The guy actually goes out of his way to commend O’Keefe for being so bold, and doing what main stream journalists were too afraid to do.
His condemnation seems to be more that O’Keefe got caught on the senate office building, and not for actions regarding ACORN.
I give this a D
Um… what do you think a “pro forma” condemnation is?
Am I writing in Sanskirt? I see EXACTLY that.
Seriously – what did you think I meant by the words “pro forma condemnation?”
So just for the record Bricker, after reading MaxTheVool’s insightful post do you maintain your assertion that Moore’s and O’Keefes manipulation were approximately equivalent in magnitude and scope, but are merely different in subject?
Yes, I do, although I agree Max’s post was insightful.
But the rebuttal (in short) to his points:
(1) O’Keefe basically made up a crime (ACORN supports prostituion!) … No. O’Keefe’s thesis was that ACORN didn’t care about certain crimes its clients commit. He didn’t believe that ACORN supports prostitution; he believed that even if ACORN was confronted with a client who was a prostitute, they would turn a blind eye to the prostitution in order to help the client secure a mortgage. And he was right.
(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. * True, but I don’t agree that this is a meaningful distinction. Moore’s lies were discoverable, and O’keefe’s a matter of speculation, and this means we should regard O’Keefe as worse?
Moore relied on people accepting what he presented without checking him. O’Keefe did as well. The mere fact that O’Keefe’s deception turns out to be less provable than Moore’s does not mean Moore is less culpable.
(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. * True, but again – why is this a meaningful distinction? Moore seeks to convince the voting populace to restrict or revoke a fundamental right, necessary for self-protection, one so important it was the second right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. O’keefe sought to bring into disrepute only a single organization; Moore tries to undermine a fundamental constitutional right. Doesn’t this cut against Moore instead of O’Keefe?
Not sanskrit no, you were writing in Latin.
You are asked for condemnation on O’Keefe “pro forma or sincere.”
You offered a link without specifying which you thought it was, and you never actually used the words “pro forma condemnation” except as part of Really Not All That Bright’s quote.
So to clarify, you are telling us that there was no sincere criticism of O’Keefe from the right, and that they only condemnation you can find is a very weak pro forma concerning the arrest.
Ah - so you’ve seen the unedited O’Keefe tapes, have you?
Well, no, but Michael Moore hasn’t seen them either!
Have you seen Stevie Wonder’s new piano?
Correct. Undoubtedly I can find slightly stronger “condemnations,” but they wouldn’t be sincere either.
Perhaps you could find a relevant one, and then worry about whether it was sincere.
Stevie Wonder playing tennis with Ray Charles: endless love.
As you well know, ACORN was a thorn in the Republican’s side as a result of its work in voter registration amongst the poor and disenfranchised. Is there any real doubt about that? Are you suggesting that 2nd Amendment rights somehow trump voting rights?
Epic fail, counselor.
Well sure, gun rights are #2. The US doesn’t even have a “right to vote.”
…well, its simple really.
Almost everything is subjective: our view on things depends on our filters. I live in New Zealand, we have comparatively stricter gun laws, we have three TV news programmes and access to all the major US international news networks. We see the world though different eyes. Our police aren’t even armed as standard. For example:
So if you hadn’t seen it, and were quoting from websites, I wouldn’t bother to debate with you. I was involved here with the debate about the movie Sicko: and it was apparent that many people were arguing about a movie they hadn’t seen and using other peoples talking points. You have made it clear that you have seen it and are debating from a position of knowledge which is commendable.
I watched Bowling for Columbine and found it to be a fascinating documentary. There were bits I didn’t like: most notably the interview with Charlton Heston, which I think was done poorly. But it was interesting to see the issues raised in Bowling from the perspective of a person like Moore. I’ve watched Moore since his TV Nation days: and I have both loved and hated and supported and opposed many of his views on things and stunts he has pulled.
But the scene you talk about? What impression do you think we were supposed to get from that scene? Do you think showing sobbing children is deceptive? Did the NRA go ahead with this meeting despite being asked not to? Was that a lie? Are you claiming that the distinction between a rally and a meeting raises to the level of “lie?”
