CNN avoiding publicizing ACORN's fall?

Remove all ads!

That is freaking bizarre.

 

As if the faux pimp story wasn't. I call it consistent. O'Keefe is simply a callous a**hole, and that primary quality is put to use by Breitbart, and O'Keefe is striving to build a career on that.

 

Reality beating satire was the best one .

Another nail in the coffin of the idea that the US media is overwhelmingly "liberal". You'd think this guy and all he stands for would be publicly ridiculed to the point that even conservatives wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole.

 

But Shaman, that's my location and that remained unchanged.

 

Hmm, oh yeah - wasn't it your quote, as well?

Another proof that work adversely affects your forum posting ability .

 

Looking at the media coverage of O'Donnell (and lack of coverage of all the Democratic candidates who have also stuck their foot in their mouths), I think it's easy to see where the liberal bias is. This isn't taking hold for two reasons, as I see it:
1.) Only CNN really looks good in this story, so anyone competing with CNN doesn't want to run it (and CNN tried hard to push it on their website the first few days)
2.) With the elections coming up, the miners in Brazil, the toxic flood, and other things, there are bigger stories. Had it been a slow news day, maybe, but it's been anything but recently.

 

It was all over MSNBC. In fact, Morning Joe has been having a big time with her "rebuttal" ad:

http://theweek.com/article/index/207805/christine-odonnell-im-not-a-witch


The worst campaign ad ever. At least the Dems have something to laugh about this cycle.

MSNBC. And proud of it....

 

CNN doesn't need James O'Keefe to make them look bad. With buffoons like Rick Sanchez (and now Eliot Spitzer) working for them (or formerly) they do well enough on their own.

For O'Keefe'ss side of the story:

http://biggovernment.com/jokeefe/2010/10/04/statement-regarding-cnn/

 

KJ,
when O'Keefe's boss Breitbart demands an apology from his protegé it must be bad. I mean, they lied about ACORN, and simply kept kept lying unless they had to concede that they edited the videos. Breitbart defended O'Keefe as his boy, gave him forum, had TV appearance with him. Not so this time.

With Breitbart dropping O'Keefe like a hot potato for this planned a**hole stunt (Breitbart: "Not his employer..."), the story is quite probably simply (and embarrassingly) true.

It shows very clearly that O'Keefe is simply a partisan miscreant trying to make a profession on cheating and playing foul with political opponents - in a word a professional rat****er.

Keep in mind that O’Keefe was just sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine after he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from his involvement in a break-in at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office. In that process he lied about who he was and what he and his buddy were planning to do. O'Keefe appears to lie a lot. You are apparently willing to take 'his side of the story' at face value? ... a marketer's dream.

 

Ragusa, O'Keefe lies in the course of undercover investigations (well planned or not). Every reporter who does undercover investigations does this, or employs someone else to do it for them. As for the ACORN stunt, tell me where he lied about anything?

On this count, I don't know who to believe. O'keefe hasn't exactly engratiated himself with me since ACORN (bugging a Senator's office? Really?), but then the accuser is CNN. I don't trust either of them.

 

For starters he lied when he said on tv that he went to the ACORN offices in the pimp costume. He never did that. And there is dishonesty beyond the spoken word, as in his intentionally deceptive editing of the videos. The man is a crook.

And besides, the accuser is not CNN. This is not a 'he said, she said' thing that has 'two sides of the story'. CNN is simply reporting on internal documents from O'Keefe's buddies that provided a script for the planned 'punking', and that their reporter was warned about it when she tried to interview O'Keefe. The author of the documents is apparently one of O'Keefe's buddies, Ben Wetmore, who hosted O'Keefe's crew during the Landrieu stunt. Another buddy, Izzy Santa, got cold feet because this 'punk CNN' plan went a little far for him, and warned O'Keefe's target, CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau.

Face it: Nevermind CNN, and whether you like or dislike them*, O'Keefe's is a sleaze ball and a crook specialising in and apparently enjoying character assassination. Now, it didn't need the CNN story to make that abundantly clear.

Spoiler

*As for me, I dislike CNN, although, to their credit, CNN International is a different animal than the travesty that is 'CNN domestic'. They fired Rick Sanchez? Only now? That man was a blathering nuisance for an eternity.

 

Where have you been? You watch FOX news, don't you? Don't you think that they'd, you know, report on any democratic candidates who happen to be just as embarrassing as O'Donnell? When FOX isn't covering democratic candidates who are just as embarrassing as O'Donnell, the conclusion at which you should arrive... isn't media bias. The reason that there isn't extensive media coverage devoted to democratic candidates who are just as embarrassing as O'Donnell is because there aren't any democratic candidates as embarrassing as O'Donnell. At least not this election cycle. The worst democratic candidate I can think of has received extensive negative media coverage -- from MSNBC, CNN, FOX....

EDIT: I can't get the youtube to work. Here's the link.

...and the Daily Show....

