Hold up though. I'm aware that CNN, MSNBC and a variety of more Liberal (or at least "not conservative enough") sources have their share of skeletons in closets. I am in no way trying to say that non-Fox sources are above reproach and overflowing with utterly spotless journalistic integrity.
But please give me one example of someone outright manufacturing bullshit against their target AND having it successfully acted upon AND not only being not held accountable but outright praised for it.
His antics go well beyond 'dirty tactics'. Like, sets the bar lower and lower.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Hold up though. I'm aware that CNN, MSNBC and a variety of more Liberal (or at least "not conservative enough") sources have their share of skeletons in closets. I am in no way trying to say that non-Fox sources are above reproach and overflowing with utterly spotless journalistic integrity.
But please give me one example of someone outright manufacturing bullshit against their target AND having it successfully acted upon AND not only being not held accountable but outright praised for it.
His antics go well beyond 'dirty tactics'. Like, sets the bar lower and lower.
At the end of the day, O'Keefe didn't destroy ACORN. He just made a video that may or may not have been fair to the organization. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to defund it and other donors pulled the plug, too. Blame them for overreacting, if you want. But O'Keefe did not personally take a single dollar out of ACORN's pockets.
Sorry gentlemen, O'Keefe is a terrible human being and worthy of scorn, but he's not Solid Snake or Jason Bourne or Captain America, he's an awkward douchebag with an inferiority complex.
If the only thing it takes to destroy your organization is a badly-edited "pimp" video, your organization isn't on strong ground. Anyone with an embarrassing lack of scruples, a passing familiarity with video editing and a credit card could have done what O'Keefe did. Hell, someone already called up Scott Walker and recorded a conversation by using the brilliant lie "I'm David Kock and my cell phone fell into a toilet!" This isn't secret agent type stuff.
Blame Congress, or the media, or the president, or the organization itself, but don't blame O'Keefe. He doesn't deserve credit for ACORN.
Hold up though. I'm aware that CNN, MSNBC and a variety of more Liberal (or at least "not conservative enough") sources have their share of skeletons in closets. I am in no way trying to say that non-Fox sources are above reproach and overflowing with utterly spotless journalistic integrity.
But please give me one example of someone outright manufacturing bullshit against their target AND having it successfully acted upon AND not only being not held accountable but outright praised for it.
His antics go well beyond 'dirty tactics'. Like, sets the bar lower and lower.
Wait, people are still surprised when Modern Man tells us, yet again, that he has absolutely no scruples and endorses any tactics that further his own political agenda, regardless of their morality, legality or benefit to the US/World/etc at large?
At the end of the day, O'Keefe didn't destroy ACORN. He just made a video that may or may not have been fair to the organization. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to defund it and other donors pulled the plug, too. Blame them for overreacting, if you want. But O'Keefe did not personally take a single dollar out of ACORN's pockets.
Sorry gentlemen, O'Keefe is a terrible human being and worthy of scorn, but he's not Solid Snake or Jason Bourne or Captain America, he's an awkward douchebag with an inferiority complex.
If the only thing it takes to destroy your organization is a badly-edited "pimp" video, your organization isn't on strong ground. Anyone with an embarrassing lack of scruples, a passing familiarity with video editing and a credit card could have done what O'Keefe did. Hell, someone already called up Scott Walker and recorded a conversation by using the brilliant lie "I'm David Kock and my cell phone fell into a toilet!" This isn't secret agent type stuff.
Blame Congress, or the media, or the president, or the organization itself, but don't blame O'Keefe. He doesn't deserve credit for ACORN.
It's just like the Palin situation. A complete idiot with no morals is catapulted to national attention and gains a decent degree of power because of the idiots on the Right Wing in America who are desperate for anything, even blatantly fraudulent information or lies, that supports their agenda and that they can build up into a "narrative".
And just like with Palin, I see no reason not to blame both the idiot and the movement.
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
I'm not making moral arguments as to which is better, that's not my point. Anyone with a bit of creativity and some free time can find a way to trick a powerful organization or elected official.
