Some folks have been ringing in on my exclusive yesterday on the embarrassing emails from Greg Brock, the NYTimes’ Senior Editor of Standards, explaining why the once-great “paper of record” stands behind its gross misreporting on rightwing operative and accused federal felon, James O’Keefe as having “posed” as a pimp inside ACORN offices when he secretly made his highly-edited and apparently illegally-recorded hit videos — since all public evidence shows that he was never dressed as a pimp in those offices!
I expect to have an official statement from ACORN soon on the Times’ disastrous reporting of this key and oft-repeated element of O’Keefe’s scam, as well as on Brock’s extraordinary excuses for it (quickly summarized below).
[Update: ACORN’s statement is now covered here…]Until then, please see Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel’s quick take on the story: “NYT Thinks TeaBugger James O’Keefe Entitled to Own Set of Facts,” as well as Eric Boehlert’s over at Media Matters: “I’m not sure ‘standards’ means what the NYT thinks it does”
Also, I appeared on the Randi Rhodes Show yesterday (Randi was snowed in, so Nicole Sandler of Radio or Not was guest-hosting) to discuss this mind-blowing matter. You can download the interview here [MP3], or listen online (appx 15 mins) here:
For those who didn’t get the time to read yesterday’s lengthy, detailed story, which includes the amazing, complete email thread with the Times’ veteran Senior Editor of Standards(!) who, in 2007, after working for the paper since 1995, identified himself as the “senior editor who oversees corrections,” here’s my best attempt at the very quickest of summaries of those remarkable emails…
According to the December 7th, 2009 report [PDF] from former MA Attorney General Scott Harshbarger finding no wrong doing by ACORN employees: “Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt.”
Since the release of that independent study — which the New York Times has never reported on — they’ve run at least eight stories suggesting the fiction that O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp in the ACORN offices — and God aren’t those stupid ACORN employees idiots, who shouldn’t receive any federal money to help poor people because they’re just so dumb they couldn’t recognize a phony pimp?
Yet, Times’ Senior Editor for Standards Greg Brock, explains in the emails that no correction is due because:
- Fox and O’Keefe said he was dressed that way on live TV, so “We believe him.”
- And, after being called on that absurd sourcing, the other reason is because: “At one point, the camera was turned in such a way to catch part of the ‘costume’ he was wearing.”
(But no, he won’t point us to that video he says exists, because “I did not say that we saw the video online or that it ever was online. … Many of our reporters have done a great deal of reporting on Acorn over a good period of time. And through that reporting — whether it was watching videos, interviewing sources (who would not always go on the record) or doing other research — we feel we have confirmed the information we reported. Just because I am not willing to give you a link — or don’t even have a link — doesn’t mean our reporting is in error.) - And furthermore, he writes: “ACORN employees who saw him described his costume.”
(But no, he won’t point us those descriptions either when pressed for them, because “On my reference to comments by ACORN employees, I made that point … based on my having read ad naseum [sic] about this case for months on end. I was not saying that the specific comment about ‘dressed as a pimp’ was from our interviews with ACORN employees. But others have reported such comments.” Though he won’t tell us when or where, of course.) - And, oh, he didn’t really say most of the above, we were later informed, even though he did, but it didn’t mean what we think we thought it meant, etc.
- But in any case “We stand by our reporting” because “We believe him. Therefore there is nothing for us to correct.”
If you’ve yet to read the full story, with much more info, including why none of this is a small matter, it may blow your mind. As it did mine.
Among those who have not yet rung in on this shameful affair is the NYTimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt (Public@NYTimes.com) who wrote in a column last September — after much badgering from rightwing Fox “News” viewers and Andrew Breitbart followers (he’s the rightwing media mogul/propagandist who published the grossly misleading video tapes under the title: “ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation”) — that the Times was “slow off the mark” in waiting “nearly a week after the first video was posted” before reporting on it. He concurred with Managing Editor for News, Jill Abramson, who blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio” for those supposed failures.
In that column, Hoyt himself mischaracterized the videos as having “caught Acorn workers counseling a bogus prostitute and pimp on how to set up a brothel staffed by under-age girls, avoid detection and cheat on taxes.” Though he can, perhaps, be forgiven there, given that Harshbarger’s report had not yet come out confirming that O’Keefe neither dressed as a pimp, nor represented himself as such. Rather, O’Keefe told ACORN workers that he was a college student considering a run for Congress someday, and was hoping to help the prostitute actually escape from an abusive pimp.
There is, however, no excuse for the Times having misreported those points at least eight times since the December 7th Harshbarger report, and certainly no excuse for their Senior Editor for Standards first taking Fox “News” and O’Keefe at their word, and then, when called on it, offering two dubious and so far wholly unverifiable points to back up the misleading reporting.
