ACORN "pimp" arrested for illegally accessing Senate office; tampering with phone system

[Banquet_Bear]

@Bricker

Yes, that’s a fair summary. And I have no doubt that O’Keefe designed his “sting” precisely to prey on that tendency of ACORN workers. He did not, for example, come in and say, “Help me set up a tax shelter to cover underage Central American prostitutes, and this fat envelope of cash is yours to keep!” He created a situation to prey on the “help the underdog” instincts of the average ACORN do-gooder, and by presenting it that way, got enough quasi-bites that he was able to parlay it into the sexsational scandal idea.

Kinda like getting a gun from a bank.

In other words, again, what’s the ACTUAL complaint? That he contrived to use ACORN’s weakness for helping the underdog against them? That he used a situation that could be spun into a worse idea?

Or that he did this against ACORN?

No, and of course there’s nuance aplenty to be had here, as a sober and rational discussion of the situation would undoubtedly highlight.

I’m not surprised, I suppose, but I’m still a bit… amused, maybe, not note how quickly “fighting ignorance” goes out the window when one’s own sacred cows are being gored.

And I have offered up the spliced Charlton Heston shots from “Bowling for Columbine” in response. Moore’s voiceover says that ten days after Columbine, the NRA held a “rally” in Denver, and then proceeds to show Heston speaking at the annual meeting and again on different days, one of them a YEAR after Columbine in another state, all implying that this was the NRA “rally” he just spoke of.

How is that not, from an honesty standpoint, IDENTICAL to O’Keefe’s deceptions?

Look at the Moore thread. Look at the defenses offered for him.

Sure.

In Bowling for Columbine, the following sequence occurs:

[ul]
[li]Sobbing children outside Columbine are shown[/li][li]Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and saying “I have only five words for you: ‘from my cold, dead, hands’”[/li][li]Moore voiceover: “Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association.”[/li][li]Cut back to Heston, continuing, “I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says ‘don’t come here. We don’t want you here.’ I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we’re free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don’t come here? We’re already here!”[/li][/ul]

But…
[ul]
[li]The Denver event was not a “rally,” but the corporate annual meeting, whose date and time had been fixed for over a year, as required by law[/li][li]The NRA canceled all ancillary events (several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies)[/li][li]The “cold, dead hands” snippet was not from Colorado, but from a year later, at Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his thank-you speech for the gift of the musket.[/li][li]Moore’s edit (covered by a panning shot of the crowd) deletes Heston’s first sentence, which was, “As you know, we’ve canceled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.”[/li][/ul]
(POST NOT COMPLETED - THIRD PART TO FOLLOW)

…Bricker, have you seen Bowling from Columbine? Have you seen this scene?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Bricker: Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!
MaxtheVool: Yawn. So what else is new?
Crowd: No way! No hypocrisy here! Lying is always bad, except when we do it!

Yeah, would’ve gotten the post up quicker if I had gone this route.

This is your summation:

…So what I object to is the myopic litany of complaints about his tactics, as though it were principled disgust at all things chicanery. It’s not: it’s ire at a sacred cow being gored by a cheater.

And so far as I can tell, there is exactly one person in this thread willing to acknowledge the truth of that claim. (Well, two, counting me).

You had no other point. You expressed the same point many different ways, sometimes supported by suggestion, sometimes by innuendo, but the same point. And its cherished stepson, that your brilliant and succinct arguments do not get a fair hearing because they fall forlorn on biased ears. Alas, pobrecito!

The injustice here fell upon ACORN. O’Keefe is a pimp, his masters used him to their ends and chucked him aside like a used rubber. There is no “injustice” committed on him.

ACORN was doing the Lord’s work, and though I have many critical comments to make, they are tempered by the knowledge that I ain’t about to, I’m not going slogging through the poor parts of the country laboring to empower the powerless and enfranchise the disenfranchised, I’d rather bitch about it and leave the hard work to them. But for all their failings, and they are legion, by God, sir! they were doing it! I wasn’t, you weren’t, they were.

And if empowering the powerless bodes ill for any political faction, I say its spinach, and I say to hell with it! If they want the votes of the poor and weak, let them earn it!

The soul of the American experiment is the vote, it is as close to a secular holy object as I can imagine. Efforts that expand the number of Americans voting may be assumed to be good, those that decrease that number may be assumed to be bad. And by Og, sir! if you try to sneak in a reference to “voter fraud”, I shall belabor you with a stick! Pour encourager les autres, you understand.

