Purely B-Roll'

[Nbadan]

Another wing-nut conspiracy theory turns to shit

Giles Admits O'Keefe, Breitbart ACORN 'Pimp' Story was a Lie: 'It Was B-Roll,

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/HannahGiles_GriffJenkins_CPAC_021910.jpg

Woman who posed as prostitute confirms repeated misreporting by NYTimes, many others...


Speaking to Washington Independent reporter David Weigel today at CPAC, Hannah Giles, who posed as a prostitute in James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart's infamous, highly-doctored, heavily-overdubbed, secretly-taped ACORN hit videos, confirms what we've been reporting for several weeks here: O'Keefe never dressed as a pimp in the offices of ACORN.

Reports Weigel today (emphasis added):

I asked Giles about a criticism that’s often been leveled against them — that they hyped up the video by wearing outrageous clothes in promotional materials and the videos’ introductions that they didn’t wear in the actual stings.


“We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume,” said Giles. “That was b-roll. It was purely b-roll. He was a pimp, I was a prostitute, and we were walking in front of government buildings to show how the government was whoring out the American people.”

Giles admission is in stark contrast to:

* O'Keefe's knowingly deceptive appearances on Fox "News" "dressed exactly in the same outfit that he wore in these ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard";

* Breitbart's out-and-out lies in his own 9/21/09 column to help promote the videos by claiming they show O'Keefe and Giles "going to the Baltimore offices of ACORN ... dressed as a pimp and a prostitute and asking for - and getting - help for various illegal activities";

* Breitbart's 2/15/10 tweet to The BRAD BLOG claiming that he's "told truth every step of way";

* and the repeated misreports by the New York Times (which they still stand behind despite all lack of evidence) and the many other mainstream outlets who were similarly hoodwinked into reporting the same phony story.


More, including details on responses from NYTimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt to The BRAD BLOG's repeated calls for retractions from the "paper of record"…

FULL STORY: Brad Blog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7708)

Its like I've been telling you all along. Giles and O'Keefe didn't go into ACORN offices dressed as a pimp and prostitute..they went as a girl in trouble and a political aide who wanted to help her out...the whole Pimp and Prostitute story was a FAUX News/ Breitbart/ BG.com wing-nut conspiracy that as usual turns to crap..that's why they won't release the complete unedited videos....I wonder if the M$M, preoccupied with Tiger woods fucking skanks, will notice..

[SouthernFried]

lol...where do you find this stuff?

I mean, really dan...you need to get out some.

[ChumpDumper]

lol...where do you find this stuff?

I mean, really dan...you need to get out some.With what part of the article are you taking issue?

[Nbadan]

...probably with the truth part!

:lol

[Nbadan]

'The Paper of Record' NYTimes and the O'Keefe debacle...

Media Matters notes Exec Editor Bill Keller's response to errors in 2005: 'It's amazing that some at this paper believe fact-checking is someone else's responsibility'...

The 'rave reviews' just keep pouring in for the massive fails by New York Times Senior Editor for Standards Greg Brock and their Public Editor (what they call their ombudsman) Clark Hoyt to recommend corrections for the repeated misreporting of the ACORN video "pimp" hoax.

At least one of them is absolutely devastating in highlighting both the extraordinary hypocrisy and sheer stupidity demonstrated by the "paper of record" in refusing to set the record state on their incontrovertibly inaccurate coverage of the false "pimp" story peddled by rightwing propagandists last year.

As The BRAD BLOG has been covering for weeks now, neither Brock nor Hoyt were able to offer evidence for the paper's repeatedly inaccurate reporting, characterizing rightwing con-man James O'Keefe as having played his now-infamous "pimp" character in the offices of ACORN on those widely-circulated, highly-doctored, heavily-overdubbed, secretly-taped videos despite both his and his employer/publisher Andrew Breitbart's deceptive assertions to the contrary when selling their blockbuster story to the gullible media and the public last September.

Hoyt, incredibly, even asserted to me via email that even though he's been proven wrong (and even now that both Hannah Giles who played the "prostitute" and Breitbart himself have admitted to the fraud) that he does not "see that a correction is in order, because that would require conclusive evidence that The Times was wrong, which I haven't seen."

Of course, he has now seen it, and has even conceded that O'Keefe is "journalistically unethical". Nonetheless, he has still refused to recommend any corrections, advising only that "Times editors ... avoid language that says or suggests that O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp when he captured the ACORN employees on camera."

Media Matter's Senior Fellow Jamison Foser responded to that point in a quick blog item earlier this week by observing that the Times seems to have "it backwards." By Hoyt's logic, he writes, "it seems the New York Times requires a higher standard of proof for retracting claims than for making them. Simply astounding."

Hoyt further went on, in support of his not recommending retractions and corrections, to tell me that "The Times would need to find out for itself what actually happened at those Acorn offices. It is up to the paper to decide whether the investment of effort is worthwhile."

To which attorney Ernest Canning (a regular BRAD BLOG contributor) aptly responded in comments: "Odd, Mr. Hoyt. I thought real journalists were supposed to make an 'investment of effort' in order to determine 'what actually happened' before they run a story."

But the two of the most extraordinary statements by the Times' Editors were decimated by Foser in his weekly column today which covered all of this in an absolutely devastating indictment against the Times. His piece is a must read, so please do, and then come back!

Done? Okay...

Here are the two statements drawing the most notice over the last 24 to 72 hours on the Internets. First, Senior Editor for Standards, Greg Brock's initial response when called on for a correction to a January 30th, 2010 Times article in which Jim Rutenberg and Campbell Robertson mis-reported: "Mr. O'Keefe made his biggest national splash last year when he dressed up as a pimp and trained his secret camera on counselors with the liberal community group Acorn..."

Wrote Brock via email, shockingly, in response to that request for correction:


Our article included that description because Mr. O'Keefe himself explained how he was dressed --- and appeared on a live Fox show wearing what HE said was the same exact costume he wore to ACORN's offices. ... If there is a correction to be made, it seems it would start with Mr. O'Keefe himself. We believe him. Therefore there is nothing for us to correct.


The "live Fox show" appearance Brock linked to was this one.

In rationalizing all of this, in support of the Senior Editor for Standards, Public Editor Clark Hoyt, was even more shocking in his response when he about the Rutenberg/Campell piece (emphasis his):


The story says O'Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera on Acorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time

Brad Blog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7718)

You expect this kinda crap from wing-nut radio....wash, rinse, repeat...but the NYT?

[DarrinS]

So, this is all about the pimp costume?

ok

But, otherwise, he said he was a pimp and she said she was a prostitue and ACORN employees were more than willing to bend over backwards to help them out with their child sex slave trade.

[balli]

Another wing-nut conspiracy theory turns to shit
Too bad they used it to destroy a non profit, destroy the lives of poor black people and cost ashbeeigh her job, first.

Way to go, dead-enders. Your racism and political fear mongering has done our country and its people and our own ST posters so much good.

[angrydude]

and which part of this story involves Acorn not telling them out to cheat on their taxes regardless of how they were dressed?