I remain hopeful that Hoyt will have something to say in this matter where clearly aggressive and loud corrections, retractions, and possibly even personnel changes, are called for.
Also not responding or calling for retractions from the Times on this is Breitbart, naturally. That, even though he has loudly demanded retractions and corrections for just about any significant or insignificant error — or “journalistic malpractice” as he likes to call it — he is able to find from outlets he views as enemies. Though wingnut and Fox “News”-friendly outlets such as the NYPost or National Review and Fox themselves are usually exempt from such self-righteous, self-serving, hypocritical calls for retractions, even when they get the very same story wrong as those he demands retractions from, you’d think he’d demand a retraction from his enemies at the NYTimes over this, no? Oh, right, the “journalistic malpractice” in this case works in his favor, so he disingenuously hasn’t said a word to his followers about it at all. Go figure. O’Keefe, as Breitbart has noted, is his salaried employee.
(Feel free to ask him why that is on Twitter @AndrewBreitbart, if you like. He reads his Twitter feed closely.)
More on all of this, including reaction from ACORN, soon…
UPDATE 8:24pm PT: ACORN calls emails from Times Senior Editor “troubling and disturbing”, seeks meeting with NYT Public Editor. Details now here…
UPDATE 2/11/10, 4:25pm PT: Rightwing blogger attacks both us, and our coverage. Swings and misses on both counts…
UPDATE 2/17/10: “Breitbart Lied About ACORN ‘Pimp’ Videos When Selling Story in His Own Washington Times Column”. Full details…
UPDATE 2/19/10: Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘It Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’. Woman who posed as prostitute confirms repeated misreporting by NYTimes, many others. Full details…
UPDATE 2/21/10: “In CPAC Meltdown, Breitbart Forced to ‘Apologize’ for ‘Apparently’ Lying About ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story”. Full details…
UPDATE 2/23/10: “Exclusive: NYTimes Public Editor Declines to Recommend Retraction for Multiple Erroneous Reports on False ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story” Full story, Hoyt’s emails…
UPDATE 2/24/10: Hoyt responds to our on his emails and accuses The BRAD BLOG of having a “political agenda” on par with O’Keefe and Breitbart. Also, blogosphere issues blistering response, petition, call for Hoyt to step down. Full details, Hoyt’s email response, right here…
Wow. Just wow.
First the Times reports on nonexistent weapons of mass destruction on behalf of the Bush administration. Then it becomes a weapon of mass destruction on behalf of the GOP.
The gray lady is looking a bit senile, or worse.
It’s great having a snow day! Allows me to do some investigation of my own.
I reviewed all the ACORN videos I could find, looking for the elusive shot of O’Keefe inside an ACORN office in “THE” Pimp Outfit, and now, after taking several showers, I present you with my findings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8
ACORN (Baltimore?) part 1. Clip of O’Keefe in pimp outfit shows O’Keefe outside, not in any office. Clip of O’Keefe apparently walking up the steps to go into an office shows him in conservative shirt and slacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRTYD26Kxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...0&index=3
ACORN DC
No shots of O’Keefe in office. Supposed to be a “politician.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8w9GEpSzw
ACORN San Bernardino
26 seconds in”¦apparent shot of O’Keefe in an office ““ appears to have on a black short sleeve T-shirt.
At about 6 minutes in, as far as I can determine, there is an apparent shot of O’Keefe who appears to have on black shorts and a black T-shirt with a print design on it, black shoes with no socks. Not “the” pimp costume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CMXMC7vba4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...&index=10
ACORN San Diego
No shots of O’Keefe in office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...&index=11
ACORN Philadelphia
Shot of O’Keefe entering office (with O’Keefe voice-over stating that they were entering office) dressed in blue shirt tucked into white slacks with belt ““ i.e. conservatively dressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...0&index=4
ACORN NYC
O’Keefe’s opening shot voiceover states he posed as Hannah’s “pimp boyfriend banker” who would use the “illicit sex money to fund [his] future Congressional campaign.” Opening shot shows him outside with Hannah. He has on a white long-sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled part way up, and suspenders. Cannot see his slacks. Definitely not wearing “the” pimp outfit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...&index=13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...&index=14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...&index=15
ACORN LA
Don’t see any shots of O’Keefe (except an occasional fuzzy hand that waves in front of the camera ).
Again, O’Keefe voiceover states that he is posing as someone who will use the money for a Congressional campaign.
SO…My conclusion is that Greg Brock irresponsibly ran with a bogus piece of disinformation and then defended it with a snow job of greater proportions than the storm now hitting my locale.
