Patterico's Pontifications


Rainey: O’Keefe Made That Statement . . . It Just Never Got Published. So You’ll Have to Trust Us on This One.; Update: Reporter Backs Rainey But Says She’s Not Sure If She Can Release Her Notes

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:07 am

James Rainey is now claiming that his quote from James O’Keefe — the one that there appears to be no record of — was never published, but was nevertheless made to an L.A. Times reporter. I posted about this yesterday in an update to the James Rainey post, but I think it deserves a new post with further elaboration.

As you will recall, Rainey’s column made this assertion:

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

O’Keefe told me this was a “complete fabrication.” Before publishing my post, I wrote Rainey asking for the source of the quote. He has not responded. But in a Twitter message sent to O’Keefe, Rainey has claimed that O’Keefe made the statement to L.A. Times reporter Robin Abcarian:

I’m sure you recall telling that to robin abcarian in your interview w her. She has a record of it.

Now, before we proceed, let’s just recall Rainey’s pronouncements about Giles and O’Keefe’s video sting at the Los Angeles office — the one that so badly embarrassed Rainey, who had naively swallowed the denials of the very woman featured on the video. Rainey defended himself by suggesting that, unless the full unedited video is made public, we just can’t know what transpired:

Who knows what we might find — either damaging or benefiting ACORN’s image — if we could see the unedited video of these encounters? The raw material could be posted on YouTube for all to see.

In e-mails to O’Keefe, Rainey has pressed the issue of releasing the full source documentation:

I don’t know what the full, unedited video would show, but I do know that it would help give a more thorough account of what happened. It’s unfortunate if you don’t intend to produce an unedited version.

Rainey repeated the theme in e-mails to Andrew Breitbart:

f you claim some fear of unfair treatment, why not release the full, unedited video more broadly–perhaps via YouTube–so that anyone who takes an interest in the matter can. Greater transparency would be a plus.

Keep in mind that commitment to full transparency and release of all source documentation.

Getting back to Rainey’s claim that O’Keefe compared himself to Michael Moore in a conversation with Robin Abcarian, I note that Abcarian’s story has no trace of it — so Rainey must be talking about something she didn’t publish. Since Rainey is demanding O’Keefe’s unedited video, I think we need to see Abcarian’s unedited notes. Yesterday, I first sent Rainey a Twitter message requesting that. No response. I then sent the following e-mail to Abcarian:

Ms. Abcarian,

I see James Rainey is claiming you as the source of the comment James O’Keefe allegedly made comparing himself to Michael Moore. I note that the quote did not appear in your article, so Rainey must be referring to rough notes of your interview.

Can you verify Rainey’s claim, and would you be willing to release your unedited notes of the conversation — as Rainey has demanded O’Keefe release unedited video of his ACORN visits?

Yours truly,

Patrick Frey

So far, no response. Also, I have just written Rainey with this request:

Mr. Rainey,

Since I know you are a fan of transparency, and of the concept of releasing all source documentation underlying a piece of journalism, I am writing to request that you release all of your notes of your conversations with Lavelle Stewart.

Also, I am writing to request a correction of your claim that James O’Keefe compared himself to Michael Moore. I can find no public record of that. If you have some private record of it — or if you claim to know someone who has a private record of it — then I am requesting the public disclosure of the full documentation of that as well. Greater transparency would be a plus, as I’m sure you would agree.

Patrick Frey

Next stop, the Reader’s Representative.

If they think I’m going to let this simply drop, they don’t know me. And if they try to get by with a mere assertion that O’Keefe made the statement — when they’re demanding full unedited video from Breitbart and Giles and O’Keefe — then they’re utter hypocrites.

I’ll keep you fully informed of any responses I get.

P.S. While I support the concept of making the full unedited video public, Rainey is dreaming if he thinks it would provide any context that would justify this:

It’s plenty clear that she is offering help to the would-be operators of a child prostitution ring. In other words, there is proof that Lavelle Stewart offered to help Giles and O’Keefe, thus making James Rainey look like a fool. So far, there is absolutely no proof that O’Keefe ever compared himself to Michael Moore — just an implication in a Twitter message penned by someone whose track record for fairness is checkered, to say the least.

