what appears to be a scatological focus in your humorous dissertations, there, Thimb . . .
#31 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 04:53 PM
"RethugliKKKan$$$" HAHAHAHA! The DEMOCRATS started the KKK. Learn history, Libtard.
#32 Posted by Jim's Pwner, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 05:56 PM
The point remains, there are skunks all over. Complain about them all (because you believe in the principle of civility) or shut up about it (because I don't want to hear about how your soft skin is pierced by the vile barbs of toilet humor). I was making a joke, as was Treacher if I read him right. Absurdity, look it up. There's probably a section in here about republican rules etiquette (Sorry, that's under 'i'. "IOKIYR"). If I can take your allusions to Stalin, you can take my allusions to 'cans'. Stop crying.
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 09:26 PM
I don't know how thin or thick our relative skins are, but I do know that you post anonymously and I do not. I also note in the 'sensitivity' department that your turnaround time on responses to me is only four hours, while I can usually survive for 24 hours without reading and responding to your latest essay.
#34 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 9 Mar 2010 at 12:50 PM
PadiKiller foolishly said:
"Hidden camera "journalism" has been around for a long time and it certainly isn't going anywhere as cameras get smaller. 60 Minutes patented these sting pieces."
Really? 60 Minutes has completely used phony editing to represent their stories as something they were not and to accuse their subjects of something they didn't do? And you knew that and didn't bother to call on them to release the unedited video that would show they lied? Shame on you.
O'Keefe is to "Journalism" as Madoff is to "Bank Regulation".
CJR's Craig Silberman should receive a special award for the most ill-timed, blind-sighted, embarrassing article of the month for this one.
#35 Posted by Brad Friedman, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 12:33 AM
Marky, why do you want to make this about me? I post as Thimbles because that's who I am on the boards I've posted upon. Whether or not I want my details known is my business and has nothing to do with my personal sensitivity.
Which I have little of, except to sticks and stones for obvious reasons.
But anyways, I apologize for having my homepage CJR and I seeing new comments whenever I open a browser window to check my email. And I apologize for all the offensive plays on names throughout history which have maimed many lives and caused children to go hungry and hhas made old maidens weep from the causticity of ignoble puns.
Shame on me. Shame on everyone like me. Puns are no laughing matter!
(Absurdity. It's a hell of a drug)
#36 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 01:53 AM
brad wrote: 60 Minutes has completely used phony editing to represent their stories as something they were not and to accuse their subjects of something they didn't do? And you knew that and didn't bother to call on them to release the unedited video that would show they lied? Shame on you.
padikiller responds: No... 60 Minutes took a fax copy of document rendered in the default MS Word font and page format from a guy they knew was a kook and a Democratic activist, and presented the document as the product of a 1970 typewriter in an effort to swing the presidential election.
NBC faked video to make pickup trucks blow up for the camera.
And ABC edited video to make Food Lion look bad.
Yeah... Shame on O'Keefe.
#37 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 07:43 AM
And each of those three examples over 20 years became national scandals leading to resignations and apologies. So what's your point? That we should hold O'keefe to a different standard than everybody else?
I don't think so, so I guess I'm one of those liberal loons, demanding media consistency from all sides.
By the by, 60 Minutes took a fax copy of document rendered in the default MS Word font and page format from a guy they knew was a kook and a Democratic activist, and presented the document as the product of a 1970 typewriter in an effort to swing the presidential election.
NBC faked video to make pickup trucks blow up for the camera.
And ABC edited video to make Food Lion look bad.
Yeah... Shame on climatologists.
(do you get why this is a dumb argument now, Captain Sarcasm?)
#38 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 08:16 AM
Thimbles - nice try.
As for O'Keefe's standards vs. those of ABC, etc., O'Keefe is being charged with a crime, which the network journalists who did exactly the same things were not.
#39 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 05:05 PM
I doubt you saw Thimbles jumping out of his panties when CBS tried to tank Bush with the fake TANG memos. His stated disdain for O'Keefe's tactics is just a dodge.
These guys are getting themselves foaming at the mouth over O'Keefe and Breitbart and which particular shirt O'Keefe wore on his silly "stings", but when pressed they would be loathe to assign any import to their work.
They can't have it both ways- They can't marginalize Breitbart as a kooky "nonjournalist" and simultaneously bitch and moan about the impact of his costume.
