i think the fact that Shuster jumped on a plane and flew to NO is so hysterically embarrassing. He flew to NO to cover this story…?

“the notion that he thought “jammed” phone lines meant that they were malfunctioning, not busy.”

I think it has a lot to do with the protests that were taking place outside of her office. The people were picketing/complaining because they could never get through on the phones. For weeks. I also wondered if the kids knew someone that worked in the office that perhaps tipped them off to a story – like they had taken the phones off the hook, or set them to vm or something.

It still cracks me up that Shuster flew down there. Has anyone in the media even wondered why O’Keefe did it? Or are they just rejoicing in his arrest?

It’s strange that one or two people carrying racist signs or signs linking Pres. Obama with Hitler, are enough to taint and entire movement in the eyes of the media. Those people are interviewed relentlessly in all their idiocy so to impugn the entire group before all the world.

However, video of ACORN staffers handing out advice to an outrageously clad couple, on how child sex trade entrepreneurs can skirt the IRS, is something pejorative…AND …wait for it….a MEME!

Cable news is replete with amateur video of everything in world but CNN and FNC should have been more careful about O’Keefe.

Visits and video tape at several offices don’t rate an investigation by the FBI into a political group that has been very helpful to those currently in the corridors of powers. Doesn’t rater a look at the hiring practices of ACORN and what they’re doing with taxpayer money.

Somehow we had thought that the media found that sort of thing interesting too.

Now, we’ve got O’Keefe, a guy with an obvious agenda against teaparty protest groups, evangelical ministries, right-to-life groups and oh…wait…it’s the rest of the media that has done exposes on them… nevermind…anyway..here’s O’Keefe who very likely entered Sen. Landrieu’s office in order to sabotage the phone system.

So this just shows that the media should have been more cautious where O’Keefe was concerned because he’s obviously a loose cannon and because he has a ideological agenda.

Well, fine, but can we just leave it at the fact that the media ought to be more cautious PERIOD. And that should apply to not impugning the sanity, character, and educational background of retirees kicking up a fuss at townhall meetings and the morality and character of Christians reticent to jettison centuries old teaching because it’s not popular anymore.

Let’s let the media be careful in their coverage of stereotypes, memes, and convenient narratives when it comes to a entire plethora of people to right of the regular media member.

One day of watching MSNBC impugning …not the rich, the famous, the powerful, but just normal everyday joes who don’t happen to see the world through their eyes, will make O’Keefe look like a young egotistical jerk obviously in need of an adult who cared about him rather than what could be gotten from him.

Which, by the way, he is.

O’Keefe’s main mistake was not following Michael Moore’s example and go gunning for conservatives. The media simply will not tolerate anyone pissing on their poodles..

The charges here get slimmer and slimmer with each passing hour. At first, the media (including Mediaite) charges O’Keefe with bugging a phone. Then the media backs down and start talking about tampering with a phone, but never retracts the bugging allegation — even though it shows up nowhere in the FBI affidavit and is disavowed by law enforcement officials.

Now the media gives up on tampering with the phones – since nothing was done to any phone – and mentions trespassing instead. But these folks just walked in the front door of an elected representative’s office. How does that constitute trespassing?

At this rate, by tomorrow, the charge will be loitering.

Mediaite should wash its hands of this smear job, and remove the comment of ‘attempted telephone bugging” from this article.

http://www.mediaite.com/print/james-okeefe-mug-shot-lands-on-new-york-times-front-page/

NewsBusters: Schultz Still Accusing O’Keefe Of Trying To ‘Tap’ Phones
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/02/schultz-still-accusing-okeefe-trying-tap-phones

oh look, more liberals taking shots at someone who dares to show govt and obama corruption to go along with the obama media bias.

while mediaite prostitutes itself and joins the obama media cartel to demonize a real American journalist, okeefe dares to expose the obamanuts corruption of which mediaite and their fellow obama media members work to cover with their support

obama media at work – move along, nothing new to see here

… the other media outlets shied away from the story due to their complicity with the O’Keefe-as-journalist meme, and out of fear of being embarrassed again.

—

And which media outlet is most complicit in promoting O’Keefe-as-journalist? Well, FOX, of course. Could that explain Sara(h) N. Italy’s and Felix W’s shrill screeds? Since they are little more than über apologists for all things FOX, I’d have to say yes.

Cecelia, I have to say I found your post thoughtful, and I agreed with much of it. Admittedly, I don’t understand the many kindnesses you have extended to O’Keefe and simply chalk it up to that mature woman of substance fondness for transitionally adolescent male geeks and nerds of the college Republican sort*. And, I think you may be a bit harsher on CNN’s coverage that I. It seemed tame, even lame, to me. But, you did adequately describe FOX and MSNBC’s involvement. There is much to learn from this episode, and I don’t give any of the cable “news” media high marks.

