NYT PUBLIC EDITOR ADMITS ACORN 'PIMP' HOAX REPORT FAILURE: 'TIMES WAS WRONG, I HAVE BEEN WRONG'...

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG



NYT PUBLIC EDITOR FINALLY ADMITS ACORN 'PIMP' HOAX REPORTING FAILURE: 'TIMES WAS WRONG, I HAVE BEEN WRONG DEFENDING PAPER'
Clark Hoyt says in Sunday column 'editors considering correction'
Also concedes paper 'should have' covered former MA AG's early-December report finding no criminality in 'heavily edited' sting videos

"The Times was wrong …and I have been wrong in defending the paper's phrasing."

Even as the New York Times once again misreported the ACORN "Pimp" Hoax on its pages in a report on the community organization's possible declaration of bankruptcy in Saturday's paper, their Public Editor (ombudsman) Clark Hoyt finally admits in his column tonight, for tomorrow's paper, that both he and the paper were "wrong" in their reports about rightwing dirty trickster James O'Keefe's "pimp" costume, adding that "editors say they are considering a correction".

Considering?! What exactly would be the hold up?

The paper and Hoyt, as The BRAD BLOG has been detailing for nearly two months now, were out and out wrong in their reports about O'Keefe, what his highly-edited, heavily-overdubbed, secretly-taped videos misleadingly suggested to show, and in their failure to report exculpatory information, such as the refusal to release the unedited raw videos made by the rightwing propagandists, as well as the results of an investigation by MA's former Attorney General finding no "pattern of illegal conduct" by ACORN employees as seen in the videos as published by the rightwing media mogul and fabulist Andrew Breitbart.

More than a month and a half after the paper's Senior Editor for Standards, Greg Brock first attempted to defend the "paper of record's" reporting, by pointing to Fox "News" and the accused felon O'Keefe himself in support of their inaccurate reports, as we exclusively detailed here, and more than a month and a half after Hoyt himself offered similar excuses and was shown that he was absolutely wrong, as we exclusively detailed here, the Public Editor offers an extremely reluctant mea culpa tonight.

Hoyt also conceded, in his long overdue admission, that the paper erred in failing to ever mention (until a story in today's paper finally!) the independent findings of former MA Attorney General Scott Harshbarger which were released on December 7th of last year...

MUCH MORE, FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7755


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7755

[Political Heretic]

1. HUZZAH! EVERY MAJOR CABLE OUTLET SHOULD ISSUE A RETRACTION

[Richard Steele]

3. That will never happen. nm

[Political Heretic]

4. uh.... REALLY?

:sarcasm:

:)

[eShirl]

8. lol

k&r

[woo me with science]

72. The OP purposely misrepresents. Here is what the public editor ACTUALLY wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html?ref=opinion

The Public Editor
The Acorn Sting Revisited
By CLARK HOYT
Published: March 20, 2010

<snip>

...Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”

The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

.... <snip>


Some people want their own opinions AND their own facts.

[zbdent]

79. Gee ... the fact that, in this same article, the New York Times admits it

did the very investigative reporting required to make an article bulletproof.

The "whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O'Keefe wore" issue was reported in the original coverage as O'Keefe wore the classic "pimp" outfit and the girl wore a "hooker" outfit. This was based on the "investigative reporting" of watching Fox News, which showed O'Keefe wearing the pimp outfit in the studio, and the host saying that O'Keefe wore the "pimp" outfit in the video, and O'Keefe not denying it. However, the fact that the New York Times just took it as gospel that the buy dressed as a pimp and reported it as such gives a hellofa lot of concern about their ability to do any "investigative reporting" of any Repug/conservative at all.

And, of course, the New York Times, in THIS article, points out that it takes the transcripts (of the heavily edited videos) from a CONSERVATIVE web site (gee, no political axe to grind there?). That's about the same as saying the court should find an axe murder innocent of the crime (despite the bloodstained axe with his fingerprints all over it) because they took a statement from the axe murderer's website saying that he was innocent.