These guys are just wounded liberald, gnashing their teeth at ACORN's demise.
#40 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 06:55 PM
"As for O'Keefe's standards vs. those of ABC, etc., O'Keefe is being charged with a crime, which the network journalists who did exactly the same things were not."
O'Keefe doesn't have deep network pockets, otherwise ACORN would likely file a civil suit as the others did. They are pursuing the legal options available after this kid with a video editor cost them 3 million and their reputation.
Or are you arguing that the serious charges are unwarranted, the ones where he tried to infiltrate government property for the sake of tampering with government communications? Because that was just stupid on O'keefe's part.
#41 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 09:17 PM
"I doubt you saw Thimbles jumping out of his panties when CBS tried to tank Bush with the fake TANG memos. His stated disdain for O'Keefe's tactics is just a dodge."
Once it became clear that they were faked, I commented against it. But the Killian memos were different in that the journalists were tricked by the chain of collaborating evidence into airing was they thought were legit documents. They believed they were legit. They made a mistake.
In the situations we are discussing, the journalists are doing the tricking. They are knowingly putting false information out into the public. If you excuse that, then your critiques have no integrity. You don't care about the truth, you care about the win.
"These guys are getting themselves foaming at the mouth over O'Keefe and Breitbart and which particular shirt O'Keefe wore on his silly "stings", but when pressed they would be loathe to assign any import to their work."
Wha?
"They can't have it both ways-"
For real?
"They can't marginalize Breitbart as a kooky "nonjournalist" and simultaneously bitch and moan about the impact of his costume."
Maybe you'd have an arguement if the Washington Goddamn Post wasn't snapping at every scrap that drops off of Breibart's table. What critics are saying is that "Breitbart is a lying kook who SHOULDN'T have influence" not that "Breitbart is a lying kook who DOESN'T have influence".
Cute little straw man though. You must enjoy watching it burn.
#42 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 09:31 PM
Here's a hidden camera sting operation you won't see the lefties be"whaling"....
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/in-sushi-sting-oscar-winners-nab-restaurant-selling-whale/19389362
#43 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 11:36 PM
I'm just not getting the Earth-shattering significance of O'Keefe's shirt.. Sorry.
The videos are self-explanatory and even ACORN admitted they were accurate. Hell, ACORN shitcanned most of the employees involved before it even put a decent press release on the web.
O'Keefe had a black shirt on... Or he had a white shirt on... Or he lied about the shirt he had on... Or he stole the shirt he had on from a starving boy scout, killed the kid's mother in front of him, ate her entrails raw, and then drove drunk to ACORN with his video camera and then lied about the shirt he had on....
So what?...
#44 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Mar 2010 at 11:44 PM
"So what?"
I could swear I've heard that one before:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php
It wasn't very effective then either.
#45 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Mar 2010 at 12:59 AM
To Thimbles, ABC's Food Lion adventure involved hiring some Ralph Nader munchkins to take jobs at the store under false names and resumes, and outtakes showed these left-wing O'Keefes clearly trying to encourage other employees to put day-old food out for sale, among other dishonesties and actionable offenses. ABC was not prosecuted by the government. Their employees were not prosecuted.
Nobody has actually pointed out anything in O'Keefe's sting of ACORN that was doctored or untrue. Some of the people on this thread would be a lot more credible if they could man-up and acknowledge that the Left has used O'Keefian tactics, and that the O'Keefe escapade has made them re-think 'ambush' or 'guerrilla' journalism now that they have become the targets. I won't hold my breath.
Re CBS and Mary Mapes, there is probably a law against forging government documents, too.
#46 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 15 Mar 2010 at 12:35 PM
"Nobody has actually pointed out anything in O'Keefe's sting of ACORN that was doctored or untrue."
Also in Bizzaroworld, Antarctica was a sunny 35° Celsius.
Meanwhile in Realworld:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/acorn_set_up_by_vidiots_da_x16IroTf4AsXCI19nttFLL
"The video that unleashed a firestorm of criticism on the activist group ACORN was a "heavily edited" splice job that only made it appear as though the organization's workers were advising a pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage, sources said yesterday.
The findings by the Brooklyn DA, following a 5½-month probe into the video, secretly recorded by conservative provocateurs James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, means that no charges will be filed.
Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said."
