Monday, March 14, 2011

"Hack" Journalist


Well here's something you never could've seen coming.

Media Matters: Serious Editing Questions Arise Following Taped Sting of NPR Employee/3.14.11

I swear to Christ, every time this little douche unleashes one of his "stings" into the establishment media bloodstream, just start the clock. It's guaranteed to be less than a few days before it's proven to be largely horseshit. This has become one of the most predictable news cycles around.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

And the smug little bastard's defense on Howard Kurtz's show was "all news organizations edit material." As if there's no difference between trying to fit in a time slot with the pertinent facts and rearranging a conversation like a movie trailer that makes a joke out of juxtaposing two unrelated lines.

Not to mention he had no real evidence of this egregious bias on NPR that the right is always whining about. The essence of this lame sting is that it's illegal for a news organization staff member to have private opinions.

I suspect that a large part of the right wing hating on NPR stems from the comic stereotype of the latte-swilling, Prius-driving, NPR-listening liberal. If liberals like something, it must therefore be destroyed.

The Bacon said...

Media Matters doesn't exactly shed any new light on things here.

We all already knew that O'Keefe is a muckraker who will use deceptive editing. And this editing does nothing to change the preconceived notion that the NPR executive is an arrogant condescending prick.

Media Matters can nitpick the language the guy uses...whose voice he was speaking in...blah blah blah...but does any reasonable person think he doesn't believe what he is saying regardless of the voice he is using.

Does Media Matters really think they've uncovered some journalistic bombshell here?

Chez said...

You realize, Bacon, that you could substitute James O'Keefe's name for Media Matters and your comment would make almost as much sense. There's no denying that MM and Breitbart can go back and forth at each other ad nauseam and it'll always come down to whom you trust and think is on the right side of the argument. The thing is, MM basically just parroted what a lot of other outlets are now reporting -- the resulting argument of course being, why the hell did anyone listen to O'Keefe in the first place. For the record, as much as I think O'Keefe's a talentless tool, I blame the media far, far more for treating him as anything other than a discredited hack and I blame NPR for inexplicably knee-jerking.

Anonymous said...

If Michael Moore set up a hidden camera on some previously unknown Fox exec, rearranged the answers and the questions, do you think Fox would fire that poor schmuck or do you think they'd go 24/7 against Moore and every liberal that ever said a kind thing about him?

Say what you will, there's something to be said for their steel balls.

The Bacon said...

Chez

Of course I realize it. That was my point.

O'Keefe makes the startling discovery that NPR execs are a bunch of arrogant and condescending liberals....then Media Matters makes a further startling discovery that O'Keefe is a mukraker who selectively edits his videos.

Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Here's my question: Why in the hell is anyone even listening to him (or Breitbart)? Seriously. They have absolutely no credibility.

I guess if we live in a country where people take medical advice from Jenny McCarthy - anything is possible.

Chez said...

Anon 3:51 -- That's actually something I've always respected Fox for: they'll defend their people to the death. They never hang anyone out to dry. The spineless, self-flagellating idiots on the left would be wise to take a lesson from that.

The Bacon said...

Anon 3:41

Michael Moore is Yoda to James O'Keefe's Luke.

They both do the same thing, only Michael Moore makes a fuck ton more money doing it. (And he gets to hang out with RATM)

Michael J. West said...

As I was just saying on Facebook, NPR's panic and the other media outlets' rush to judgement strikes me as an particular effect of the 24-hour, updated-in-real-time news cycle. "No time to fact-check! The world is watching/listening/refreshing their browsers...gotta act now, now, now!"

Jonah said...

Yes it does appear that Fox will defend their people to the death...or until their polling numbers dip so low that they lose their value to the brand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/roger-ailes-sarah-palin-fox-news-blood-libel_n_835265.html

No surprise this story came out right after that poll last week.

Benoit from Ottawa said...

You called it just the other day, Chez, didn't you?

Anonymous said...

One thing I'm confused about here - O'Keefe claims he had the unedited tape available on his site from the beginning right? So nobody at NPR (or any other media outfit, for that matter) listened to the whole thing before the firing started? It's Shirley Sherrod all over again.

It took Glenn Beck people to do the obvious step one in the story? If I were O'Keefe I'd now claim that the real point I was trying to make is that the press are ridiculously lazy and prone to a pack mentality. I don't think I could disagree with that. The press needs to get it through their heads, questioning an O'Keefe operation isn't blaming the messenger, it's reading an unreliable narrator novel.

Chez said...

That's a kind of ridiculous comparison, Bacon. And I'm not saying that because I care one way or the other about either's politics.

Mart said...

Of course Moore edits tapes to present an unrealistic perception of what his targets are really thinking. Otherwise, why would I believe that so many companies love shipping jobs overseas, so many polls think any gun legislation is crazy, think starting a war on a false premise is a bad idea, that universal health care in other countries costs half as much as our cocked up system with better results, and that banksters are crooks who think they should not pay any taxes, just be gifted trillions from taxpayers when they screw up? These movies have been one viscous lie after another.

The Bacon said...

Chez

How about the editing in Bowling for Columbine regarding Charlton Heston and the NRA convention? Moore took a speech that Heston gave a year before hand and inserted it as if it were his reaction to the Columbine affair.

When it comes to omitting factual background information and deceptively editing video, Moore is the king.