A large organization focused on controversial work that will constantly be opposed by Republicans will need a good enough PR team to handle jackasses like O'Keefe. They're inevitable, if O'Keefe didn't come around some other stupid bullshit nonsense would have been blamed on ACORN. ACORN obviously wasn't capable of protecting themselves or successfully arguing in their own defense, so while it is unethical what happened to the organization, it isn't surprising and O'Keefe deserves credit for being a dishonest shit and little else.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
But please give me one example of someone outright manufacturing bullshit against their target AND having it successfully acted upon AND not only being not held accountable but outright praised for it.
Michael Moore.
I'm not defending Modern Man here, but Moore does on frequent occasion come up with obsurd ammounts of BS. Whether you agree with him or not, the way in which he presents his information is incredibly unethical, (splicing together videos of Charlton Heston to make it seem like he was saying something he wasn't, implying that the NRA was created by the KKK, when its common knowledge that the KKK was founded by ex confederates while the NRA was founded by ex Union members and led by Ambrose Burnside (overall badass), as well that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Klan Act outlawing the Klan. And other issues such as Moore taking out of context a statement from an Iraq War vet to make it appear he was anti-bush when he supported bush.)
However, I'm not aware congress being silly enough to pass any legislation based on any of Moore's fiction. Don't get me wrong though, I dislike Moore and O'keefe equally. I might even agree with some of Moore's ideas, i just hate the way he represents it and the fact that he outright lies about a lot of his information.
I wonder what a liberal Okeefe would have to tape your average conservative group saying to make them look bad?
"I'm loving this new healthcare law"
edit: snark aside, the difference seems to be what the base of each side expects.
If you show liberals their guys doing anything shady looking ethically, like taking donations from groups they shouldn't or attending some grey area meetings, they're going to get pissy.
Conservatives seem to be pissy more when they see their guys admit to actually liking liberal policies or positions. But say, forgetting millions of dollars in income isn't anything to bat an eyelash at, or lying to make someone else look bad.
I wonder what a liberal Okeefe would have to tape your average conservative group saying to make them look bad?
Michael Moore has done some pretty blatantly unfair editing and creative quoting for his movies, so I imagine it would look something like that.
Some groups are kind of beyond parody though. How would you punk Rush Limbaugh? Get him to confess to being a hypocritical, racist drug-addicted liar racing to the bottom against Newt Gingrich to see who can have more comically fucked up marriages? Oops too late.
Hey, I had nothing to do with it, so my conscience is clean. ACORN should have been more careful. They knew they had a target on their back.
And, frankly, ACORN did a lot of work to help the Democratic party. It's unfortunate that there had to be collateral damage when they collapsed, but their demise is a good thing for the country, overall.
Because assisting the poor is a bad thing? I'm not following you here.
I'm not really aware of any conservative organization that depends so heavily on government largesse for its continued existence, so I imagine groups like the NRA or the College Republicans would be immune to this type of thing.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
But, both sides are happy to use dirty tactics
Really? Last I checked, Dan Rather was fired. Ron Schiller was fired. Vivian Schiller was fired.
I'm not really aware of any conservative organization that depends so heavily on government largesse for its continued existence, so I imagine groups like the NRA or the College Republicans would be immune to this type of thing.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
The NRA and Heritage Foundation got TARP money?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
He just made a video that may or may not have been fair to the organization. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to defund it and other donors pulled the plug, too. Blame them for overreacting, if you want. But O'Keefe did not personally take a single dollar out of ACORN's pockets.
If I edit a video of a six year old girl telling the camera that you touched her Buh-jinny with a video of you helping that girl helping her "find her mommy" in the park, that could potentially ruin you professionally and personally, but as long as I am not taking a single dollar out of your pocket it's all cool, right? I mean, I disagree with your politics and you probably vote/donate Republican.
