How do you feel about content from left-leaning sources?
I wish they would.
What are you missing, I’ll try and help. You say its not clear he presented himself as a pimp, I ask if you’re suggesting that maybe he didn’t, and you’re lost?
Well, why don’t they, do you think? Assuming that they have such, why are they so reluctant? Modesty, perhaps? Sensitive to the feelings of lefties like me, they don’t want to cause us any embarassment? Anxious to avoid the influx of attention, money, and support such a move would generate?
No, those are dumb. You must have a better one.
Equally suspicious. When I watch the Daily Show and Colbert report I know it’s selling me on a concept. Nothing is taken at face value. I didn’t even believe this thread until I checked around. And even then I’m still skeptical. It all sounds too good. It sounds like what I want to hear.
Which is sort of the point. We were told a very entertaining story about a pimp that walked into an ACORN office. The people that already hated ACORN sucked hard and swallowed it all. They never bothered to make sure what they were putting in their mouth wasn’t edited and covered with puss filled sores.
Now, after a charitable organization has been destroyed, we’re starting to learn the truth. That the tapes were heavily edited, sequences were altered, and illegal activity didn’t take place. What’s more, the hero in our story is currently facing 10 years in jail.
There is a good lesson for all of us here.
I don’t know for sure, luci.
I have worked for five television stations in the past as a news professional. It was the policy at all of them never to release raw video. It was considered work product. Print reporters won’t give up raw notes either.
Since Brietbart, et al, have made this about ideology, they might be reluctant to do so because they realize that whatever they do, they won’t be able to satisfy those who oppose them ideologically. “You say you were there “about noon” but the clock on the wall says 11:42! Liar!!1111!ONE!!”
From what I understand from Mr. Moto, the NYT guy has looked at the raw video. I can see Breitbart letting a news organization look at it, but not release it to the general public. Most people who feel strongly about this issue have already made up their minds. Facts that match what they already believe are cherished. Those that do not are flitted away like flies at a picnic.
Fair question. The answer is: it depends.
I sometimes watch Michael Moore for entertainment. But I withhold judgment on his factual claims. I do this not because of his position on the ideological spectrum. One can even be an extremist (which Michael Moore is not) and still be a reliable source (which Michael Moore is not).
Talking Points Memo does solid reporting, which means that they consider their mission to inform their readership. The Economist is more conservative than I am, but I find their analysis helpful (though their coverage of the US has declined in quality). I don’t know about the Daily Caller, but if they succeed in their goal of becoming a conservative Talking Points Memo, that would be a good thing.
It’s unfortunate that conservative media outlets tend to be less reality-constrained than liberal ones. But we shouldn’t expect that state of affairs to last forever, nor should we expect that rigor and fealty to the truth to form a perfectly uniform distribution across the ideological spectrum.
Superficial assessment. None of the left-leaners here have disputed my allegation that ACORN had internal problems. I am open to the hypothesis that some of ACORN’s low paid staff would have done some things that they shouldn’t. But to take O’Keefe’s doctored video clips and claims at face value would be immoral. It’s one thing for a news organization not to release their raw footage as a matter of general policy. It would be quite another situation if they refused to do so when there was solid evidence of intentional misrepresentation and deception.
It was all the stuff after that that had me lost. If all you want to know is if I think maybe he didn’t present himself as a pimp, I do think that’s a possibility.
But him being a pimp wasn’t material to the issue. The ACORN worker was giving advice to someone who presented herself as a minor and wanted to get around paying taxes (or whatever) on her activities as a prostitute. Whether he was a a pimp, a law student, or Andy Griffith isn’t really important. So know, I’m not about to try and guess what special Negro knowledge this urban woman ACORN worker might have had.
Telling a child prostitute how to avoid the law instead of getting her help from the law is an odd stance to take for a group with the stated goals of ACORN. I don’t know if it’s illegal or not, but if that group is getting federal funds, then it’s a legit story and the NYT is right in not retracting it.
Why haven’t the unedited tapes themselves been released?
By this did you mean to imply that the incident in question constituted ACORN taking the stance that the pair should avoid the law instead of getting help from the law?
Here is the original thread on the matter.
Makes for a pretty funny read now that you know more of the story. Kind of like watching *
The Sixth Sense* for the second time, when you realize everything you believed was wrong.
So the reason they don’t release unedited tapes may be because they are in the grip of an existential despair, brought on by the adamant stubbornness of the lefty hive-mind? So enervated by their futile struggle, they cannot raise a hand to the telephone to say “Here they are. Come pick them up. I’d bring them to you, but I’m busy contemplating suicide.”
That is certainly a possibility I had not considered.
Did that happen at Bohemian Grove?
They have this on tape? Someone who is aware of the crime of child prostitution and makes no effort to report it to the proper authorities? You don’t know whether or not that’s a crime?
Well, whaddaya think, John? I’m leaning towards the idea that enabling child prostitution is a pretty serious crime just about anywhere in the country. I’ll go way out on a limb there, and suggest that.
Now, I don’t recall anyone being charged with such a crime, refresh my memory as to who it was, where and when. Or, if that isn’t available, a plausible explanation why not, if things are as you say.
The California tapes have been released and may be found on the CA Attorney General’s site.
The press release contains a link to the PDF report of the investigation.
According to The Brad Blog, the CA Attorney General’s office also has copies of unedited tapes made in cities outside of CA. The blog has requested copies (FWIW). I’ve never seen this blog before today, so I have no opinion on its accuracy. The links are good.
“In exchange for immunity from prosecution”, eh? Heavens, whatever were those little scamps up to?
Assuming I remember correctly (I did a fast skim to make sure I had the right story), the immunity is from criminal prosecution for illegally taping the interviews. They did not inform the ACORN workers the interviews were being taped, which means the workers did not give permission to be taped, which is apparently a violation of California’s privacy laws.
I believe they are not immune to civil prosecution (i.e., being sued by the taped workers). However, IANAL, so take that with as much salt as necessary.
Put it on his toast?
I believe they call that “buttering his buns”.
Money quote from blog referenced above: