First the verdict, then the proof
September 16, 2009 3:34 pm ET by John V. Santore
It is clear that serious questions have been raised concerning the actions of several of the ACORN employees recently featured in surveillance videos, each of whom apparently attempted to help conservative activists in disguise evade taxes and engage in prostitution. However, also deserving of investigation is the systematic journalistic malpractice embodied in the current right-wing campaign against the organization.
As is always the case with such conservative political activism, the greatest irony is that Fox News and a myriad of right-wing talkers are pretending that they are engaged in the investigative journalism the "mainstream media" refuses to do -- presumably because of its supposed allegiance to the Obama administration.
The truth is that the ACORN "investigation" currently underway violates virtually every principle of serious journalism. Red flags should have been raised as soon as it was clear which website was hosting and promoting the ACORN videos: Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com. Breitbart, a protégé of Matt Drudge, is hardly a trustworthy journalist or commentator. His public record speaks for itself. After the death of Ted Kennedy, Breitbart called the senator a "villain," a "duplicitous bastard," and a "prick." He has both suggested and asserted that President Obama is a racist and believes Obama is hiding a radical past. In June, he wrote that "Democrats would distribute needles, methadone, medical marijuana and biscotti in voter goodie bags if they could get away with it" and has said that the Democratic Party depends "on the ability to keep blacks in fear." He has even denied that the murder of Matthew Shepard was a hate crime. And we could go on.
What of the intrepid young muckrakers behind the supposed exposé? Quality citizen journalism is a friend to our democracy, but irresponsible citizen journalism isn't. On the September 10 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck hosted Hannah Giles, the young woman portraying a prostitute in the surveillance videos. He asked her how she came to be involved in the project. Here are her exact words:
I had a summer internship with the National Journalism Center out in Washington, D.C., and they set me up with a job. But one day I was jogging after work and I saw an ACORN, and I was like, hmm, you know, I've never seen them before, I don't like them. And I came up with the idea: What if a prostitute walked into ACORN, had no legal paperwork at all, and wanted a house to set up her business?
Two elements of that testimony should call Ms. Giles' work into serious question. The first is her attendance at the National Journalism Center in Washington. The NJC is but one of the many right-wing institutions conservatives have established to flood the field with young, motivated, and rabidly partisan "reporters." The NJC was established with hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the Bradley and Olin foundations, both prominent conservative donors. Among its distinguished alumni are Ann Coulter and Debbie Schlussel.
But beyond this, consider the candid wording used by Ms. Giles -- who is the daughter of conservative blogger Doug Giles -- when talking to Beck: "But one day I was jogging after work and I saw an ACORN, and I was like, hmm, you know, I've never seen them before, I don't like them." In the same sentence, Giles is admitting that she simultaneously a) knew nothing about ACORN, and b) knew they were guilty of something awful. In no actual journalistic institution -- or any introductory logic class, for that matter -- would such a statement be allowed to go unchallenged. But Beck accepted it without comment.
Let us now turn to the content of the videos themselves. Again, it does appear than in certain cases, ACORN employees engaged in indefensible behavior, and they should be punished accordingly. But all of a sudden, these videos -- four, thus far -- are being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundereds of ACORN employees. This is literally the opposite of how a credible investigation is supposed to function. Sweeping conclusions should only be drawn after all the facts are in. By comparison, here, the conservative media has a few isolated facts but is willing to extrapolate an entire thesis from them.
Equally absent from the Right's coverage is any sense of the tapes' broader context. Bertha Lewis, a top ACORN official, has claimed that the surveillance plan was attempted in numerous cities and that it failed many times. That in and of itself would undermine the assertion that ACORN is universally corrupt. But Fox News, Breitbart, and others have made no attempt to assess this crucial reality. Instead, they have been deliberately deceptive, implying that the few shameful episodes available were filmed in the first four offices Giles and videographer James O'Keefe walked into.
Most critically, it is clear that Fox News has made virtually no attempt to verify the authenticity of the tapes before broadcasting them -- something no self-respecting journalistic organization would dare do. Consider the case of the San Bernardino ACORN office, which was featured in the most recent video to be released. The words of ACORN employee Tresa Kaelke appear to be damning. Not only does she offer assistance to Giles and O'Keefe, but she claims that she murdered her former husband following a period of domestic abuse.
On September 15, Beck and Sean Hannity both broadcast Kaelke's assertion. Beck, who had reported breathlessly on the supposed confession during his radio program, added on Fox, "She never spanked her kids, but she did shoot her husband dead." Later that night, Hannity played the same clip before commenting, "Specifically, now, she goes into this scenario about her husband and the killing of him."
The following morning, on September 16, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson repeated the allegation, saying, "She killed somebody? Despite this, some lawmakers want to keep funding the group."
The problem, of course, is that Kaelke was deliberately lying. The San Bernardino Police Department itself has now confirmed that her claim regarding her husband was untrue. A department statement released on September 15 reads: "The San Bernardino Police Department is investigating the claims made regarding the homicide. From the initial investigation conducted, the claims do not appear to be factual. Investigators have been in contact with the involved party's known former husbands, who are alive and well."
Furthermore, Kaelke has claimed that when she made the statement, she was seeking to mislead the undercover videographers, whom she was suspicious of. "They were not believable," Kaelke is quoted as saying in an ACORN press release. "Somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors. I didn't know what to make of them. They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me."
But none of these simple facts stopped anyone at Fox from running with the story. Any cub reporter would have thought to actually call the San Bernardino police before effectively alleging that ACORN was staffed by murderers. But such an act never occurred to people like Beck, Hannity, or Carlson. (In her defense, Carlson later added that the husband was still alive, "according to ACORN," but ignored the police report.)
We know Fox has a history of baselessly scapegoating ACORN, linking it to a broad array of issues. The network -- as well as its conservative accomplices -- obviously doesn't practice serious journalism. What other distortions might be lurking in the ACORN "reports" being filed on BigGovernment.com and hyped by the Right?
The conservative media machine picks its targets and then operates on a simple principle: first the verdict, then the proof. It's the opposite of what real journalism is, and it must continue to be exposed.

















It would be like me saying that the GOP is a party of adulterers based on the actions of a few Republican politicians.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I think anyway.
Based on the evidence I can't deny this fact.
As far as ACORN, the right has made it obvious that ANYONE with any ties to Obama, at all, will be held to the fire.
OK, they will tie them to the stake and then set the fire.
Personally, I don't care what the motivation was behind these "sting" operations, I'm glad ACORN is being exposed. Whether this somehow ties into the Obama administration is another matter. ACORN is corrupt and I'm glad people are finally waking up to it.
The reason that Republicans deserve to be dinged over their affairs is because they are the 'family values' party. They are the ones who think that marriage is in trouble if you let homosexuals do it. They are the ones who brought impeachment against a sitting President for a stained dress. They are the ones who take 'wide stances' in restroom. They are the ones who fly to South America on Father's Day to be with their mistress. They are the ones who dragged religion into politics, to the detriment and degradation of both.
Yes, Democrats and Republicans are both liable to have affairs. But it takes a Republican to screech about a President's affair while having one themselves while their wife lies dying in a hospital. Contemptible hypocrisy should always be called out.
" They are the ones who brought impeachment against a sitting president for a stained dress"
Wrong again , they brought impeachment against a sitting president for obstruction of justice.
And perhaps we should discuss Eliot Spitzer when we discuss contemptible hypocrisy. But you are right about one thing, instead of invoking Lewinsky's name , he should have stuck with Clinton. Or any number of a long list of dems. But the left likes to bring up the flaws of the pols on the right while ignoring the very same flaws on the left. MMFA should post a memo on each thread to show which set of rules are in effect on any given day.
It's not really the infidelity that is the main thrust of the argument, but the hypocrisy that covers it. As for rules, the only one that seems constant is: It's okay if you are Republican.
Absolutely.
The GOP can stop that change by attacking these organization. Glenn Beck has been attacking ACORN with the rest of Fox News, but Glenn Beck seemed to add to his attack supporters of the organization, like the Teachers Union. He is trying to bully these contributors to try and cease funding. He already succeeded to some extent with the federal government severing ties...
The thing is, how come Fox News does not cover community organizations that promote the GOP, and that are involved in the same alleged fraudulent activities of ACORN?
They aren't even showing the whole tape of these "incidents." Where are the employees seen setting up businesses and handing over cash? All I've seen is just them being agreeable to the interviewers-- at best. Where's the evidence of anything besides being punked by that woman in San Berdoo?
You can see her inexperience as a reporter not only through the camera lens, but on the news programs as well. She does not offer in depth analysis of her own story, but just a snippet accompanied by accusations.
Check out some of her other stories:
http://townhall.com/columnists/HannahGiles/
Very juvenile. Is it a surprise that this reporter came from the daughter of townhall.com columnist (who is also a townhall.com columnist), a conservative web-based publication that was first run by The Heritage Foundation and now by a company that specializes in evangelical Christian and conservative political talk radio.