From the article:

They argue that The Times was wrong when it said that James O’Keefe, who shot the videos, was in the “gaudy guise” of a pimp when he accompanied Hannah Giles, dressed as a streetwalker, into Acorn offices, and that the paper mischaracterized what happened in the offices. O’Keefe didn’t present himself as a pimp, the argument goes, but as a clean-cut young man, sometimes a college student, trying to rescue his girlfriend and under-age girls from an abusive pimp. The Times’s version of events, FAIR said, was “wildly misleading.”

also from the article:

O’Keefe almost certainly did not go into the Acorn offices in the outlandish costume — fur coat, goggle-like sunglasses, walking stick and broad-brimmed hat — in which he appeared at the beginning and end of most of his videos. It is easy to see why The Times and other news organizations got a different impression. At one point, as the videos were being released, O’Keefe wore the get-up on Fox News, and a host said he was “dressed exactly in the same outfit he wore to these Acorn offices.” He did not argue.

hmm ... looks to me that the New York Times' investigative reporting of the videos was that they took whatever O'Keefe said as God's word set in stone tablets ...

[woo me with science]

87. LOL.

Yes, what you cite is in the article, near the beginning. The article then continues the way I posted. You CHOOSE not to pay attention to the highlighted parts, which summarize the overall tone and conclusions of the Public Editor.

The OP created a ridiculous headline indicating that the Public Editor trumpets ACORN's exoneration. Nothing could be further from the truth, your attempts at cherry picking notwithstanding.

In fact, your post, and this whole thread, exemplify this sentence from the article:

Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them.

Grasshopper, you have to read the ENTIRE article, not just the parts you like.

[zbdent]

96. and you, asshopper, are full of it ...

The New York Times, and all the other media, held up this as "the truth".

Your assumption "if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong" is wrong.

When you're trying to prove your case, and one of your biggest points is false, that brings to question the credibility of everything other "fact" reported as "fact". This "Public Editor" is trying to cover his ass in a situation where he really could stand to lose a lot in a court case.

To put it another way, if this were put up about a Republican by a "lefty" news source, it would have been laughed right out of the "liberal media".

edited to add:

Do you really believe that someone would allow a heavily edited video (or a series of heavily edited videos) and the "transcripts" of the heavily edited videos would hold up in a court of law?

The "Public Editor" himself said "I have reviewed the entire available public record, including the O’Keefe videos and what are represented on a conservative Web site as the full transcripts and audio of his visits to the Acorn offices."

Key words: "entire available public record" ... which was the heavily edited videos provided by the compliant Conservative web site.

I would love to be able to get away with a heavily edited defense like that. Kinda like a 3+ hour baseball game actually, edited down to just the moments where a baseball is moving, would last a mere fraction of the time.

Or do you believe that you would go to a football game, and it be over in just an hour?

[The Doctor.]

100. Whose assumption was that?

I thought it was the editor's assumption.

[woo me with science]

101. Nonsense.

The OP's title is misleading. Period. The OP states that the Public Editor came out and vindicated ACORN. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Public Editor states that clearly, in his own words.

Have *YOU* watched the entire unedited public record? I didn't think so. Neither have I. But the Public Editor HAS, with an eye specifically focused on the problem of misleading editing. And his conclusion, after examining what is actually there and the continuity of it, is that ACORN defenders are deluding themselves if they think that bad editing absolves ACORN completely in this case.

"Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that THE WHOLE STORY will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them."

Bottom line: The OP completely misrepresents what the Public Editor concluded about ACORN. I know YOU don't agree with the public editor's conclusions, but you should at least be able to admit that those conclusions aren't what the OP stated they were.

[tsuki]

7. Every major cable outlet knew it was a hoax when they reported it.

A very heavily edited video tape shows up from a dubious source, and the group of "professionals" whose livelihood is knowing the ends and outs of video accept it as God's Word from on High.