@Chandos, I disagree with you about that ad. I'm not convinced by it, but I'm not her target audience and, quite frankly, neither are you. There is literally nothing she could say that would convince either of us that she's worth voting for. For her target audience, that ad is the best they can do, and I think it probably plays well with them. Grayson's "Taliban Dan" ad or his previous ad "Draft Dodger," which accuses Daniel Webster, who was medically disqualified from serving in Vietnam, of dodging the draft. Grayson could have attacked Webster's well known stands on women's rights issues and public policy, but has instead resorted to smarmy and factually bankrupt attack ads that undermine his own credibility more than that of his opponent. When Grayson loses this one, he'll deserve it.

 

O'Keefe doesn't need CNN to make him look bad either.

Drew - I can't help bui laugh every time O"Donnell says, "I'm you." But really all dressed in black, with the gloomy background, and what looks like haze roiling behind her. It's like one of those old grade-B horror films from the 1950s, when the creature says, "Im not an alien, I'm one of YOU."

 

Nicely summarised.

But it doesn't matter because it must not be as you say because NOG wills it so, after all the Dems are just like the GOP, in every respect. NOT!

 

Thanks, Ragusa. Chandos, I do have to admit to a few belly laughs myself from when I saw the ad, but I can see what her campaign is trying to do. Given what they've got to work with, I doubt anyone could have done better.

 

Well, DeMint's opponent in South Carolina is pretty damn embarrassing, but then that state is largely uncompetitive so it's understandable why it's not precisely a top story.

 

The costume was artistic license. He did go into the offices claiming to be a pimp. As for 'deceptive editing', I watched the whole, unedited videos (those that I could find at least) and they didn't change the context any. The ACORN workers were still cooperative, there was just a lot more paperwork, small-talk, and legal-ish content. That they found nothing prosecutable is probably due to the fact that no overt actions were taken.

I don't watch any news. I hit the websites. All of them (MSNBC, CNN, FOX, BBC, ABC). And FOX's website has covered some stuff, such as numerous racist comments by democratic candidates and major liberals.

Oh, yeah, I saw a blurb on that when it first came out. The story didn't seem to take off, though. I'm surprised considering how blatantly they edited the tape. I mean, that's about a text-book example of deceptive editing.

 

The story created some buzz for a few days, but then, "you don't watch the news," by your own admission, so you would not have been aware of it. The talking heads were having a blast with it, at least for a couple of days. I feel it was a much larger story than it deserved to be because of how poorly it was handled by her side. For instance, when the story broke she cancelled on Face the Nation, and FOX, saying she had "other plans," which seemed clumsey, at best.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/19/sunday-shows-christine-odonnell_n_730790.html

 

NOG,
you're entitled your peculiar views, but what part exactly of heavily edited is it that you do not get?

Report Finds No Illegal Conduct By ACORN
ACORN Videos 'Severely Edited'
Controversial ACORN Video was Edited to Mislead
ACORN Cleared of Criminal Wrongdoing In Prostitution Scandal
Hynes: 'No Criminality' In ACORN Case
CRS report: ACORN didn't break law

And just because some people require that extra mile: Hannah Giles Explains Those Pimp and Prostitute Outfits

"B-roll" refers to footage shot separately and later inserted during editing, as frequently seen in movies and television.

During his visit to the Baltimore ACORN office, O'Keefe wore a dress shirt and khaki pants. For the Philadelphia sting, he added a tie. O'Keefe presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

O'Keefe was featured in lots of cutaway shots that were filmed outside and showed him parading around with Giles in his outlandish pimp costume. That is also how he presented himself on TV. The cutaway shots and the subsequent TV appearances certainly left the impression that that's how O'Keefe was dressed when he spoke to ACORN workers.

Heavily. Edited.

Deceptive.

We went over this already, several times, to no avail. It appears your view is utterly impervious to contradicting facts. No news there as well.

 

It is surprising how different the TV news and the web news can be, even from the same source. I'm not sure, but I think I may be getting the better deal.

Heavily edited, yes. He had a great deal of footage for all the sites, and most of it was ordinary, expected business smalltalk and such. Nothing illegal, nothing unusual, but nothing context-changing either. He didn't fill them in that this was a joke, he didn't coach them, he didn't take an answer to one question and paste it next to a completely different question, he didn't cut out exculpatory or extenuating disclaimers. One of your links claims:

I watched the unedited tapes, I listened to the unedited recordings. They were advising a (pretend) pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage. Or how to launder the prostitutes earnings so she could use it to pay for a politician's start. Or other things that are strict no-nos I don't have to read a news report or someone else's summary of things to know that. I witnessed the evidence myself. And I'm guessing you did, too. If not, you should. I'll bet they're still on the web somewhere.

Again, my guess is nothing criminal was found because nothing criminal actually happened. Conspiracy charges require an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, iirc. Just 'shooting the breeze', even in detail, doesn't cut it.

I do admit, I think it was her wearing the freaky fur coat in one of the videos, not him. Beyond that, though, her outfit definitely spoke 'worker of the night'.

In the San Diego video, iirc, he claimed he was helping her get away from her abusive pimp, continuing her job as hooker, and looking to bring some illegals into the country to work as hookers as well. That's a pimp.

Yes, we did go over this, several times, to no avail. It appears your generalizations are utterly impervious to contradicting facts. No news there as well.