If you did something like that, I could sue you for libel and win. That option was always open to ACORN. In any event, I'm just some private citizen with zero influence, good or bad, on the country. ACORN was an organization that had a negative impact on the country as a whole, and I'm glad it's gone.
What, you expect me to wring my hands and cry crocodile tears over ACORN? I'm not going to hang out with O'Keefe or call him a paragon of journalism, but I can't pretend to care that ACORN is defunct.
But seriously, with him being called on making stuff up every single time, how hasn't a libel charge stuck yet?
I'm not really aware of any conservative organization that depends so heavily on government largesse for its continued existence, so I imagine groups like the NRA or the College Republicans would be immune to this type of thing.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
I'm not really aware of any conservative organization that depends so heavily on government largesse for its continued existence, so I imagine groups like the NRA or the College Republicans would be immune to this type of thing.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
The NRA and Heritage Foundation got TARP money?
One could make a pretty decent argument that while liberal groups ask the government for money, conservative groups ask the government for things that will increase their income (lower taxes, alter tariffs, etc)
So one could easily put forward that say, the Chamber of Commerce's reliance on the government is pretty much equal or greater to NPR's.
If it wasn't of any value, the chamber of commerce wouldn't bother dealing with the government. They're just not directly funded by them.
That said, don't we via a rather silly set of rules fund a bunch of conservative aid groups in africa?
He just made a video that may or may not have been fair to the organization. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to defund it and other donors pulled the plug, too. Blame them for overreacting, if you want. But O'Keefe did not personally take a single dollar out of ACORN's pockets.
If I edit a video of a six year old girl telling the camera that you touched her Buh-jinny with a video of you helping that girl helping her "find her mommy" in the park, that could potentially ruin you professionally and personally, but as long as I am not taking a single dollar out of your pocket it's all cool, right? I mean, I disagree with your politics and you probably vote/donate Republican.
If you did something like that, I could sue you for libel and win. That option was always open to ACORN. In any event, I'm just some private citizen with zero influence, good or bad, on the country. ACORN was an organization that had a negative impact on the country as a whole, and I'm glad it's gone.
What, you expect me to wring my hands and cry crocodile tears over ACORN? I'm not going to hang out with O'Keefe or call him a paragon of journalism, but I can't pretend to care that ACORN is defunct.
But seriously, with him being called on making stuff up every single time, how hasn't a libel charge stuck yet?
The problem is that it takes time for such cases to wind through the court system. It's likely that O'Keefe will lose the cases pending against him, but that's cold comfort.
And MM, why do you have a problem with an organization that existed only to help the poor? And if the answer is because helping the poor helps Democrats, then perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
I'm not making moral arguments as to which is better, that's not my point. Anyone with a bit of creativity and some free time can find a way to trick a powerful organization or elected official.
A large organization focused on controversial work that will constantly be opposed by Republicans will need a good enough PR team to handle jackasses like O'Keefe. They're inevitable, if O'Keefe didn't come around some other stupid bullshit nonsense would have been blamed on ACORN. ACORN obviously wasn't capable of protecting themselves or successfully arguing in their own defense, so while it is unethical what happened to the organization, it isn't surprising and O'Keefe deserves credit for being a dishonest shit and little else.
This just completely ignores context though. The only reason ACORN went down is because the video hit at the right time. The right wing was stirring up ACORN "controversy" because of the loss to Obama, the media was looking for a big story and Democrats were feeling particularly spineless at the time. Perfect storm.
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
I'm not making moral arguments as to which is better, that's not my point. Anyone with a bit of creativity and some free time can find a way to trick a powerful organization or elected official.
A large organization focused on controversial work that will constantly be opposed by Republicans will need a good enough PR team to handle jackasses like O'Keefe. They're inevitable, if O'Keefe didn't come around some other stupid bullshit nonsense would have been blamed on ACORN. ACORN obviously wasn't capable of protecting themselves or successfully arguing in their own defense, so while it is unethical what happened to the organization, it isn't surprising and O'Keefe deserves credit for being a dishonest shit and little else.
