READER COMMENTS ON

"WaPo STILL Misreporting O'Keefe/ACORN Story: He 'Dressed Up as a Pimp to Interview ACORN'"

(15 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... karen said on 9/30/2010 @ 11:46 am PT...





What I find interesting about this, beyond how these guys are still at it and have not been totally discredited and ignored by MSM yet, is how well supported/funded they are. Look at the time and money they are spending on just trying to "punk" - I would say smear and frame, one journatlist. They've got long-term planning, memos, locations, secret tapes...and while all this could be done by a few motivated people in their spare time, these guys are clearly employed to do this stuff. For their funders, they are good return on investment, as they took out ACORN for likely just $50-$100k funding. Send a couple kids on the road for a few months and voila, no more Democratic voter registration. Once again, that which is represented to us as grass roots "expose" by young rabble rousers is simply attacks on the regular folks and honest journalists by rich people looking out for their richy rich interests.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Deuce said on 9/30/2010 @ 12:09 pm PT...





If the "legitimate" news agencies can't get things like this correct then we are all in trouble of falling fox style news.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 9/30/2010 @ 2:09 pm PT...





Maybe you could add Dana Milbank's picture to the above three, with the caption '2nd degree liar.'

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Dan-in-PA said on 9/30/2010 @ 2:45 pm PT...





They got the backing of the same billionaires who funded the swift boat fraud. Bottomless pockets.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/30/2010 @ 3:22 pm PT...





@Soul Rebel - To be fair, it was Alexandra Petri at Milbank's WaPo blog. Not Milbank himself. Though if a guest blogger posts something inaccurate at The BRAD BLOG, I do take responsibility for it (and try to correct quickly if appropriate) since it's my name on the darn thing! That I posted this item about 6 hours ago, and neither Petri nor Milbank has yet to make a correction is pretty poor. (Though not as poor as having made the gross error in the first place after all this time! Do they live in a cave? Or just Fox "News"?)

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/30/2010 @ 7:11 pm PT...





From the article: "....why don't you cover the fact that O'Keefe has now violated Maryland's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act again and again (and now, likely, the terms of his federal criminal probation), as we laid out yesterday, and the fact that MD law enforcement officials seem to be doing absolutely nothing about it?!" Brad, it appears that you have failed to properly shepherdize the Maryland code. Just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean that it is valid as written. You must also see what the courts have said about that law. If you take the time to read what the courts have said on that law, you would find that your view is incorrect. There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy BEFORE that law can be used. Here is the latest example of what the courts have said. Judge Pitts threw out the wiretapping charges against Anthony Graber. "The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected." http://weblogs.baltimore...st_wins_taping_case.html

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/30/2010 @ 7:12 pm PT...





Whoops, sorry, it is Judge Plitt, not Pitts.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/30/2010 @ 9:42 pm PT...





Mark da Shark said: If you take the time to read what the courts have said on that law, you would find that your view is incorrect. There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy BEFORE that law can be used. Oookay, Mark. I'll bite. In which situation that I've covered --- the private meetings with ACORN workers, the private phone call with a CNN reporter, or on a private boat --- was there not a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 10/1/2010 @ 3:04 am PT...





Brad #8, "Oookay, Mark. I'll bite. In which situation that I've covered --- the private meetings with ACORN workers, the private phone call with a CNN reporter, or on a private boat --- was there not a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?" You have never made the case that the courts would accept your premise that these are "private" acts?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/1/2010 @ 11:54 am PT...





