Next Time They Totally Won’t Get Fooled
One of the most frustrating things about watching NPR reacting to the latest O’Keefe sting was how boringly predictable it all was. The media lives in great fear of the dreaded “liberal” description overreacts swiftly and then we find out that important parts of the video were altered. Gee, didn’t see that coming at all. The only surprising part was that it was Glenn Beck’s The Blaze that did the initial debunking (you can read their report here).
I’m sure none of you were surprised to read that parts where Schiller describes himself as a Republican (and proud of it) were edited out and statements were moved in time to make Schiller look like he was agreeing to odd statements by the actors. Schiller’s full quote about the racism of the Tea Party was also dishonestly altered. This is the last straw, according to Politico:
Reporters regularly feel a temptation to bolster their cases dishonestly. One of the things you learn in most newsrooms is that your case is stronger if you bend over backward to be, and show that, you’re fair, to anticipate and address possible objections.
This bit of editing, like the entire Shirley Sherrod video and various others, took advantage of a system of aggregation that’s basically based on trust. Other elements of the NPR scoop seem to hold up, though the Blaze’s writer also says that “in this first clip the video (complete with “timecode” stamp) continues to play while the audio goes into some kind of glitchy loop. This could be an actual glitch, though not one I’ve seen like this in 25 years of working with video editing.”
You can’t aggregate, or even really comment on, what you don’t trust, and it’s very hard to think of a good reason to have clipped the video just there if it wasn’t to turn a good story into a great one a case at the expense of the reality. The damage is, again, done; I regret having, even in what I thought was a cautious way, picked up the story.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me multiple times I’m the mainstream media? Why wasn’t there any soul-searching after O’Keefe did this with ACORN or Shirley Sherrod? Until the media stops reacting with anything but laughter and ignores O’Keefe things will not change. What incentive does O’Keefe have to change his behavior? Absolutely none because he keeps getting the response he wants. Perhaps the rest of the media is finally learning that this can
Tags: James O'Keefe, NPR, Politico
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that O’Keefe was responsible (or at least never claimed responsibility) for the Shirley Sherrod incident. That was O’Keefe’s paymaster, Andrew Breitbart.
The Schillers (Ron and Valerie) may well ask: Where do I go to get my reputation back?
Vivian
This bit of editing, like the entire Shirley Sherrod video and various others, took advantage of a system of aggregation that’s basically based on trust.
A system of aggregation.
I really get that lots of news launches off of the work of wire services or other *reporting* entities. No news organization can be everywhere and no news organization can add additional value to every story taken from these sources. But is aggregation some kind of pass for not editing your own damn publication? Someone decided to *trust* aggregated material from Breitbart, et al. And to trust it in a way that they don’t from , say, Amy Goodman. But this is a wholly inadequate explanation of how Politico (and alot of others) decided to jump on a new bit of controversy without making an assessment as to whether its purveyor (or the controversy itself) has any credibility or honesty.
People believe what they want to believe. O’Keefe is successful at taking scalps because he takes advantage of 30 years of set-up work by Republicans to alter perceptions about NPR, Planned Parenthood, and ACORN. Like any bully, he will fall to the first corporation willing to stand up to him.
If NPR had any balls they would use their investigative resources and their microphone to destroy O’Keefe.
The Republican system for getting “scandals” reported is highly evolved. Items that start in the muck get picked up by Fox News under the pretense that they are “reporting on the reports of possible scandal.” Then on to CNN quotes Fox News, then on and on…
I have an in-law who is convinced that protesting teacher have caused $7.5 million in damages to the Wisconsin state house.
There is a real cancer eating away at American journalism.
I guess it is now safe to pick fights with people who buy (digital) ink by the barrel.
I have an in-law who is convinced that protesting teacher have caused $7.5 million in damages to the Wisconsin state house.
Send them a roll of Bounty (not Brawny) and a bottle of spray cleaner. They’ll be shipshape tomorrow morning.
Items that start in the muck get picked up by Fox News under the pretense that they are “reporting on the reports of possible scandal.”
This is one of the real issues with places like Politico. Their need to focus on “who won the day” doesn’t make them an especially credible chronicler of the day’s news. The horserace BS that is their stock in trade. So they will repeat the controversy simply because it is built into their *who won the day* BS.