So it looks like (and this is a summary, not an excuse) that O’Keefe was attempting to talk to the staffers about their phones. The costume was designed to make the workers believe that he was with the phone company. The recording device was needed to capture their reactions, not to “bug” their phones.

That in mind, it seems like O’Keefe was attempting some “undercover” reporting… however, the deception (the costume, the on-site lie of: “we work for the phone company,” etc.) is still not acceptable.

I think it’s easy to see what he was going for here… however, his execution was more Hollywood, than reality. But O’Keefe does remain correct that multiple reporters, from multiple outlets, jumped on the opportunity to slam him… much faster than they responded to the ACORN videos. They reported the story without getting all the facts, and should be held accountable for lazy journalism, and unethical behavior… in fact, they BOTH should.

In the case of the AP and Washington Post it was a story too good to fact check. With MSNBC it was a real chance to vilify those racist teabagging conservatives.

Good for O’Keefe – he is exactly right. He was declared guilty on over-the-top speculation by MSM who never fact checks anything if a republican/conservative is inolved. Guilty until proven innocent.

I still think Schuster should be fired.

I think the funniest comments about this were Stewarts, that O”keefe got all of his ideas from porn movies (or however he said it).

When O’Keefe says “The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines,” he doesn’t provide any evidence of this confirmation. The original affadavit states that they tried to gain access to the telephone closet, and that it was probable that their intention was to maliciously interfere with the telephone system.

O’Keefe’s revision notwithstanding, reporting the contents of an FBI document can hardly be considered “journalistic malpractice.” Journalists have a duty to report facts from credible sources, not to tailor them to James O’Keefe’s legal defense.

“TfT says:
January 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Good for O’Keefe – he is exactly right. He was declared guilty on over-the-top speculation by MSM who never fact checks anything if a republican/conservative is inolved. Guilty until proven innocent.”
Shoe seems to be on the other foot now-In Re.: ACORN
Seems as if some folks jumped on that before fact-checks were done.
Heck, NO ONE has even seen the full, un-cut, un-edited, raw footage.
And IMVHO, one one ever will.
Hummmm.
Produce those films, and maybe the truth will set you free. Or not and just bury you deeper.
Time to show all the cards.

Next up – John Edwards talking about the virtues of monogamy!

Mr X,

Maybe there is parsing of words here. I’m trying to get a clearer picture where story stands now. Via Glynnis you stated “government” has confirmed nothing along these lines. MSNBC reporting “law official’ (is “official” govt title?) O’Keefe and others were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls (is intercept the same as “bug”?)

no intercept wiretap

If Shuster’s Tweets innapproriate in MSNBC’s eye’s, could that be considered journalistic malpractice? Maybe we need your definition of journalistic malpractice. Here’s 1 definition:

‘The act of performing substandard service as a professional’

Why did WaPo and others do corrections/retractions with their use of “wiretap’?

Perhaps if he is treated as unfairly as ACORN has been a tiny bit of justice will be served.

A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

Instead, the official says, the men, led by conservative videomaker James O’Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views.

That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt — to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn’t get through?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/27/2187074.aspx

And that “reporting the contents of an FBI document can hardly be considered “journalistic malpractice.” ~Tommy

That’s the problem – some DIDN’T report on the FBI document, but instead accused and convicted them of things that were not contained in the document. That is why Shuster was reprimanded by his boss, and WaPO reported retractions, and others should.

Let me get this straight. No official has charged O’Keefe with wiretapping. He didn’t have any wiretapping equipment with him. He has no history of wiretapping. He has no experience of wiretapping. And he proclaims his own innocence.

But of course, he MUST be guilty of wiretapping, since I heard it stated categorically by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. And another MSNBC “journalist” announced on Twitter that O’Keefe was going to prison.

@sarainitaly: I just referenced Tommy in a comment to Gawker, so let me reference Gawker in a comment in this thread;

Page three of the arresting officer’s affidavit says “probable cause” for the “purpose of willfully and maliciously interfering with the telephone system”.

Perhaps someone in law enforcement has backed away from the original allegation and the word wiretap appears to have been inferred, so it was never exactly accurate, but the initial report was that he was there to do more than watch for a reaction and his explanation doesn’t really address why they sought access to the phone closet.

As I said in another Mediaite thread, MSNBC has clearly devoted too many resources to this non-story and whomever approved the expenditure should be called onto the carpet because within the last thirteen months, NBC News has laid-off 500 people or sought buy-out from others.

But, though they may have jumped the gun to be first, I don’t think the other outlets have done anything wrong.

Glynnis MacNicol said “O’Keefe went to Landrieu’s in disguise” (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FBI-affidavit-against-ACORN-filmmakeractivist-82723992.html) in an article criticizing O’keefe for his lack of journalistic credibility.