It's unfortunate that the sources from the Brooklyn Justice Department have chosen to remain anonymous, likely due to fears of Alpaca rage, but the facts are that every investigation of Acorn has shown video editing and that O'Keefe is the kind of guy who likes to put o a good show, not a real one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19sting.html
"Not everyone among Mr. O’Keefe’s acquaintances agrees. Liz Farkas, a Rutgers student who called Mr. O’Keefe “a nice guy and a loyal friend,” said she grew disillusioned after he asked her to help edit the script of a Planned Parenthood sting.
“It was snippets to make the Planned Parenthood nurse look bad,” Ms. Farkas said. “I said: ‘It has no context. You’re just cherry-picking the nurse’s answers.’ He said, ‘Okay’ — and then he just ran it.”
Asked whether the left-leaning documentaries of Michael Moore do not do the same, Ms. Farkas said: “Michael Moore goes after the rich and powerful. James isn’t doing that. He goes after low-level bureaucrats and people who are trying to help low-income people.”"
All this means is that the unedited tapes should be shown and that the we should be a little skeptical of the people behind them.
I mean, Jesus Christ, are you really the same people who get righteously indignant when the Dan Rather memos are brought up?
"Re CBS and Mary Mapes, there is probably a law against forging government documents, too. "
Yeah, I guess you are. Are you really going to argue that people should be less skeptical of right wing hack video work as they are of Dan Rather?
Whatever Mark. Hope you get a tan in sunny Antarctica.
#47 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 15 Mar 2010 at 10:02 PM
Acorn is closing it's doors because of journalistic failures and frauds which gutted its government funding and ripped its public support with child prostitution libel.
And after the damage was done by lazy journalists and activist hacks, the facts started leaking out showing that the hacks were frauds, every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the ABC journalists/Food Lion scandals that people here like to moan over.
And, after being confronted with the facts and making embarrassing defenses of its gullible reporting, Clark Hoyt has printed a non alpaca related retraction
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html
"Here is what I found: O’Keefe almost certainly did not go into the Acorn offices in the outlandish costume — fur coat, goggle-like sunglasses, walking stick and broad-brimmed hat — in which he appeared at the beginning and end of most of his videos. It is easy to see why The Times and other news organizations got a different impression. At one point, as the videos were being released, O’Keefe wore the get-up on Fox News, and a host said he was “dressed exactly in the same outfit he wore to these Acorn offices.” He did not argue.
But Breitbart told me that, after doing his own examination, “I am under the impression that at no time was he ever dressed as an elaborate pimp” in the offices. Because O’Keefe was apparently carrying the hidden camera, he is generally not visible in the videos, but he is seen briefly entering the Baltimore office wearing a blue shirt and chinos...
The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”
He also said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced. “It’s outrageous that this could have had this effect without being questioned more,” he said."
"He also said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced." Was that not obvious at the time to journalists? Was it really okay to
a) take a known liar activist at his word without a serious corroborating investigation?
b) smear the work of a whole organization based on the actions of a few individuals who were misrepresented?
c) pretend that this "new model of journalism" was so meaningful that the journalist class had to repent, wear sackcloth, and promise to cover more right wing trivialities more credulously in future - such as their alpaca gimmick?
Like they weren't doing that enough in the journalist class with their hourly drudge report refresh?
What a pathetic sorry day in America tabloid press.
#48 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 02:56 AM
Thimbles, I notice in your dissertation there is not a single refutation of my point, which that O'Keefe is being prosecuted for doing things that MSM and left-wing 'guerrilla' documentarians have done for years. I asked left-wing sympathizers to grow some guts and concede this much.
#49 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 12:27 PM
Oh you're being funny.
I have from the beginning conceded lying and spreading disinformation to the public is wrong and that, if it was wrong on the liberal side, it was wrong on the right. And, if you review our discussion on the topic, I have repeatedly asked for right wing commentators to demand the same journalistic standards of their allies as they do their enemies.
When people put out solid information about Michael Moore being loose with the truth,
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/dissent.html
I totally support it.
And when CNN does a hit job on Michael Moore using the same techniques:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=gupta_vs_moore
I support Moore.
The politics of bad journalism doesn't make it right, even though you may agree with the politics. Can you concede that much? And after such, apply those standards to the Breitbart's and Drudge's and the Fox News's?
#50 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 11:14 PM
Thimbles, sure, I'll concede that much. I never denied that right-wing news outlets have adopted the long-time practices of those on the liberal/left side. I think it may undermine their credibility in the long run the way the credibility of the networks and CNN and MSNBC have been undermined. And I salute you for linking to sites confirming Michael Moore's tendency to omit key information from his self-promoting documentaries.
