Why James O'Keefe Is Not A Journalist

I'm glad this popped in my box today. I meant to add this information that came out after your post: ACORN Cleared of Criminality: O'Keefe Doctored Video ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2010/03/acorn-cleared-... ). It reminds us that we live in age where sometimes you shouldn't automatically believe your own eyes. You should ask is your vision being misdirected by sleight of hand.

Thanks for your comments. Nordette is right both about the SPJ guidelines for going undercover. That's what I tried to convey in my post. Thanks, Nordette, for the amplification.

The example you cite, (which I've not heard of before) is similar to the old NBC Dateline series, To Catch a Predator, in which decoys posing as teenagers arrange dates with adult men over the internet. Far from being cheered as heroes, the actions of the journalists on that show became the subject of considerable debate. Many journalists questioned whether the behavior of the staff bordered on entrapment, and raised concerns about journalists acting as agents of law enforcement. More information here:

CBS' Public Eye: Does Dateline Go Too Far "To Catch a Predator?" ( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500486_162-1290135-500... )

_____________: More Criticism for "To Catch a Predator" ( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500486_162-1445230-500... )

Kelly McBride, Poynter.Org: What's Wrong With "To Catch a Predator" ( http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=67&aid=12... )

Talk of the Nation, NPR. Ethics of NBC's Sting Show "To Catch a Predator" ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story... )

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for your comment and question.

I didn't get the impression that this post said something is inherently wrong with anyone going undercover. I read that undercover journalism has critics, but if it is done it should be done this way:

SPJ says it should only be done "when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public." And as the Columbia Journalism Review notes, it's even more important for undercover reporters to ensure that what they report is appropriately contextualized. That includes offering the target of the investigation an opportunity to respond - something that should be done anyway, regardless the way in which the investigation was conducted.
This is not how O'Keefe went about his business.

You spent a good deal of time mentioning ACORN's run in with O'Keefe, but it's not the ACORN case that has him facing criminal charges. It's the Senator Landrieu case. He's not being charged with going undercover. He's being charged with phone tampering as would anyone else who was unauthorized to "work" on her phones but showed up dressed as phone repair people would be charged.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

I appreciate your stance on the fact that O'Keefe is not a journalist. And I am very pleased and refreshed to hear this argument against him. I don't know that much about his past behavior but I trust what you say is accurate. And if he really didn't have much support for his theories about ACORN's criminal behavior then he shouldn't have gone undercover until he had more facts.

I would like to ask what your thoughts are on a similar matter. Former Miss America, Lauren Nelson, went undercover as a 14 year old to catch online child predetors. The Sullfolk County's police department in NY helped her set up an online profile and attracted predetors with a 14 year old picture of herself. She succeeded in busting 4 men. Here's a link to the whole story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268229,00.html.

I understand that Laura isn't calling herself a journalist. My only question is why is Laura regarded as a hero for going undercover to catch a criminal but O'Keefe is being tried and ridiculed for doing the same.

And let's face it: Reporters have been going undercover for years and continue to go undercover. 60 Minutes is a prime example:"60 Minutes Wednesday sent two staffers - production assistant Ignacio Garcia, and cameraman Ray Bribiesca - to Nebraska to find a man known in Schuyler's Hispanic community for peddling documents.
Posing as illegal immigrants looking for work at the Cargill plant, Garcia and Bribiesca went undercover and found their man, bar owner Michael Cuba". http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_04_21/us/us_id...

I agree that there's a fine line between a journalist and a man with an agenda and O'Keefe quite possibly crossed that line. Maybe he should be shunned by the journalist community. But I think charging him with anything criminal is a bit hypocritical considering we have no problem with Miss America or 60 Minutes and thier undercover journalism.

Thanks, everyone for your comments. The fact that O'Keefe tries to wrap himself in the mantle of journalism suggests to me that our ideals still have some potency, for all of the battering they have suffered. It's hard for people to understand or believe that there are those of us who really do try to find out and report the truth without fear of favor. Sustaining that commitment requires a faith in the processes of democracy and the better angels of human nature that most of us have simply lost or never in fact had. But I really think it's more important than ever.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Thank you for this post. It's easy to get so down about the state of journalism and, in O'Keefe's case, "journalism" today. He's a fraud. An activist, yes, but certainly not a journalist.

Katie 

- Reporter, writer and lover of good journalism

www.katielewis.ca ( http://www.katielewis.ca )

Thank you, Kim. I ranted one day on the way home with my son in the car. I explained to him that O'Keefe was not a journalist and his ACORN sting was not an objective report.  I've read that he visited at least four ACORN offices before he found one where he met someone doing something dishonest. A real journalist would have reported that he/she went to three offices first and found no evidence of fraud. But an activist who wanted to make an organization look bad would not.  His motivation was not to report fact but to promote his ideology and version of reality. And if the lame story he gives about why he was at Landrieu's office doesn't make his supporters see he's got a problem, then nothing will.

My son, who's been taking psychology courses, says O'Keefe's "reporting" is tainted because he was clearly biased. If, for instance, a person believes Mexicans are not very bright, then that person will focus on faults he or she finds in the Mexican community that support that belief and ignore the many examples that discredit it. They are in effect blind to smart people of Mexican descent. So, would O'Keefe have recognized anything good in ACORN or its work? He went in with the thought something was wrong with the group. If you look for dirt, you'll find it. Twisting the story by showing himself in a pimp outfit that he never sported in an actual office is also very telling.

ACORN has issues, no one will deny that, but what motivated him to go after ACORN in the first place shows he's no practitioner of journalism. He's a conservative activist and a liar to boot, based on his explanations regarding Landrieu. 

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

It's like we got past yellow dog journalism and didn't like it when newspapers and reporters only told us things that confirmed our beliefs, so we chucked it out the window and added new levels of self-righteousness and indignation to the whole package.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

As a journalist, one of the most frustrating things I experience are hacks out there who claim to be journalists, yet work for themselves and follow ethics and morals accoring to how they operate.

I really wish there were some sort of a certificating process out there so not every , Tom, Dick and Harry could misrepresent themselves as professionals. It dimishes the work of others who actually operate under ethical and moral codes.

Another problem I have is the public; some of O'Keefe's followers eat it all up. A poll was released recently that said Fox is the most trusted newsource. It seems more people trust their newsource based on the lack of nuetrality and how the reporting is more scewed toward one side or the other.

What has happened to reporting and journalism?! The future seems so bleak sometimes.

– Traci Hatling (small-time journalist trying to write about anything else but what she is paid for) Check me out at http://tracihatling.blogspot.com