James O'Keefe & Journalistic/Blogging Ethics?

-
In May of last year, I wrote a blog called Common Sense, in which I argued the First Amendment has to apply to bloggers as well as to professional journalists, but bloggers, in return, have certain ethical responsibilities. Recently, the question of bloggers' ethics has been put to the test. Blogger, James O'Keefe, the same blogger who taped Planned Parenthood supposedly counseling an under aged teen about abortion, apparently caught NPR executive, Ron Schiller, disparaging conservatives in general, and tea party members in particular.

Schiller, thought he was meeting with Muslim donors to NPR. The supposed donors were, in reality, being played by actors working for O'Keefe. In the frequently viewed 11 minute 38 second viral video, Ron Schiller is seen reacting to the sound bite, “spread the acceptance of Sharia across the world,” with the phrase, "Really? That’s what they said?" followed by a laugh. Another clip shows Schiller saying, "...the current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It’s been hijacked by this group that is the radical, racist, Islamophobic Tea Party people?"

These quotes seem to show Schiller ripping on the Republican Party, and have been used to justify the defunding of Public Broadcasting. The problem is that the quotes were taken out of context and spliced together in a way which changed their meaning.

The phrase, "Really? That’s what they said?" followed by the laugh, was actually response to a restaurant employee’s remark about their reservation 6 minutes 30 seconds into the uncut version of the video.

The second remark, "...the current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It’s been hijacked by this group that is the radical, racist, Islamophobic Tea Party people?" was the tale end of a much longer statement, in which Schiller is quoting members of the Republican Party.

Schiller actually said, "I, I won't break a confidence, but a person who was an ambassador, so a very highly placed Republican, another person, who was one of the top donors to the Republican Party, they both told me they voted for Obama, which they never believed they could ever do in their lives, that they could ever vote for a Democrat, ever. And they did because they believe that the current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It’s been hijacked by this group that is the radical, racist, Islamophobic Tea Party people?" 33 minutes 40 seconds into the uncut version of the video.

At one point in the conversation, Schiller even stressed the fact that NPR strives not to deliver conservative opinion like FOX, OR liberal opinion like MSNBC, but instead deliver straight middle of the road news 32 minutes 30 seconds into the uncut version of the video. However, this statement doesn't appear anywhere within the frequently viewed final cut. The statement immediately following the comparison to FOX & MSNBC did make the final cut, but was spliced into a conversation about Jews & Muslims.

I have to say this much for O'Keefe, he acts according to his beliefs. I can't fault him for that. Anyone who starts a site and works, within the bounds of the law, to make the world a better place, according to their definition of "better," has my respect.

Critics, chastise him for using hidden cameras & covert tactics to gather his material. I can't fault him for that either. He had the means to get a perceived enemy on tape, and he utilized those means. I can respect a man for taking action, rather than wishing someone else would do it

Yet, I can't respect him for editing sound bites together to make them mean what he wants them to mean. Yes, he published the unedited film for all to see, but did so with the understanding that the majority of the short attention spanned public weren't going to dedicate the 2 hours necessary to watch the full version. Sure enough, as of 03/21/11 4:35 PM PST, 22,700 people have viewed the unedited version on O'Keefe's site, but 996,314 have seen the skewed 11 minute version on YouTube, which doesn't carry the two hour version.

According to O'Keefe, such splicing is a widely accepted technique among professional journalists. No, it's not. Granted, examples of such skewed editing can easily be found in the media. Yet, defending the technique as being acceptable, because it's frequently executed, is like say crime is acceptable, because crimes occur everyday. It doesn't work as a logical argument.

I also take issue with O'Keefe calling himself a journalist. Journalists, genuine journalists, report news without promoting a particular point of view. I'm not a journalist either, by the way. I'm a blogger, who analyzes stories which are already in the news. Likewise, O'Keefe is a blogger, a well funded video blogger, but a blogger nonetheless who puts a lop sided conservative spin on his body of work.

Given that he is a blogger, one could conceivably ask if he should be held to the same ethical standards as a journalist? The short answer is, yes. As I said in my May piece, if bloggers want the protection of the First Amendment and want to be taken seriously, we must adhere to a code of ethics by refraining from committing liable, twisting facts to meet our needs, and selling unsubstantiated rumor as truth.