The Forces of Darkness used Mr O’Keefe to advance an agenda that should shame any honest American, to prevent the registration and the empowerment of those who most sorely need it. This is a disgrace.

And no, you don’t defend that, what you do is try to change the subject, to imply that our outrage is founded more on partisan ire than on honest American principle. Well, what if it was, what difference would that make?

If Congress tomorrow takes up a measure to recreate ACORN without its many flaws, to fund it in such a way that it can afford strict professional protocols, with strict oversight…what political set, do you imagine, would object most strenuously? I think it would be the Republicans, in fact, I think they would shriek, set their hair on fire and daub themselves with shit before they would allow such a thing to happen!

If the Republicans want to align themselves with progressive efforts to empower the disenfranchised, they will hear no louder applause than mine. Offer me your blessing, and hope that I should live so long.

[Lok]

@elucidator

I think it would be the Republicans, in fact, I think they would shriek, set their hair on fire and daub themselves with shit before they would allow such a thing to happen!

Now this, I would pay to see.

[gonzomax]

@Bricker

I don’t.

At least, I try mightily not to, and if called on it, I’ll make every effort to undo it. But before posting (or speaking) a condemnation of anyone, I will always ask myself how I’d feel if the roles or the situation was reversed.

Look back through my posting history. In the recent past, I’ve defended Obama and his staff on the charges that he did something improper or illegal with Sestak. I’ve pooh-poohed suggestions that Etheridge committed a “lock 'em up” type crime by grabbing the videographer.

I always, always, always try to figure out the standard first and then apply it to the facts. When I defend or attack on policy, of course, it’s because I generally believe that conservative policy is better for the country than liberal policy. But I don’t flip-flop on issues based on who they will benefit.

I agree that most people do, to some degree or other. I don’t agree that I do.
Note :every single think in Okeefe’s movie was a lie.

No, I’d say it’s about average. But the blasé admission that sure, we have double standards, and sure, we’re condemning O’keefe and not Moore for equivalent acts, is an admission that not too many folks besides you are willing to even make. And even you vitiate the admission by claiming it’s so par for the course as to be unremarkable.

Not exactly.

Some Liberal: O’keefe dishonestly edited his films! That’s evil!
Bricker: But so does Moore, and you don’t complain about him.
Some liberal: Buzz off you meaniefaceconservativejerk, we’re discussing O’Keefe being a dishonest jerk
Bricker: See how no one ever actually addresses the point I’m making?

See the difference? My complaint is that by attacking O’Keefe for dishonest editing, the implicit complaint is that dishonest editing is the problem. But the liberal doesn’t really believe that, because when faced with dishonest editing intended to skewer the NRA, he shrugs.

The complaint about disliking dishonest editing is a phony one.

The REAL complaint is, “Okeefe’s used dishonest editing against an organization that does good work!”

But no one wishes to formalize that complaint, because it weakens the attack. Everyone can get behind the concept that dishonest editing should be the subject of reproach. But discussing the real complaint requires the additional agreement that ACORN was a good organization, doing good work, and was thus an unworthy TARGET of that attack, especially given its disastrously effective result.

Um… who, besides you, is conceding this point? The quickest way to defuse my point, it seems, would be to do what you’ve done: say “Yes, yes, we’ve all heard about O’Keefe because of the results. And we’re angry about him because of the results. That causes us to examine what he did, at which point we find massive dishonesty, at which point we rant about it.”

But apart from your concession, everyone else angrily rejects the preposterous notion that Moore and O’keefe could belong to the same taxonomic genera, much less be compared in a more fundamental way.

(THIS POST IS UNFINISHED, BUT POSTED HERE IN PART).

 Moore was editing for time constraints. If he showed the whole of every interview, it would get boring as hell and be way too long. Okeefe was deliberately creating a lie. It is sad that you can not see the difference. When Moore talks to you, you know who he is and what he does. Okeefe pretended to be someone he was not. They he put on a costume and said that he walked in looking like a suburban misconception of what a pimp would look like. If you really think these are the same thing, i worry about you.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

(THIS POST IS UNFINISHED, BUT POSTED HERE IN PART).

(note that I am not quoting most of your posts because I want to take a step back a bit… if there are specific issues/points you’d like me to respond to, please let me know.)
Thanks for the response, and sorry for the slow reply on my part (particularly after needling you about it). A bunch of the random time I would usually be using to post on the SDMB has been taken up watching the World Cup.