Mark - Seriously? That's what you got? For the record, I'm not an attorney, I'm a journalist. The onus is not on me to issue some sort of arcane legal argument when pointing out that someone appears to have violated the law, again. The same law, mind you, which at least two state Attorneys General have already highlighted as most likely having been violated by O'Keefe. (And that he is also currently being sued under by a private citizen.) All of that is particularly pathetic, given that you accused me of having "failed to properly shepherdize the Maryland code" along with the lecture: If you take the time to read what the courts have said on that law, you would find that your view is incorrect. There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy BEFORE that law can be used. That's all well and good and a fine lecture, but when I ask YOU, in return, which incident that I highlighted --- the private meetings w/ ACORN workers, the private phone call with a CNN reporter, or the meeting on a private boat --- you believed to NOT offer a "reasonable expectation of privacy", you charge ME with having "never made the case that the courts would accept your premise that these are 'private' acts", rather than pointing out a one of them that did NOT offer a "reasonable expectation of privacy". To use your phrasing, Mark, it appears that you have "failed to properly shepherdize" the Maryland code, the apparently illegal acts referenced, the independent official investigations already on the record, and your own commentary here in your zeal to offer your usual, knee-jerk partisan apologia.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 10/3/2010 @ 12:55 pm PT...





Yay Brad! Mark, he ripped you a new one. But I won't hold my breath on any WaPo blog correction. They seem to have lifted a page from the NYT playbook.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 10/5/2010 @ 8:56 am PT...





Brad in 10, "and your own commentary here in your zeal to offer your usual, knee-jerk partisan apologia." Here we go again. You think that some smart-assed remark is going to change the facts. If you go back and check, EVERY time you start with this rant, I go and PREOVE you are wrong, and then you disappear from the discussion. Since you insist of having others do your work, I will be glad to get you started. "....the meeting on a private boat...." I highly suggest that you take a look at Furman v. Sheppard. This is a Maryland case that deals with boats and reasonable expectation of privacy. You can thank me later for taking the time to once again, give you a free education.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 10/5/2010 @ 10:16 am PT...





Lola in #12, "Yay Brad! Mark, he ripped you a new one." Lola, I am not trying to rip Brad a new one, I am trying to get him to realize that when it comes to the law, it is not black and white. He writes in these types of absolutes such as this "....O'Keefe has now violated Maryland's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act again and again....". He thinks that citing a law is all he has to do to prove his premise. Sorry, but that isn't how it works. He also must shepherdize. Now if it seems that we are combative between Brad and I, blame that on Brad. He can't ever seem to take any type of correction without some smart-assed remark. And then he NEVER admits that he was wrong, he just runs away.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/5/2010 @ 3:55 pm PT...





Mark - You may be shocked to learn that I do not have the time to read all of the comments posted her at BRAD BLOG. If I did, and if I responded to them all, I'd never have any actual new stories. Next, it seems you need to understand the difference between my being "wrong" and your opinion that I'm wrong. Where demonstrable evidence is presented to show that I've gotten something wrong, I'm happy to correct the record. It is my opinion, however, and the opinions of the former MA Attorney General and the current CA Attorney General, among others (who cited the same laws that I did) that O'Keefe seems to have violated the MD wiretap law as I spelled out in more detail in my original article on the matter. You are welcome to disagree with my assessment, and to detail the reason for your disagreements with me here in comments. I don't find it necessary to respond to every one of your disagreements, any more than I find it necessary to file a legal treatise, examining each and every possible loophole that O'Keefe and his attorneys might try to exploit in order to dodge taking personal accountability for having seemingly broken the law. As noted previously, I'm a journalist, not an attorney. Clearly you are, and wish to post legal arguments in defense of wrong-doers. I have enough confidence in what I report that I am able to both report it AND allow readers, like yourself, to offer contrary points of view if they like. If you regard that as "run[ning] away", so be it. I regard it as a courtesy to readers like yourself. Your welcome. Oh, and one more thing, I won't tell you, as an anonymous commenter who needn't take any responsibility for the accuracy of what he writes, what you "must" do, if you'll not tell me, someone who stands behind everything posted here, under my own actual name, what I "must" do. Even if you think it'll better help to protect the criminals and scofflaws that you seem to be willing to say anything to keep from taking personal responsibility for their actions.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 10/6/2010 @ 4:50 am PT...