You didn't mention CNN's use of fake quotes attributed to Limbaugh, something that was not done in the heat of a debate, but considered beforehand and done deliberately - but never mind. CCN hired a reporter who found herself arguing emotionally with Tea Party activists, too, but then, embarrassed at living up to its rap among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, did not renew her contract. The big news organizations have a tension between an overwhelmingly liberal editorial staff (I've lived in NYC and know some urban-media folks, and I can tell you that urban liberalism is the air they breathe) and a much more conservative audience for political news (older,whiter, and more testosteronal than the average). Sanjay Gupta is not precisely 'CNN' in and of himself; ironically, he is an Obama Democrat, so this was a case of mainstream liberal vs. hardline leftist argument. Glenn Beck helped Eric Massa make a fool of himself a few weeks ago, but this doesn't exactly mean Beck is not stridently sympathetic to the Republican Right. I don't find that all the quibbling about O'Keefe has undermined the key allegations about ACORN.
#51 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 12:36 PM
Well, the forged documents Mary Mapes used didn't undermine the key allegations against Bush, heck the secretary who typed them admitted the content was consistent with what she'd recorded, but the letter itself was fake.
Should I defend that journalism?
Now the case with O'Keefe is that he was employed by lying, slightly insane people and has a history of lying. The quibbling about O'keefe is that we suspect he doctored the footage, which may undermine the allegations in several cases and will establish that the problems with ACORN were not systemic support of child prostitution, which was one of the key allegations.
Not that it matters, because sloppy and gullible mainstream journalism has killed the organization on behalf of republicans who hate it when poor people get to vote.
Or as O'Keefe put it:
"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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704805_2.html
And what you find is doctored tapes and lies about "his grandfather's old wide-brimmed derby hat from his swing-dancing days, his grandmother's ratty chinchilla shoulder throw, and a cane he bought at a dollar store" spread all over the world. You find yourself destroyed by Republican dirty tricks and lazy media if you say or do the wrong things.
And, no matter the politics, no one should want to live in that kind of world.
#52 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 03:08 PM
Timbles, as to your defense of Mary Mapes, the police get prosecuted for planting evidence on a guilty man, so Mapes & Co. deserved what they got. The argument is about journalism, not George Bush, and people on the left keep losing sight of that.
About O'Keefe, first you say that 'you suspect' his tapes were doctored . . . later on you assert that they were. For all the hysterical reaction to this prankster, the charge that his tapes were doctored still returns a 'Scotch verdict'. Now, if you want to deplore doctoring tapes to provide disorted coverage, you might look into the sleazy L.A. television station that doctored the Rodney King tapes to give a distorted view of what happened. As a result of this activity, Los Angeles suffered a huge race riot, and some policemen were hounded and jailed, even though the jury had initially acquitted them after seeing the entire tape. The TV station, by the way, received an award for its coverage by peers. Probably a lot of the same people who are alleging that Tea Partiers are provoking violence.
#53 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 11:30 AM
"Timbles, as to your defense of Mary Mapes... The argument is about journalism, not George Bush, and people on the left keep losing sight of that."
Defense? The Left keeps loosing sight of that? Wha??
Mark Mark Mark. I wasn't defending Mapes. I asked "Should I defend that journalism?" even though it fell short of good journalism standards? My point being, if I shouldn't defend Mapes when her mistake was unintentional, how could I defend O'Keefe and Breitbart when their mistakes are?
My question to you being, how can you get angry over one violation of journalistic standards and not get angry over the other? The argument is about journalism and you keep losing sight of that.
"About O'Keefe, first you say that 'you suspect' his tapes were doctored . . . later on you assert that they were."
We know the tapes were edited in a way to convince the viewer of one falsehood, that the ratf*cker was dressed in his Aunt's feather boa pimping zoot suit. That's a fact.
There are allegations from various sources, one being a district attorney, that the conversations were edited to remove the actual "Hannah Giles running away from her pimp with her college boyfriend" parts of the conversation while editing the video to twist the meaning of what Acorn employees said.
Those are allegations, not fact, because the proof is not public. We suspect there were some video edits and we know for a fact of others. This is not complicated.
#54 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Apr 2010 at 12:20 AM