Acorn Is Going to Sue Fox

When I refer to "telemarketers", I mean the ones who call me (or used to, anyway).


And I've never violated anyone's property.

Admitting, then, that your comment was directed at me in error.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that, but showing up uninvited = violating, as far as I'm concerned.

Nope.

It was a statement of my view. I think everyone here knows what you do for a living and that it isn't the kind of "telemarketing" to which I referred (and that you don't even do that--you're on the tech side).

You have a narrower definition than most, but that's true with you on just about any subject, isn't it?

Yeah, well...

So what you're saying is that you have entered private property without explicit permission, but don't consider it a "violation" until the owner is actually threatening you. I say the civilized default is to stay the fuck away until you're invited, but that's just me. And it's not so much a hidden camera catching some teenager jizzing in the special sauce that bothers me. It's these assholes hopping fences and dangling from trees to catch someone's liposuction scars through a bedroom window, or mobbing someone on the way out to their car for comment on some bit of gossip about their private life. And I have just as much of a problem with the consumer shitbags who make that kind of behavior profitable.

In my case, the "private property" is almost always a business that is open to the public and, until the owner/manager/whoever tells me to leave, I have as much right to be there as any other person. That I have a camera (hidden or otherwise--though almost always the latter) makes no difference.

As for approaching individuals in their homes, I never do so with a camera in my hand unless I've been invited there. We leave the camera in the car, approach the door and, if the person consents to an interview, then I get the gear. Otherwise we say "Good day" and go about our business.

In my world, every time a paparrazo(?) gets hit or run over by a "celebrity", an angel gets its wings.

They are to my world what "conventional" telemarketers are to yours.

Alright, that's a compelling bit of perspective.

And the count is now up to FOUR offices. Video from the LA sting will be on Beck later today.

Your level of stupidity is truly stunning.

Today's tape supposedly contains a warning not to educate the young child sex workers, advice on how to use the prostitution money to make political contributions and a confession of premeditated murder!

Well, if the kids are in L.A., the first point will happen whether or not they go to school anyway.

Just to make my point clear: Los Angeles, California, is a fucking shithole and everybody who lives there are scumsucking motherfuckers.

I think Zombie was right. It's beginning to look like the "they tried this all over and failed" dodge is going to turn out to be "they tried this all over and NEVER failed"

I think the strategy of letting them think they only had the one tape so they could come out and fuck themselves even harder by saying that was a master stroke!

Oh, and while I'm on it...

So.....um....why did you fire those poor wrongly accused women then?

So.....um....why did you fire those poor wrongly accused women then?[/quote]
To show that liberals support suicide WHENEVER beneficial to society - not just when it's Grandpa!

[yt="Tape #4"]7s8w9GEpSzw[/yt]

Nooooooow you can't get away!

"If they were liberal, they'd be helping!"

Anywho, not telling me anything I don't already know. Didn't we have a "Whitehouse Madam" scandal about a year ago?

Left Wing, Right Wing, all government is tied up in crime one way or another.
Sucks your tax money goes to fund it, but nothing surprises me.

They may have and they may have not. But with the information that's out there and I should definitely have couched the statement I made earlier. Fair enough.

If the law is what Liet says it is in Maryland (and given that he provided a link, I don't know if there can be a dispute about that), clearly the secret taping broke the law.

I didn't see the FOX report, but I'm assuming it aired part of the illegal video tape. There is at least a possibility that doing so is illegal. Further, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a FOX employee planned this with the tapers.

Of course not. The same goes for various state laws and journalistic ethics.

If it is in fact against the law for a news service to broadcast a tape it knows or should know was illegally obtained, it's just as illegal for NBC, CNN or FOX.

While the profit motive does distort a lot of the journalism that's done today, there are still good people plugging away trying to do the right thing.

I suppose it depends on the whistleblower and what they are blowing the whistle on. Some whistleblowers alert people to dangerous situations and poor policies. Some self-proclaimed whistleblowers are cranks or otherwise untrustworthy.

If what you're trying to get at is that sometimes whistleblowers break the law in the name of the greater good and making an analogy to what the secret tapers did here, I see that as somewhat of a stretch.

