March 12, 2011

"Their arrogance and condescension... just amazing."

It is their own self-love that makes them so vulnerable.

W.C. Fields said "You can't cheat an honest man," and I say "You can't punk a self-deprecating man."

26 comments:

Liberals for Non-Racist Reportage said...

Proof that they are pissed about getting out-Alinskied. Tough shit.

Julius said...

"Partisans" in the title.

"Partisans" again the first paragraph.

I can't recall ever seeing that word used by an American publication outside of a historical context.

I find its prominent double-use in the piece to be quite strange.

tree hugging sister said...

Jeez. Everybody used to think it was so cute when Dan Rather and Morley Safer did it on Sundays.

sane_voter said...

Libs don't like it when their saggy tits are caught in the wringer

edutcher said...

The Gray Lady didn't complain when ambush journalism was a solely Lefty practice.

Hagar said...

I think The NYT is saying we all should stick to the official truth; especially when it is about the intellectual left wing of the Democratic Party?

David said...

If organizations like NYT did their job, O'Keefe would be unnecessary.

Alex said...

Notice how after 20 years of fake callers, the libs STILL can't bust Rush Limbaugh. Funny isn't it?

Cindy Martin said...

Does the NYT actually think the majority of people are against the outing of execitoves from an organization that is an obvious waste of taxpayer's money?

Arrogance indeed!

Julius said...

Wow... reading the rest of the piece, its bizarre language really sticks out:

NPR and Planned Parenthood have long been "under assault" from conservatives. With the guns of Tea Party members, I presume...

James O'Keefe is a "conservative provocateur". That's quite different from an investigative journalist.

Politicians "tiptoe around" the question of appropriateness. Who else tiptoes? Criminals and those not wanting to be caught!

Political strategists "worry" that this has been "creeping into" campaigns for some time now. Worried about creeps, huh?

Ari Flesher is quoted referring to these pieces as "sting operations". Another criminal reference.

"Prank-called", "prank", "stunts"...

You get the impression that the NYT really, really hates this sort of investigative journalism, and is using carefully chosen language to suggest it is criminal and immoral.

Fred4Pres said...

Like Mike Wallace always played fair. The hypocrisy is enough to make you choke.

Meanwhile all the Media Mavens are now flocking to Japan to boost ratings. I can safely predict that unlike Cairo, none of them will be beaten, raped or sexual assaulted in Japan.

Except for Anderson Cooper who will be willingly violated by several large octopi.

chr1 said...

Remember, Vivian Schiller came from the NY Times, maybe she'll end up back there.

She'll probably still face the same problem though: an overcommitment to excessive and questionable ideas that leaves such folks breathless and painted into a corner...lashing out at the O'Keefes of the world.

retire05 said...

In the '30's, FDR called independent reporters "Muckrakers." But they served a purpose, exposing things that standard media never bothered to look into.

Independent journalist have been exposing crime and corruption for as long as the American press has been in existance.

Today, you cannot rely on "established" media to tell the truth or to expose anything that doesn't support their own political agenda. Everyone knew ACORN was corrupt, everyone knows that Planned Parenthood, an organization started by eugenist, Margaret Sanger, did not follow the rules, everyone knows that NPR falls on the left side of the fence. But who in the established media was willing to report that?

If it takes those who are willing to go undercover, to act as muckrakers, to give the American people the truth, then so be it.

Iapetus said...

So, according to the NYT, the only issue with NPR is that some of its execs said impolite things about the Tea Party. Maybe I'm just imagining it, but I do think there may have been other issues that came up in the recent sting of NPR execs. Now what could they be?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Sometimes the Public's Right to Know® is important enough to justify violating the Espionage Act. Other times, you can be more fastidious.

SteveR said...

If you're not doing anything wrong..

Ut said...

Partisans.

Isn't that what they called the Nazi resistance in France?

I'd proudly wear that badge.

Alex said...

Soon you'll see cries from the left to license journalists. All for the public good of course.

chuckR said...

Perhaps the Times can award O'Keefe it's coveted Duranty Medal for deceit above and beyond the call of duty....

Sloanasaurus said...

Just a few weeks ago 60 Minutes ran a show where they used undercover cameras and set ups to expose some guy selling cures for ALS. What is the difference between that and what is going on with NPR?

The hypocrisy is really bad with all the violent references. Just a few months ago the liberal media was slamming anyone who used a half violent reference with regards to the Arizona shooting. The crowd in Wisconsin is way worse with all kinds of death threats and we get very little coverage or outrage from the msm press.

John0 Juanderlust said...

They're pissed that the call to Walker didn't reveal any hypocrisy or wrongdoing. The O'Keefe efforts have uncovered hypocrisy and wrongdoing in organizations being protected and used by "partisans" on the left.

Fen said...

By and large, American news organizations are wary of the toll stunts like Mr. O’Keefe’s can take on their credibility.

Ha. Pravda is above this because, ya know, it might damage their credibility. Sure.

If they had any, a Lexis search would return at least one hit of "Planned Parenthood & abortion & largerst unregulated industry in America"

Fen said...

For contrast, here is how the NYTs treated the fallout from the CBS Memo Hoax:

"The panel concluded that the network's news division, in a dash to beat its competitors, suffered a breakdown in judgment as it rushed the report onto the air"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFD61F39F932A25752C0A9639C8B63&ref=andrewheyward&pagewanted=1

tim maguire said...

Obviously, if O'Keefe's targets were honest and law abiding, we'd have no idea who James O'Keefe is. The W.C Fields quote is questionable as a general statement, but it certainly applies here. I can't see worrying too much about the deception.

As I recall, the Food Lion incident was different for several reasons. First, they became employees of Food Lion and were on the payroll, accepting money to do a job they weren't doing because their real purpose was to film practices for a different secret employer. That's theft. There were also allegations that the reporters encouraged some of the behavior they later "exposed" to make their report stronger. You can say they crossed a line without saying O'Keefe did too.

Ankur said...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

That link might change some of your minds about the o'keefe hit. But then again, it might not.

Ankur said...

which is to say that it is VERY easy to draw the wrong conclusions..when the answers to one question is pasted onto another question and presented as 'video evidence'.

I am happy that the journalists at glenn beck's site, the blaze, did the due diligence and found that o'keefe wasn't just selectively editing, but actively lying by changing answers to questions by replacing them with answers to other questions.