ACORN Strikes Back!: 'Accountability' Campaign Demands Media Corrections for 'Pimp' Hoax Stories

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG

ACORN Strikes Back! 'Accountability' Campaign Demands Media Corrections for 'Pimp' Hoax Stories
Group asks '100,000 supporters' for 'Letters to Editor'
Cites BRAD BLOG coverage of NYTimes Editors' outrageous justifications for refusing to retract repeated misreporting...

Following on our weeks-long coverage here at The BRAD BLOG, and at other sites who've similarly jumped in demanding accountability from the New York Times, ACORN itself is now launching a "Letter to the Editor" campaign to "Demand Accountable" from the paper for their repeated misreporting of the James O'Keefe/Andrew Breitbart ACORN "pimp" hoax.

An email blast is being sent to "over 100,000 ACORN supporters" today, according to spokesman Kevin Whelan, calling on them to "send an email to the Times' Public Editor and tell him to retract the Times' erroneous reporting about O'Keefe and ACORN". (Campaign page is here: http://tr.im/QF8o )

The community group's heavily-footnoted email blast, signed by "CEO and Chief Organizer" Bertha Lewis, quotes several articles from The BRAD BLOG's detailed coverage, including NYTimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt's outrageous emailed justifications for refusing to recommending the paper correct their multiple misreports.

Whelan says the group is "asking people to contact either the New York Times OR their local paper and ask for a correction to the erroneous reporting regarding O'Keefe and his video scams."…



FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7728


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7728

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bradblog.

[Judi Lynn]

2. If they were concerned with conscientious journalism this story would have been given equal,

if not MORE coverage than the filthy feeding frenzy they indulged in already. They are thumbing their noses at us all.

[Kingofalldems]

3. Kick this for Mr. CPAC

[SpiralHawk]

4. Come on Corporate Media. Try INTEGRITY for a change.

Tell the truth, plain and unvarnished. Stop the spin. Tell America the truth.

[JuniperLea]

5. Awesome!

The lack of media accountability has been my pet peeve for a very long time. This is a great way to get the ball rolling... I hope it picks up momentum and continues!

[Wizard777]

6. This is just plain stupid. Sue them for libel. They'll retract 10 seconds after being served.

But not one second before then. Until they're served with a libel suite. They will continue to think that ACORN is lying. If ACORN had truth on their side they would take their case to a court of law and not the court of public opinion. If ACORN wants the NY Times to take them seriously they would sue them for libel. Even as an ACORN supporter. Not even I will take them seriously until they start playing hardball and sue them for libel.

[drm604]

7. Acorn has sued.

I don't think an organization can sue for libel, but they have sued. Google Acorn lawsuit.

So they have sued. Do you take them seriously now?

[Wizard777]

46. An organization can sue for libel. They need to add NY Times to the list of people they're suing.

[drm604]

57. In my opinion it's obvious to anyone that ACORN has been misrepresented by O'Keefe and the NYT.

Their lawyers may have reasons that they are not suing this one particular entity, I can't say. But I find it interesting that you require this one particular lawsuit for vindication in your mind.

[Wizard777]

74. For vindication against the Times smear. Absolutely!

That's the whole reason the Times does stuff like this. People let them get away with it. The same with FOX and their misinformation campaigns. People let them get away with it.

[BradBlog]

10. Calling you out...

Pardon me for calling you out here, but my Spidey Sense is going off like crazy upon reading of your 'concern'.

In case you're not aware of how libel works, you have to be able to show malice. Which means they'd have to show not only that NYT was wrong, but that they KNEW they wrong at the time they published, but did so anyway.

Given that just about everyone in the media was hoodwinked by O'Keefe and Breitbart's scam (potentially even Breitbart himself for that matter!) it'd be nearly impossible to make the case that NYT knew better but did so anyway.

Unfortunately, you can't sue for lazy, shoddy, irresponsible journalism, as far as I know. Neither can you sue for idiotic justifications for not correcting a story, as far as I know.

If they reported the "dressed as pimp" myth again at this point, one could probably make the case for libel, but not short of that. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and certainly not ACORNs and there are plenty of folks who HAVE libelled and slandered them who they could and SHOULD sue, but as far as I can tell, NYT is not one of them. But I thank you for your concern.