P.P.S. I’m not yet done with Rainey’s latest column. It has other elements of dishonesty — so many they won’t all fit in one post.

UPDATE: Abcarian writes to say that Rainey is correct — but that she is not sure if she can release her notes. I just replied:

When can you give me a definitive answer as to whether you can publicly release your notes of the conversation? Mr. Rainey seems to think that when two sides dispute whether a statement was made, and in what context, the best way to resolve the issue is to release the source documentation. That would seem to apply here, no?

By the way, I wonder how it is that Rainey is looking at Abcarian’s notes on O’Keefe — yet he’s unable to contact O’Keefe in the same manner that she did (contact him through Facebook). Rainey seems more intent on investigating O’Keefe than on getting his side, doesn’t he?

67 Responses to “Rainey: O’Keefe Made That Statement . . . It Just Never Got Published. So You’ll Have to Trust Us on This One.; Update: Reporter Backs Rainey But Says She’s Not Sure If She Can Release Her Notes”

  1. Once more, Don Quixote sallies forth into Chinatown!

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  2. The notes probably are already totally transparent to anyone trying to read them. So transparent that they can’t be seen by human eyes. But then again, if we believe Climate “scientists” why not “journalists” too?

    dfbaskwill (2c7f7f)

  3. When the LA Times closes shop, the first layoffs should be people with last names beginning in “R”. Then “H”. Then Rainey again, just for good measure. He is supposed to be a fuckin’ JournoList, not a stenographer for ACORN. It is amazing that he demands a level of transparency from those he makes accusations against than what he applies to himself.

    JD (4249e2)

  4. That made me laugh AD

    TC (0b9ca4)

  5. JD,

    Exactly. We’ll see if they give up the notes — but if not, it’s a clear double standard.

    Patterico (43506f)

  6. TC re AD’s comment: Me too.

    Old Coot (166f79)

  7. You embarrassed him; you caught him in a lie and he trying every which way to deflect that fact. Keep up the good work.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  8. We’ll see if they give up the notes

    This assumes their are indeed notes to be given up. At this point in time, Ms. Abcarian receives about the same benefit of the doubt that Mr. Rainey does.

    On a side note, there may be no better living definition of tenacious than when Patterico is hot on the trail.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  9. Everybody has gotten used to Obama’s tell for his lies, that his lips are moving. Now with Rainey, his tell is that he’s typing.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  10. What say you, Brother Bradley? Your opinion counts around here. Belly up, and let fly. I’m a big fan.

    ropelight (92a6ea)

  11. Patterico –

    Why do you think that the rules they proclaim for others should apply to them? I mean, they clearly don’t think those rules do, so why should you?

    jim2 (230efb)

  12. Amazing – we have two moronic convergences over the past few days: first the climate “experts” who won’t release their information, and now this. It’s akin to Wack – a – Mole; as soon as you obliterate their arguments, they just keep popping up to offer more hallucinations.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  13. He took information from another reporter’s unpublished information. Did he credit it to Robin Abcarian in the story? No. Did he mention that the information did not come to him directly? No. Did he even give Robin a contribution credit at the end of his column? No.

    You think this is going to be resolved by asking to see some notes? No. Will there be a correction? No.

    I saw it from the inside out while working at the Times. There are great, caring, ethical reporters there and there are those who are the most unethical and hypocritical I’ve ever run across.

    The lawyer, Karlene Goller, who is likely advising Abcarian and Rainey, isn’t worth a burnt match. And, as far as my experience goes, the Reader’s Reps there are an extension of the newspaper’s legal department.

    Good luck, but don’t pass out from holding your breath.

    Anita Busch (fc416d)

  14. How can anyone seriously refute Ms. Busch, given her horrendous experiences while working there?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  15. Rainey really doesn’t have any social intelligence. A normal person would realize that this is highly embarrassing behavior.

    His initial column basically lied about the entire situation. He said only two offices were proven child prostitution friendly, when many more were. He didn’t mention how dishonest ACORN had been in statement after statement, when quoting them. And now, it’s obvious he only sought ACORN’s version of the facts, and didn’t bother asking the people who are trying to scrutinize criminals. It’s baffling, except that we all know that ACORN has a horde of criminals surrounding it, using it to cheat on taxes, finance political campaign, organize criminal enterprises.