Anyhow, there are two general avenues of discussion I want to explore. One is the general issue of hypocrisy and double standards, my claim that everyone does it to some extent, your reaction to that, etc. However, that’s a longer, and while interesting, almost certainly futile discussion. So I’ll hopefully get a chance to post a new OP in GD about that at some point in the next few weeks.
Specific to this conversation, however, is the question of how similar O’Keefe’s actions were to Moore’s. In fact, this question is central to the specific hypocrisy accusations (as opposed to the general hypocrisy discussion), because, much as truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel or slander, the-two-situations-are-not-comparable strikes me as an absolute defense against charges of hypocrisy.
So, we’ve discussed at great length what O’Keefe did. The specific thing Moore did that you brought up is this:

@Bricker

In Bowling for Columbine, the following sequence occurs:

* Sobbing children outside Columbine are shown
* Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and saying "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'"
* Moore voiceover: "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association."
* Cut back to Heston, continuing, "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

But…

* The Denver event was not a "rally," but the corporate annual meeting, whose date and time had been fixed for over a year, as required by law
* The NRA canceled all ancillary events (several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies)
* The "cold, dead hands" snippet was not from Colorado, but from a year later, at Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his thank-you speech for the gift of the musket.
* Moore's edit (covered by a panning shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's first sentence, which was, "As you know, we've canceled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Now, I’m perfectly willing to stipulate for the moment that your description is 100% accurate and fair. And if so, then I think Moore was being VERY dishonest with this segment. Not really for reasons having to do with deceptive editing or what have you, but because he leaves the viewer with a very strong impression that the NRA’s response to Columbine was to go there and have a rally, when in fact their response was to cancel many of the events of an already scheduled and presumably extremely expensive and organized meeting, but still have the meeting. I’m perfectly happy to call that a lie. Moore lied about the NRA’s response to Columbine. That is a Bad Thing. (Again, this is all stipulating that your description is fair.)
So, what are some key differences between what Moore did and what O’Keefe did?

(1) O’Keefe basically made up a crime (ACORN supports prostituion!) and then went about his dishonest way coming up with a film that seemed to prove it. As far as we know, he had no belief ahead of time that his claim was in any way true. Moore, on the other hand, presumably did honestly believe that the NRA was insensitive about gun deaths like Columbine (a MUCH less serious accusation), then went about his dishonest way coming up with a scene that seemed to prove that. So it’s a much less grave charge, and one which, fundamentally, Moore probably believed was true. It certainly seems unlikely that he was like “hmm, I want to make up a false charge and stick it on the NRA… the NRA poisons kittens? the NRA bribes major league umpires? Wait, I’ve got it, the NRA is insensitive about gun deaths. It’s nonsense, but I just might be able to make it stick…”

(2) O’Keefe went out and got the footage himself, and assembled it in a way such that there is absolutely no way to separate fact from fiction, to prove what he really said, what really happened, etc. Moore spliced together publically available clips and made statements of fact about publically verifiable things. Which is, in fact, why we know precisely what he lied about. Moore could easily have presented us with 5 minutes of “this is what happened when I went into the local NRA office in a city I won’t name” which we would have to take his word for entirely, but he did not. There’s really a fundamental difference at every step between these two types of dishonesty. One is a total fabrication from beginning to end, starting with the motive, continuing with the repeated visits to multiple ACORN branches which he did not mention, continuing with the replacing of audio, taking shots out of context, lying about how they were dressed, etc. The other is a lie, but just a lie, and one that even has a grain of truth to it, and one that can be largely explained by carelessness, arrogance and overhastiness.

(3) The entire point of O’Keefe’s work, start to finish, was to defame one organization. The entire point of Moore’s work was to raise issues about gun culture in America, and ask why so many people need to own guns, and touch on other related issues. Now, that doesn’t excuse his being dishonest about the NRA, but Bowling for Columbine, despite many people’s claims to the contrary, is not an anti-gun polemic, an anti-gun-owner polemic, an anti-gun-rights polemic, or an anti-NRA polemic. Furthermore, if we want to judge O’Keefe, we have only two things to go on: the ACORN thing and the phone tapping thing. That’s, apparently, his life work. Whereas when judging Moore, we have an entire body of work to look at. Certainly, Moore has generated many hours of film, some of it quite highly regarded, and the vast majority of those hours of film are NOT lying about the NRA. Again, I’m not saying that excuses moments of dishonesty, but it certainly tempers how one should judge Moore overall.
Let me ask you a question flat out: I believe that there are such substantial differences between the two situations that it is entirely appropriate and intellectually honest to hold very different opinions of O’Keefe and Moore. And in fact, I do hold such opinions. Am I a hypocrite for doing so?