[Selena Harris]

12. WHY does this sound like ...

you are defending the NYT? The SAME newspaper that you have been ragging for some time now?

[ooglymoogly]

17. Do you understand reality at all...

The Times is dastardly, lazy, stupid, ignorant, biased, right wing and creepy, but in this case, as far as we know, not libelous; You can't sue for that unless there is proof they knew the story to be false. Others did know and are being sued for libel. kapishe (thats capisci in italian)

[Wizard777]

48. The refusal to retract forms actual malice per, ironically enough, NY Times v. Sullivan.

After being presented with the truth of the matter. The refusal to retract is a reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice.

[ooglymoogly]

76. I agree, at some point in the near future they might be forced to retract

or face defamation, slander, libel and damages, but at least for a while, until it becomes clear they will never retract until forced and having been informed of the truth irrefutably (my bet is a retraction will come sooner than later); Until then, in all likelihood they will not be sued. My point being; At this point in time, one cannot call ACORN to account for not suing and assuming they are not truthful because at this point in time a legal action is risky at best. The Supreme court was far different in the early 60s than it is today (Malice Standard; 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan). Brennan, Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White, Douglas and Black and others were honest brokers. This kangaroo court is not above breaking precedent in favor of corporations and right wing causes and indeed has and seeks to do so. This kind of case would certainly go to the Supreme court on high speed rail, where pugs can count on a heavy thumb, make that thumbs, on the scales of justice.

[Selena Harris]

59. I am quite cognizant of reality

thank you very much. And upon reading Brad's post again, I see that it was not the Times he was defnding..but making a general distinction on what constitutes libel and malice aforethought.

I been in Brad's corner more than you know.

[Wizard777]

60. Yeah, I'm not backing the Times in the least. I just think ACORN is approaching this wrong.

They should sue the NY Times for Libel. Then play politics with the judgment. Not play politics and then sue or play politics instead of suing. The real smack down in this is a Judgment for the Plaintiff (ACORN.) The only thing I can realistically see coming from this approach is some really bad political theater. I admit I'm biased in believing all political theater to be bad. Couldn't we just challenge the NY Times to a game of Red Rover instead? Dodge Ball maybe?

:banghead:

[sabrina 1]

71. The Times could claim that their initial reporting was not libelous

although it would be a stretch since ordinary people right here on DU who looked at those tapes knew they were doctored. But now they have been informed of the facts and asked to correct their 'mistakes'. If they do not and make the kind of accusations they made against Brad and Stark, that they are 'as partisan as O'Keefe' et al thereby refusing to consider the evidence that their initial reporting smeared and harmed many people, then they are participating in libel.

I believe they are now being given a chance to correct the record. If they do not, they can be sued and ought to be.

Why are they covering for these criminal thugs and how can they compare their behavior to people who published facts? I think they absolutely need to tell the truth and if they refuse be considered part of the hoax perpetrated by O'Keefe and whoever was backing him.

[BradBlog]

20. Not defending them at all...

...The question was whether the NYT can be sued for libel in this case. As noted, I'm not a lawyer (though have some casual knowledge of libel law), and don't see a legal case for libel.

Feel free to show me where I'm wrong -- and believe me, I'd love to see them held accountable any way possible for the indescribable damage that paper has now done, but I fail to see where there could be a successful libel claim.

As noted, feel free to point out otherwise.

[Wizard777]

49. Failure to properly investigate and reckless disregard for the truth.

Upon being presented with the truth and a request to retract. The refusal to retract the lies forms libel and actual malice. They have done all the leg work for a libel suit. They've sent proof of the facts and a request for a retraction. The NY Times has refused to retract the statements it now knows to be untrue. The next step is for ACORN to file suit. There is a time for grass roots and a time for weed killer. This is a time for weed killer.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

65. Agree with your legal interpretation . . . as another non-lawyer . . .

but just want to highlight for all of us and the NY Times and other MSM that

the reputation of O'Keefe was questionable, the link with Fox should have been

a concern -- and given various levels of "knowing," I'm amazed that anyone could

have found the videos believable .... ??

