Gandelman on pranking Gov. Walker.
(note the hair-tugging grief about the future of journalism in the latter post)
I think that if you want to understand the larger implications of both “punk’d” interviews, you need to go read Jeff Jarvis talking about radical transparency (note that his take on the NPR events is colored – badly, I think – by his relationship with NPR).
–
Yes, it’s a little strange that Jarvis defends Vivian Schiller by noting that she forced out the NPR news chief over the “bungled” Juan Williams affair. Funny, I thought it was Schiller who bungled that one. Her public comments were petty and stupid, and the legal exposure alone would probably have cost a private sector exec her job. Besides, if firing bunglers is sauce for the goose, then it’s sauce for the NPR Board.
I don’t know what Jarvis’s connection to NPR is, but I don’t see why a man of his caliber would feel any loyalty to them after the way they dealt with Williams. Especially the way they strutted and postured about it, obviously for the benefit of their own pony-tail bigots. Who are incidentally whiter than a jumbo box of Ivory Snow.
I see that Jarvis supports privatizing NPR. Let him tell that to the Vivian Schillers, and see how well they repay his tolerance.
I actually see the videos on even par. They’re both dishonest, but it’s the way the world is going. IF you’re a public figure, you’re going to have to watch everything you say. This has some positive, and negative ramifications for our future.
The only thing I would add is that O’Keefe only releases heavily edited tapes. The ACORN tapes were heavily manipulated (and obscured facts) to create a narrative. As a result, I will always be suspicious of the integrity of his videos.
_The only thing I would add is that O’Keefe only releases heavily edited tapes._
Not true- the transcripts were available almost right away and the full tapes soon after. One thing Brietbert has done is hold back things so that the organizations in question have a chance to set the record firmly crooked, and then he can produce the full tape or another tape and reveal the spokesman for a liar. Thats exactly what happened with NPR claiming they rejected taking the check from the Muslim brotherhood- O’Keefe had evidence waiting to prove otherwise but let NPR have a little rope.
I don’t think its unusual for mainstream journalists to hold back full tapes at least for a time. I recall Katie Courik having that issue over her Palin interview.
I know for a fact hacks like Media Matters were claiming Brietbart hadn’t release full tapes when in fact he had them available right on his website.
_The ACORN tapes were heavily manipulated (and obscured facts) to create a narrative._
Not true- they were edited because people wont sit through a 45 minute tape. Which narratives do you consider manipulated? As with any of these ‘stings’, I always get a chuckle out of trying to wrangle out just what possible context would excuse these things.
‘Yes, she does say that ACORN can help this pimp hide his income from his underage prostitutes… but its taken out of context’.
Uh huh.
I only now a few of the cases, but from my understanding a number of the questions and answers were rearranged
But you don’t have to believe me, read the “attorney general report”:http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1888
I should be careful to state that not all of the recordings were incorrectly edited, but it appears as though most (of the california tapes) were. ONe employee is seen helping, when he’s actually gathering evidence to bring to the cops.
Not illustrated in the videos.
ONe employee is clearly joking with them, and claims to be a prostitute that killed her husband. Husband is still alive.
One video is a conglomeration of three different dates, and different conversations that neglects the conversation where ‘the prostitute’ claims shes looking for an abuse shelter, NOT a brothel.
That’s pretty heavy editing.
From my understanding, the unedited tapes were only released to authorities in exchange for no charges to be filed against them.
To be clear, I’m not saying that individuals at ACORN were not guilty, really, I’m not saying much about ACORN at all. This is about O’Keefe.
Even though he clearly had good evidence against individual employees of ACORN, he fabricated the context of several conversations. Once I see a pattern of this sort of behavior, I am always suspicious.
Sorry, but I’d much rather believe you than believe the attorney general’s report. Brown’s only interest in the ACORN tapes was to find some way to prosecute the people who made them. Failing that, he walked away.
ACORN was given plenty of time to dump documents, after which Brown warned them that this might subject them to “private litigation.” Balls.