Essentially, he can have numerous supposed whistle blowers with disguised identities making outrageous claims, and I am sure Beck would stand by their testimonies, as would all of Fox News, and when some light is shown on their falsehoods, they would move onto the next story, forgetting about the previous one, accept for the occasional mention of corruption.
"We know these Sasquatches bury their dead, because we've never found a corpse."
Ah, so let's start with the "fact" that Big Foot is real and then work backwards to explain why we have no proof of it.
Seems like the same kind of logic going on here.
Funny how it's the same disease that afflcits those who believe in UFO abductions, psychic powers, magical thinking, 9/11 truthers, conspiracy theorists, etc... Pretty much all your tin-foil hat wearers.
This is the best sight I've ever seen for digging through and thouroughly debunking that kind of illogical nonsense.
But you'll never, ever see the Right excercise this kind of objective, academic discipline when vetting their stories on Acorn. I'm not even sure they'd know how...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...because they just don't know how to THINK!
I seen a couple of these kidns of things, both for lib's and con's, and either's analysis suffers from the same bias as the original estimates do. Each makes assumptions which may (or may not) be reasonable, but which inevitably skew the estimate one way or the other. I wish we had a satelite photo like we did for the inauguraltion. Then we could compare.
But we don't, so both sides are left to endlessly speculate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh well.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909160019
Here's a link to the paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen
Do you deny that "bacterial contamination is a much greater possibility from natural fertilizers?" That statement sure seems reasonable to me, since "organic fertilizer" is mostly $#!t. (And I mean that literally, not figurativly.)
Are you claiming that "organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food?" Becuase that has never been proven scientifically. It's only a claim made by those who have a "pro-organic" bias.
Do you doubt that "The residues from pesticides on food, natural or synthetic, are not likely to cause harm to consumers because they occur in minute quantities?" Again - there are many studies that support this.
NOW... are there ways in that organic farming is better? SURE. I'll acknowledge that it's more sustainanble. Chemical Fertilizers cause the plants to grow BIGGER, which (once the fertilizer is used up) causes the to leach MORE from the soil, which leads to you needing MORE fertilizer than before to maintain them next time around, which is a viscous cycle.
But to say that organic food is SAFER or HEALTHIER... That just isn't supported by science. A tomato is a tomato. And that (to me) is the jist of the article. The PRACTICE of organic farming, I'll grant you, migh be better in the big picture. But he's not addressing that. He's only shooting down the bogus claims about the FOOD that are not supported by science.
And that's HIS bias. Pro-Science.
I will also say this... While I fully believe every singe word that BOB CARROLL wrote there, I'll have to admit that some of the works he links to are more hit-or-miss, at least in my opinion. But taking one good point out of an otherwise mixed work does not necessarily undermine the argument your making, or even the point itself. (Don't go ad hominen, with 'Stossel is biased' now!) If you can refute any of the specific claims he's made, then fine. Go ahead.
...And if you can, WRITE HIM. He takes readers emails, and often publishes the responses. He's brutal if you don't do your homework, or misrepresent his work, but he's also been known to make some revisions or expand some of his sections as a result of reader feedback.
Hear here! That is exactly right. And that is why the first piece that appeared on CNN called these hit pieces propaganda. The journalists didn't suspect (or know of) malpractice on ACORN's part and then devise a scheme to expose this practice.
Instead, they *invented* the crime. In a court of law, that is known as entrapment. We have no reason to believe (at this point), that offices all over the US were encouraging tax fraud. It is more likely that, presented with a bizarre situation, certain ACORN workers responded in a very unethical way, admittedly showing a lack of principal, but none-the-less not revealing anything inherently wrong with the organization.
I keep saying that the film makers need to release all of the videos unedited and appear on a real network to answer questions. They refuse to do either. O'Keefe merely responds to the second requirement with reactionary vitriol.
When accused of not revealing that he tried the same stunt at other ACORN locations, he evades a direct answer, saying that can't be true because he has caught more than one organization in his trap. But of course, it can be true. For all we know, he might have tried his stunt at 200 offices and only succeeded in 3. For all we know, he coached his targets into their responses. We have a right to know the whole story.