And I'd also point to how little questioning there was -- and as I recall it --

NO demand for the original videos?

Congress should have immediately called for the original videos and held an

investigation. Rather, Democrats immediately moved to help destroy ACORN!

[lib_wit_it]

70. Yeah, good old Dems--uncompromising in their willingness to fold under pressure.

[laughingliberal]

31. +1 nt

[Wizard777]

47. You only need to prove malice to collect general damages.

Otherwise you are limited to actual damages. They only need to prove the statement was a lie and would harm them or their reputation.

[TankLV]

54. That's typical for him - always on the wrong side...

He has a habit of jumping on the repuke/FUX spin/lies and will always express "concern" - was one of the first to jump on the FUX ACORN lie bandwagon...

Never has a good thing to say about his imagined "left wing"...

[bleever]

66. Brad defends Breitbart!

Compassion for the insane. ;)

[sabrina 1]

11. ACORN already filed a lawsuit against Breitbart, Giles and O'Keefe

They also sued Congress for their unconstitutional removal of their funding and won. They have been playing hardball, but the 'left' sort of left them to do it on their own. They didn't get much support until they started winning.

They were also completely exonerated in two investigations of any wrong-doing, and one more this past week.

They were saddened, as one of their spokespersons said a few weeks ago, by the lack of support from Democrats in general.

I agree that if the NYT does not retract the false smears they published, ACORN should definitely sue them also and Fox and CNN.

But filing lawsuits costs money. They are not a wealthy organization and have lost money over these smears and over the lack of support from the party they helped get elected.

Congress owes them an apology and much, much more for what they did, but they have been silent even after ACORN's victory in court.

If people had supported them, as Republicans are supporting Breitbart et al, by donating time and money to help with their lawsuits, maybe things would not have gotten so bad for them. But they fought alone for the most part, and with the victories they've achieved now, they are in a good position to sue the news media if they refuse to give as much time to undoing the harm they did as they did to the fake, phony fraudulent 'videographers'.

I have a feeling they will. Right now they are giving them a chance to respond and do what is right. Next step should be a lawsuit, I agree.

[ro1942]

25. Very true,thanks for posting

[Wizard777]

50. Point taken. I think they eventually will sue. They are properly positioning themselves.

They've dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Now they just need to file.

[sabrina 1]

86. Yes, I agree ~ especially now that the NY Times cannot

claim that they are not aware now of the hoax that was perpetrated against ACORN.

[liberation]

36. "Even as an ACORN supporter...."

... and yet.

Some of you are just too obvious, btw, as other posters have pointed ACORN is indeed suing. LOL.

[Wizard777]

51. But they are not currently suing. They are in the perfect position to do that.

It's pretty much an open and shut case. What ACORN needs to understand is that we democrats have been burnt by people that said they would fight for us. Then suddenly became all consumed with playing nice with the republicans. Many of us will not back their future fight. Once they come out swinging. We'll be there to back them up in the fight for what's right. But personally, I'm not getting behind them until they start swinging.

[Ignis]

83. Libel?! What do you think this is, the UK? (nt)

[gmpierce]

8. Acorn

For what it's worth, I wrote the NYT a week ago and two weeks ago. The public editor does not seem to be interested. I got no response at all.

Others that I know have been told that the NYT feels no obligation to set the record straight.

If a half million of us send letters, maybe they will get a clue.

[sabrina 1]

9. I just read your reporting, and Mike Stark's interview with

with Breitbart (that guy is certifiable as the video demonstrates) at your blog today, Brad.

You deserve so much credit for staying with this story since the first false charges of election fraud were trumped up by the liars on the right.

Anyone who hasn't already done so, should read this article at Brad's blog and watch the video of Mike Stark trying to reason with Breitbart. It is excellent reporting, contrasting with the shameful reporting by the NYT on this story:

VIDEO: 'Andy Breitbart Explains It All For You' - An Exclusive Interview, Disturbing Admissions, and Manic Responses to the ACORN Video 'Pimp' Hoax

It's worth watching the video just for entertainment purposes alone. Breitbart has zero credibility, he is clearly disturbed and to think the NYT and the rest of the media accepted these now-completely-exposed frauds' word for anything shows the deteriorated state of 'journalism' in this country.

