Behold: A Burnsian Masterpiece!

  Charles C Johnson Gawker Defamation Lawsuit by Milo Yiannopoulos

See also here and here.

I really hope James O'Keefe, like Johnson, will rely exclusively on his buddy Burns for legal advice.

James O'Keefe Caught in the Act

Good segment on Chris Hayes exposing James O'Keefe's dishonest editing:



This isn't a surprise for those of us who paid attention, but it is a particularly nice example.

And why is this relevant for St. Louis?  The local tea party fever that came and went (but which still has a pernicious influence on politics) was based in large part on emulation of the dishonest tactics employed by Breitbart and O'Keefe.  Any immoral action was justified as long as it was in service of their "WAR".

Another Of O'Keefe's Former Accomplices Exposed

This was interesting but so far hasn't gotten a lot of attention.  It was a plan, leaked by someone who used to work for James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, to infiltrate Reverand Wright's Church and do some selective editing of people blathering on about Marxism or some such thing.  Involved in the plan were Shaughn Adeleye, one of the people involved in the NPR sting, and Ken Larrey, former leader of the Duke Students for an Ethical Duke now living in Houston.

The plan sounded pretty dumb, but the right-wing has such an effective media megaphone right now it doesn't really matter how dumb their stuff is.  If they make a stink about anything, the msm will dutifully report it. But mostly I find the leaked emails interesting because there are some good reasons for thinking that Ken (or Kenny) Larrey is the previously anonymous accomplice (who calls himself simontemplarpv on Twitter) in the b.s. NPR "sting" by Project Veritas.  I won't go into detail quite yet, but there's a pretty substantial body of evidence, starting with the fact that Adeleye and Templar worked together on the NPR sting.

Regardless of whether Larrey is "Simon Templar," he's shown himself to be someone willing to use O'Keefe-style tactics.

O'Keefe Sex Boat Plan References "Crazy" Ideas From John Burns

A recently leaked document at Breitbart Unmasked apparently shows the full 13 page "plan" to isolate CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau on a sex boat with James O'Keefe as part of a "joke." I previously reported that St. Louis's John Burns, a guy who worked with James O'Keefe to try to smear Washington University in a "campus gulag" hoax and sabotage an LGBT rally, and who also led the St. Louis tea party's disastrous campaign against public transportation, was mentioned by CNN as being in on the planning of the efforts to "seduce" Boudreau.  The document, authored by Ben Wetmore, says that he had to spend thirty minutes rejecting "crazy" ideas from Burns.  Here's the text:

I already spent 30 minutes defending the idea and trying to battle crazy permutations from Burns.  The more people you tell about an operation, the more it 1) opens it up to unknown future problems, 2) good ideas have to defend against bad ones, 3) people running their mouths to Hartsock, CNN and other people who will cause additional unknown complications.  

Considering that the plan was basically to demand that Boudreau go alone on a boat full of sex toys and video recording devices along with O'Keefe where O'Keefe would try to "seduce" her, it's hard to imagine what ideas from Burns were considered "too crazy" for this group.  As you can infer from the above, the document is also not very complimentary of Christian Hartsock, an employee of Breitbart.com:

Considering the complex dynamic with Hartsock, that he will see this CNN connection as his "big break," and that he's notorious for having loose lips, he certainly can't be trusted to keep this in confidence, and will speak to either people his age or perhaps even to CNN directly to curry favor.  He should be given the vaguest details, and if he's very upset about the potential complication to his future, reminded that future operations will be newsworthy as well.

Professors in NYT Article on O'Keefe Were *Not* Defending His Methods

The New York Times Magazine earlier today published an article on James O'Keefe that in my opinion was worse than a puff piece: it actively defended O'Keefe's methods and relied almost exclusively on quotes that presented O'Keefe's style of dishonest journalism in a positive light without presenting opposing arguments. The article, written by Zev Chafets who is also the author of a highly-flawed book on Rush Limbaugh, tried to establish its objective bona fides by quoting Professor Brooke Kroeger, director of the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University, and Professor Dean Mills, Dean of the Missouri School of Journalism. I thought the quotes used from both of these professors seemed to give O'Keefe a pass for his history of doctoring quotes out-of-context, so I asked them about it over email. Dr. Kroeger made it clear that she was discussing undercover reporting in general, rather than specifically defending the practices of O'Keefe. With her permission, I'm publishing the exchange below.

