DANGEROUS JOURNALISM: The James O’Keefe Story

Last week a couple of guys dressed as telephone repairmen entered Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in a New Orleans Federal building (below, left). Here is what we know for sure: They had to have entered the building under false pretenses. They videotaped their experience in Landrieu’s office using a cell phone and a camera hidden in one of the men’s helmets. Landrieu’s staff was suspicious and contacted security, who called the police. Four men were arrested, including one James O’Keefe. O’Keefe, some readers will recall, is the young man who disguised himself as a pimp in 2008, and accompanied by a woman disguised as a prostitute (header photo), entered several ACORN offices inquiring about how to start an illegal business of smuggling underage girls from El Salvador, with the intent of using them in a sex-related business. Those encounters were also videotaped, resulting in funding and support being cut off nationwide for ACORN.

James O’Keefe spent the night in jail, or 28 hours to be exact, and allegedly was denied the right to contact an attorney. This has not been substantiated yet. Federal prosecutors report that each alleged perpetrator now faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for "entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony.” During the 28 hours O’Keefe was incarcerated, mainstream media reported the incident and some outlets suggested O’Keefe was in Landrieu’s office to bug her phones. The reported reason for this was that Landrieu had secured a $300 million payout for the state of Louisiana, after agreeing to vote in favor of moving the healthcare issue into the debate stage, back in November, 2009. Landrieu was the subject of slings and arrows from all quarters of the U.S. Some said simply that her vote was bought and paid for. Others went so far as to call her a prostitute or to say she whored herself and her state and sold her vote once the bid got high enough. For the record, here’s what Landrieu had to say about her decision to vote yes for the healthcare debate:

O’Keefe now says his aim was to uncover the truth as to why Landrieu’s office was not accepting phone inquiries about her vote. Apparently, some constituents and others were having trouble for up to three weeks getting their calls into Landrieu’s office. How O’Keefe & Co. were going to expose the truth is not known.

Here is what O’Keefe had to say to Sean Hannity on FOX News following his release:

Now, you may draw your own conclusions about what Landrieu did or did not do, the legitimacy of her decision and the effect the incident may have on future efforts to secure Senate votes. That’s not what I’m here for. I’m here to explore O'Keefe’s dangerous “journalistic” tactics.

Notice in his interview with O’Keefe in one passing comment he refers to “New Age Journalism.” Prior to using that term he alludes to mainstream media investigative journalism techniques that employ the use of deception to get their story. He refers to the Food Lion incident in 1997, when ABC used hidden cameras to prove that the grocery chain was using unsanitary food handling procedures, including bleaching outdated pork with Clorox, repackaging it and selling it. He also referred to NBC’s “Dateline” as a prime example of the use of deception in journalism.

My ears perked up when I heard this, because I teach media ethics, and one of the main topics we cover is the use of deception in gathering information for a story. Author/ethicist Louis Alvin Day, in his book “Ethics in Media Communications” cites four criteria for the use of deception in journalism, which I happen to support. Day contends deception might be used in reporting:
1. If the reporter is convinced the information is of compelling public importance.
What did O’Keefe see as a matter of compelling public importance – that Landrieu finagled $300 million for Louisiana, or that her staff was allegedly not taking calls? If it was the former, Landrieu has been totally forthcoming about the amount and her reasons for doing it. You may not agree with her reasons, but she said it out loud in the Senate and on national television.
2. If the reporter has considered all alternatives to the use of deception.
What did O’Keefe and his cronies do before they entered a Federal building under false pretenses? Did they try to meet with Landrieu? Did they contact her chief of staff? Did they research what she said about the $300 million to determine if there was truly any cause for alarm or action? Did they enter Landrieu’s office in street clothes and ask to meet with someone about the fact that they were unable to reach the staff by phone? So far, O’Keefe has not revealed anything legitimate that he did to gather information.
3. If the reporter is convinced the benefit outweighs the harm to the parties involved.
Regardless of what type of information O’Keefe may have secured in this caper, the fact is he entered a Federal building and a government office under false pretenses, impersonating a utility technician. What does this say to us, the citizens about the security of our Federal buildings? Does anyone remember the Murrah Federal building bombing, Oklahoma City in 1995, (above, left) or is that just a footnote in the history books now? If O’Keefe wanted to truly gather information of compelling public importance, perhaps he could have used his extreme escapade to uncover security flaws in these buildings. But that was not his intention. Did the benefit outweigh the harm here? The evidence revealed so far would say not.
4. If the reporter discloses to the audience the nature of the deception and the reason it was used.
As of now, we have no way of knowing if O’Keefe was going to disclose what he did, and if the public would be better off for his actions.