Imagine a plumber coming to your house and asking what water is, or an electrician expressing surprise that there are different gauges of wire.

They knew, therefore, they lied. Easy target, low overhead, or just low.

[blm]

24. They would if they were LEGITIMATE newsmedia, but, corpmedia nowadays is just PR for fascist agenda

just as intended when the corporations buying control made their purchases in the 80s and 90s. Money WELLSPENT by the fascists who have gotten pretty much everything they wanted the last twenty years.

[laughingliberal]

66. Hard to ignore this. Yet, we do. nt

[MUAD_DIB]

38. One better. Every major news outlet should issue a retraction, but

they have to spend just as much time on the retraction as they did on their hit piece of ACORN.

[JDPriestly]

65. No! They should not just issue a retraction.

They should report on the manufacturing of lies by extremists on the right.

The "pimp" video wasn't just an exaggeration or an editing of film. It was a libelous fabrication. I hope that Acorn sues and wins big time.

The hoaxes that the right inflicts on us is the real story. The grounds that were given for going into Iraq were hoaxes. Think yellow-cake from Niger.

The right has perpetrated so many hoaxes on our country that it isn't funny: Watergate, maybe with Kennedy's assassination (who can know the truth about anything with a media as dishonest as ours) and maybe before. Meanwhile, folks like Joe Scarborough and Wolf Blitzer gently keep the lies coming.

[marshall]

89. Have the folks who were fired ever gotten their jobs back?

Assuming that there is a job to come back to.

[Occulus]

2. He's comfortable saying that now that the damage is done n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

12. +1000 n/t

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

49. +1001 n/t

[laughingliberal]

67. +1002 nt

[MUAD_DIB]

39. Now that they have a Mea Culpa ACORN should sue the NYT, for conspiracy to

destroy their organization.


If I float false information about a company that damages their stock value then I am pretty sure that I could be held liable for that.

[No Elephants]

42. Not for conspiracy, but for defamation. I think this meets the "reckless disregard" standard.

[Beartracks]

85. +1 n/t

[Diane R]

77. +1003

[Enthusiast]

5. Like we will see this

on CNN. This is a REAL story but real stories are hidden.

[depakid]

6. How quickly the Democrats turned on one their allies

and folded in the wake of the looney right.

[NewJeffCT]

9. That was what was so depressing on the ACORN story

wasn't the vote like 89-6 to strip them of funding - without so much as a hearing.

[rhett o rick]

56. Agree. Something is very rotten in Dem-mark. nm

[madrchsod]

17. is`t that the truth,,,

everyone from the president on down has folded in the face of the fox news party.

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Folding? Not necessarily.

I kinda think a lot of them were jumping on a handy excuse to a) take a publicly visible kick at those who advocate for poor people, and b) defund a group they saw as a nuisance. And I mean I think DEMOCRATS wanted to do those things. Poor people don't make campaign contributions, but their enemies do.

[No Elephants]

45. I disagree. The people ACORN was registering are a lot likelier to vote Democratic than they

are to vote Republican. That's why the Republicans target ACORN to begin with.

Democrats and Republicans both have their campaigns covered by corporate contributions, but someone still has to pull those levers at the polls, at least for now. (I can't speak to what the SCOTUS might decide next about corporations.)

The Democrats hastening to adopt an unconstitutional bill was yet another example of cowardly Democrats shooting their own best interests in the foot.

[JHB]

53. ACORN has been a thorn in the side of urban real estate interests...

...which are a block of monied Democrats far older than arrangments like the DLC (it dates more back to ye olden days of rich urbanites cutting deals with city political machines).

So knocking down ACORN is short-sighted for the Denocratic Party, but there are also a lot of people who make a major chunk of Democratic fundraising sources who aren't at all sorry it see it hobbled or eliminated.