(Now, you may respond by saying that all along you were specifically talking about people attacking O’Keefe specifically for dishonest editing, but not attacking Moore for dishonest editing. But really, that’s being awfully pedantic. People were attacking O’Keefe for being a dishonest dirtbag because of the totality of the ACORN prostitution video and what he did to produce and publicize it, not because of one and only one dishonest aspect of a larger dishonest whole.)

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Bricker

Not exactly.

Some Liberal: O’keefe dishonestly edited his films! That’s evil!
Bricker: But so does Moore, and you don’t complain about him.
Some liberal: Buzz off you meaniefaceconservativejerk, we’re discussing O’Keefe being a dishonest jerk
Bricker: See how no one ever actually addresses the point I’m making?

See the difference? My complaint is that by attacking O’Keefe for dishonest editing, the implicit complaint is that dishonest editing is the problem. But the liberal doesn’t really believe that, because when faced with dishonest editing intended to skewer the NRA, he shrugs.

The complaint about disliking dishonest editing is a phony one.

The REAL complaint is, “Okeefe’s used dishonest editing against an organization that does good work!”

Not exactly.

You haven’t addressed the problem of “False equivalency”.

See distinctions in posts by others.

Dishonest editing is bad, but some dishonest editing is worse than others. Like implying that you’re wearing a costume when in fact you are not is rather more significant than misleading time sequencing, not that I’m thrilled with the latter.

More generally, Michael Moore inhabits an odd place within the conservative mindset. I concede that he is a propagandist – an entertainer at best. But I think he is fairly honest for a propagandist, just as he is less than honest as a journalist. But there are oceans of differences between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter/O’Keefe/and any number of conservative hacks. And furthermore, I’ll note that Moore isn’t exactly wildly popular on the left. Rachael Maddow, Olberman and Krugman have far higher profiles. When I see a movie by Moore, I maintain a pretty high level of distrust at the narration.

The other interesting part of Bricker’s posts exemplifies what psychologists call projection. Conservatives all to often respond to attacks on their own by circling the horses. So naturally they accuse liberals of the same. But again, most liberals recognize that Moore’s factual credibility is pretty modest, which in turn is separate from the strength of his underlying argument.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Measure_for_Measure

Dishonest editing is bad, but some dishonest editing is worse than others.

But it’s not just the relative dishonesty of editing. It’s also the ratio of dishonest/total content. Sure, Moore may be propagandizing, but I’d put the “dishonest content quotient” (DCQ) of his films at, say, 0.1. His purpose is to present a broad narrative, to bring together disparate elements into a cohesive whole by connecting the dots among them.

O’Keefe, OTOH, has a DCQ much closer to 1.0 – how could it be otherwise, as his purpose is to set up and present a bumpersticker-like gotcha for which his audience fills in the blanks?

[elucidator]

@Measure_for_Measure

…When I see a movie by Moore, I maintain a pretty high level of distrust at the narration…

Which works. When I saw F-9/11, I fact checked almost reflexively. Now, as it happened, I already knew most of what he had to say, and could readily see the embroidery and the embellilshment. Which was good, because I checked the facts. And the facts are more favorable to his case than the opposite.

What can be better than a propoagandist who inspires argument based on fact-checking? Who could ask for more?

[margin]

You know, Bricker, it doesn’t matter how eloquent you are or whatever, what you’re doing is simply changing the subject and doing something that everybody but Repubs evidently learns: “But…he did it too!” does not change what this Republican scumbag did.; It’s an exercise in diversion. James O’Keefe is still a scumbag who picks on the poor and tries to ground them into dust, very Repub-like, and Michael Moore is still a guy who goes after the rich, powerful, and famous. I don’t notice <i>that</i>showing up in all your carefully-crafted exercises.

[GIGObuster]

[Dr House]
It is never Tu Quoque! Except for that one time…
[/Dr House]

[Bricker]

@margin

You know, Bricker, it doesn’t matter how eloquent you are or whatever, what you’re doing is simply changing the subject and doing something that everybody but Repubs evidently learns: “But…he did it too!” does not change what this Republican scumbag did.; It’s an exercise in diversion. James O’Keefe is still a scumbag who picks on the poor and tries to ground them into dust, very Repub-like, and Michael Moore is still a guy who goes after the rich, powerful, and famous. I don’t notice <i>that</i>showing up in all your carefully-crafted exercises.

If you didn’t see that, then… well… you’re not very smart.

Or not a very good reader, at least.

Your point is: O’keefe picks on the poor; Moore on the rich. That’s exactly the point I was ascribing to your side above: it’s not the actions, it’s the target of the actions.