    The LA Times has a history with criminals like ‘The Pellicano’ (eyeroll). Now, they have a history helping Stewart get her lies out there, and a history inventing obviously ridiculous quotes.

    It would be very unusual or a conservative journalist to compare themselves to Michael Moore. Why wouldn’t the LA Times quote O’Keefe directly, or even publish this quote in the column he was interviews for? Why hold on to that for weeks and then paraphrase it? Why would O’Keefe say something so damaging to his hard work?

    I’m sickened that a top 5 newspaper has no qualms about aiding such sick criminals. Rainey is simply hell bent on tarring these journalists, Giles and O’Keefe, and coverng for ACORN, and he already paid his entire reputation to buy ACORN a couple of weeks of plausibility. Now, the question is how many more journalists want to pony up their reputation. Probably a large number of them.

    Dustin (cf255c)

  16. “So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe?”

    The sort of creature who uncovers rampant corruption in groups that are tied to the Dems, and makes L.A. Times reporters look like complete fools in the bargain.

    In short…he’s my kind of creature.

    Dave Surls (398876)

  17. Based on what I thought I saw from the videos, they left the frame counter enabled. Thus, with almost video editing software, it should be possible to find deletions in the public versions. This doesn’t say that there weren’t edits, it just that what was presented was clearly presented as to the sequence of events.
    I don’t think any conservative that appears on TV should ever do so without his own frame counting video running in parallel and non-stop during an interview. This would makes for an interesting set of reflective YouTube reclamas.

    Hrothgar (d957f4)

  18. The real question, of course, is kind of creature this makes of Rainey? Except we already know.

    Eric Blair (4c5397)

  19. “The duo certainly has caused a stir — and raised questions about an organization that in the past had received substantial government funding — but, sorry folks, please don’t call this journalism.”–A journalist

    Why would I want to insult Giles and O’Keefe by accusing them of practicing journalism?

    Dave Surls (398876)

  20. “Greater transparency would be a plus.”

    You mean the kind of transparency employed by doyens of journalism like Woodward and Bernstein?

    Dave Surls (398876)

  21. Anita Busch,

    You may be right about the ultimate outcome in this instance, but I also think Patterico is right to delve into it. The first step to healing is often to expose the wound.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  22. You’d think the LA Time would realize by now that if they don’t get all the facts correct, Patterico is going to be all over them. It seems to be taking them a long time to learn this lesson.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  23. Times, not Time. But they are so bad, maybe one time is enough.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  24. Times, not Time. But they are so bad, maybe one time is enough.

    I like it, I like it!

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  25. DRJ, at this point, I don’t know if Patterico’s goal is to heal the LA Times, or simply make sure more people realize what kinds of lies are systemic problems in democrat media.

    Not that I care… it’s pursuit of the truth, either way.

    Anita’s right that the LA Times has no intention of fixing this ‘mistake’. Rainey and their lawyer know damn well that O’Keefe doesn’t compare himself with Michael Moore, than the ACORN rep is a liar, and that they indeed do help criminals.

    There is journalism, the kind of thing that would root out ACORN’s crimes, and then there’s propaganda, the kind of thing that would try to control a story, shape it, and discredit the journalists. Rainey knows what he is. It’s 2009 anyway… no one wants a paper paper. is simply a better product.

    Dustin (cf255c)

  26. Not disagreeing with what has been said, but what would the LAT think it would get by saying O’Keefe compares himself to “MM”? To turn conservatives against him? So the L could say the R are hypocritical when attacking MM?

    Last time I checked, MM was the darling of the LAT and others, winning awards and $$$ for his “documentaries”.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  27. Patterico, maybe you should send a message to Mr. O’Keefe asking him to ask Ms. Abcarian to publicly release her unedited notes–since he is the other involved party, he should have every right to do so, unless it is actually Ms. Abcarian who doesn’t want the truth out there. At the very least, it would be entertaining to see the lame excuse she used for noncompliance after that.

    M. Scott Eiland (c552ec)

  28. NO, I don’t want to see their notes, notes can be edited or added to. I want to hear him say it in his voice, on her tape recorder that every reporter uses. None of her notes are to be trusted.

    peedoffamerican (f3343e)

  29. In the interest of full disclosure, I must reveal that I have always had great admiration and respect for the Don Quixote’s throughout history, including today.