Nixon did sue the Washington Post and New York Times over the Pentagon Papers in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. I think it's fortunate he lost, not because he's Nixon or a Republican, but because I don't like the idea of the government exercising prior restraint on the press. If Obama or Clinton or whoever had suggested doing it, I would be just as against it.

Anyway, that involves a whole different kettle of fish than the Acorn secret taping.

I don't know specifically what California law is on taping, but I assume it doesn't prohibit taping someone in a public street, particularly a public official in the performance of his duties, when the taping is open and obvious.

Speaking for myself, I'm just as happy that whistleblowers have revealed the misdeeds of Democrats and nonpolitical figures as I am that they have revealed the misdeeds of Republicans.

I originally meant a more direct "lie." As I said, that may be more telling about my lack of imagination/experience with TV news. I would think 9 times out of 10, if a TV reporter feels the need to use hidden cameras, somewhere affirmative lying is involved.

But as you said later on in the post, maybe inherently in not telling people you're a reporter and you're taping is closer to a Spock-like omission.

Maybe this is "grass-is-always-greener," but it seemed to me it was always easier for the TV crews to get the reaction because there's always someone who wants to play for the cameras.

Yes, I realize that there have been journalists in the past who have gone undercover. And some even do so in the present.

To clarify, I'm not talking about people who work for alternative weeklies or magazines like Rolling Stone. I'm talking about the good ol' MSM. To the best of my knowledge, CNN, NBC, ABC, and most major or minor metropolitan dailies do not send reporters undercover as a routine thing.

Most of the people in the Wiki list either work for one of those alternative media sources or have not gone undercover for a while or wrote more than 20 years ago or some combination of the above, at least from the names I recognize.

The Society of Professional Journalists has an ethics code (yeah, oxymoron, ha ha) that frowns on undercover reporting.

http://spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Which is pretty much what I said the conventional wisdom is in the industry. Is FOX "bound" by this code? Of course not. Did it hypothetically break it? I would say yes, or at least it's reasonable to think they might have.

I would first of all say at that point they can and probably do bring the full-sized cameras generally, but shootER could tell more about that.

Assuming that they are using hidden cameras to get those shots, that doesn't make it right.

It's easy to say that in the abstract. But some means to expose corruption raise more questions than they are worth. We would frown on the government (or anyone else) installing hidden cameras in our homes and offices even if it would root out corruption and aid in getting criminals punished. At least I hope we would.

I generally agree with you on this statement, but had a question about the Watergate citation. Nixon is before my time and I will admit I am not totally knowledgable on the subject. But as I understand it, there was an investigation going at the time and the info was released in that context? Or was there some release of classified info by the media that should not have occurred? A comment from you (or anyone else who knows) would be appreciated.

I agree with you about the Rodney King mention. It's an insightful comparison.

I don't recall ever being in a situation where I or a reporter had to lie to someone about what we were doing. And that's in more than 21 years and four different stations.


I just don't see how you could do some stories without being at least a little "vague" about just what you're doing.

For example, the last time I remember working a hidden camera investigation (three years ago or thereabouts) it was about flea markets and cheapo dollar-store type businesses selling prohibited knives and similar weapons in the city limits (it's apparently against some city ordinance or something ). One of our hidden cameras is in a fake purse and I went with a female producer to check out a couple of these places (she "shot" most of the footage, though I did "hold her purse" while she "tried on" some costume jewelry and got a few specific, but still discreet shots).

I don't see how to do that story without an undercover camera.

"Gee, Mister Dollar Store Manager, we've heard that you were selling illegal knives and such here. Would you mind showing them to us, please? "

"What? You aren't selling those kinds of knives here? Okey-dokey!"


I suppose you could go in and buy the illegal knives, videotape them* and tell the viewers, "Take our word for it! We bought these at a local store! " That story would suck and be weaker than the undercover camera story because you'd have no "proof" of the wrongdoing.


And with us (as well as most stations, I'd guess) there's always a second trip back to the business with the big camera to confront the person about the wrongdoing. Most of the time, they politely ask us to leave. Occasionally, they're more rude or even physical when they do it. Often, though (especially if it's an independent business and not a chain), they'll actually talk to us to give their side of the story.


And "hidden cameras" don't always have to be the little circuit board cameras and such (we have a "button cam" that replaces the button on a shirt). I shot a story a few years ago about a local charity where the workers were stealing the donated clothing and food. Another photographer and I set up across the street from the place and shot first our producers dropping off food and clothing and, later, the workers taking the same items to their cars (we followed two of the people to their homes and got footage of them taking the items inside). All of it was shot with full size rigs from inside our unmarked Explorers (though I actually got out a couple of times and shot video from outside the vehicle, using it to block their view of me).


I do agree, though, that doing the hidden/undercover camera thing is usually done as a last resort, when you can't get the information/footage any other way.

You'd think so, but not around here at least. And, generally, those aren't the kinds of people I want to put on camera (though sometimes you don't have a choice).

What I'm talking about is the situation where the print reporter sidles up to an onlooker at a murder scene, asks a few questions, and then writes, "One of the victim's neighbors, Wanda Smith, said that he was a quiet man who built bird houses as a hobby."

"I just don't know what his family is going to do without him", she said.




Not only is that so much more low key than sticking a mic and lens in Wanda's face but, chances are, Wanda might not have even realized she was talking to a reporter at the time.






*We actually did buy some at one point and got footage of them back at the office (controllable lighting there) and then, when we were interviewing the D.A., left them with her after we showed them to her.

It's always about context.

A hidden camera in every home to find out if you are rolling a doobie after work? Vast overreach of course.

I hidden camera which reveals Officer Jones is taking protection money from the guy cooking meth in his basement....worth knowing about.

IMO, given that ACORN has ties to official government money and official government business, they are a public concern worthy of this sort of investigation.

If they were, just making something up out of thin air, a private commune where everyone went naked and toked up all day but never concerned themselves with anyone else, I wouldn't care what laws they were breaking.

To further elaborate on that thought - despite Beck's righteous indignation that *gasp!* prostitution is being furthered here, I don't really care about one private citizen advising another private citizen how to not get caught hooking.

I DO find it reprehensible that said private citizen would overlook the exploitation of kids and do nothing about it, but even then that's probably not the sort of thing that doesn't happen fairly regularly and while deplorable, isn't the sort of thing that demands an investigation.

It's specifically and only because ACORN has ties to government funding, both for themselves and their clients that this becomes something investigators (official and in lu of that journalistic) need to take some extra effort to look into.

From what I remember of the incident, the people with the camera shot it from their apartment window/balcony or something (the angle definitely appeared elevated in relation to the street where the cops and King were). It was after dark and the camera was some distance from the scene (the footage is clearly telephoto).

So the taping wasn't open or obvious at all. The officers had no idea that they were being recorded. Otherwise, I'm guessing that there would've been two beatdowns by the LAPD that night.

That said, the videotapers did absolutely nothing wrong. The cops and King were in public, in plain view. Even if the camera wasn't.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it's wrong?

http://www.sbsun.com/breakingnews/ci_13342555

Poor ACORN doesn't know which way to turn, first they fire the "bad" employees, trying to dismiss them by insisting that the first two videos were just isolated incidents and now that the videos just keep on coming whole thing's REALLY just one big joke.

Fuck ACORN!

Because he's a leftist who wants to make excuses for ACORN.

However unlike Liet he's just a little bit smarter and realizes he can't let us all know what a hypocritical poster he is on the subject, so he has to play the all hidden cameras are bad.

Of course everyone knows if this was Judicial Watch offices instead of ACORN he'd be planning a city wide parade for the two people who did the taping.

I thought it went without saying, but apparently not:

The acts of these employees as described are obviously wrong and should be investigated. Acorn as a whole should be investigated to see if these employees are part of an overall pattern.

Nothing I've posted was meant to distract or minimize the culpability of Acorn, or at least of the employees who have given advice on breaking the law.

It would be weaker from a storytelling standpoint. It would convey the same basic information, though.