Here's the original quote from Dr. Kroeger in the article:

“Undercover journalism goes back to at least the 1820s in this country,” says Brooke Kroeger, the director of the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University, who has written a book on the subject, to be published next year. “And the use of hidden cameras to do it came into prominence after World War II.” Muckrakers, of course, are advocates, loved or despised according to the targets they choose. “For years, advocacy groups such as those for a better government have partnered with journalistic organizations,” Kroeger says. “Last year the Humane Society released an undercover video of the inhumane treatment of pigs in Virginia that got picked up by media around the country and won applause from animal lovers. Many of those same people vociferously went after O’Keefe for his exposé of NPR. It’s basically a question of what you care about and what side you are on.”

My email:

Professor Kroeger,

I was very disappointed to see your quote in the recent New York Times Magazine article on James O'Keefe. The quote implied that O'Keefe was using the same undercover techniques as other organizations, and people objected simply because he targeted institutions they cared about. However, the reason most people criticize O'Keefe isn't because he uses undercover video; it's because he deceptively edits the video to change the meaning of people's quotes. This is a huge difference between hiding your true identity to get video and physically doctoring video to change people's words. The later practice can destroy people's lives for things that they didn't even say or do.

I hope if you are writing a book about this subject you take into account the actual critiques of O'Keefe rather than relying on the straw man who criticizes him only because he shoots undercover video.

Thanks for your time,

Adam Shriver

Her response (my emphasis in bold):

Dear Adam Shriver,

Thank you for writing. My comments only were about undercover reporting in general, which, when used selectively, under strict ethical guidelines and controls, has an important place in journalism. The practice also has often been deployed historically in partnerships with advocacy, humanitarian, and better government groups. Sometimes, the work is the direct product of these groups (e.g. the humane society or groups concerned with human trafficking), which subsequently get wider dissemination in the mainstream media.

That's as far as I go and that is all I meant.

Obviously, spurious selective editing is unacceptable journalistically and ethically and would undercut and/or discredit, any project, regardless of its provenance.

But from what I have observed, it also appears true that where there is wide consensus (like against animal cruelty or human trafficking), there's no protest against the undercover project (except perhaps from those engaged in factory farm system or the criminals.) But where there is a political stake and a divided public, there's a loud and immediate protest from those who feel stung -- even before anyone vets the editing and is able to discredit the work.

I hope that's clearer. None of that got into the piece.

Best regards,


Brooke Kroeger

Similarly, Dr. Mills says he was not trying to assess the relative worth of O'Keefe, and in fact does not regard him as a journalist. Here's how Dr. Mills was quoted in the article:

There is no doubt that O’Keefe disseminated only the material that supported his thesis about Acorn, but this kind of selectivity is the norm in advocacy journalism. “I put James O’Keefe in the same category as Michael Moore,” says Dean Mills, dean of the University of Missouri’s school of journalism. “Some ethicists say it is never right for a journalist to deceive for any reason, but there are wrongs in the world that will never be exposed without some kind of subterfuge.”

Here's my email to Dr. Mills:

Professor Mills,

I was very disappointed to see your quote in the recent New York Times Magazine article on James O'Keefe. The quote implied that O'Keefe was using the same undercover techniques as Michael Moore, and suggested that the only criticism of him was his "selectivity." However, the reason most people criticize O'Keefe isn't because he uses undercover video or is "selective"; it's because he deceptively edits the video to literally change the meaning of people's quotes. This is a huge difference between hiding your true identity to get video and physically doctoring video to change people's words. The later practice can destroy people's lives for things that they didn't even say or do.

In fact, earlier this year people (including one of O'Keefe's friends) used techniques almost identical to O'Keefe to try to attack the University of Missouri system by doctoring professors' quotes. O'Keefe and Breitbart represent everything you should be opposed to as someone who respects the institution of journalism.