[defendandprotect]

63. Right .... and also noisy about "Liar Loans".... I thought quite odd that they were abandoned so....

quickly by Dems, but you have to remember these are the Corporate-Dems!!

And, am I wrong, or have they been rather silent on the Health Care deform?

Too busy with lawsuits? Or intimidated?

[BlooInBloo]

78. They were never really on our side. Just pretending.

[FatDave]

82. Congressional Democrats shit themselves every time the right says "boo!"

It's fucking pathetic.

[Blue_Tires]

88. +1

[NewJeffCT]

10. How about I consider never buying the NY Times again?

if they're "considering" a correction.

[Vinca]

11. End result: ACORN is bankrupt because they lost federal funding.

That's unlikely to change any time soon give the GOP hate machine.

[Pab Sungenis]

14. Next stop, the courts.

ACORN should take Andrew Breitbart and all of his thugs for every penny they will ever have.

[pattmarty]

33. I agree taking them to court to ruin them. But collecting a dime, good luck.

[closeupready]

40. +1

n/t

[DemoTex]

22. In other words .. GOPer words:

Mission Accomplished

[tom_paine]

29. Exactly, DemoTex. The ACORN Psyop perpetrated by the Bushies was a complete success.

Now, the whispered retraction in one media outlet.

Scary!

OTOH, for the pollyannas, it's a start, right?

[Imajika]

13. What am I missing?

I see this posted here all the time. I am confused about all the effort to get a retraction from the NYT. I am all for setting the record straight, but what difference does it make if O'Keefe was wearing a pimp costume? How does that change much of anything. They still said what they said, the ACORN staff still said what they said, and enough of it was caught on film to be damning.

If every media outlet in the world came out and said O'Keefe wasn't really wearing a pimp outfit, but everything else was more or less as reported, how would it change anything at all?

[democracy1st]

15. The constitution says bills of attainder are unconstitutional, video edited therefore they lied.

[Celebration]

18. because it is a big crack in the story

What people remember most about the story was the outrageous costume. And, if that was faked, then what else was?

[NewJeffCT]

26. You can edit any videotape to make it look damning

Well, any videotape where both sides speak at length. Just cut a few pieces from one bit and put it in another area.


FAKE PIMP: "I have some underage prostitutes that need some help - can you give me some advice?"

Acorn worker: "I would think you need to contact the authorities.

FAKE PIMP: "You can help me with this situation - that would be fantastic!"

Acorn worker: "Yes, we can help you with this situation..."


Then, cut out the first reply and then the 2nd comment (the bits not in bold) from the fake pimp and suddenly it already looks damning.

Then, imagine the conversation is totally innocent in the beginning - just routine help and advice that Acorn may give... however, that goes on for 10-20-30 minutes and they accumulate enough video to edit it and have the Acorn employee confessing to being Jack the Ripper.

[BradBlog]

32. Your missing the verifiable truth, just like the rest of us...

"They still said what they said, the ACORN staff still said what they said, and enough of it was caught on film to be damning."

If you're referring to what O'Keefe and Giles said, enough of it was overdubbed later that we don't know what they actually said and what quetions that ACORN workers were responding to when seen on the heavily edited tapes, according to former MA Atty General Scott Harshbarger's report.

As to what ACORN workers said, what was it that they said which you believe was so damning?

[zbdent]

81. and, in this article,

the New York Times admits that the videos were heavily edited ...

and, don't forget, when the "videos" were released, wasn't a lot of what was said by O'Thiefe and co. dubbed out?

Kinda like taking out the footage of the Zapruder film ... and making it into a video of JFK taking a nice Sunday drive through Dallas in November.

[No Elephants]

48. What you're missing is that ACORN has been exonerated by offices of district attorneys that have

viewed the entire tape.

[Chakab]

50. You're missing the fact that

the tape where "they said what they said" was heavily edited and b-rolled and the comments of the ACORN staffers were taken out of context. They have been cleared of any wrongdoing in federal court and in two separate criminal investigations by local prosecutors.