Ultimately: yes the scene is edited. The message, arguably, has not. The scene lasts, what 31 seconds? Are you claiming an additional 20 seconds of footage would dramatically change the context of this scene? That the viewer would come to a different conclusion? Can you explain to me what impact that 31 seconds of alleged dishonesty had on the NRA?
Lets compare that to what O’keefe is being accused of. O’keefe claims to have visited several ACORN offices posing as a pimp and Giles posed as a prostitute in order to, as Wiki puts it: " elicit damaging responses". Lets look at one case in particular, August 18, 2009 in National City.
The alleged full transcript and video are here:
http://biggovernment.com/jokeefe/2009/09/19/full-transcript-acorn-prostitution-scandal-san-diego-part-i/
After O’Keefe and Giles had left the office: Juan Carlos informed a fellow co-worker and notified the police. From the Report of the Attorney General on the activities of Acorn in California:
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf
Surely, you would agree that Vera informing his colleagues, contacting a director and calling the police is important and relevant to this story? Yet, on the Big Government website where this video is hosted there is no mention of this. You would think that a documentary maker would be interested in this information. Yet, he does not. And months after the filming took place: still, nothing.
Can you give me **one **good reason why you believe the omission of this information (either on purpose, or by sheer laziness on the part of O’Keefe) is not orders of magnitude more dishonest than the scene you talk about in Bowling?
So we have Moore: in which (in what appears to be the worst example you can find) made some edits to a couple of minutes of footage which makes no impact on either the point he was trying to make or the viewpoint of the viewer. There is no doubt that children sobbed. There is no doubt that the meeting went ahead despite people asking for it not too. We have a nitpick about the use of the word “rally” instead of “meeting.”
And we have O’Keefe, who released edited film footage that he alleged told a tale of employee misconduct, but actually showed footage of an employee playing along. The story O’Keefe tells in his video and his transcript is the opposite of what really happened: as has been revealed by follow ups done by others. The story O’Keefe tells is a lie.
Do you really think that Moore and O’Keefe are comparable? Do you think their motives, as movie makers, are comparable?
I am not content to conceed that the films that Moore make and the footage released by O’Keefe is remotely comparable. I challenge you to find examples of Moore that rise to the level of O’Keefe’s portrayal of Vera.
…well, I didn’t find the film anti-gun at all. I note that you added “culture”, but that wasn’t the question I asked. So I will take that as a concession that you do not believe the movie was anti-gun.
If you want to see the raw tapes: have you asked him? Here is a link to his website:
I’m sure you can join his twitter feed or his myspace and ask him for it. I personally have no interest in seeing his raw footage: do you think I am missing something? Do you think I should be? What footage do you think that Moore is hiding? What would the raw footage change in my impressions of Bowling for Columbine?
What raw footage would you like to see?
Are you kidding me?
The complaint is not “rally” vs. “meeting.”
The complaint is that Moore doesn’t disclose that the law requires shareholders be given notice of the company’s annual meeting, and the law requires that publicly held companies HAVE annual meetings at which shareholders can participate. The NRA had no reasonable way to change their meeting, since the legally required notice had gone to shareholders before the Columbine shooting happened. And the NRA DID cancel the non-legally-mandated trade shows, festive events, and other attendant events.
But Moore never mentions that. Hmmm… Surely, you would agree that the NRA’s legal obligation to hold the meeting, their cancellation of the many extra events normally associated with an annual meeting, and their inclusion of apologetic language at the beginning of Heston’s speech (but removed by Moore) is important and relevant to this story? Yet, on Moore’s sites, and where his video is sold, there is no mention of this. You would think that a documentary maker would be interested in this information. Yet, he does not. And months after the filming took place: still, nothing.
I’ve read the entire thread, and perhaps I missed a reference, but I don’t think **Bricker’s **false equivalence has been properly identified. This isn’t really about the avowed purpose, or the enormity of the effect. The distinction between O’Keefe’s stunts and Moore’s work is that one is offered as documentary entertainment, while the other purports to be journalism.
The genre of documentary film has a tradition of recapitulating reality, sometimes filmed directly and sometimes by re-enactment or re-creation. Documentaries are extensively edited, with far more going to “the cutting room floor” than into the final product. There is typically a highly subjective element, and directors have significant creative control.