This just completely ignores context though. The only reason ACORN went down is because the video hit at the right time. The right wing was stirring up ACORN "controversy" because of the loss to Obama, the media was looking for a big story and Democrats were feeling particularly spineless at the time. Perfect storm.
If it was a perfect storm, how come the Angle case was so effective. Or, you know, the thing this thread is about.
I'm not really aware of any conservative organization that depends so heavily on government largesse for its continued existence, so I imagine groups like the NRA or the College Republicans would be immune to this type of thing.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
The NRA and Heritage Foundation got TARP money?
One could make a pretty decent argument that while liberal groups ask the government for money, conservative groups ask the government for things that will increase their income (lower taxes, alter tariffs, etc)
So one could easily put forward that say, the Chamber of Commerce's reliance on the government is pretty much equal or greater to NPR's.
If it wasn't of any value, the chamber of commerce wouldn't bother dealing with the government. They're just not directly funded by them.
That said, don't we via a rather silly set of rules fund a bunch of conservative aid groups in africa?
Its a silly comparison anyway because NPR and Acorn are apolitical organizations.
The real equivalent would be liberals going after the FFA or rural aid groups or some such nonsense.
I'm not really aware of any conservative organization that depends so heavily on government largesse for its continued existence, so I imagine groups like the NRA or the College Republicans would be immune to this type of thing.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
The NRA and Heritage Foundation got TARP money?
No, but Wall Street did.
Wall Street, and American business in general, aren't particularly conservative organizations. Yeah, the GOP is typically more business-friendly than the Democrats. But that doesn't make American corporations conservative institutions. They're politically opportunistic and will get in bed with whichever party will give them a better mouth hug at that particular moment.
And MM, why do you have a problem with an organization that existed only to help the poor? And if the answer is because helping the poor helps Democrats, then perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
They did a lot of voter registration in poor and minority areas, meaning more Democratic voters. They were basically the voter registration arm of the Democratic party.
Everyone has the right to vote, of course. But that doesn't mean I like an organization that helps Democrats win elections by registering Democratic voters.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
I'm not making moral arguments as to which is better, that's not my point. Anyone with a bit of creativity and some free time can find a way to trick a powerful organization or elected official.
A large organization focused on controversial work that will constantly be opposed by Republicans will need a good enough PR team to handle jackasses like O'Keefe. They're inevitable, if O'Keefe didn't come around some other stupid bullshit nonsense would have been blamed on ACORN. ACORN obviously wasn't capable of protecting themselves or successfully arguing in their own defense, so while it is unethical what happened to the organization, it isn't surprising and O'Keefe deserves credit for being a dishonest shit and little else.
This just completely ignores context though. The only reason ACORN went down is because the video hit at the right time. The right wing was stirring up ACORN "controversy" because of the loss to Obama, the media was looking for a big story and Democrats were feeling particularly spineless at the time. Perfect storm.
If it was a perfect storm, how come the Angle case was so effective. Or, you know, the thing this thread is about.
How successful has any of this been though? Is NPR defunded now and gone now? No idea what "Angle case" you are talking about. And then there's all the failed attempts and such.
Basically none of his crap has stuck with a larger audience. Except the ACORN thing which caused enough media waves to sway Democrats in the House and Senate. Even the President made some comments about it. It was all over the news.
The rest of it has just flushed down the drain and forgotten. Even this story has garnered little long-term attention from what I've seen.
Way to keep tap dancing around that elephant like the reprehensible goose you are, MM. Why is it so wrong for an organization to work at helping the poor exercise their Constitutional rights?
I'm not defending Modern Man here, but Moore does on frequent occasion come up with obsurd ammounts of BS. Whether you agree with him or not, the way in which he presents his information is incredibly unethical, (splicing together videos of Charlton Heston to make it seem like he was saying something he wasn't, implying that the NRA was created by the KKK, when its common knowledge that the KKK was founded by ex confederates while the NRA was founded by ex Union members and led by Ambrose Burnside (overall badass), as well that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Klan Act outlawing the Klan. And other issues such as Moore taking out of context a statement from an Iraq War vet to make it appear he was anti-bush when he supported bush.)