What worries me more than anything is his reference to “New Age Journalism.” If O’Keefe sees the transitions traditional journalism has made in the past decade or so as carte blanche to employ any techniques necessary to gather information, he is severely misinterpreting the discipline of journalism. I did a little digging into his background. He earned a philosophy degree from Rutgers University, and while there he started a conservative newspaper called The Centurion, which still exists today. The first issue reveals the publication’s socio-political stance, albeit with some questionable writing and reporting. The early editions of The Centurion smack of the old Andy Rooney/Judy Garland movies where the iconic phrase became, “Hey kids, let’s put on a show.” O’Keefe, it appears from this vantage point, needs some good journalistic training, and certainly some mentoring in investigative journalism. His founding of the Centurion was certainly in the Rooney/Garland genre. If he is going to try to uncover truths he feels the public needs to know, he first must learn how to do it without breaking the law and certainly without getting arrested. Apparently, he has not considered that.

Further, at the ripe old age of 26, O’Keefe has become something of a college conservative media god to his successors. Here is what Rutgers student and Centurion writer Stephanie Jablonsky wrote in the December, 2009 edition of The Centurion:

“On Wednesday, October 28, the steps of Brower Common were graced by the presence of the most notorious conservative activist in the nation, legendary Centurion founder and Rutgers grad, ACORN infiltrator…James O’Freaking Keefe. When he arrived as the College Republicans’ main guest speaker for their campus Tea Party, babies cried, acorns cracked, and the stench of Rutgers’ progressive self-righteousness and hypocrisy was removed from the air –at least for a little while. James O’Keefe was home.”

You may view that over-the-top passage as simply that of a star-struck college co-ed, but that’s exactly the point. If O’Keefe is going to position himself as a new age version of the late William F. Buckley,(left, with President Ronald Reagan) perhaps he needs to get himself back in school, study public policy and journalism, and then try to change the world. You have to give him props for his chutzpah, but real activism comes from a place of strength, and that strength lies in knowledge and experience. The experience at 26 usually and necessarily has to be somebody else’s, but even that can light the way. O’Keefe’s bumbling turn as a pimp and his recent arrest are clear indications that he should not be positioning himself as a role model for young conservatives. Oh, and if you need further convincing that O’Keefe is the anti-journalist, watch this video of one of his lesser-known stunts in which heterosexual O’Keefe and his heterosexual friend trying to take out a marriage license in Massachusetts:

I realize how condescending this sounds, even before I write it, but I’m writing it anyway: O’Keefe is a very young guy. He’s trying to find his footing in the world. Like any other young guy, he will stumble along the way, but he has chosen to do it publicly. My sense of it is that the theatrics he uses today will someday make him cringe, especially the pimp suit. Apparently Magistrate Judge Louis Moore agrees with me on the youth angle. After O’Keefe’s unlawful entry in to the New Orleans Federal building, Judge Moore ordered O’Keefe to reside in the state of New Jersey until the next hearing – with his parents.

THE SUPREMES JUST CHANGED THE GAME

Politics, big business, money and high technology. Now there is a recipe for power, right? Chew on that for a moment while we explore what happened in the Supreme Court this week.

The Justices this week amended a six decade old law that limits the amount of money that corporations or labor unions can contribute to a political candidate’s campaign. Until now, there were severe restrictions on such donations, particularly since 2002 when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (more commonly referred to as McCain-Feingold) was enacted. This week, the Supreme Court essentially negated McCain-Feingold, and opened the door to a new era in which corporations and labor unions can spend as much of their organizational funds as they wish to ensure that “their” candidate is elected.

So what? Well, critics of the decision to reverse McCain-Feingold say this will severely inhibit the electoral process. Big business and labor will elect the President, while the common man, if you will, will have even less power and influence on perhaps the most important decision the citizenry makes.

The decision is the result of a suit brought by Citizens United, an conservative group that produced a film called “Hillary The Movie” during the 2008 campaign. The anti-Hillary film was shut down after a federal court ruled that the showing of this film violated the McCain-Feingold act. Because it was paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election, the court ruled it was in direct violation. Here is the trailer from the movie:

Supporters of the Supreme Court decision are leaning heavily on the First Amendment to the Constitution, somehow connecting the right of free speech with the right to spend massive amounts of money to ensure that a message is conveyed to the public. That is the sticking point in my mind. Since when is the amount of money someone spends to convey an idea commensurate with how much freedom he or she has to say it?

The Court was split 5-4 on this. Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority opinion, said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.”

The great irony here is that this grassroots, non-profit organization, Citizens United, managed to open the doors for the biggest profit-making corporations in the world to spend astronomical amounts of cash to elect politicians that will favor their commercial agendas.

Something tells me when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they were not associating the amount of money someone had with the freedom that they had to speak up. It is the current Supreme Court that has now made that assertion, and it seems quite twisted. And how timely: For years then, according to the Court, America has been denying corporate America its right to express itself. It just so happens that right as corporations get to spend as much as they want to promote a candidate, technology is simultaneously sophisticated enough to spread their message to a wider audience in real time. In terms of the potential for special interest groups to sway an election, I'd call this moment a perfect storm.

President Obama is not pleased. Shortly after the decision was rendered, Obama said, "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

With that he immediately issued a directive to Congress to start hashing this whole thing out in a bipartisan fashion and to push back against the Court’s decision. The trouble is that legal experts say there is not a whole lot Congress can do to counter the Supreme Court.

Talk radio is having a field day with this development. On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh pronounced Obama an “idiot who just happens to be President.” When Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the Court’s decision “undermines Democracy” and taints the electoral process, Fox's Sean Hannity used his airtime to launch personal attacks on Schumer, rather than to counter the Senator’s claims with a reasonable defense of the decision. Here is what Schumer said after the decision was handed down:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here is why this matters to you. For example, if the oil industry spends millions of dollars during a Presidential campaign, and its favored candidate wins, clearly the industry will have great persuasive power in Washington for the next four to eight years. That power easily can lead to legislation that favors the industry at the expense of your bank account. If the auto industry pushes its chosen candidate through, is it not possible it would use its newfound clout to see that certain safety or environmentally friendly features on cars may be eliminated, since the industry would prefer to spend less money manufacturing its vehicles?

And what about the airline industry? Currently in complete disarray, without even a person at the helm of the Transportation Safety Administration, what if it manages to maneuver a candidate into office? Will air marshals on domestic and international flights be eliminated to save money? Will airport security personnel be pared down to limit expenses? Will airlines manage to continue flying certain planes well after they should have been retired?

The Supreme Court’s decision is all about you. Everything that occurs in the upcoming elections this year and in 2012 is now likely to be highly influenced by corporate dollars and less influenced by you. The activity that occurs in an administration created by big business is likely to work against you, rather than for you. This brings us back to the strange bedfellows of politics, big business, money and high technology. Where do you and I fit in there? I can’t see that we do.
(Read the entire Supreme Court opinion on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission here)

PUNDITS BEHAVING BADLY

Before I start bashing some of our most highly rated talking heads, let me just say this: My goal here is not to badmouth right wingers. No, all I’m doing here is pondering: Why are some the most politically conservative on-air personalities so LOUD and over the top? Why is there so much ranting and raving and yelling and talking over each other and verbal mayhem? Have you met the latest of these media darlings? He’s Glenn Beck. He currently has his own talk radio show, as well as one hour, five nights a week on FOX. He yells a lot. He interrupts his interview subjects a lot. He cries real tears routinely. He’s dramatic in a sort of bad dinner theatre way. He makes proclamations about issues he seems to know little about. Two years after Hurricane Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast, this was his take on the rebuilding of New Orleans:

At various times he has called himself an entertainer, and even a rodeo clown. Call me a dinosaur, but whatever happened to the David Brinkleys and Walter Cronkites and Eric Severeids who once provoked thought among Americans? What happened to good grace and dignity in the public discourse? When did we dumb down American media to a point where a tearful, melodramatic former top 40 DJ interprets the critical issues of the day for the masses? What happened to intellect?

This past week we have heard much about Bill O’Reilly’s eight-year reign at the top of the cable news heap. Scroll down and you can watch O’Reilly and Letterman verbally duke it out on Late Night, even as O’Reilly enjoys the highest ratings in the history of cable news and a book that has sat on the NY Times bestseller list for more than six months. Yet, on-air, in front of his record-breaking audience share, Bill O’Reilly regularly chooses vitriol over decorum, and consistently demonstrates what not to do, if you label yourself a journalist. See for yourself:

This, of course, brings us to Sean Hannity, who in the following clip will say (with a straight, determined face) that the economy’s in pretty good shape and the war is going well. This he said in September, 2008. Hannity’s rants, while sometimes a wee bit better informed than O’Reilly’s, still tend to go extreme when he senses he’s losing an argument, and still often become too loud, too emotional and certainly way too adversarial to qualify as journalism. You be the judge:

To the cable talking heads who seem to believe that the louder and more histrionic their delivery, the more effective they will be, I say this: Your message is getting lost in the mayhem. In creating long-term credibility, often less is more. Understatement causes the listener to tune in, think critically and perhaps even align his or her thoughts with yours. Your objective should be to contribute mightily to the public mix of ideas, but your ideas cannot add up to much if your performance is all that is noticed. Glenn Beck, stop crying – really. Bill O’Reilly, take it down a notch and lose the F word. Every time you tell a guest to “shut up,” you demean yourself as a “journalist.” Sean Hannity, listen more, speak less. And when you do speak, focus on substance.

Substance – now there’s a concept, right?