(from here) Documentaries are therefore almost necessarily slanted or opinionated, even deliberately persuasive. Some are outright and explicitly propaganda vehicles.
The late 1930s produced documentaries combining sociological issues with early ecological awareness, resulting in films promoting the New Deal. The same era saw a host of documentaries offered to counter what was seen as Nazi psychological warfare. More recently we have documentaries showing the “cruel exploitation” of seals or porpoises.
from the same cite as above
None of this should come as any surprise. A documentary is like an editorial—it can quite properly reflect, even advocate for, an opinion or a position. Moore is quite comfortable within, and quite acclaimed for his productions of, this genre.
Journalism on the other hand has a tradition, proclaimed even to the present day, of presenting a neutral and unbiased picture of a reported event. Let us not be distracted by a discussion of how closely any particular journalist, except for O’Keefe, hews to this standard. The fact is that journalism purports the expectation of “fair and balanced” <grin> treatment.
So Bricker, the problem with your comparison of O’Keefe to Moore is one of apples versus oranges. Both are fruit, or both are representations of reality captured on film. But Moore’s works fall quite comfortably within the general definitions and the history of documentary film, which is all he or anyone ever claimed them to be. Even in your problematic Heston interview, or the bank-distributing-a-rifle scene, he makes no specific claim of journalistic representation. That his films are intended to be at least persuasive, or even propagandizing of Moore’s own opinions, is not outside the bounds for the genre, and therefore is not reprehensible even if reasonable people might disagree with Moore’s conclusions. It is what it is, and the viewer can agree or disagree at will.
O’Keefe’s work however vigorously proclaims itself to be journalism, the presentation of facts without distortion due to bias or opinion. The evidence contradicts this claim rather extensively. O’Keefe isn’t providing a fair and balanced report of “One Day at an ACORN Office”. He isn’t even doing investigative journalism, not by any standard I’ve ever seen. When my local news takes a perfectly fine car around to various garages to see how many of them offer to perform unneeded repairs, they at least show both the miscreants and the honest shops that turned their investigator away with a “your car is fine”. They report factually that “XYZ percentage of local garages offered to do unnecessary work, and these others did not”.
O’keefe instead creates in his own mind a fictitious crime, in fact a highly salacious and extraordinary crime. He then contrives and manipulates situations that appear to affirm his fantasy. He completely discards and refuses to acknowledge any actual events/interviews that contradict his self imposed theme. This type of lie is unforgivable in journalism. Editing his remaining footage could be uncontroversial, and would be so if he had stopped there. But in order to make his point he goes so far as to insert voice-overs that are unconnected to the video, apparently thus showing people making statements that they did not make, or at least completely removed from proper context and thereby not representative of the person’s actual intent.
How does this work? Well, I can show a film of your face saying “No, I’ve never done anything like that!” with an expression of sincerity. Or I can show your face winking, nodding, and sneering and attribute the exact same words to you. Both the words and the two expressions can come from the same recorded interview. But which more accurately represents your actual opinion on whatever subject was at hand? If one is the truth, then the other is clearly a lie. With O’Keefe, we cannot know which one is being presented.
The fact that O’keefe refuses to release unedited video, and the fact that he was actually caught performing the manipulation above, proves that his work was not journalism. He has put lies into the mouths of ACORN employees. Whatever other nefarious acts he may have committed we probably will never know. But these acts themselves are sufficient to condemn him, and certainly more than sufficient to bring into question any other statement or production he may offer. And this is because Moore, while he does manipulate context, does so within a purely and unabashedly identified opinion piece, while O’Keefe manipulates context, embraces pretense, engages in duplicity, hides and denies contradictory evidence, and labels the result journalism.
O’Keefe is indefensible, and so is any attempt to minimize his mendacity or to divert attention from his deceit by direct comparison to Michael Moore. Please stop.
It does?
When was that?
Thanks, RNATB.
I’m lazy, and usually don’t go in for many cites in the Pit. But here it was needed. Thanks for saving me the google time.
From your link:
Emphasis added.
And Moore certainly claims he’s telling the truth: