NBC (the network that rigged crash tests, staged racism stings & faked flood coverage) criticizes ACORN “entrapment”
Oh, this is so rich.
So, so rich.
Norah O’Donnell of NBC News fretted this morning that the ACORN sting videos “might be viewed as entrapment.”
Yes, she actually said it.
Mark Finkelstein has the transcript/video here.
Now, let me remind Ms. O’Donnell of the glorious history of news “entrapment” at NBC News.
Um, there was that little matter of the rigged GM truck crash tests by the fakers at Dateline:
There was the embarrassing stunt involving NBC News reporter Michelle Kosinski, who pretended to paddle through a treacherous
flooded area in a canoe…while passers-by sloshed by her and exposed the fact that she was rowing in a few inches of a water.
Oh, and there was the attempt by Dateline NBC (again!) to conduct Islamophobia stings at NASCAR races to expose how racist racing fans were (a news-gathering method also embraced by ABC News).
So, now that conservative alternative media has used the Professional Media’s time-worn tactics to expose taxpayer-funded ACORN’s illicit practices, NBC News is worried about “entrapment?”
LMAO.
***
Another Dateline NBC sting operation: To Catch a Predator.
Reader John e-mails about another egregious example of NBC staging exposed by William Tonso in Reason magazine:
Last year I called NBC to complain about its latest use of machine-gun footage in a story on semi-automatics. The gentleman who answered that call excused the juxtaposition as a mistake; he hung up when I pointed out that NBC had been making that same mistake for five years. When I called back to get his name, he hung up again. The next day I spoke with David McCormick, NBC’s man in charge of broadcast standards, who acknowledged that the network had received complaints about the “assault weapon” stories before and had tried to correct the problem. But he said it was hard to prevent rushed producers from grabbing whatever footage was handy when the topic of “assault weapons” came up. He was quite pleasant, even after I said that sloppiness seemed a lame excuse for the misleading juxtapositions NBC had aired for five years. After all, heads rolled at NBC over a single assisted explosion of a GM truck, but the network has yet to even acknowledge repeat edly misleading the public about “assault weapons.” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, reports that NBC even aired one of these juxtapositions shortly after he spent several hours demonstrating the difference between semi-automatics and machine guns to an NBC crew.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Gathering of Eagles: NY
- » Criminal stupidity in the Acorn entrapment video Amorian: Love God, Love Others, Love Wisely
- Night of the Long Knives
- The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The Deficit of Trust
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: ACORN Watch, Media Bias
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they cooked up all on their own
Green Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» New Standards in JournalismRedstate
» Michael Steele Plays the Race CardJustOneMinute
» He Played It Left Hand, But Took It Too FarHot Air
» Quotes of the dayEd Driscoll
» The Night Chicago Died
I haven’t moved a thing. It’s just you don’t understand the relevant law. Nor, apparently, the difference between a civil suit and a criminal violation. Nor, apparently, the difference between making a recording and releasing a recording.
It is okay to admit that the filmmakers probably broke the law, but that you are okay with that. The people that engaged in sit-ins in the 50’s civil rights movement were breaking the law too. That doesn’t make their actions any less righteous.
chapoutier,
Good job keeping everyone straight on this.
You significantly contribute to the credibility of this website.
So, the two ‘reporters’ will be fined $500 and Fox will be let off because they leaked the tape.
Case closed, right? Or was that the goalposts that just went flying by, once again?
What the hell are you talking about with goalposts? You are making zero sense.
The two filmmakers, if convicted, will be punished according to the laws of Maryland. I don’t know what they are. feel free to look them up and actually educate yourself on the law that you claim they haven’t broken.
And I never said a thing about FOX, either in a criminal or civil liability sense. But that is the basic difference, yes.
Actually, I admit that the filmakers probably broke the law. In fact, they probably knew that they were breaking the law.
Also, I wouldn’t fault a prosecutor for pursuing a criminal conviction. I certainly don’t support politically motivated prosecutorial discretion on either side.
However, I don’t think the filmmakers will have any problem procuring an excellent defense team and that, if convicted, the sentence would be minor.
When people don’t like how things are going, they change the objectives, hence the moving goalposts.
I never claimed anyone didn’t break the law, I was suggesting that what is good for the Democrat goose should be good for the Republican gander.
I know you didn’t say anything about Fox, but they could be considered the ‘leaker’ and get the same treatment McDermott got — i.e. nothing, nada, zip.
I’ll leave the lawyering to the lawyers.
Don’t get so hositle!
chapoutier said:
Now I admit reading this earlier but, how could the film makers have broken a law when they were filming, under cover,in Maryland where ACORN was operating illegally? Perhaps I am just confused.