It's one thing for right wingers to continue to claim that ACORN is part of some vast criminal enterprise that is bent on subverting the democratic process in this country while prostituting children, but it's very disheartening to see that so many alleged Progressives still buy into this bogus and manufactured controversy.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. the whole thing was edited and faked for false effect

it was manipulated. A giant con job, a lie.
Let's start with your definition of accuracy, as 'more or less as reported'. What the hell does 'more or less' mean in terms of fact. More or less honest? The man faked his end of the tapes with full costume, with intent to deceive. That in itself is inherently dishonest.
Here, for your edification, is an editing of your post: "I am confused, everything was as reported, O'Keefe was wearing a pimp costume." There you have it. Those are your words, with some of the other ones cut out. That is called editing. Is it like what you said? No. Are they your words? Yes.

[JHB]

57. Several things:

1) It wasn't just the costume. The tapes were edited and overdubbed (i.e., things were left out, and some of what was "said" on the tape was not what was said in the office when they were filming). In all cases he showed up with a "clean-cut college kid" look (the young woman did wear the "prostitute" outfit) and I know in at least once case the person at ACORN said he claimed to be her boyfriend (not her pimp), and was trying to help her get away from her pimp (someone else) who would beat her. And while they were doing that, they also wanted to help a bunch of underage girls (already in the country, working for this same pimp) get away from him too. She said she was afraid to go to the police because she was afraid the pimp would kill her (and/or some of the girls).

That's a different situation than the one shown on the tapes, and not surprising the ACORN people might have taken it more seriously than the situation they claimed on the tape.

2) The costume set the stage for the whole reaction: it's what made peoples' jaws drop thinking "how dumb can these ACORN people be?" It also set the stage for the implication that they were complicit in proposed illeagal acts: the common thought being "either they're dumber than a bag of rocks, or they're crooks too."

[woo me with science]

73. You are absolutely right.

The OP completely misrepresents what the Public Editor actually wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html?...

The Public Editor
The Acorn Sting Revisited
By CLARK HOYT
Published: March 20, 2010

<snip>

...Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”

The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

.... <snip>


Some people want their own opinions AND their own facts.

[stevenleser]

97. Curious that you didnt bold "In two cites, Acorn workers called the police". Isnt that the most

important part of the story that can be verified?

I dont care what the conversation was about. If the Acorn workers thought they were confronted with a genuine pimp, maybe they were playing along until they could call the cops. I would recommend doing exactly that if one finds themselves face to face with a genuine violent criminal.

[rhett o rick]

102. Do some research. It was a sham and the CorpMedia bought it. nm

[craigmatic]

16. It's ironic how these right wingers call the nyt a left wing media icon but then they do

things like this. It just shows how much power faux has in the media and the weakness of most of the other outlets. I can't believe that something this stupid happened and cause a major community group in this country to lose funding.

[Vermontgrown]

21. The word community is like krytonite to repukes.

The repukes want to rip communties apart in this country so they can shake the money out of everyones pockets. Repukes are public enemy number one

[Faygo Kid]

19. Not good enough. Resign.

The damage has been incalculable. They are all Faux News now.

[SpiralHawk]

20. Good - report on the right-wing propaganda hoax

Spare America any further Republicon Homelander truth attacks.

[Kingofalldems]

23. O'Keefe's pal jumped all over ACORN when this came out

Now strangely silent. What gives? :shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. WRONG WRONG WRONG! He does NOT apologize.

What he giveth with one hand, he taketh with the other.
IN fact, the public editor ends up claiming the ACORD WAS at fault. His last two paragraphs ends up claiming that there were structural problems at ACORN that a new director did not have time to fix.

I wonder if people read the same article I did. Because this was no admission of error by NYT. It was more of a defense of NYT. He even alleges that the worst video was not doctored.

[wial]

27. I think ACORN deserves to win a massive lawsuit

big enough to punish the NY Times and put Fox completely out of business, and to punish Congress severely too. ACORN is a rare example of an organization of good guys. The patrician, arrogant Times and nakedly fascist Fox and the corrupt Congress -- not so much.

[rurallib]

30. but didn't FUX win the right to lie abut ten years ago?

you know - freedom of press.
Would it not be poetic justice to see Rupert's billions got to ACORN?

[ThomThom]

28. a retraction is good but does not get them back their funding

and they will shut their doors
this little bite of theater has served its purpose

[fascisthunter]

31. good work Brad! (nt)

[fasttense]

34. Seems to me that ACORN has a good case for libel.

"United States law dictates that for something to be considered libel it must be proven that the one making the libelous charges did so with malicious intent and with full knowledge that the statements were false. Furthermore personal opinion is protected as a First Amendment right. Therefore being careful to state the facts of a personal experience in non-malicious language, followed by words like, "therefore in my opinion..." will go a long way toward protecting yourself against charges of slander or libel."

Seems to me that after ACORN was found not to be engaged in illegal activity and the Times continued to report the story as if they were, that smacks of libel.

Not to mention the fact that all those TV news shows should have known the tapes were heavily edited and should have reported that.

But of course ACORN no longer has any money to pursue legal action thanks to those very same newspapers and TV news shows.

[pleah]

35. K&R

[AtLiberty]

36. Why was this sooooooooo hard?

K & R

[Joe Bacon]

41. "All the Lies the GOP Tells Us To Print"

That's what the Screw York Times is.

The only person who tells the truth at the times is Krugman. It's only a matter of time before they fire him.

Everyone else who works at that propaganda rag is a goddam liar.

They lied about Whitewater. Never retracted their lies.

They lied about Al Gore. Never apologized to him.

They lied about Dr. Lee. Never retracted the lies. So what if his life is destroyed?

They lied about WMD. All the time Judith Miller was Chalabi's little blow up doll, they printed her lies that sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths and bankrupted our country.

The Screw York Times isn't a newspaper. It's a GOP propaganda rag.

[thesquanderer]

44. Just Krugman? Frank Rich is good too... (n/t)

[Joe Bacon]

59. Rich was Al Gore's #1 hater in 2000.

Frank Rich trashed Al Gore every chance he could in 2000. He made up the "Love Story" lie and repeated it ad nauseum. Fartin Frank included ever lie about Al Gore in his 2000 columns and he was Bush's #1 cheerleader.

Go to Bob Somerby's Daily Howler and read Bob's careful documentation of every lie Fartin Frank told about Gore in 2000.

Unitl that bloated blimp apologizes to Al Gore for all the lies he told, he can go to hell. Along with every other god-damned liar who writes for that right wing propaganda rag!

[donquijoterocket]

68. Talk to a nam vet

who had his head in the game during that debacle and see how much the NYT was hated by troops at the time for being one of the principle cheerleaders for that military misadventure.Their status as a liberal icon is largely a conservative fiction designed to discredit the so-called paper of record who, with exceptions, used to do a fairly good job of reporting.The whole ACORN thing was part of the repcons wedge strategy along with abortion and marriage equality to split the country into more easily manipulated splinters and the NYT fell for it, whether knowingly or not, remains to be seen. This at least is a good start now if they'd just follow up with a full retraction, apology, and explanation of exactly what went on it would go some way toward restoring some of their credibility.

[Iggo]

43. Too late for it to matter.

But you knew that, right Mr. Hoyt?

[thesquanderer]

46. Comments I posted there:

My response to the public editor:

The article says, "It is easy to see why The Times...got a different impression. At one point, as the videos were being released, O’Keefe wore the get-up on Fox News, and a host said he was 'dressed exactly in the same outfit he wore to these Acorn offices.' He did not argue."

I am astonished that you would take O'Keefe's failure to correct the host as evidence of the statement's truth, when it was clearly in O'Keefe's interest to stay quiet and let the statement stand.