Thanks for your time,

Adam Shriver

His response (my emphasis in bold):

Excellent point. Thanks for taking the time to write.

I would only say that I was not attempting to assess the relative worth or ethics of Moore and O'Keefe overall. I was speaking only to the narrower point of whether either one is a journalist. I think neither is. I think they are both advocates.

Dean Mills

James O'Keefe's Straw Man

In light of On The Media's magnificent takedown of James O'Keefe, I thought it might be worthwhile to address his weak arguments head on. I don't imagine that many people who dislike O'Keefe will be very sympathetic to his claim that there's a double-standard against him, but there clearly is a small group of people who seem to take the claim seriously.

O'Keefe's basic argument is this: it's unfair that people expect him to release the full videos of his interactions when we don't expect the same from other media outlets. I can see how, on a completely abstract level, and after ignoring or being blinded to O'Keefe's history, this might make sense. However, the fact is that there are pretty important differences between O'Keefe and other media outlets and O'Keefe does have a problematic history.

So there are two basic problems with O'Keefe's argument: first, he has a history of dishonestly editing video and lying about the contents. This was clearly demonstrated in the On The Media interview. So even if you thought that we should trust information from outlets generally, we certainly shouldn't trust information from outlets that have demonstrated track records of dishonesty. Hence, there's a good reason why O'Keefe and Breitbart should be held to different standards than people who have no track record of dishonesty.

The second problem with O'Keefe's claim is that mainstream media outlets are accountable in a way that he is not. People who watch news from mainstream media outlets expect them to be honest, so if they were ever caught being as dishonest in their editing as O'Keefe is, they would severely jeopardize their self-interest (both in terms of profit and in terms of credibility). On the other hand, as has been demonstrated time and time again, if O'Keefe is caught being dishonest, he does not really lose anything of significance. His extremist followers still love him, because they believe he's waging a holy war against "the enemy," and his wealthy backers still support him because they care more about ideological battle than about the truth. Thus, O'Keefe has no accountability because he has no incentive to be honest, whereas mainstream news outlets clearly do have this incentive, even as they are being driven by market forces.

So O'Keefe's strawman is doubly flawed. His documented dishonest and lack of accountability provide good reasons for "holding him to a different standard."

James O'Keefe Exposed on NPR's "On The Media"

Since I've been discussing the unethical practices of O'Keefe and his disciples in the St. Louis tea party, this is an absolutely fantastic recent takedown of James O'Keefe on NPR's "On the Media":



The host expose exposes blatantly misleading edits by O'Keefe, and O'Keefe's only response is to attack some vague straw man that says "everyone must release full unedited video at all times." The reality is that O'Keefe has been busted numerous times blatantly lying and editing video to reflect the exact opposite of reality. That's indefensible, and it's no wonder that O'Keefe refuses to take on the criticisms directly.

Would The St. Louis Media Report Responsibly On An O'Keefe/Breitbart Smear Job?

A couple years ago, James O'Keefe worked with a small group of students at Washington University to set up a mock "gulag" that warned about the "dangers of Communism" while blasting loud music across campus. O'Keefe created a video claiming that "University Political Officials Shut Down a Gulag Memorial" and his partner John Burns claimed the university shut down the display because it was "too offensive." These claims turned out to be blatantly false, as even members of the student group who co-sponsored the display, Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), admitted that the group only got permits for passing out fliers and never mentioned that they would be building a display in the middle of campus. Also noted by the YAL members, the university is quite accommodating to different viewpoints, as long as the rules are followed, which they were not in this case.

Despite the blatantly misleading spin of O'Keefe, Burns, and the Breitbart websites, the local St. Louis media never pointed out the facts. Both KMOX and the Post-Dispatch covered the story, but neither bothered to fact-check the blatantly misleading claims from the O'Keefe/Breitbart crew, which could easily have been verified by asking the university for the specific policies. The Post-Dispatch does mention the university perspective, but presents it as a "one side says this, the other side says this" story rather than bothering to get the actual facts. Readers were not given an opportunity to come to an informed opinion about the incident, because they were not provided with the facts needed to do so.

