Reply With Quote
his side is rampant with wrongness..
Do you think wc gets tired of being wrong all of the time
his side is rampant with wrongness..
LOL....
Agreed.
Didn't Gerardo's big break in reporting come from illegally entering a mental facility?
(WC: please check your sarcasm detector)
Are you aware of Geraldo's big story in 1972 when he won a Peabody award for a news story he got by illegal means?
No. How is it similar to what O'Keefe did?
One got busted before he could find a story, the other found a good story.
Geraldo could have been in his shoes, facing jail. O'Keefe could have got lucky and win an award.
In the ACORN tapes O'Keefe tried to enmesh his targets in a fic ious scheme of his own devising and used some artful editing.
In the Landrieu caper he used false ID to gain access to her office bldg, for god only knows what reason.
And this last thing is a crass juvenile prank.
In none of the above cases was O'Keefe pursuing a fact-based story in the public interest. Or to put it another way, two things the cases all have in common is James O'Keefe and deception.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-05-2010 at 03:17 PM.
If there were some underlying story of great public interest underwriting O'Keefe's misdemeanors, perhaps the element of moral luck might creep in, as it seems to have done with Ellsworth/Scheer and apparently Geraldo. But that seems not to be the case.
I thought it was 0.1%. Did he say 99% or 99.9%? I forgot.
So are you saying that the number of people whom say a crime is OK makes the difference?
It's more along the lines of whether or not the crime committed leads to stopping an even greater crime.
Ie. Can breaking a law (ie. breaking and entering a place to obtain do entation to expose a scandal) be considered moral? If Geraldo breaks in and doesn't find anything, then he's screwed. But if he DOES find something, he's potentially off the hook morally as he committed a small crime to expose a much larger one.
If you want a good example of moral luck, the classic case is comparing a drunk driver who hits someone with a drunk driver that does not. The person who causes damages is obviously punished more than the person who doesn't, even though it was moral luck more than anything else that saved the drunk driver who didn't hit anything (and no action on his own part).
Awwwww...
So in your book, the ends justify the means?
I get it.
Way to misrepresent. I just clarified WH23's position.
On top of that, don't give me that high horse bull .You're totally fine with advanced interrogation techniques if it saves American lives, aren't you? You're fine with government eavesdropping if it increases security. There's all sorts of means you use that you justify through their ends.
Ends sometimes justify the means; sometimes they don't.
So we are back to what I said before. What if O'Keefe got a great story, and Geraldo bombed?Way to misrepresent. I just clarified WH23's position.
On top of that, don't give me that high horse bull .
Ends sometimes justify the means; sometimes they don't.
Can you appreciate the chance each took or not? Myself, but the law is apparently not on my side here, I belief O'Keefs's infiltration was OK because we are talking about looking into our elected officials. I don't know many of the details surrounding Geraldo's situation, but what if the complaints were just from disgruntled ex-employees.
I don't agree with the ends justifying the means, except in very rare cir stances. You appear to be OK with simple allegations.
Except in the case of O'Keefe, he was (IIRC) trying to create a story where there was none, and trying to entice people into doing something wrong, where Geraldo was trying to expose those doing wrong-doing without his enticement. Whether that distinction changes your justification of the means used is up to you; it seemingly does for WH23.
These two quotes don't really make sense together. Care to explain?
Don't know what you're referring to here. I was just explaining moral luck. I didn't say whether what O'Keefe or Geraldo did was ok in my book or not. I haven't really bothered to research both of their stories and determine it if was morally kosher or not.
...the more troubling aspect of this was that it was reported in the mainstream media that O'Keefe was wearing his Halloween pimp costume when he went to the ACORN offices to pass off GiLES as a hoe who needed a place to shack up....when it was proven later by the unedited video that O'Keefe was dressed pretty normally in Kacki pants and a short sleeve tennis shirt and the cir stances for finding gIles a place to live was really because she was escaping a abusive relationship, not a hoe, the media, yes you NY Times and other M$M outlets, flat out refused to report these new findings and retract the story....
I'm saying uncovering an underlying story of great public significance might justify cutting a few corners. O'Keefe did no such thing.
Yeah, he misrepresented himself too. He didn't go in wearing the pimp costume, but dropped that back in later. The deception was thoroughgoing.
No. The judgment about whether a given course course of action was the right thing to do sometimes depends on the results, perceived or actual, of the action.
A dumb play that gets (your team) a touchdown is a great play, period.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-06-2010 at 02:00 AM.
I would rather say the results justify the means.
Expedience is king. Whether things turn out well or worse is almost everything.
It's turning out worse and worse for Mr. O'Keefe.
Sincerely,
The guy who blindly supported Bush in Iraq
Do you know that with certainty? What if he did have intel on something amiss? What if Geralgo's information was false? I already made this point. Please don't make me say it a 3rd time.
Not really. This would be extreme cases, and another topic. Never in a non life threatening situation however.... Never!
Back to my first response in this post. The trustworthiness of information.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