And if you're going to suggest that "a Fox host said it, so it must be true" is your standard for reporting, you might as well just sell the Times to Mr. Murdoch and be done with it.

When the Times reports something, I think your readers expect that the writer has made some reasonable effort at confirming the facts, beyond "I saw it on Fox news."

Also, the facts as you state them actually suggest that, at worst, stupid comments came from some low-level ACORN employees (while others indeed acted appropriately). To imply that that might justify the subsequent events that have nearly destroyed the organization is like saying Wal-Mart or McDonald's deserve to be shut down for some stupid things some of their cashiers have done.

[catgirl]

47. I think I'll skip the NYT Sunday paper today

If they don't make good on this, I'll seriously never buy it again.

[Wilms]

51. I haven't followed closely enough, but their admission likely follows your dogged pursuit.

You're an ankle biter, Brad. :hi:

[FourScore]

52. 'Bout f*cking time!

[rhett o rick]

55. It is much bigger than an error by the paper. It shows a total lack of respect

for the truth. Journalism is dead, the "free" press is dead and so goes our Democracy.

[bobbolink]

58. So, what is HE, what are THEY going to do to restore the organization??

No way, Meester Editor.... a simple apology won't cut it. You have destroyed an organization, and now its up to you to make amends and REBUILD IT.

I don't care if it takes all the millions you have-- YOU OWE ACORN!!

:nuke:

[Joe Bacon]

69. Like those PRE$$ WHORE$ really care.

The $crew York Time$ was bought off years ago. It doesn't publish "All The News That's Fit To Print". It DOES print "All The Propaganda The GOP Tells Us To Print"!

[Jkid]

60. K and R

[orbitalman]

61. OK. Now, reverse the damage already done-assholes. nt

[defendandprotect]

62. Good to see even a bit of contrition on the lies about ACORN --!!!

[Maraya1969]

64. Didn't ACORN lose federal funding because of this? Either way they need to sue

because I'm sure they lost money in donations, (if you could make donations, I don't know)

[bobbolink]

93. ABSOLUTELY! The people working for ACORN were obviously hurt,

but so were all the people who depend on the help they received from ACORN.

Yup, SUE!

[ooglymoogly]

70. Day late, dollar short. Headline should have read

Disgraced NY Times dragged by its deaf ears, kicking and screaming into reality. The NY Times has turned itself from "Paper of Record" to Rag of broken record and of hypocritical garbage and propaganda.

[ooglymoogly]

71. How can I donate to Acorn????

These good people must not go down in flames; Otherwise, the lie and the repugnant pugs win....and speaking of dirty tricks; The whole pug party is a dirty trick designed to destroy America and her constitution and I think the American people are finally catching on.

[ooglymoogly]

74. Am donating $50 to Acorn, hope many will follow by donating whatever you can. link

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/4538/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=3011

http://www.acorn.org/?12340

[diva77]

90. I wish I could get back that $100 I gave to John Edwards and give it to ACORN!!

:grr:

[alp227]

75. I can't wait for a big lawsuit by the near-bankrupt ACORN.

Even Andrew Breitbart has admitted to being duped O'Keefe & Giles. Hopefully, James O'Keefe gets a civil suit filed against him in addition to his criminal charges for the unrelated case of an attempted break-in of Senator Mary Landrieu's office. This is a compelling libel case in which involved parties who bought the BS now retract it after more scrutiny that should have been applied much much earlier. Because of a lack of critical thinking, Congress has now withdrawn federal funding from ACORN, and now ACORN is facing bankruptcy. ACORN is one of the few American organisations supporting the poor and does not deserve all this right-wing trash talk. This is the 2nd major retraction controversy this year besides the vaccine/autism study.

[Hutzpa]

76. This doesn't change

a thing as ACORN has lost all funding from Congress, it's mistakes like these that sent us to war which is
still costing this country huge sums of money daily.