But that was a while ago, at the beginning of the new era of right-wing smear jobs posing as "citizen journalism." Since that time, a number of things have happened that should discredit Breitbart's websites and James O'Keefe in the eyes of anyone who has the slightest concern for the truth. For example:

James O'Keefe entered a Senator's attempting to illegally record phone conversations. They were arrested under suspicion of wiretapping, and later plea bargained down to a charge of entering a federal building under false pretenses.

James' O'Keefe's videos on ACORN for Breitbart's site were said to be severely and misleadingly edited by the Attorney General of California and many other public officials.

O'Keefe was caught trying to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter by luring her onto a boat full of sex toys and trying to "seduce" her under false pretenses.

Breitbart released misleadingly-edited videos suggesting that USDA employee Shirley Sherrod was "racist" when in fact she was telling a story about how race doesn't matter.

O'Keefe misleadingly edited a video to suggest that NPR executive Ron Schiller called the tea party "racist" when in fact Schiller was recounting what someone else said.

So given this clear track record of blatant dishonesty from the Breitbart and O'Keefe school of smearing, would any credible journalistic institution still take their word on videos without first fact-checking? Unfortunately, given recent statements from Steve Parker at the Post-Dispatch and the overall pathetic media performance around the NPR video, I'm not very hopeful about the answer to that question. Nevertheless, I have some things to say about how a media institution that was motivated by the ideals of responsible journalism and a pursuit of the truth might react to material from Breitbart and O'Keefe in the future.

First, it should be obvious that a credible media institution shouldn't take the word of anyone at Breitbart's websites at face value without fact-checking. This should be true of taking the word of anyone for journalists, but is especially the case for institutions that have a proven track record of distorting the truth. Passing on information from a Breitbart web site without fact checking given what we now know about them exhibits a blatant disregard for the truth and for honest journalism.

Second, video stories from Breitbart web sites should not be reported on unless the full videos are released. This should be standard practice, but again is especially crucial in cases where you're dealing with people with proven track records of twisting the truth. This applies to O'Keefe, to Breitbart, and to local folks like Adam Sharp and Bill Hennessy who have been caught lying and engaging in disingenous tactics. Posting information before getting the full facts has resulted in a number of innocent people being fired, and our modern media shares some of the blame for this fact.

Third, and finally, these outlets should not blast out a "BREAKING!" story without speaking to the people highlighted in the smear videos and giving them an opportunity to look into the issue and produce a thoughtful response. Of course, the pressure of the modern news cycle makes this difficult, but journalistic institutions need to be about having their audience's trust first, and focus on the "OMG BREAKING" stuff second. In particular, O'Keefe and Breibart often link their stories to grand conspiracy theories that implicate their political enemies, and news organizations should be particularly careful to resist guilt-by-flimsy-association allegations.

And this, ultimately, is the most important point. If you call yourself a "new organization," you should engage in careful, thoughtful pursuit of the real facts. If you lazily or sensationalistically pass on information from Breitbart, O'Keefe, or their local lackeys, you are betraying your audiences trust. And while you may think it's worth it to push for those short-term ratings boosts, in the long run this approach to news will lead to the demise of organizations who practice it.

Post-Dispatch Asks if NPR Smear is Ethical Without Noting that Videos Were Deceptively Edited

How's this for being completely out-of-the-loop? The Post-Dispatch wrote a post today asking if James O'Keefe's video smear pieces are "ethical reporting." Of course, they don't bother to mention that O'Keefe's despicable tactics include attempting to sexually humiliate a female CNN reporter by isolating her on a boat full of sex toys and attempting to "seduce" her. But even worse, the author Steve Parker doesn't even seem to be familiar with the basic facts about O'Keefe's smear job on NPR. The original video presented by O'Keefe falsely suggested that former NPR executive Ron Schiller called the tea party racist. As originally caught by conservative website The Blaze, and since reported on by numerous outlets including CNN, NPR, Media Matters for America, Slate, Schiller was actually passing on what another person told him.

Here's how O'Keefe originally presented the words:

SCHILLER: The current Republican party is not really the Republican party. It's been hijacked by this group -- that is --

"AMIR MALIK": The radical, racist, Islamophobic, tea party people?