So how do you explain your own lack of such credibility. Neither the FBI Affidavit or any other source has ever claimed that O’Keefe was in disguise. In fact, your link in the statement goes to another Mediaite article that says the opposite.

To protect my own credibility here is a link to the Affidavit, which should be the factual basis until anything else is made public.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FBI-affidavit-against-ACORN-filmmakeractivist-82723992.html

Will the government apologize to Mr O’Keefe when they drop the charges entirely, or reduce them to whatever people are charged with when they stage a protest outside a senator’s office? Disorderly conduct or trespassing?

Journalism is not there to speculate.. Glenn Beck is.

I would back off a ‘felonious’ O’Keefe right now Mediaite.. The feds have all the tapes O’Keefe was creating and therefore know his intent entirely. He would not issue a statement like this if what the MSM reported were true.. unless he were like progressive Democrats in 2010 going out in a blaze of ‘glory.’ We will find out what ‘interfere’ means soon enough.

Tommy Christopher says:
January 29, 2010 at 2:19 pm

O’Keefe’s revision notwithstanding, reporting the contents of an FBI document can hardly be considered “journalistic malpractice.”

Come on Tommy… you’re better than that. You’re spinning, and you know it. Schuster said he was “guilty” and would “go to jail.” He didn’t report the evidence, he convicted the guy! And that’s journalistically unacceptable… even from an opinion guy.

Where is Tommy and Glynnis on this? Did government confirm O’Keefe did not intend to bug or wiretap or not?

wiretapping charges and assume prison consequences different than falsely and fraudulently representling themselves entering a Fed Building.

ImNotSmart, here you go again… I wish I could say you’re better than this but… Last I recalled Shuster said so much about O’Keefe on his twitter account and not on an MSNBC show. Your right-wing nuttery is showing. And I’m still not sure whether you believe that Shuster is an opinion guy or a journalist. I suppose when it works in your favor he’s a journalist. And when he doesn’t… We’ll slow down so you can catch up.

Wow! This never happens! A criminal client who runs his mouth and disregards legal advice to STFU? I am shocked.

This guy should be convicted of being a douche, but that’s not the crime charged. In fact, charges haven’t been formally filed. But, let’s speculate away.

O’Keefe’s argument goes like this: there is reasonable doubt as to whether he had the “intent to commit a felony” inside the office. This assumes the Feds travel down a statute which makes it a felony punishable by up to ten years for basically going in (with fraud here) AND having the intent to commit a felony therein. If this dude broke the law going in, but had the intent to make a stank movie without a mental state to commit a felony, he’s only looking at six months. So, the defense tries to swing for a misdemeanor out of this. The most he could get is six months.

There is another statute which is different and requires willful and malicious conduct. A felony. The same defense applies.

Determining O’Keefe’s mental state, and whether there is reasonable doubt as to that, will depend on what the rats say (the co-defendants) once they get looped in and are offered deals. RICO Time. It also depends on evidence none of us have seen yet. All we have is the probable cause affidavit. The language could track any number of different statutes.

But, as to Tommy’s comment, the media shouldn’t call for O’Keefe to produce evidence here b/c he’s looking at ten years in the can. No criminal defendant is required to do that in court. Ever. The burden rests with the Feds. And so, it’s tough to analyze “journalism” for this particular case b/c of pending charges. In this case, the law and questions of journalism are intertwined. When the media starts to shift the burden of proof to the defendant, it strikes at the very core of our system of justice. The demand should be on the government to show what proof they have so as to avoid prejudicing a defendant. Call up the beat reporters in the courthouse. The issue of journalism here can be examined, but, in a light that recognizes this guy may very well lose his liberty. He’s facing a criminal case and is getting legal advice (though not following it apparently). As such, the rules of journalism go out the window now for him. He is a defendant. What he says now can’t be properly looked at in the context of journalisjm b/c the microscope has a legal lens on it now. His old gigs can be analyzed for what they are: crappolla. One can reach that conclusion without leaving some linger that the defendant should provide evidence that would exonerate him. Don’t care who this bum is.

He made his statements. Dumb. The government will use them at trial or sentencing. That’s if it even goes to trial. The lawyer should have floated the theory. Not O’Keefe. BTW. His lawyer is no joke. Unless you count the time he helped out Fred Thompson.

It’s obvious to me that this guy has had the best lawyers that Republican money can buy working on that statement and his defence ever since he got out of custody.
I wonder if all that spinning made him feel dizzy?

When a “representative” Can NOT/ Will NOT respond – Someone has to do something! How can I get on the “trial” Jury?

WHAT ALL YOU DUMB CONS fail to realize that even if he didn’t wiretap, he is still guilty of breaking Federal laws.