Michael Moore used promotional material of the NRA in order to lead up to a story on the NRA. The purpose of the editing was to show the juxtaposition between the glamorous nature that the NRA wants to present themselves as and the cold hard truth of the situation. If CNN runs a clip of Mel Gibson from the movie "Braveheart" to lead up to a story on his his DUI arrest, does that make them unethical?
Honestly, most of the accusations against Moore are really nit-picky. i.e., accusing Moore of "lying" by including self-defense in his homicide statistics, even though that's the legal definition of what homicide is. (Pre-meditated murder is determined by juries -- not by science labs.). But David Hardy, who is supposed to be a lawyer, still accuses Moore of being a liar because "That's not what people think of when they hear the word homicide!" In other words, Michael Moore is a liar because he uses the phrase accurately.
Another problem is that the critics have a tendency to pull out really outlandish interpretations of Moore's films, and then blame him for implying something that was untrue. i.e., "Moore implies that Canadian healthcare is free and paid for without taxes, which is clearly a lie!"
Way to keep tap dancing around that elephant like the reprehensible goose you are, MM. Why is it so wrong for an organization to work at helping the poor exercise their Constitutional rights?
Because it helps the side I don't like win elections?
Or are you going to say that if someone brought down the NRA through dirty tricks, you'd be heartbroken?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm not defending Modern Man here, but Moore does on frequent occasion come up with obsurd ammounts of BS. Whether you agree with him or not, the way in which he presents his information is incredibly unethical, (splicing together videos of Charlton Heston to make it seem like he was saying something he wasn't, implying that the NRA was created by the KKK, when its common knowledge that the KKK was founded by ex confederates while the NRA was founded by ex Union members and led by Ambrose Burnside (overall badass), as well that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Klan Act outlawing the Klan. And other issues such as Moore taking out of context a statement from an Iraq War vet to make it appear he was anti-bush when he supported bush.)
Michael Moore used promotional material of the NRA in order to lead up to a story on the NRA. The purpose of the editing was to show the juxtaposition between the glamorous nature that the NRA wants to present themselves as and the cold hard truth of the situation. If CNN runs a clip of Mel Gibson from the movie "Braveheart" to lead up to a story on his his DUI arrest, does that make them unethical?
Honestly, most of the accusations against Moore are really nit-picky. i.e., accusing Moore of "lying" by including self-defense in his homicide statistics, even though that's the legal definition of what homicide is. (Pre-meditated murder is determined by juries -- not by science labs.). But David Hardy, who is supposed to be a lawyer, still accuses Moore of being a liar because "That's not what people think of when they hear the word homicide!" In other words, Michael Moore is a liar because he uses the phrase accurately.
Another problem is that the critics have a tendency to pull out really outlandish interpretations of Moore's films, and then blame him for implying something that was untrue. i.e., "Moore implies that Canadian healthcare is free and paid for without taxes, which is clearly a lie!"
Or you could ignore the points I brought up. I believe the quote from Bowling is something like "Of course they had nothing to do with each other... One group promoted responsible gun ownership, and the other group shot and lynched black people" It's an obvious inference that the KKK and NRA were created by the same people, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.
Way to keep tap dancing around that elephant like the reprehensible goose you are, MM. Why is it so wrong for an organization to work at helping the poor exercise their Constitutional rights?
Because it helps the side I don't like win elections?
Or are you going to say that if someone brought down the NRA through dirty tricks, you'd be heartbroken?
So, if people don't vote the way you want them to, it's best if it's harder for those people to vote. Gotcha.
Poor people have the same right to vote as anyone else, whether or not ACORN exists. I don't see any reason to be sad when an organization that creates more Democratic voters goes out of business.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
And MM, why do you have a problem with an organization that existed only to help the poor? And if the answer is because helping the poor helps Democrats, then perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
They did a lot of voter registration in poor and minority areas, meaning more Democratic voters. They were basically the voter registration arm of the Democratic party.