    If this current sortie against that corrupt institution known as the Los Angeles Times hastens its’ impending demise (I am just unable to believe that it is possible to resurrect it to a position of respectability), I shall stand and salute, and offer a toast to the Valiant Knight’s health!


    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  30. Why would this Abracadabra JournoList now care about releasing her notes, when it is clear Rainey has already been working from them? I have a prediction. Limited “notes” will be revealed that claim to show O’Keefe comparing himself to Lardass, at which point Rainey will claim that validates every asspull, lie, and distortion he has ever advanced on this topic. He is a dishonest party, and will continue to be. Period.

    JD (0d131e)

  31. The first step to healing is often to expose the wound.

    Except that they are not the least bit interested in “healing” of any sort because to them, there is no “wound” to heal from. They don’t see the insidious pus filled deceit that has ruined this paper and unfortunately, those that have integrity and actually practice real journalism, continue to get sucked into the vortex of the sickness and eventually become a part of it.

    If they were remotely interested in “healing”, the unedited notes would have been immediately made public to squelch any debate or question. Wait, even before that, Rainey would have made mention of them in his original piece, quoted the relevant portions, and credited Ms. Abcarian.

    It’s naive to think that the LAT remotely believe there is a wound that needs healing because whatever problem there is, is ours – the readers. Period.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  32. I think this reporter’s notes will be doctored just like the data for Global Warming was.

    PCD (74f8a9)

  33. Patterico,
    A good question to ask Abcarian. When did she and Rainey first discuss the alleged O’Keefe quote. Who approached who? Did Rainey see her notes of the interview and, if so, when?

    Jimboster (fe0b27)

  34. […] ACORN reading: Patterico’s Pontifications: Rainey: O’Keefe Made That Statement . . . It Just Never Got Published. So You’ll Have to Trust U… and Breitbart to Release Videos on Acorn in L.A. and James Rainey: Regurgitating One-Sided Claims […]

    ACORN Child Sex Sting in Los Angeles: Why Is ACORN Being Protected by Attorney Generals Holder and Brown? Breitbart Will Release More Tapes if No Investigation (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  35. Before Abcarian or Rainey produce any “notes” they better be damn sure O’Keefe didn’t have his little candid camera recording the interview. He does things like that, don’t ya know.

    ropelight (92a6ea)

  36. What say you, Brother Bradley? Your opinion counts around here. Belly up, and let fly. I’m a big fan.

    I don’t believe Rainey. Why wasn’t such a juicy quote in Abcarian’s story?

    Pardon for not answering faster; I’ve been finishing a mondo blog post on Climategate and just published it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  37. Brother Bradley, you’ve done yourself proud (except by the use of Climategate).

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  38. Bradley nails it. It was a shocking quote. Michael Moore? No way that wouldn’t get used.

    But why are we even asking ourselves this. Rainey is ACORN. He unquestioningly passed their lies, and even added a few more when pretending most of O’Keefe’s videos hadn’t been shown. He has been very hostile towards one side, and unquestioningly loyal to the other.

    He’s just ACORN. LA’s paper is sick with corruption. The payoffs and lies and cheating ACORN makes its daily routine are part of what the LA Times is all about.

    Dustin (cf255c)

  39. AD – RtR/OS!,

    I know, Climategate is hackneyed. But I bow to popular usage.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  40. Kowtowing to the perceived wisdom…..again!/s

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  41. AD – RtR/OS!
    I have to make a token show of obeisance from time to time, or they’ll take away my secret media decoder ring.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  42. Aren’t you embarrassed going to WalMart to get a new battery?

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  43. BTW…when you feed in the dialogue from Olberdouce, does it decode it, or just print out “IDIOT!”?

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  44. AD – RtR/OS!,

    You’ve said it better than I can.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  45. That’s a nice essay, Bradley. I have been beating that drum for a long time, and it used to be that, whenever I did, people assumed I meant I didn’t “believe” in global warming.

    No, I meant that I didn’t trust the scientists involved (many of whom had been involved in politicizing environmental science since the 1960s) to fairly evaluate the squishy aspects of climate modeling.

    And it turns out I was right, and it is worse than I thought.