Mike Stark did an incredible job of remaining calm and pressing Breitbart to answer his questions despite Breitbart's sometimes insane responses. This is real journalism.

Hopefully, the unedited tapes will be subpoenaed when ACORN's lawsuit against Giles, O'Keefe and Breitbart goes forward.

I will definitely write to the NYT on behalf of ACORN. Shame on them for their refusal to correct their reporting especially now when so many times ACORN has been vindicated and O'Keefe has been proven to be an unstable and possible felon.

[ooglymoogly]

14. Hang em High, KR nt

[ronnie624]

32. Wow. Breitbart is one strange bird.

I've never actually seen him before. You'd think if he had a case against ACORN, he'd take advantage of an opportunity to state it clearly instead of squawking and hopping around, jabbering like an idiot.

[defendandprotect]

68. And this also prompts another mention of the O'Keefe gang and Landrieu's phones...???

[mzmolly]

13. Good for them. However, are they going to re-hire Juan Vera?

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

33. I was thinking the same thing, mzmolly!

He was such a good person and his reputation was destroyed by this. It was a nightmare for him and I'm sure for his family. He deserves to be completely vindicated and should receive a public apology from all concerned, including Congress. That man definitely has a lawsuit against O'Keefe, Breitbart and Giles. They lied about him all over the media.

But I agree that ACORN should now offer him his job back, if he wants it. I wish that at least in his case, they had not acted so quickly. I know they were under assault at the time, without much support (except from people like yourself). You were one of the first to question the videos and it was your questions that made me and others take a really close look at them after which it was pretty obvious how fake they were. Too bad the media didn't take the trouble to do what you and others did.

[mzmolly]

73. Thanks Sabrina.

I may email ACORN and pose my question to them. ;) :hi:

[sabrina 1]

88. Good idea mzmolly ~

Maybe I will too ~ :-)

[Stevepol]

15. What's the address of the NYT? I'd rather write directly to them rather than to a local paper.

[ooglymoogly]

18. I feel like subscribing so I can unsubscribe.

but I unsubscribed long ago. They are just a tabloid propaganda rag at this point

[BradBlog]

21. [e-mail] , [e-mail] -- and others you'll find at their site (nt)

[sabrina 1]

34. I just wrote to that email address and got an 'error' message. The email

disappeared and I didn't save it.

I'll try again, and if I don't succeed, I'll try calling or writing by snailmail.

[Stevepol]

38. Clark Hoyt's and the LTTE address at the NYT

Just looked up the addresses myself as I should have done to begin with:

Letters to Clark Hoyt:

Public Editor: Clark Hoyt
The New York Times
620 Eighth St.
New York NY 10018

For Letters to the Editor (Same):

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth St.
New York NY 10018

Phone:

212-556-7652

Email:

[e-mail]

I think personally a deluge of personally written letters would be more effective than just emails.

[pundaint]

67. The Acorn website has lots of newspaper addresses built it. Easy to select your choice

and you can overlay the recommended message with your own words. Go to the site, it's easier than doing all the typing yourself.

[Nikki Stone1]

16. GOOD

.

[Joe Bacon]

19. "All the Propaganda the GOP tells us to Publish"

A far far cry from "All The News That's Fit To Print".

[AzNick]

22. K, R & filled

[fascisthunter]

23. bravo!

[defendandprotect]

24. Go ACORN!!

[Ka hrnt]

26. Rec'd

As Al Franken said in his book (can't remember which), the media's bias is that of sensationalism and laziness; this was a perfect example.

[L. Coyote]

27. Sounds like a DS attack!

:rofl:

[FunMe]

28. Love it ... but LAWSUITS should be pursued too!

That is the only way these injustices are corrected. MONEY seems to be the only thing that hurts them in the pocketbook and forces them to admit to their wrongs.

[FunMe]

29. When National Enquirer is more reliable the NYT, you know the end is coming.

Simply KARMA for New York Times for forsaking their journalistic responsibilities.

I would not be surprised if that "news"paper folds eventually.

That's what they get for their actions.