SCHILLER: And not just Islamophobic but really xenophobic

And here's reality:

SCHILLER: 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

"AMIR MALIK": The radical, racist, Islamophobic, Tea Party people?

SCHILLER: Exactly. And not just Islamophobic but really xenophobic.

O'Keefe's edit completely changed the sound of the conversation and falsely implied that Schiller was using that terminology himself.

Yet the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, while asking people whether O'Keefe is "ethical," leaves out the fundamental criticism of his "sting," and information that completely undercuts his case. Great way to foster healthy dialogue.

Tea Party's John Burns Involved in O'Keefe's Smear of Heroic New Jersey Teacher

John Burns of the St. Louis Tea Party is a part of James O'Keefe's crew of dishonest videographers. He and O'Keefe collaborated on a hoax at Washington University where they claimed they were being oppressed after setting up a display without getting the necessary permits (the fact that it was a hoax, by the way, was revealed by an intern at the right-wing Show Me Institute). O'Keefe and Burns later attempted to disrupt an LGBT rally in St. Louis by interfering in the rally and writing "free abortions" on one of the signs. And as reported by CNN, John Burns was also part of the crew that was planned O'Keefe's failed attempt to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter.

Now, in the wake of revelations from Glenn Beck's website that O'Keefe deceptively edited a video attacking an NPR executive, I thought it might be worthwhile pointing out another shameful O'Keefe project John Burns was involved in. I wrote back in November about an innocent victim of a Breitbart/O'Keefe smear campaign. Loesch and others had claimed that the video showed that New Jersey teachers union members called students "the n-word" and focused their attacks on a teacher named Alissa Ploshnick. Actually Ploshnick did not call a student "the n-word:" rather, she described that another teacher had done so while telling a story about how difficult it was for teachers to be fired. Nevertheless, she was initially suspended from her job after O'Keefe's smear video came out. It turned out that Ploshnick was a heroic teacher who had previously thrown herself in front of a van to protect her students.

Ploschnick, at the time, commented on the deceitful manner in which O'Keefe's collaborators operated:

"I felt like I was raped,’’ says Ploshnick referring to the moment she learned that what she thought was a private, even flirtatious, talk with a "nice" young man who bought her drinks was really part of a political scam to discredit her union in an web videotape called "Teachers Gone Wild.’’

"Give me a smile and say hello and I’ll do anything for you,’’ says Ploshnick. "I’ve always done it. It’s hard to reteach your heart and your brain.’’

I recognized John Burns' voice in the video speaking to Ploschnick, and I also thought this person looked remarkably similar to Burns:

I emailed the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) back in November, and told them I thought I knew who one of the people who deceived Ploshnick was, and they asked me to pass along photos and video, which I did. When I asked if it was Burns, they confirmed that he was one of the O'Keefe agents involved.

My email:

The response:

(note: I've blacked out the names here, but am happy to provide the original emails to the press)

This seems to reveal a disturbing pattern for Burns. In one instance, he was involved in helping O'Keefe plan how to isolate a CNN reporter, whom they referred to as a "bubble-headed-bleach-blond", on a boat full of sex toys where O'Keefe would try to "seduce" her. In another instance, Burns and another guy buy drinks for and flirt with a teacher, while egging her on to say things that would damage teachers. These incidents call Burns' character into serious question.

In the Media Matters discussion of O'Keefe's misleadingly edited NPR tapes, they asked, "Why Would Anyone Trust What O'Keefe Says About His NPR Video?" Given the local tea party's close collaboration with O'Keefe and Breitbart, and their own history of shamelessly distorting and inventing facts, I think we can ask something similar for St. Louis: "Why would anyone trust what the St. Louis Tea Party claims about their edited videos?" There's no question that the local tea party will continue to release misleadingly edited videos. However, there is a major question looming about how much integrity our local media will show in carefully evaluating the claims and doing a thorough investigation before reporting on willfully distorted videos.