    But then, our much respected Science Advisor worked closely with Paul Ehrlich as he wrote “The Population Bomb” and other political screeds that masquerade as objective science.


    And it is related to the Rainey situation. Rainey came to this story with his conclusions already in place. And it shows…even when he is a complete and utter hypocrite.

    That is because he is gooooooood, and O’Keefe is baaaaaaaad.

    It’s sad.

    Again, Bradley, that was quite a good post on Climategate. I appreciate how fairminded you have always striven to be.

    Eric Blair (bc43a4)

  46. JD, you got me rolling :)

    Alvin (70ea2d)

  47. Speaking of releasing raw video, isn’t the LAT the paper still hiding the one of Obama at the party for Rashid Khalidi?

    kaz (e7a67c)

  48. DJR, you are 100% correct, and I, more than anyone, is very thankful to Patrick for his doggedness in holding the L.A. Times feet to the fire when need be and working hard to print the facts. I also understand fully what you are saying about exposing the wound. Dustin has a good point in that they won’t see any wound (i.e. problem).

    There is a systemic problem at the L.A. Times:

    1). There is laziness from many columnists/reporters (and it’s not exclusive to the Times. Some people are just downright lazy and that’s just human nature). Hence, the extra call is not made, the double checking the information, etc.

    2). When there is a problem (i.e. someone asks for a correction or there’s an ethical breach), there is, among many there, an immediate posture of arrogance. In other words, a reluctance to admit an error and accept responsibility.

    3). Everything is looked at through the prism of legal liability and that decides the course of action.

    The bottom line: Cover the newspaper’s legal ass at all cost. (In my particular case, the lawyer at the Times melded covering the newspaper’s legal ass with her own).

    I just don’t see a correction coming on the Michael Moore comment.

    Anita Busch (fc416d)

  49. Probably so but, at this point, the benefit isn’t in changing minds at the LA Times. The benefit is in changing the minds of the people who read the LA Times.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  50. Liberals are lying scum. Why did 52% want lying scum?

    tessa (f7aa3b)

  51. PS Nice post at Hotair.

    tessa (f7aa3b)

  52. Eric Blair,
    Thank you. Funny, I’d long looked up to the ideals of science to help purify journalism of its error-filled partisanship. Instead, journo-like partisanship has degraded large portions of science!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  53. #54, good insight Bradley, it seems that rotten apples do spoil the barrel.

    You may want to avoid thinking about how the general application of that principle works in terms of the practise of “Affirmative Action” and it’s goal of “Diversity.”

    ropelight (b7b321)

  54. ropelight,
    I already have an answer to that trope. As newsrooms are dominated by the left, I suggest adding some moderates, conservatives, (and a few Libertarians) to provide ideological diversity. If they happen to be ethnic minorities, so much the better, because the only ground to object to them will be ideological.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  55. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 11/29/2009 @ 7:27 am

    Won’t happen in newsrooms, just as it hasn’t happened in faculty lounges…
    Too threatening to the established order!

    AD - RtR/OS! (27348e)

  56. Bradley, that was a great article. I posted a link over at Chicago Boyz which has a couple of excellent posts on the issue of the code that was also part of the whistleblower release. It is full of bugs and the programmers’ comments show just how bad it was. In the long run, I think the code issues will be more important than the e-mails. This is the first of three excellent posts. In particular, look at Shannon Love’s comment about climate science and its place in science. A sample:

    In the “soft” sciences or in non-scientific disciplines such as the humanities, no such appeal to nature exists. The graybeards rule all. “Truth” in the field is defined solely by a consensus of the graybeards. The entire professional, economic and social standing of the graybeards itself relies on selling that consensus to the greater public. If you’re young or an outsider and want a degree and a career, your work must agree with and reinforce the “consensus” of the graybeards or you will not receive their imprimatur.

    Mike K (addb13)

  57. Won’t happen in newsrooms, just as it hasn’t happened in faculty lounges…
    Too threatening to the established order!

    There have to be some people at the LAT who don’t want to lose their jobs because of the dishonest journalism of Rainey, Hiltzik, Rutten, etc.

    Regarding Robin Abcarian, she was discussed in a profile of the late, much-missed Cathy Seipp.