Look at the laws on “conspiracy” in Maryland and it is not at all clear that the ACORN staff DID NOT commit multiple conspiracies in their conversations with O’Keefe and Giles. Funny how the state attorney is selectively investigating these matters…
The way the stupid laws in this nation are written today we are almost all in violation of some idiotic federal law every single day…
It is time to change this nonsense and return government to its limited role as defined by the actual constitution!
I understand the expression. I just am at a loss for how it could apply to me since I am handling my original argument quite nicely. Maybe you could point out how my original argument has shifted?
So when you said this:
I was not to take that as you saying that the filmmakers were not guilty because of the defense that McDermott used?
I would very much expect that to be the case.
Arthur: “Hobson, did you see that? That girl stole that tie. It’s the perfect crime, girls don’t wear ties. Although some girls do, so it’s not a perfect crime, but it’s a good crime.”
Hobson: “Yes. If she murdered the tie it would be the perfect crime.”
It is not conspiracy. There was no real agreement between the parties because one of the parties was faking. Nor is it accessory before the fact because to be an accessory to the crime, there has to be an actual crime. Here, the filmmakers were just pretending to commit a crime.
Think about it this way…You are a freshman pledging a frat. One night you are asleep in your dorm and one of your future “brothers” wakes you. He is all nervous and shaking. He tells you that he accidentally killed his girlfriend during a fight and he needs your help to ditch the body. You quickly dress and follow him to his car, where you see a long tall plastic bag in the back seat. He drives you out to the woods and you help him dig a big hole. He tells you he’s going to get the body. You turn around just in time to see him and the “body” speeding away in the car laughing and chugging beers. Someone eventually picks you up the next morning.
Now, obviously, helping someone dispose of a murdered body is a crime, you are an accessory after the fact. But is this poor gullible college student a criminal? No. Because there was no actual underlying crime. Even if he THOUGHT he was committing a crime at the time.
chap: My point is that the goalposts always seem mobile for one set of people, but set in concrete for others. You can guess who I believe has to face the posts set in concrete. I never meant to intimate you are a guilty party, just that there will be selective memory for those who get their undies in a wad over the ACORN broo-ha-ha (sp?).
That was tongue in cheek and not directed at you, rather at those who will once again have selective memory…
Look at the laws on conspiracy in Maryland. They differ significantly from conspiracy laws in other states. That is what I told you to do and you ignored the point and reverted to some silly anecdotal story. Look at the law in Maryland…
Then cite them. Prove it.
You have access to Lexis/Nexis. Go look them up yourself…
No, I don’t. And you are the one trying to argue it’s different. Put up or shut up. I can’t wait to hear your razor sharp legal analysis.
Ahhh, what the hell. I will preemptively prove WarEagle wrong, yet again.
Here is how MD defines conspiracy:
Emphasis mine and is the reason WE82 is, predictably, absolutely wrong. There can be no conspiracy because there was no true meeting of the minds between the filmmakers and the ACORN employees. There was no unity of purpose. One was trying to film an expose. The other was trying to give out shady advice.
Stick to what your good at WE82, and leave the legal analysis to those that know how to actually read the law. I promise to call you if I need to know how best to color outside the lines.
There’s always the old standby of charging for federal civil rights violation.
And of course Chappy, the ambulance chaser, thinks Chappy’s interpretation is always right and the only permissible interpretation…
Go hang out around the ER at GT. Maybe you’ll get lucky and find your big case.
That is the sound of WE82 slinking away from his stupid argument.
Stand up and fight for your incredibly wrong interpretation of the law! Cite some cases! Fight 200 years of common law!
Chap,
Let me pose a situation.
Joe lives in Maryland and tries to hire someone to kill his wife. The person turns out to be an undercover detective. Does Joe get charged with conspiracy to commit murder? According to the definition provided, there can be no conspiracy because there was no true meeting of the minds between the “hit man” and Joe.
What would Joe be charged with?
Just amazed at how easy it is to have Chappy demonstrate his arrogance. It hardly takes anything these days…
Solicitation of murder is usually a crime in and of itself.
Thank goodness it doesn’t take much because you throw out so little.
Now fight for your position! Or are you going to admit you were wrong?
Hmmm… Just for giggles, I decided to take a quick look at what I would find if I Googled “hidden camera” and the dinosaur media. I got bored after half a dozen of these, but it’s truly amazing how up-in-arms they are about hidden cameras, given that it is something they obviously use all the time! Here are some of the highlights:
This is a truly hysterical piece about NBC’s attempt to surreptitiously obtain video at DefCon!
Here’s Dateline NBC’s hidden camera investigation of what insurance agents say (and don’t say) to seniors when they think they are alone.
ABC News hidden camera report on aged tires being sold as “new” by big retailers.
ABC News’ mischaracterization of AIG gathering, complete with hidden camera footage.
ABC News hidden camera expose on air duct cleaning services.