Activist Hub Radio 3/13/11:The Media's problem with Labor & NPR Punked by James O'Keefe's Lies

Adam and I discussed the mainstream media's poor coverage of the 4000+ pro-Labor rally in St. Louis, particularly the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and KMOV. We moved on to NPR getting punked by James O'Keefe's deceitful video editing, and ended the show discussing the Obama administration's maltreatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning.



Also we are on itunes so please subscribe Activist Hub Radio on Itunes.

Hilarious! Loesch Sends Big Journalism Readers to Troll Student Newspaper

Talk about being thin-skinned! The Washington University student newspaper StudLife had an article on Friday asking for opinions on CNN hiring Dana Loesch as an election analyst. The article included quotes from members of the Young Americans for Liberty, the College Republicans, a media professor, and yours truly. Yet Loesch apparently was offended by the article and put a link up on her site Big Journalism to complain about the student newspaper "considering the merits of silencing Dana Loesch:"

Naturally, many of her followers put up angry comments on the site without even reading the article. Pretty hilarious.

While I'm at it, since StudLife (understandably) only included part of my comments after they asked me to weigh in, I thought I'd post them all here:

Hiring Dana Loesch as an election analyst severely damages the credibility of CNN as a news organization, not because of the fact that she's extremely conservative, but rather because she is a proponent of the Andrew Breitbart approach to journalism which is fundamentally dishonest when it comes to the gathering and presentation of information.

Andrew Breitbart was disgraced last year after he released a blog post and video claiming Shirley Sherrod was "racist" that resulted in Sherrod being fired. It was later found out that the video was highly edited and completely changed the context of Sherrod's comments, which were actually meant to illustrate that race does not matter. Dana Loesch was one of the leading people in the country pushing Andrew Breitbart's false claims to the media, and continues to defend him to this day. You can listen to an interview of Loesch and Breitbart the day after the story broke suggesting that Sherrod was racist here.

A bit closer to home, Loesch was completely dishonest about the Bristol Palin controversy at Wash U. As you can see at the 2:58 mark of this video from the past weekend, she claimed that Wash U paid Van Jones $20,000 to speak at the school. Actually, Van Jones usually speaks for $20,000, but agreed to speak at Wash U for only $5,000. Green Action applied for a small amount more for a panel, but they were turned down. She also tweeted and blogged about actress Kate Walsh, absurdly implying that Walsh's retweet at the request of a student was "organizing a rally" against Bristol Palin, which set off an array of false stories in the media that suggested that Walsh had something to do with Bristol Palin being disinvited.

There's much more I can talk about if you're interested, from Loesch's unending support of James O'Keefe and his cronies even after he was convicted of entering a congressional office under false premises and even after they were caught planning to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter, to the inflamed rhetoric of the St. Louis tea party where Loesch says "I love the smell of fire when it's burning tyranny" while her friends set fire to a photo of Congressman Russ Carnahan, to her conspiracy theories about President Obama ordering "thugs" to beat up tea party members in St. Louis, to her attacks on local school teachers based on misinformation, and much much more.

What I find really strange is that CNN seems to recognize that Breitbart and O'Keefe are toxic, and they rarely if ever have them on as guests. But by hiring Breitbart's top lieutenant Loesch (editor of his site Big Journalism), they seem to be suggesting that they're more interested in the appearance of credibility than actual credibility, because hiring Loesch is endorsing the exact same dishonest approach to journalism only without the baggage of O'Keefe and Breitbart's names. There are plenty of honest people out there who can effectively communicate a conservative message, so I see no reason why CNN should hire a person with Loesch's track record of pushing blatant misinformation.

Loesch Says Critics of Lila Rose are "Feminist Mesiahs Who Make Their Living Fighting For Female Genocide"

Lila Rose, a protege of disgraced highly-edited-video-smear-artist James O'Keefe, recently released a lame attack on Planned Parenthood that was shown to be doctored (despite her claims to the contrary) and ridiculously claimed that Planned Parenthood supported child prostitution while ignoring the fact that Planned Parenthood had already reported the incidents to the authorities.

Loesch recently spoke at CPAC about the incident, and claimed that the people criticizing Rose's smear job were, "Feminist Messiahs who make their living advocating for women while also fighting for female genocide." Observe (starting at 2:02):


Nice work CNN.

h/t Dana Busted.