What I would like to see done is for NYT fight on ACORN's behalf to help get them their funding back.

Can you do that Clark Hoyt???

It's journalism at its worse, whereas they don't fact check their sources but write articles on the whim of
ignorance and innuendos.

[wryter2000]

80. No excrement, Sherlock

When you plan to do something to fix your pathetic reporting, THAT'LL be news!

[Nothing Without Hope]

83. Don't expect an anywhere adequately publicized retraction in any major venue.

The damage has been done, as intended.

[BrklynLiberal]

84. Is : Better late than never : acceptable???

[tbyg52]

86. Great. *After* they basically destroyed ACORN. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

91. Sadly, "ACORN reportedly on verge of bankruptcy"

ACORN reportedly on verge of bankruptcy
By Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 21, 2010

The liberal political organizing group ACORN is on the verge of bankruptcy following a string of disclosures about mismanagement that caused funding to dry up, according to a source familiar with the organization.

Leaders of the embattled grass-roots group and their advisers have been discussing options for weeks as donors, including foundations and government entities, have cut back on funding, according to another source, who took part in talks about ACORN's future.

Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public and Policy Institute, said ACORN leaders have told him of plans to file for bankruptcy and form a new entity to serve as a public policy link to local and state chapters "without the name of ACORN."
...
more at the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032003172.html

[GoddessOfGuinness]

92. But I guess he won't lose his job...

Dan Rather was fired for telling the truth; and this scum will probably get a payraise for lying.

[babsbunny]

94. What time will I see this on the TEE VEE

NEWS program?

[AtLiberty]

95. Kick!!!

!!!

[Festivito]

98. A 101 days of lies in the NYTimes. 14 NYTimes reporter co-conspirators. (Rant)

Hides retraction using rhetorical devices to just plain bad writing.

The name is Clark Hoyt, public editor, NYTimes. He needs to resign. Is this guy performing the usual NYTimes method of operation? Put a lie out there, hide it behind other people, let it bake for enough time to do damage, then hazily retract it offering that it as a non-retraction retraction, say, it doesn't matter either way or some such garbage writing that should also be retracted if not just for its haziness, but won't be, in a good time frame at least.

Isn't that how the lies about Al Gore lying were skillfully given to the public?

In the middle of the article he finally admits it, to the lie of a "gaudy guise" that did not happen as written but only while quickly jumping from general statements to details that can rhetorically confuse readers. For instance using "He" when it could mean one of two or even more people leaving the reader a sense of being unsure of what was attributed to whom especially with sentence after sentence changing the person of subject all in the same paragraph. That helps to hide the clarity people could then have as they talk at the water cooler.

People should be warned before reading such articles. No one except district attorney's office have seen the unedited videos (as long as the lying stopped at them as that would be a crime) and they found nothing wrong. So, notice the clever way the "Revisited" article says it: "entire available public record" or, in other words, the whatever the sleazy film editor says is a full transcript. Whatever full might mean to him, such as one cut that just doesn't reverse some scenes maybe? To conservatives (sic)(that should be with a large C), ACORN is VIRTUALLY a criminal organization that was guilty of... ." Then after leaving an impression of ACORN being guilty of fraud, ... you get what its SUPPORTERS think. Clever.

Makes me wonder that our newspapers, radio and TVs aren't just outlets for ex-CIA agents trying to justify their prior actions taken without realizing which guys they worked for were the bad guys before Senator Church stepped in. They never figured and still don't figure that those guys that they bonded with, that were taking risks along side of them did so to get a better spot near the top of daddy's will and would risk nearly anything to get up there and of course enhance the amount of the future inheritance at the same time.

We've become a nation of people trying to craft ways of getting money out of other people any way we can. Right down to the guy who decides which photo to run of an editor for his "revisited" article.

[NoSheep]

99. This is excellent! Our letters may have worked!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!!!

Restore funding NOW! :bounce:

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. kick and recommend