Unless, of course, there is a double-secret video clip of a hidden ACORN office with O’Keefe in THE Pimp outfit…..
Greg, you’re full of Baloney!
(Oh, and by-the-by….I Dugg!)
[ed note: Software held this up because of all the links. Sorry. —99]
This may be obvious by now, but…
The minute the O’Keefe story broke, the thing that troubled me most was the following question: how could Acorn staff, many African American themselves, who work with poor urban dwellers fall for a ploy involving a “pimp” that comes straight out of every white suburban boy’s TV-fueled imaginary of what a pimp looks, dresses, and acts like?
You’d have to believe that 1) he was a convincing pimp 2) Acorn workers are stupid 3) Acorn workers actively support “pimps” like him or 4) some combination of the above.
I didn’t believe that part of the story for a second. And the fact that the mainstream media, GOP operatives, and millions of white Americans did believe it speaks of the latent and active racism of the American public.
I’ve sent the following to Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt, public@nytimes.com , and I’d encourage everyone to get in touch with him. I also copied my email to my representative in Congress and I urge others to do the same:
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
I just called your answering machine and left a message with my concerns.
I’m a reader of the Times online and of Brad Friedman’s BradBlog.com. As I’m sure you know, Mr. Friedman has posted an email exchange between a Times’ reader, himself, and your Senior Editor Greg Brock.
Based on the information Mr. Friedman has posted, it appears literally inexcusable that the Times has not either posted a retraction of its O’Keefe/ACORN assertions or at least pointed out that its previous stories have been challenged by an independent report by someone with the presumed credibility of Scott Harshbarger. I would welcome hearing that you plan the correction; I would welcome coverage of Mr. Harshbarger’s report and how it conflicts with your previous coverage.
I hope your office conducts an investigation. If Mr. Brock is unable to provide the video that he asserts exists, I believe he should be fired, along with the Times personnel — I’m not sure it’s appropriate to call them ‘journalists’ — who are responsible for sourcing the O’Keefe/ACORN story. I am hopeful that Congress will investigate the Times’ behavior in connection with the Mr. O’Keefe/ACORN story.
If Mr. Friedman’s coverage is accurate, it is another nail in the self-made coffin that the Times has built for itself over the past decade. Unfortunately, through your business’ carelessness, incompetence, or worse, you’ve also hammered nails for the coffin of ACORN, a vitally important public organization in what’s left of our democracy.
Mitch, what a great letter!
Thank you, Mitch. Very well done. Hope others will consider doing same.
Mitch @ comment #3–
Loved your letter.
Just sent this to back you up.–
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
I am a big fan of giving democracy a chance to make a comeback here in the U.S. So it is with great interest that I read an extended email conversation between your Mr. Brock and Brad Friedman over at bradblog.com. regarding the reporting/misreporting of the James O’Keefe/Acorn story.
I urge you to set the record straight here. This would help us all in numerous ways.
1. It would show the American public the New York Times of The Pentgon Papers days is still alive and not afraid to raise a ruckus on behalf getting the truth out and exposing widely believed misinformation.
2. It would show Washington that it is possible to stand up to the far-right noise machine.
3. It could help educate timid Democrats that they are being manipulated into withdrawing support from an effective grassroots organization that helps the poor and has broken no laws.
4. It would give those of us who are busting our asses to bring about progressive non-violent change hope.
Please help restore some of the ol’ Grey Lady’s lost dignity. Do a feature story on the Harshbarger study. Connect the dots.
sincerely,
David Lasagna
Excellent letter, Mitch #3.
Last night, after reading Brad’s previous piece, I sent the following:
“To Greg Brock, New York Times “Senior Editor/Standards”
“From: Ernest A. Canning, Esq.
“Re: Coverage of ACORN
“Dear Mr. Brock: I just read Brad Friedman’s piece Exclusive: New York Times Editor ‘Stands Behind’ Contested ‘Pimp’ Reporting on James O’Keefe
“Frankly, you should read it as well.
“As a subscriber to The New York Times, I must tell you that I not only found Mr. Friedman’s descriptors of “bizarre obfuscation” and “backtracking” by you on this subject matter persuasive, but that I was both surprised and dismayed at what appears to be a lack of journalistic objectivity and integrity in your paper’s coverage of this controversial subject.
“My question varies a bit from those posed by Mr. Friedman. Specifically, I would direct you to “An Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN” which contains an assessment made by Scott Harshbarger, the former Attorney General of MA, to the effect that the videotapes made in the so-called ACORN sting operation were “doctored.”
http://www.proskauer.com/files/...ds/report2.pdf
“In that report Harshbarger concluded:
“My question: Will The New York Times cover Mr. Harshbarger’s detailed findings, or do you simply find the word of Fox News and a man the government has charged with unlawful entry into a Senator’s office more reliable than the former attorney general of MA?”