[upi402]

30. done /nt

[samsingh]

35. kick

[democracy1st]

37. K & R

[The Wizard]

39. The Times management

made a decision to cater to the whims and desires of the corporate elites, essentially putting bottom line tax concerns over integrity. In appeasing the right wing they hoped for favorable legislation that would increase their net earnings.
Management's failure is that, like Rahm Emanuel, they discounted their base, thinking the base had no where else to go.
Times management made the same mistake as General Motors; they let the accountants determine what they would send to market. Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" shows the results of this kind of narrow short term thinking.
When bean counters compromise integrity for the bottom line, failure is soon to follow.
Suing the editor personally, and not the Times as an institution, might be an avenue to explore.

[NewJeffCT]

40. I hope this story gets some coverage in the media

and, bravo to the brave 6 senators who voted against instantly defunding ACORN.

[Raster]

41. Thank you Brad Blog for tirelessly pursuing this story.

And to the DUers that ripped on Brag Blog AND on ACORN: when are you going to apologize?

[annabanana]

42. "The Paper of Record" my ass. . . . . n/t

[spicegal]

43. The media owes it to ACORN to correct the record. In fact, can't they sue for

defamation of character, slander, libel, something? There's no doubt their reputation has been gravely and unfairly damaged by a media far to eager to jump into the right wing witch hunt.

[SpiralHawk]

44. The Times owes it to its own soul

to try and restore some of the vast measure of integrity it has squandered in recent years with this, with Judith Miller, and with it's bent-knee posture toward the Bush Republicon Homelanders...

[Wizard777]

52. Yes they can sue for libel and are in the perfect position to do that.

They should do that. Why they haven't just boggles the mind.

[pleah]

45. K&R

[Hubert Flottz]

53. The GOP is the party of "PIMPS"

Corporate Pimps...always trying to sell us a screwing.

Edit...Even pushing Viagra!

[Kingofalldems]

55. When will the people who jumped in a trashed ACORN apologize?

:shrug: :shrug:

[kenfrequed]

58. When I first heard about the Acorn nonsense

I knew with 90 % certainty that they were dealing with highly selective and edited video. I wish the mainstream media covered percisely how BS the charges made against Acorn were.

[AlbertCat]

61. I knew with 90 % certainty

Of course you did.... because you knew what ACORN's mission was and you knew what the GOP's mission is and you noticed the whole thing from the start looked like bad joke. It was lame. The REAL story was the stupidity of the "sting" and the over-reaction of Congress and how all that fits into absurd Right Wing hysterics and faux outrage.... that was nothing new (even concerning ACORN) at the time.

This is really a referendum on the Media and it's Right leaning bias.... just the opposite of their claims about so called "liberal media".

[divvy]

62. IT IS ABOUT TIME. I AM SICK OF LAME RESPONSES.

[NoSheep]

63. I sent a letter to the NY Times. It was obvious from the start that this was a set up

[defendandprotect]

64. K&R ---

[penndragon69]

69. Doesn't matter.

Wing nuts like my cousin will still believe the lies about ACORN no matter how
much evidence you throw at them. These are the same people who think ronny raygun
was an American super hero who did no wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.
We may as well be shouting into the wind.

[defendandprotect]

72. Did e-mail NY Times to retract . . . and will try to come back later to

follow thru with a NJ paper --

I've been blasting my local "community" newspaper with ACORN corrections --

[veganlush]

75. kick ass.! help!..n/t

[Political Heretic]

77. Why does the link to "email campaign" link to a false ACORN site?

Why not link to the actual ACORN page, instead of a page that sets warnings off in my browser?

[Xenotime]

78. I wanna see ACORN kick some ass

[winyanstaz]

79. Another right-wing hoax exposed...

[NoSheep]

82. Amazing isn't it? They hate us for......the things they have to invent to hate us for!

:crazy:

[winyanstaz]

85. hahaa..yup! You nailed it :)

[Shining Jack]

80. Well it's about time.

That story is beyond absurdity !

[frankowen7]

81. Good.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. kick and recommend

[Kingofalldems]

87. Kick this for Rove's pal

[democracy1st]

89. kick

[yurbud]

90. kick