There are probably other avenues one hypothetically could take. One could interview employees at the store and have them prove up that the knives are being sold. One could rely on authorities to confirm that stores are selling the knives. Even if you do the direct approach in that case, the knives are right there and obviously offered for sale. Assuming the store let you on the premises with a camera, I would think (not knowing a thing about camera operation, mind you) it would not be too difficult to put the knives in question on tape. And when you interview the store owner and he says "Knives? What knives? We don't sell any illegal knives," It seems to me that the reporter can then go, "Then you don't mind us filming inside your store, right?" And if he suddenly is like "No." then it seems like the point is essentially made.

Of course, if you suspect that the store owner would never let an obvious camera crew in, then you're on that Spock-like line of lying by omission.

I don't think that anyone could fault what you're describing here ethically.

The trouble here, of course, is reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes a last resort. In your illegal knives story, many reasonable people would say (and I would be among them) there's not an ethical issue there. Other reasonable people would point to other things you might have done for a less flashy story to get the same info and try to raise an issue with it.

Well, presumably the guy will identify himself as being from the Daily Bugle or whatever. I suppose once in a while someone might get sneaky and pretend they are a cop or something or let the neighbors draw the wrong conclusion.

I stand corrected.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it's wrong?[/QUOTE]

Hidden cameras in general, or the specific gotcha! shots?

I don't actually have all that big a problem with hidden cameras in general, other than I think they are used more often than they need to be.

I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth to say you, me and the SPJ ethics code agree that hidden cameras should be used only a last resort. But I think we differ on when that point of last resort has been reached and what sorts of stories to even pursue that last resort. As I think reasonable people can.

If you want me to make the argument for why journalists should lean toward the side of "almost no stories justify hidden cameras," some of the points that come to mind include:

1. They can be an easy crutch.
2. They can have journalists involved in either outright deception or deception by omission, a place where journalists should avoid on principle.
3. They can erode trust between the media and readers/viewers or the media and its sources.

But then I would make distinctions. I personally would say that it's fine for a reporter to go into a place open generally to the public without blaring to the world "I'm a reporter!" and to use a hidden camera to do so. I would say the line is crossed when the reporter actively pretends to be something that he or she is not.

First of all, I'm not making excuses for Acorn. Nothing I've said about hidden cameras excuses Acorn's behavior, which is self-evidently wrong.

Second, I didn't say all hidden cameras are bad. I said that the conventional wisdom in the journalism business is hidden cameras should be used as a last resort and deception is unethical.

Which the Society for Professional Journalists ethics code that I linked to above confirmed, as did shootER.

Are they leftists who are making excuses for Acorn as well?

Not really. I don't really feel very supportive of people who break the law generally, and in terms of the journalism aspect of it, I would think it's just as unnecessary to "expose" some average conservative non-profit using deceptive tactics as I do Acorn. Heck, I don't even recall hearing anything about this Judicial Watch group you've referred to, so I definitely wouldn't be planning a parade about whatever misfortune they might suffer.

I just picked a "conservative group". I'd could have easily said Rush Limbaugh and still been accurate.

It's ok when it's done to someone you don't like.

And you are making excuses for ACORN.

True, but it would be boring and, in my business, boring means remotes are being clicked to another channel and the information isn't being conveyed at all (not to mention the ratings fall).

Almost no one allows "filming" inside their stores, even if it's a "good news" story (Target is one of the only chains that allows it).

If you tried that tactic, you'd have--at best--a couple of minutes of raw footage to use before they booted you. It's best to gather the "evidence" discreetly, without causing a ruckus until you have to.

Yeah, that was more for informational purposes than anything else.

AFAIK, we're getting sued by that charity. Even though we had them dead to rights.

The oft-used WF phrase, "Pics or it didn't happen" is an apt one for my job.

You've got to have visuals to support your story or the viewers will lose interest and, if it's an investigative one, the story will lack credibility.

I assume that most will identify themselves as well. My point to my former assignment editor, though, was that a pencil and pad is much less intimidating than a microphone, camera and (at night) a light.

The only ethical question I have about this case is "Did the ACORN personnel have ample opportunity not to engage in the bad behavior?" They weren't forced to offer the advice they did, they had plenty of opportunities to tell the two that what they were doing was unacceptable. There is no entrapment here... So the information gathering was ethical.

I don't like Acorn at all, but I HATE Fox. They're the sole reason why this country is so divided.