Athenae, So Called Liberal Media

Oh, They’re Considering a Correction

Thank God:

Here is what I found: 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’Keefewore 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.

But
Breitbart told me that, after doing his own examination, “I am under
the impression that at no time was he ever dressed as an elaborate
pimp” in the offices. Because O’Keefe was apparently carrying the
hidden camera, he is generally not visible in the videos, but he is
seen briefly entering the Baltimore office wearing a blue shirt and
chinos.

I could not reach O’Keefe — who is facing federal criminal charges oftampering with a Democratic senator’s phone in a different attempted sting — or Giles. But I am satisfied that The Times was wrong on this point, and I have been wrongin defending the paper’s phrasing.Editors say they are considering a correction.

There’s so much mealy-mouthed bullshit in here it’s hard to know where to start, but I’d like to begin with the bolded text. CONSIDERING a correction? Really. How awesome of them. How kind of them to open their overstuffed brain-attics and allow such a thought to enter and breathe the dusty, stifling air. Considering. By “considering,” he’d better mean “considering exactly how abject on a scale of ten to fifteen thousand” because YOU DONE FUCKED UP, SON.

Good God. Considering a correction. Considering a correction for believing Fox News and conservative dickbags were right about anything, and extending the benefit of the doubt to said News and said dickbags rather than to an organization that helped thousands of people in poverty and disaster. Considering a correction for being donkey-punched out of one’s journalistic principles and the supposedly sacrosanct agenda-setting privileges newspapers claim for themselves by a bunch of screaming teabag pussies. Yeah. I’d be considering a correction too. A correction along the lines of selling all my shit and moving to another country, preferably somewhere they’ve never heard of the New York Times.

A.

—–

6 thoughts on “Oh, They’re Considering a Correction”

  1. Lordy.
    And I love this:
    It is easy to see why The Times and other news organizations got a different impression.
    Poor Times. Poor Other News Organizations. Nobody could have predicted that right-wing advocates might produce an unreliable video. Or that videos can be edited. And that it might be worth (what is that journimalistic term I’m thinking of…) checking out the story before running with it?
    Mean Athenae. I hope you are CONSIDERING apologizing to the poor dears.

  2. If I were the New York Times, I’d beconsidering hiring a few more fact-checkers, andconsidering never taking anything Faux News says seriously ever again. But then, I’m actually posessed of some scruples. I’d put those on your shopping list too, Times staff.

  4. oh the hell wit em. they grabbed it and ran with it cause it gave them GOP points. didn’t have to kiss their ass directly. tho they will do that too. SEE, WE AREN”T LIBERAL! SEE SEE. were they ever?

  5. It was interesting that they actually said at the outset that they were behind the curve on this story, and that they needed to pay more attention to the batshit insane on the right. That said more about theTimes than anything they might say later, or any corrections they might make.
    What theTimes did with that announcement was to say that they were intent upon legitimizing ratfucking. One would think that theTimes would be able to look in their own goddamned archives and realize that the ACORN business was just one more example of the ratfucking and voter suppression in which right-wing Republicans have engaged for the last fifty years.
    That they won’t see patterns, that they continue to see every instance assui generis, makes it obvious, to me, at least, that they know that they’re pandering to the wacko right.

  6. Interesting how this pretender played off the idea that “the camera never lies”. How a video becomes sacrosanct in a trial.
    It doesn’t take Spielberg, a stupid kid attention hound can make a misleading film.

Comments are closed.