Everyone has the right to vote, of course. But that doesn't mean I like an organization that helps Democrats win elections by registering Democratic voters.
This is pretty bad even for you.
You don't like ACORN because they helped people vote, but you still thing everyone should get to vote, but you don't like groups that help people register to vote because poor people don't vote for a party that vilifies them.
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
The Walker/Koch conversation is also different because Murphy let Walker do most of the talking. Walker hung himself.
If I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to a random person in the street and tell them that I can get him $10,000 if he finds me some cocaine in the next hour, then that's entrapment. And if the guy just smiles and nods and then walks away, and never gets me the cocaine, then there's nothing that I could charge him with, even in the absence of entrapment.
OTOH, if I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to a random person in the street and tell him that the weather is nice, and the guy responds by offering me cocaine, then that's not entrapment. If I'm a cop and I say, "Hey, what can you get me for $10,000?" and the guy replies "I can get you a lot of cocaine," then again, not entrapment.
The other difference is that Murphy got Walker to admit to doing things that were illegal. Where as O Keefe's only gripe was that the people he talked to didn't stop him from doing something illegal. And not just illegal -- but outside their jurisdiction. Apparently, if a prostitute walks into a McDonalds, then the McDonalds cashier is legally obligated to stop her from being a prostitute. Or something.
Not to mention the fact that Walker was a public figure, and these ACORN workers weren't.
So, if people don't vote the way you want them to, it's best if it's harder for those people to vote. Gotcha.
Poor people have the same right to vote as anyone else, whether or not ACORN exists. I don't see any reason to be sad when an organization that creates more Democratic voters goes out of business.
So, if people don't vote the way you want them to, it's best if it's harder for those people to vote. Gotcha.
Poor people have the same right to vote as anyone else, whether or not ACORN exists. I don't see any reason to be sad when an organization that creates more Democratic voters goes out of business.
But groups that help that utilize that right aren't ok because they then go vote against your interests.
Way to keep tap dancing around that elephant like the reprehensible goose you are, MM. Why is it so wrong for an organization to work at helping the poor exercise their Constitutional rights?
Because it helps the side I don't like win elections?
Or are you going to say that if someone brought down the NRA through dirty tricks, you'd be heartbroken?
Wait, people are still surprised when Modern Man tells us, yet again, that he has absolutely no scruples and endorses any tactics that further his own political agenda, regardless of their morality, legality or benefit to the US/World/etc at large?
Posts
Citation needed.
Hold up though. I'm aware that CNN, MSNBC and a variety of more Liberal (or at least "not conservative enough") sources have their share of skeletons in closets. I am in no way trying to say that non-Fox sources are above reproach and overflowing with utterly spotless journalistic integrity.
But please give me one example of someone outright manufacturing bullshit against their target AND having it successfully acted upon AND not only being not held accountable but outright praised for it.
His antics go well beyond 'dirty tactics'. Like, sets the bar lower and lower.
The guy who called the Governor of Wisconsin duh
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
:P
I found it on the related videos from your video.
edit: Oh Gosh so late
Sorry gentlemen, O'Keefe is a terrible human being and worthy of scorn, but he's not Solid Snake or Jason Bourne or Captain America, he's an awkward douchebag with an inferiority complex.
If the only thing it takes to destroy your organization is a badly-edited "pimp" video, your organization isn't on strong ground. Anyone with an embarrassing lack of scruples, a passing familiarity with video editing and a credit card could have done what O'Keefe did. Hell, someone already called up Scott Walker and recorded a conversation by using the brilliant lie "I'm David Kock and my cell phone fell into a toilet!" This isn't secret agent type stuff.
Blame Congress, or the media, or the president, or the organization itself, but don't blame O'Keefe. He doesn't deserve credit for ACORN.
Illegitimate black child.
Swiftboats.
Pft, Walker didn't need editing to make himself look bad.