    “Poor Robin Abcarian was real angry with me. She used to have a column [in the LA Times and a radio show]. We worked together at the Daily News and we were friends. I felt bad about having to insult her but the column was insultable, what are you going to do?

    “I’d avoided writing about her because we were friendly. But if you’re writing about the Times and somebody does something spectacularly stupid, you have to report it. I remember she had seriously libeled somebody’s parents. Some woman had been abused by her parents but Robin identified the parents. Until you’ve been convicted in a trial, you cannot refer to them as rapists and child abusers. An editor should’ve caught that. So they had to trash something like a 20,000 copy run of the paper. I had to write about that. She got mad. I don’t blame her. Then the cat was out of the bag and I made fun of her columns and she was resentful.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  58. #56 and 57, BB, I agree, however, the only way diversity is measured today is by ethnicity and gender. Results are rotten to the core.

    See Michelle Malkin’s post 11/23/09 (Dana also has a post at his site) on “The incredible whiteness of MSNBC.” Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh were denigrating the people attending a singing of Sarah Palin’s book. Matthews commented on the “white crowd” and Walsh described the gathering as a “paranoid tea party.”

    However, a look at MSNBC’s line up of talking heads reveals nothing but unrelieved whiteness. The hypocrisy is so blatant even a racist could see it. In spades!

    AD, you are correct, as usual, elites don’t like having their apple carts upset. Bad for business, leads to increased oversight, and shines bright lights on sacred cows.

    ropelight (b7b321)

  59. Mike K., thank you for that link.

    The post is getting comments, including from ropelight. I have approved them. Since I may get more, I’m going to check the comments more frequently.

    Just call me,

    Data Diogenes

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  60. Data Diogenes…

    I can almost visualize you wandering through the Internet searching for an honest journalist, or researcher.

    AD - RtR/OS! (27348e)

  61. AD – RtR/OS!
    Judith Curry appears to be one honest researcher who backs AGW theory, but is talking to skeptics. She has called for researchers to make all of their data, methodology, etc., publicly available. And if skeptics find errors, she says, correct the errors and move on.

    This could be the start of cleaning up the “dirty laundry” of climate science.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  62. I love a good game of cat and mouse, but this is more like cheetah and three-legged rat. Bless the watchdogs of the watchdogs.

    RexTheCat (6234d6)

  63. Fearless prediction: the “mold of Moore” comment never existed–at least from the mouth of O’Keefe. It was part of a question posed by Abcarian, asking him if he felt his approach to ACORN was based on Moore’s approach, and O’Keefe answered to the effect that he disagreed with the notion that his work was derivative of Moore’s, but that confrontation (and recording it) can lead to the truth. Anyone as dishonest as Rainey could conflate the question and answer as one statement, and Abcarian’s notes would show Rainey to be a liar as far as O’Keefe saying he thought he was like Moore. As for Abcarian’s “confirmation” that Rainey is right, one wonders what part of what Rainey wrote she is confirming. Without any more detail as to her vouching for Rainey, I’d view it with caution, especially if she is being counseled by Times attorneys. Patterico, what was her exact statement, and what part of the Rainey response was she purporting to confirm? How explicit was she?

    kyle (15e6d3)

  64. kyle, that’s what I suspected at first too, but I think even that is giving them way too much credit.

    I think it’s a wholesale fabrication. Like the rest of Rainey’s ACORN coverage, it’s simply wrong.

    Of maybe O’Keefe compared himself to Moore by saying they have nothing in common (technically a comparison). Not that I care… Rainey’s just not into journalism.

    Dustin (cf255c)

  65. She can’t release her notes, why? Because it would subject the Times to a claim of defamation?

    Having had quotes of my own distorted by agents of the press pushing a narrative, I’d feel rather skeptical of Rainey, even if he were not preceded by his own reputation for getting it wrong on purpose. Since the New York Times interviewed a former colleague (Farkas) who brought up a Moore comparison, and “he thinks he’s some kind of Michael Moore” is a chief spagetti-strand-to-the-wall calumny of Acorn defenders trying to discredit O’keef I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some questions posed to Okeefe along the lines of “How are you like Michael Moore”? (interviewer making a leading comparison, that is.) Miss Interviewer can’t show her work, because the distortion would be too obvious.

    SarahW (692fc6)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3673 secs.