Dateline NBC’s yearlong investigation (complete with hidden camera footage) of Quixtar (which, I think, is Amway).
Local Las Vegas ABC affiliate hidden camera story on cleanliness at food courts.
Now, don’t you think that all of the people who were videotaped (or almost videotaped in the case of the idiot in the first story) in these instances had a “reasonable expectation of privacy?”
I agree with your analysis but think WarEagle82 was just trying to waste your time.
Well the “How many devils can dance on the head of a pin” exchange on the laws in Maryland is interesting, but also totally irrelevant. “DMS” to use the colloquial term.
The mission of the intrepid film crew was to expose ACORN for what it is. And they did that in Spades. Anything beyond that is gravy. No one cares about what the Maryland courts eventually say. No one cares if MSNBC or the Pope says “entrapment.”
At most the State will fine these two filmmakers. The fine is a petty cash expenditure compared to the return on investment. Given the impending firestorm over ACORN no Maryland prosecutor will get within 500 meters of this thing. It’s toxic and smelling worse each day. You want to prosecute two people who have exposed a national criminal organization with close ties to the White House? Not a chance.
Dear Chappy,
I will admit you are an arrogant, pretentious, putz and that you are easily led into displaying that fact time and time again with increasingly little effort on anyone’s part.
That will do for now.
Maybe. I never said “reasonable expectation of privacy” was a component of the the law everywhere. It is, however, the law in Maryland.
Fixed it for you. What are you serving for dinner tonight? I’ll help you choose a wine.
Isn’t the point NBC’s hypocritical concern (in the person of Ms. O’Donnell) about “tricking” someone into exposing their wrongdoing?
I’m sure the filmmakers will get next to nothing for this. But then again, who knows? We live in a time where Black Panthers can be caught on tape redhanded intimidating voters and have the case against them dismissed (different jurisdiction, I know).
For me, the thing to note here is the obvious criminal undercurrent running through ACORN (that our intrepid hostess has been relentlessly exposing) and the media’s apparent complicity in ignoring the same.
To clarify this a bit, there are plenty of states where videotaping or recording a conversation is legal without all parties’ consent. And I have no doubt that there are lots of exceptions to general prohibitions in certain states. MD, however, is pretty tough.
I didn’t see this until after I posted. You said it much better!
Exactly. I only briefly looked earlier, and this was the law I found, and it applied to private residences, which this case didn’t involve. Haven’t had time to look for other laws yet…
Major O, your post was quite good. HAT TIP!
Sorry, Chappy, I don’t drink Thunderbird and I don’t eat Slim-Jims so I won’t require any assistance from you on wine selections…
Slim Jims pair with Wild Irish Rose, not Thunderbird, moron.
Forgive me if I don’t put your thesis to the test. But at least we know all know your two favorite wines and hors d’ouvre. Do you take that with or without Cheeze Whiz? Wait, nobody cares…
The direction of the Comments board often goes in a direction like this when the most glaring “takeaway” of the initial post is discomfiting to those on the Left.
1. ACORN is a very, very troubled organization if not downright criminal.
1.a. This organization has been very closely allied with the sitting president (he was a lawyer for them, no?) as well as the Democrat party.
1.b. As a result of this close relationship (my opinion here), this organization has received a great deal of public funds.
1.c. Conservatives pointed out the nature of ACORN a long time ago.
1.d. Recent events have proved Conservatives right.
2. The Same Stream media, always in lockstep, appear to have studiously avoided the story.
2.a. Conservatives have for a long time pointed out the bias of the media.
2.b. This story highlights that Conservatives may very well be correct about the media’s bias (as the media runs interference for the Left in general and Democrats and their allies in particular).
Topic in the Comments for this post? Wrangling about the criminal charges possible against the filmmakers.
Swallowing camels and straining at gnats.
Poor WE82. Still don’t know how to properly flame. Everyone here knows I know a lot about wine. So for you to attempt to exploit that as an apparent weakness falls pitifully flat. Much like your legal analysis.
10-402 deals with the interception of communication. I’m not sure being a party to the conversation qualifies as “interception”.
Uhhh…the original topic of MM’s post was someone in the Media accusing the filmmakers of entrapment. We are more on topic with the discussion about what crimes the filmmakers might ACTUALLY be guilty of than you are with your little summary.
Well, of course that’s what you’d think as you’re one of the primary ones going on about it.
Michelle’s point of raising the issue about entrapment was the richness of the HYPOCRISY of NBC. It wasn’t the beginning of an extended debate about what “entrapment” means or what crimes the filmmakers “might actually be guilty of.”
etc., etc.
Aloha, looking at the definition of “intercept” in the code, it does not appear to preclude someone from intercepting a conversation they are having with another. It does seem a bit counterintuitive. But the courts have consistently interpreted the law to mean this.