I have said that many times. Here is a sample:

@Bricker

You are, in other words, doing the same thing here: it’s an important distinction because ACORN is GOOD, and the NRA is, at best, good.

@Bricker

The REAL complaint is, “Okeefe’s used dishonest editing against an organization that does good work!”

@Bricker

But that’s not the reason for the ire. The reason for the ire is that ACORN was the target, and it got stomped as a result.
.
.
.
The actual complaint against O’Keefe is not his tactics, but his use of such tactics against a target they support.

@Bricker

You only mind when that “wrong” party is yours; when those organizations help your cause. You don’t object to O’Keefe’s tactics; you object to his choice of targets.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

What can be better than a propoagandist who inspires argument based on fact-checking? Who could ask for more?

Then you must love O’Keefe.

[Banquet_Bear]

…Bricker, have you seen Bowling for Columbine? You have quoted (but not cited) a lengthy critique of a particular scene: have you seen this scene? Since I have asked at least twice in this thread either you have me on ignore or you don’t want to answer the question.

The scene in question was obviously edited. But so is every movie, documentary and television programme in history. Now if you have watched the movie and if you have watched this scene and you are convinced that it is deceptive and misleading then I can debate that: because I have watched the movie and I have seen this scene and I don’t think that is either misleading or deceptive. But if you are relying on other peoples interpretation of the movie instead of your own: why are you so convinced that there interpretation is correct? Especially when people like myself who watched the movie with no particular axe to grind disagree with their interpretation?

What, do you consider was the overall message of Bowling for Columbine? Do you think it was anti-gun? Anti-NRA? What did you get out of the movie?

[Bricker]

@Banquet_Bear

…Bricker, have you seen Bowling for Columbine? You have quoted (but not cited) a lengthy critique of a particular scene: have you seen this scene? Since I have asked at least twice in this thread either you have me on ignore or you don’t want to answer the question.

I have seen the scene. I’ve seen the movie, in fact, start to finish.

The scene in question was obviously edited. But so is every movie, documentary and television programme in history. Now if you have watched the movie and if you have watched this scene and you are convinced that it is deceptive and misleading then I can debate that: because I have watched the movie and I have seen this scene and I don’t think that is either misleading or deceptive.

Wow.

Umm… OK.

Why is that?

What, do you consider was the overall message of Bowling for Columbine? Do you think it was anti-gun? Anti-NRA? What did you get out of the movie?

I thought it was anti-NRA and anti-“gun culture.”

and I notice not one person has demanded that Moore produce his raw tapes for inspection.

[emacknight]

@elucidator

Which works. When I saw F-9/11, I fact checked almost reflexively. Now, as it happened, I already knew most of what he had to say, and could readily see the embroidery and the embellilshment. Which was good, because I checked the facts. And the facts are more favorable to his case than the opposite.

What can be better than a propoagandist who inspires argument based on fact-checking? Who could ask for more?

@Bricker

Then you must love O’Keefe.

If only people bothered to fact-check O’Keefe.

So tell me, do you think people on the right treated O’Keefe the same way they treated Moore?

[Bricker]

@emacknight

So tell me, do you think people on the right treated O’Keefe the same way they treated Moore?

No, they didn’t. For the same reason: they spoke in outraged tones about Moore’s deceptiveness, but they didn’t really mind the deceptiveness: they minded that the ox being gored was a favorite of theirs. When it became obvious that O’Keefe’s tactics involved similar or worse deception, they generally did little more than pro-forma condemnation.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I don’t actually remember any condemnation, pro forma or sincere.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t actually remember any condemnation, pro forma or sincere.

Five seconds of searching:

I don’t condone what O’Keefe did. I’m on the record questioning the ethics of his actions. But there’s a sharp distinction between engaging in media criticism of one’s journalism tactics and outright slandering that person.

[emacknight]

@Bricker

Five seconds of searching:

You should have searched a little longer, that was the weakest condemnation I’ve ever heard. And buried in condemnation of the liberal media.

Even his link to his previous condemnation doesn’t actually criticize O’Keefe (here), it merely quotes Michelle Malkin in telling him to be more careful.

That guy is doing for O’Keefe exactly what you are criticizing others for doing towards Moore. But it seems you don’t see that.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Five seconds of searching:

That’s not condemnation. That’s a blog post about the evils of the liberal media- and in any case, the only criticism of O’Keefe in that piece is for breaking in to Mary Landrieu’s office, not for selective editing of the ACORN tapes.