After including the required contact info, I informed Mr. Brock that while I write articles for The BRAD BLOG, I was inquiring in the capacity of an individual New York Times subscriber.
I’ve neither heard back from Brock nor seen anything in the paper about the Harshbarger findings. It would not be healthy for me to hold my breath waiting for either of those events to occur.
I should alert the chorus that I sent a letter in a very similar tone to The Guardian, after they managed to report on Israel’s response to the UN Goldstone report in a manner that managed to exclude photographic evidence that Israel provided to back up their statements.
NO news outlet that I know of today does fair and objective reporting about all topics. None, nada, zip. Learn to read beyond what they print.
Actually the oft-repeated quote here by Harshbarger:
“Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt.”
seems a bit misleading as well. I say this following my investigative research today (see comment #2).
In many of the videos, O’Keefe appeared in conservative clothing entering an ACORN office. Although he showed his little clip of him and Giles walking down the street with him in his pimp outfit, he didn’t actually misrepresent himself as going into the ACORN offices dressed that way. He showed quite clearly on more than one occasion himself dressed conservatively at the same time his voice-over described the impending meeting with ACORN employees. So, while his little signature clip of him in his pimp outfit walking with Giles might be somewhat misleading, he didn’t out-and-out misrepresent his dress on the videos. I also don’t think his signature pimp outfit appeared in every video, although I believe it was present in the majority that I saw.
Why doesn’t O’Keefe just show a video of him in the ACORN office dressed as the pimp talking to them?
Why doesn’t the NYTimes run the Sibel Edmonds story?
Mitch ~ Supercommunique-minator! Great job. I will dutifully, but not as effectively, follow in your stead and rip off my own little bitty bold and well-toned tic to one Mr. Hoyt.
My Lasagna, Ernest, Lora – all outstanding. I was thinking maybe we should include Frank Rich, too. Betcha he’d care. Maybe Froomkin.
And Lora – I could just leap through my monitor here in L.A. bearing sunshine, kisses, a get-out-of-jail-free card and a Thai deep tissue massage just for you. Thank you for DIGGING! (**)
And heaps of gratitude for taking the time to do the Youtube O’Keefe slog and showing your work by posting your links & summations, above!! I didn’t have the time to do so this week and was having to take everyone at their word. What a nice firm grasp on a solid handle you are! Your hypothetical translation of Greg Brok’s emails in the last thread, I thought, rang uber-precise based on the text.
(GREAT job on the Nicole Show, Brad. Complex story to get across in under 15. Really nice work.)
(**Re: Digg – Off Topic a tad, but I did intend to add this to the last thread in response to Lora’s question:
Brad is right that we don’t know exactly how DIGG (et. al) rates are processed by the search engines, but essentially DIGG functions as an online rating system. Takes about 1min. to register – it’ll ask your for your email / name / etc. Then, whenever you’re logged in and you like an article enough to want to give it a little promo you just click that little DIGGIT! button. My understanding is that somehow that click “registers” a ping to all the major search engines (google, yahoo) and tells them that this article exists. The more “diggs”, the more “pings”. The more “pings”, the closer it rises to the top of any given search field when someone is searching through related topics.
So if someone Googles “Ann Coulter” and one of Brad’s articles is among the first ten to pop up – chances are it’s got a lot of diggs. Pretty democratic. HOWEVER: everyone is also given the choice to “kill it” – yes, a thumbs down rating is possible – which, if you’re a dick, you do without conscience and use indiscriminately.
I figure if the special interest groups can hire people to lobby, I bet they can hire people to go online and hit “kill it” on certain articles that challenges their strangle hold on the process, undermine their dominating paradigm. Or any article they don’t like.
It really IS an information war. And since it’s just a matter of time before they get their grubby little hands on the internet, we have to harness what scrappy resources we can while they’re still available enough to utilize to our advantage.
CONS: If you’re the first one to “digg” an article, it will ask you to write a brief graph to summarize. So, being the first is sort of a pain in the ass. After the first person submits it, all it will ask you to do is click on the button that says “digg” and it changes to “dugg” and that’s that! Simple.
While I’m sure it’s somehow part of an overall micro-targeting, data mining process that gives someone the stats on what you digg and don’t, what you thumbs up or down, or reddit nor reddit – but if you’re like me you don’t care what they have on you, certainly not what I daggum digg, damnit.
You can register in two seconds here:
http://www.digg.com )