You are spending more posts complaining that we are off topic and defending your position that we are than you ever did actually making what even you would consider on-topic posts.
Kind of ironic, huh?
If it’s necessary to point out, it’s warranted, “ironic” or not.
And there’s a post on the topic of the potential charges here http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/11/acorn-watch-the-baltimore-city-state%e2%80%99s-attorneys-office-warped-priorities/.
No, Chappy, everyone here knows you claim to know a lot about wine. After all, you have read nearly 10 books…
How about this: I will continue to participate in an at least mildly interesting conversation that is at least somewhat on topic which at least several other commenters are participating in, and you can continue to be a singular whiny voice about how we are not conforming to your particular brand of “on topic”. How’s that sound?
If you want anything more than that, I suggest you suck up enough to MM for her to grant you moderator status.
Funny I have never seen a single one of them ask your opinion on the topic. I’d be happy to test my knowledge against yours any time. But enough of this off topic tom foolery WarEagle! Get back to studying for the bar exam! The world can’t be deprived of a prodigious legal mind like yours for another minute!
ACORN is a criminal enterprise.
The Democrat party today (esp including the president) is corrupt to the hilt. These are the folks currently running our nation.
Our media is run and dominated by a group of likeminded individuals who lean overwhelmingly to the Left and whose “coverage” of “events” has a big hand in shaping what the average American thinks is “happening.” They are not just deep sixing events but trying to mitigate and recast them in more favorable terms.
Given that, Michelle’s post here is so vital to alerting Americans to what’s REALLY going on with the Democrat party and its allies.
I see you are taking my advice.
To follow up on this, Aloha, from what I can tell, the definitive case on this is Bodoy v. North Arundel Hospital. I have been trying to find a copy of the actual decision to see what they do with the statute, but have had no luck so far.
How about you take your offer and do what you want with it? I’ll show some class and not return your snark.
I’m no more whiny with my comment here than your comments about Rush Limbaugh comparing Obama’s iconography to Hitler’s was whiny. I’m sure you felt justified in pursuing that point as you did.
I’m not pretending to be MM’s moderator, nor do I want to be, and I don’t know her from anybody else. I’m just tired of topics that look bad for teh Left somehow moving into a discussion of some details that manage to take the light away from what’s actually wrong.
I have no desire to take anything from you whatsoever.
so, chap, you never did answer me regarding the choice of champagne…
Do you know what the difference between substance and procedure is? You may disagree with how I feel about the use of Hitler rhetoric. But at least both our opinions on the matter are ones that are dealing with the substance of a topic. You are complaining here about procedure. And not even a really good argument about it. Whatever we are discussing with respect to the filmmakers is well within the bounds of germaneness to this post by MM.
Then continue to have your conversation. No one is stopping you, are they? It is actually possible for a thread to have multiple trains of thought going on at once. It’s why the “quote” function is so handy and why people use it.
What question? Where?
It may have been a long time ago, in a thread far, far away.
Anyway–do you have a preference for such things? Bollinger? Dom Perignon? Veuve Clicquot?
I answered that, i think. My favorite vintage is Krug. It is earthier and yeastier than some others. Almost like smelling a bakery. But it is super expensive. I haven’t had it in years.
Charles Heidseick is very good, and more affordable, as well.
Dandelion is pretty good.
Steny (come on, who names their kid “Steny”?) called the videographers despicable today. No, Steny, it’s the socialist democrat party that’s despicable for funding ACORN racketeers.
I think if i had to represent these guys, I’d argue that it’s a reverse version of this case. If a salesman in a private home has no expectation of privacy, surely someone working for an organization that gives advice to the public has no expectation of privacy when they give advice in their (open to the public) offices.
Body was fired by the hospital for taping conversations and sued over being fired. The ruling said he was lawfully fired, since taping conversations is illegal. I would make the distinction that in general it’s illegal but not so clear cut in the ACORN case.
oops, Bodoy
OK, this may be slightly off topic. I have been very impressed with the strategy on the timing of the release of these videos. They release the first one, wait for the expected denials of “rogue” operation, then prove that denial to be false with the second release. Then the expected denials of “its just a handful of employees”, followed by the third release. This demonstrates a very good understanding of the organization they are attacking.
Tonight there is another video scheduled to be released – I expect it to be along the same lines. I also expect the last video to be one of the Chicago office. What better way to wrap up a series of hits to a corrupt organization, than a kick to the head.
Get your popcorn ready, this should be fun to watch.
Chap, I’m not so sure the location they were in created a situation where privacy was expected. Anyone can walk in or out of the ACORN offices (such as a pimp and his hooker) and if I recall correctly, the door to the room they were sitting in was open. In one video, though it may have been in NY, I believe a child could be plainly heard. I’d have to go back and watch the video again but I don’t believe these were closed door meetings and as such may in fact not meet reasonable expectations of privacy.