Last, I think it is really dishonest the way O'Keefe and Giles only release the videos one at a time. It is pretty hard for ACORN to respond to the charges when they don't have all the videos, when they don't have the unedited videos, and when the film makers refuse to answer basic questions. My guess is that O'Keefe and Giles won't to maximize the damage done to ACORN's reputation by releasing one film at a time, trying to continually catch the organization on the wrong foot.
http://gb1990.com/
http://hasglennbeckstoppedbeatinghiswife.com/
http://hasglennbeckstoppedbeatinghiswife.com/
These sites may be over your head kydem09
So much for republicans having a good sense of humor or seeing how their logic can be used against them.
Yeah, my post held no relevancy to you interjecting your opinion about Glen Beck.
As there is no proof Glenn didn't rape or murder a girl in 1990, there is no proof that ACORN as whole is a corrupt organization.
in addition, http://gb1990.com/ and
http://hasglennbeckstoppedbeatinghiswife.com/ are meant to point out how republicans/conservatives/right-wing pundits and their ilk can just throw around allegations with no concrete proof.
The two ACORN employees have been terminated...what about the republicans/conservatives/right-wing pundits and the rest of their cronies? What sort of reprimand would you suggest for them?
Yes the count is now up to five. Anf if they are so innocent, why has the census dumped tham, the Senate has cut off funds, they themselves has suspended operations, and now the Obama admin is speaking out against them. It's about time. I guess when he speaks out agaainst a group like acorn he doesn't do so as quickly as he does against the police.
Jerry Elsea
Also, this was the part of ACORN that deals with low income housing and other issues in poor communities. Not the ACORN that registers voters. But because they are both organized under the same name, and the attacks against the voter side of ACORN were an epic fail, the conservatives have now targeted another aspect of ACORN. I suspect it is an affront to most Republicans that a poor person's vote counts equally with a millionaire's vote, but that is only my opinion.
An allegation is not fact of a guilty party, much less a guilty organization, or as Karl Rove said, a "criminal enterprise"!
Any time I see ACORN on a protestors sign, or see them mentioned in a website comment, or somebody brings them up in a conversation about real issues, it's like a little helpful alert pops up, telling me;
"Caution: You are dealing with somebody very emotionally driven and easily distracted by trivia. They may have serious problems with logic and facts. Proceed accordingly".
I've just been mentioning it less, because anybody who's paying attention already knows it, and every time it comes up, the thread get derailed by wingnuts who just don't understand how anybody can see racism when nobody said "I Hate N*****rs !!!"
The people who keep asking why any opposition to Obama's policies is called racism ( of course, it's not).
You know, the ones who can't wait to play the "Race Card" Card.
Prove you have any knowledge of what racism is.
Reading your quote would certainly give any racist a warm fuzzy.
Another word you might check out is enabler.
If you've got any time left see SPLC on the growth of hate groups in the last year.
Or the Secret Service's alarm over a massive increase in death threats towards a sitting president since Obama entered the office.
Your first hand evidence would be? The later hint about trouble walking to the store? This is not suffering from racism.
What other special interests raise your ire? You'd be untroubled being in court opposite the SPLC then?
I know that you only use the conservative label for cover. Struassian is what you are. The American form of government, your enemy.
As long as the leadership of the republican party remains mute over the racist rhetoric coming from elements of the "party", Then they are enablers. They make the racists feel mainstream and right at home.
You use your favorite "struassian" label for me...pray explain what exactly you mean, because seem to love using that label!
BTW I would not fear an organization such as the SLPC in court, no.... lame try...
Some of the ACORN nonsense is based on race, sure. How much is hard to tell, since it's also a convenient way to attack a Democrat regardless of skin color. But I don't see the connection between abortion and race. It's not like the pro-life forces have ever been particularly discriminating in their protests or anything.
Plus, let's look at some facts. At the time of Obama's inauguration, 70% of Americans said they supported him. Now his approval ratings are around 50%. So, what's more logical here, that 20% of Americans suddenly turned racist or that they don't like the way the President is leading the country?
Where are the good old days, where the media was held accountable to clarify false reports or get sued?
I think we should revive those days!
Mr. News
one word of caution: DUCK!!!
Anyone?
Anyone?
I didn't think so.
I'm guessing Stewart would have aired an identical segment regardless of the race of the people involved.
What those handful of ACORN people did is outrageous and worthy of mockery. Mockery is Stewart's business.
I suppose one could question the use of "hos" in the piece, but he was, after all, talking about prostitutes. That's what a lot of people call them these days.
I don't know what to make out of the fox people? Are they really in news business or simply a political party (Republican) media?
Mr. News
How long before we see the following scrawled on some right wing site?
"O'Keefe/Giles 2012"
They are conservative rock stars.