Seriously people, we aren't gold fish here.
It's just like the Palin situation. A complete idiot with no morals is catapulted to national attention and gains a decent degree of power because of the idiots on the Right Wing in America who are desperate for anything, even blatantly fraudulent information or lies, that supports their agenda and that they can build up into a "narrative".
And just like with Palin, I see no reason not to blame both the idiot and the movement.
Also, the Walker/Koch conversation is completely different because it requires no editing. Unlike O'Keefe's bullshit, it stands on it's own when the source tapes are released.
More liberal lies
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I'm not making moral arguments as to which is better, that's not my point. Anyone with a bit of creativity and some free time can find a way to trick a powerful organization or elected official.
A large organization focused on controversial work that will constantly be opposed by Republicans will need a good enough PR team to handle jackasses like O'Keefe. They're inevitable, if O'Keefe didn't come around some other stupid bullshit nonsense would have been blamed on ACORN. ACORN obviously wasn't capable of protecting themselves or successfully arguing in their own defense, so while it is unethical what happened to the organization, it isn't surprising and O'Keefe deserves credit for being a dishonest shit and little else.
Michael Moore.
I'm not defending Modern Man here, but Moore does on frequent occasion come up with obsurd ammounts of BS. Whether you agree with him or not, the way in which he presents his information is incredibly unethical, (splicing together videos of Charlton Heston to make it seem like he was saying something he wasn't, implying that the NRA was created by the KKK, when its common knowledge that the KKK was founded by ex confederates while the NRA was founded by ex Union members and led by Ambrose Burnside (overall badass), as well that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Klan Act outlawing the Klan. And other issues such as Moore taking out of context a statement from an Iraq War vet to make it appear he was anti-bush when he supported bush.)
However, I'm not aware congress being silly enough to pass any legislation based on any of Moore's fiction. Don't get me wrong though, I dislike Moore and O'keefe equally. I might even agree with some of Moore's ideas, i just hate the way he represents it and the fact that he outright lies about a lot of his information.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
"I'm loving this new healthcare law"
edit: snark aside, the difference seems to be what the base of each side expects.
If you show liberals their guys doing anything shady looking ethically, like taking donations from groups they shouldn't or attending some grey area meetings, they're going to get pissy.
Conservatives seem to be pissy more when they see their guys admit to actually liking liberal policies or positions. But say, forgetting millions of dollars in income isn't anything to bat an eyelash at, or lying to make someone else look bad.
Michael Moore has done some pretty blatantly unfair editing and creative quoting for his movies, so I imagine it would look something like that.
Some groups are kind of beyond parody though. How would you punk Rush Limbaugh? Get him to confess to being a hypocritical, racist drug-addicted liar racing to the bottom against Newt Gingrich to see who can have more comically fucked up marriages? Oops too late.
Because assisting the poor is a bad thing? I'm not following you here.
I can think of a whole bunch of Conservative supporting organizations that depend heavily on government support. We even created a fancy new word for the money given to them. TARP.
Really? Last I checked, Dan Rather was fired. Ron Schiller was fired. Vivian Schiller was fired.
James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart got a raise.
Considering what conservative groups say in public with little backlash, this is a very good question...
Rigorous Scholarship
But seriously, with him being called on making stuff up every single time, how hasn't a libel charge stuck yet?
No, but Wall Street did.
One could make a pretty decent argument that while liberal groups ask the government for money, conservative groups ask the government for things that will increase their income (lower taxes, alter tariffs, etc)
So one could easily put forward that say, the Chamber of Commerce's reliance on the government is pretty much equal or greater to NPR's.
If it wasn't of any value, the chamber of commerce wouldn't bother dealing with the government. They're just not directly funded by them.
That said, don't we via a rather silly set of rules fund a bunch of conservative aid groups in africa?
The problem is that it takes time for such cases to wind through the court system. It's likely that O'Keefe will lose the cases pending against him, but that's cold comfort.