—

*As an earlier poster noted, who on college campuses was creepier than the college Republicans?

TRFRK,

You misunderstood my post. I think O’Keefe’s investigation warranted coverage in the media.

We mature women of substance always tend to be merciful to young male and female geeks or non-geeks of all political persuasions. We always wish them second chances, wise parents and other adults who care to spend time with them, romantic sensual love and wonderful work.

Mature and maternal women of substance also hope like hell that these young men and women have the sense to run like hell from users, poseurs, people who put political and sociological ideas over individuals, and other agenda-intentioned folks.

Our last wish being that these kids never become so cynical, so grasping and controlling that they turn into such people.

Indeed, Cecelia, I never indicated I thought that the coverage was not warranted. I think greater coverage was warranted on FOX, and I think a different type of coverage was warranted on MSNBC. CNN, I feel, got it all just about right.

I would add to your litany “sensuous”. It is different that “sensual”, much like “racial” is different than “racist,” and the former two, when paired, have a certain wholeness.

Last night I hosted a pub party for my wife’s birthday, and might I say what a lovely and wonderful wife she is, and the O’Keefe matter was much discussed. The group was eclectic, albeit moderates, liberals and progressives were the throng, not to be confused with thong, which I now understand to be terribly passé, and the rightists but a smattering. Given the area in which we live, the plethora of degrees bought to the evening and our own political and philosophical leanings (although I am much less to the left than my wife), that’s no surprise. What was surprising was the unanimity of opinion about O’Keefe (a wiseguy who needs some comeuppance) and the media coverage (dreadful, inexcusable). There was also a terribly surprising “sense” that someone or some organization in the conservative media (other than Breitbart) and a political figure (Steele? Seems unlikely to me. Vitter? Many thought so. Given is propensity for profound moral lapses, wouldn’t surprise me a bit.) were the organizers. The corollary to that, I suppose, is no one thought O’Keefe had the brains or stamina to carry something like this off. Anyway, most interesting commentary. You would have enjoyed the evening if not the burgers and chips.

Ok, the guy’s got a bit to learn and needs a tighter grip by Breitbart…but what about the reason he was in Landrieu’s office? Is she taking the money and then hiding? And Shuster…he’s a bottom feeder that no one really expects much from or respects all that much. An irritant no one would miss…like a pimple on your butt.

Yep. Shuster is a polecat!

but what about the reason he was in Landrieu’s office?

—

Situational ethics is a slippery slope.

—–

And Shuster…he’s a bottom feeder that no one really expects much from or respects all that much. An irritant no one would miss…like a pimple on your butt.

—

That seems extreme. I would consider Shuster more like that tag in the neck of one’s shirt that he forgets to remove before wearing. It is a persistent irritant, but only that. Pimple on one’s butt? I think not as to Shuster. That could be dangerous. Sounds more like Glen(n) to me, and I am sure you recall that great tear-fest when his derriere surgery didn’t work out so great.

I don’t know if O’Keefe had help or not from a prominent Republican, but if he did I hope it’s discovered, but not for the reasons you drool for it.

Anyone who would use someone else in the manner, particularly a young and obviously enamored of the attention they have gleaned OKeefe, NEEDS to face public opprobrium and the law.

Happy birthday to your very long suffering wife.

“According to the FBI, O’Keefe’s hardhats tried to gain access to the telephone closet.” If this is correct (curious to see the actual report or statements of witnesses), that’s the felony inside the building that gets him. Whoever the “hardhats” are will roll on O’Keefe. This also shows “malice” to the extent that “malice” is examined based on the facts and circumstances in their totality. If the facts encompass trying to tamper or break into the closet, that is indicia of malice before entering the building. If they merely intended to get into the building and shoot a video, that’s the defense and the argument against “malice” — a term of art. However, attempting to gain access to a telephone closet is evidence of malice. Especially if the closet in restricted. The defense would argue (not knowing the setup of the closet or if it was restricted), that there is a reasonable doubt they were only going to film something and not commit a felony. Without any evidence but for a probable cause affidavit, it’s hard to have a discussion. A reasonable argument against the assertion O’Keefe’s hardhats did not have “malice” as a matter of law is b/c there is a reasonable doubt as to their “guilty mind.” Malice is required in a different federal statute than the one which merely requires an intent to commit a felony. Both statutes can whack him for ten. They are different mental states entirely and “malice” would be harder to prove than the other felony…. which merely requires an “intent” to commit an enumerated felony. At any rate, let this O’keefe blab everywhere. At sentencing, the judge will take that into account. Trying to get into the phone closet, if true, is a humongo piece of evidence under either statute.