Well played gonzo conservatives

Conor Friedersdorf has been doing a good job taking on some of the crazies on the right, and I’ve greatly enjoyed sharing some of his American Scene entries for that reason.  As a result, I think it’s only fair to link to his Daily Beast piece in which he gives props to James O’Keefe, the guy who took all those Acorn videos and now slowly dribbles them out (the title’s overwrought unfortunately, O’Keefe is no Bob Woodward).  The praise does have a valid caveat:

But it would be folly for news organizations to ignore this story out of pettiness or snobbery. Though everyone involved in producing the ACORN expose had ideological ends, they used journalistic means to achieve them—in fact, hyperpartisan impulses that produce muckraking scoops are the rare variety that should be celebrated. Who cares whether a reporter or an activist happened to do the reporting? Everyone benefits when indefensible deeds are accurately exposed and the perpetrators made accountable…

He added, "But I also know how my journalist friends are going to react. And so my advice to James is this: You can put this thing out your way, but you should also offer the full audio and full transcript so that people can hear and see them in their entirety – sans edits. So they can judge for themselves."

A wise approach—I'm writing this column only after having read the full transcripts. (ACORN has said that the videos were “doctored, edited and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist ‘filmmaker’ James O’Keefe and his partner in crime”—and threatened to sue.)

I’ll reserve judgment until the full audio is out there.  I do assume that there were also a good number of cases where Acorn offices properly rebuffed the guy.  Also, the whole scandal during the election was BS, there were Acorn employees who made money by fabrication registrations but that was registration fraud to rip off Acorn and not election fraud.  On the whole though, the organization does seem to have a genuine problem with people, admittedly often volunteers, acting in an official capacity at their office.  If accurate this is a legit scandal, firing the workers is a good first step but it is a reasonable expectation that an org using federal funds wouldn’t have brought them on in the first place.

In any event Friedersdorf goes on to propose allowing wiretapping of public servants, police, grantees and the like.  He accepts a subsequent suggestion to limit it to their official capacity (see Brits for why this is necessary).  I’d further limit it to only being able to bug your or your phone. 

Even official capacity isn’t that limiting and frankly sometimes negotiations should be private or diplomatic/legislative agreements would never happen.  I am actively considering being a public servant some day and while taping interactions with public seems reasonable, bugging my house, cell phone, or laptop would not be.  Also, national security and spying aside, without such limits it would be rather tempting to bug people for information about how to win a contract or the other side’s political strategy.  The limitation to journalists really doesn’t deal with this problem as that term isn’t necessarily that meaningful limiting in an era of blogs.

Update: Acorn has a press-release stating that in at least one of the videos the Acorn employee was basically satirizing the obviously implausible journalist.  The specifics sound likely to me.  I'd say that approach was likely a mistake, better to toss them out, but not a scandal by any means. (Hat tip, The American Scene commenter.)

Comments

[Mecha]

I had some serious problems with Friedersdorf back when he was filling in for Andrew Sullivan: his ability to analyze felt a little lacking (In particular, his being stunned that people would take a paragraph that could not be interpreted as anything but 'FEMINISTS LIE' as an insult was a nice touch.) Both he and Andrew actually failed to read the post (which I'll cover in a moment) and miss the actual message in an attempt to imply that liberals better listen to this accusation and promote it, or else they're petty!

I do have a real problem with the tone and idea here: the idea that news organizations need to be 'warned' about ignoring this due to pettiness and snobbery (as if that were the only reason people ignored stories.) For example.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-norton17-2009sep17,0,6215749.story

I sure hope that no conservatives ignore that story out of pettiness and snobbery, just because... well, okay, there wasn't an insane crusade based on no evidence designed to rile up the left wing to investigate that, but hey, no pettiness or snobbiness people! I wanna see this on all your blogs and news shows this instant, unless you're petty or snobby!