And MM, why do you have a problem with an organization that existed only to help the poor? And if the answer is because helping the poor helps Democrats, then perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
This just completely ignores context though. The only reason ACORN went down is because the video hit at the right time. The right wing was stirring up ACORN "controversy" because of the loss to Obama, the media was looking for a big story and Democrats were feeling particularly spineless at the time. Perfect storm.
Its a silly comparison anyway because NPR and Acorn are apolitical organizations.
The real equivalent would be liberals going after the FFA or rural aid groups or some such nonsense.
They did a lot of voter registration in poor and minority areas, meaning more Democratic voters. They were basically the voter registration arm of the Democratic party.
Everyone has the right to vote, of course. But that doesn't mean I like an organization that helps Democrats win elections by registering Democratic voters.
Rigorous Scholarship
How successful has any of this been though? Is NPR defunded now and gone now? No idea what "Angle case" you are talking about. And then there's all the failed attempts and such.
Basically none of his crap has stuck with a larger audience. Except the ACORN thing which caused enough media waves to sway Democrats in the House and Senate. Even the President made some comments about it. It was all over the news.
The rest of it has just flushed down the drain and forgotten. Even this story has garnered little long-term attention from what I've seen.
Michael Moore used promotional material of the NRA in order to lead up to a story on the NRA. The purpose of the editing was to show the juxtaposition between the glamorous nature that the NRA wants to present themselves as and the cold hard truth of the situation. If CNN runs a clip of Mel Gibson from the movie "Braveheart" to lead up to a story on his his DUI arrest, does that make them unethical?
Honestly, most of the accusations against Moore are really nit-picky. i.e., accusing Moore of "lying" by including self-defense in his homicide statistics, even though that's the legal definition of what homicide is. (Pre-meditated murder is determined by juries -- not by science labs.). But David Hardy, who is supposed to be a lawyer, still accuses Moore of being a liar because "That's not what people think of when they hear the word homicide!" In other words, Michael Moore is a liar because he uses the phrase accurately.
Another problem is that the critics have a tendency to pull out really outlandish interpretations of Moore's films, and then blame him for implying something that was untrue. i.e., "Moore implies that Canadian healthcare is free and paid for without taxes, which is clearly a lie!"
Or are you going to say that if someone brought down the NRA through dirty tricks, you'd be heartbroken?
Rigorous Scholarship
Or you could ignore the points I brought up. I believe the quote from Bowling is something like "Of course they had nothing to do with each other... One group promoted responsible gun ownership, and the other group shot and lynched black people" It's an obvious inference that the KKK and NRA were created by the same people, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
...That's kind of reprehensible, Modern Man.
Rigorous Scholarship
This is pretty bad even for you.
You don't like ACORN because they helped people vote, but you still thing everyone should get to vote, but you don't like groups that help people register to vote because poor people don't vote for a party that vilifies them.
The Walker/Koch conversation is also different because Murphy let Walker do most of the talking. Walker hung himself.
If I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to a random person in the street and tell them that I can get him $10,000 if he finds me some cocaine in the next hour, then that's entrapment. And if the guy just smiles and nods and then walks away, and never gets me the cocaine, then there's nothing that I could charge him with, even in the absence of entrapment.
OTOH, if I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to a random person in the street and tell him that the weather is nice, and the guy responds by offering me cocaine, then that's not entrapment. If I'm a cop and I say, "Hey, what can you get me for $10,000?" and the guy replies "I can get you a lot of cocaine," then again, not entrapment.
The other difference is that Murphy got Walker to admit to doing things that were illegal. Where as O Keefe's only gripe was that the people he talked to didn't stop him from doing something illegal. And not just illegal -- but outside their jurisdiction. Apparently, if a prostitute walks into a McDonalds, then the McDonalds cashier is legally obligated to stop her from being a prostitute. Or something.
Not to mention the fact that Walker was a public figure, and these ACORN workers weren't.
Gotta love the Anatole France defense.
But groups that help that utilize that right aren't ok because they then go vote against your interests.
This is some mighty bullshit.