If one were being honest, these things should be being reported all over, but assuming that it's petty or snobby to not report one or the other is both insulting (because there are reasons not to report things, such as that it's not your beat) and misleading (because there are reasons people don't report things that are either good, or actually malevolent.) People like Drudge (or BigGovernment) might ignore them (or PROMOTE THEM) because it serves their purposes explicitly, and Fox News hits it like a drum. Meanwhile, the evil liberal Satan of Jon Stewart (who would never find anything funny about anything a liberal organization ever did!) brought the Acorn thing up earlier this week. AND used it in a joke about Afghanistan corruption, and I have seen it elsewhere as well. Clearly, liberals are just interested in hiding the truth by being petty.

So I remain bothered. I am bothered that it is basically a game to try to find singular examples that prove Acorn as a structure is evil. Doing so is an exercise in finding patterns, not finding one example and saying 'Aha! Gotcha!'. If you actually read the original post made by the BigGovernment people, their 'story'...

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/chaos-for-glory/#more-274

Read the last two paragraphs. Read what he is actually proposing, what he is actually SUPPOSING: One example is prove of systemic evil.

And then, even worse, 'Their world is a revolutionary, socialistic, atheistic world, where all means are justifiable. And they create chaos, again, for it’s own sake.' And then, having decried them, _he says this is what conservatives must do to survive_.

If this is supposed to be respected as journalism, count me out. I'll accept the new data in as Acorn having some serious issues, note that this is same shit, different day, conspiracy crap from the right... and move on with my life.

-Mecha

[Greg Sanders]

I think you're right that this isn't legit journalism. Perhaps I'm being unfair to gonzo journalism in the title, but I never really got the impression that it qualified either. Correct me if I'm wrong on this front.

I think you're also quite correct that he hasn't proven the Acorn is evil or anything like it. This publicity stunt basically made a "there exists a case" argument but had repeated case that were so over-the-top that Acorn's response of firing a few people and starting an investigation seems appropriate.

Friedersdorf did subsequently give props to Stewart and did a post on war contracting, so that at least was acknowledged.

In any event, I think you are correct to say that there's more important things going on than a well executed publicity stunt. That said, crazy people executing stunts like this are actually still a step up from many conservative commentators.

[Mecha]

Is it really better, though? In what ways? Because it's based in reality? That would work, if it were... but things like the police report, failures to accurately report, and their complete denial of any possibility of being incorrect (look at the BigGovernment blog. It's not about the evidence. It's about the mission: Hold The Line. Oh, look at those Acorn people proposing alternate proofs or stories! Haw haw haw they're so wrong and evil.)

How is that different from standard denialist and/or conspiracy activities? It's a picture of a UFO that can never be denied, it's an organization-funded 'article' on vaccines based on junk science, it's an obsession with scalp seeking to prove you are on the side of the angels, it's standards heads-I-win tails-you-lose unquestionable bullshit. So many people fall for it under pretenses of balance or 'well, they made a small right point, so let me promote the idea as valid', without drilling down into the bad, or following up. Again, look at that blog. From an analysis PoV, it's just ludicrous, but hey, we have to respect it!

The only way it's really better is that they spent actual time and money to try to give their make-shit-up-for-the-cause a little veneer of reality... and then promptly pushed it like it was the most vital conspiracy to destroy America ever, destroying that veneer for anyone who pays attention.

It's like comparing Media Matters to Newsbusters. You look at MM, and it's clearly slanted, but it is not 90% self referential right wing promotion, or 'A * wing person said something * wing! HOW AWFUL.' (Some of it is assumptive in that sense, but by and large, MM is clearly putting out more substantial and supportable work.) Sometimes they manage to pinpoint something that has actual worth as a problem, but they're too busy spewing crap, setting their tone, and ultimately, setting their worth. (I realize that's how many people on the right feel about people on the left, but I believe that I can substantiate a claim of significant left-wing self-analysis and logical justification and a significant lack of right-wing self-analysis far more effectively in general, were I to have the time.)

-Mecha