Another Innocent Victim of An O'Keefe/Breitbart/Loesch Smear Campaign

As I've said repeatedly, the reason I criticize the leadership of St. Louis Tea Party so much is not because I think the core tenets are offensively wrong (though I do disagree with them). Rather, I criticize the St. Louis Tea Party because of their repeated use of blatantly unethical, dishonest techniques that will destroy innocent people's lives merely for the sake of cheap political points and/or self-promotion. A new story today reveals another innocent victim of a smear campaign by Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe, with aid of course from our own Dana Loesch.

O'Keefe, on probation for breaking the law in New Orleans and discredited after trying to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter (potentially with help from the St. Louis tea party's John Burns), presented a secret video claiming that a teacher called students the "N-word" while she was talking about how hard it is to fire teachers with tenure. Here's how Dana Loesch described it:

O’Keefe’s latest video shows teachers’ union leaders discussing how they helped rig elections and call black students the N word.

The teacher attacked by the O'Keefe video, Alissa Ploshnick, was suspended from her job after the video came out. And, as was reported yesterday, it turns out that Ploschnick was a hero who had previously thrown herself in front of a van to save her students:

Alissa Ploshnick risked her life to save the lives of a dozen Passaic schoolchildren. She threw herself in front of a careening van to protect her students and landed in the hospital with broken ribs, a fractured wrist, a badly bruised pelvis and glass cuts in her eyes. She could have died.

The president of the United States, Bill Clinton then, sent her a letter. It read:

"I recently heard about your act of heroism and wanted to commend you for your selflessness. True heroes are rare in today’s world. And, all too often, those who are really making a difference in our communities go unnoticed and unrewarded. I am delighted to be able to give you the recognition you deserve. You are an example for all of us, and I applaud you for your sense of duty.’’

For those not familiar with the video, it's worth noting that Ploshnick didn't call any student the n-word. Rather, she described another teacher doing it to illustrate how hard it is for a teacher to be fired. There's also nothing in the video to suggest that she was endorsing the use of the term: she seemed to just be making a point about their tenure system. Ploshnick had been taken advantage of by an unethical employee of James O'Keefe:

"I felt like I was raped,’’ says Ploshnick referring to the moment she learned that what she thought was a private, even flirtatious, talk with a "nice" young man who bought her drinks was really part of a political scam to discredit her union in an web videotape called "Teachers Gone Wild.’’

"Give me a smile and say hello and I’ll do anything for you,’’ says Ploshnick. "I’ve always done it. It’s hard to reteach your heart and your brain.’’

Says the blog nj.com:

O’Keefe made Ploshnick, a teacher who saved the lives of children, an unwitting star in a web-based movie, a phony exposé of nothing but the cynicism of ideologically driven pseudo-journalists. All O’Keefe managed to do was ruin the reputation of a woman who should be honored as a hero — and was, not only by Clinton but also by Montel Williams and Oprah Winfrey, a fan of Gov. Chris Christie’s...

And let’s face it: Alissa Ploshnick wasn’t punished, her reputation wasn’t destroyed, her professionalism and heroism disregarded, because she repeated a word someone else said.

She was sacrificed to a political cause.

And Dana Loesch was right there sacrificing her along with O'Keefe. The site Big Journalism, with Dana Loesch as the Editor, promoted this story in multiple articles. She hosted O'Keefe on her radio show on October 26. Loesch herself attacked a journalist for analyzing O'Keefe's history of dishonesty. Loesch, of course, was previously silent when O'Keefe was busted trying to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter by isolating her on a boat full of sex toys while secretly videotaping her. Its not entirely clear how she squares her blind support of O'Keefe's misogynistic tactics with her self-proclaimed "conservative feminism."

And, in fact, this isn't the first time Loesch has participated in trying to destroy an innocent schoolteacher. Loesch previously claimed that a beloved St. Charles teacher was "indoctrinating students" by forcing them to watch Michael Moore's movie Sicko as part of a "Great Literature" course and had called a student a "teabagger." In fact, the movie was shown specifically for the purpose of asking students to evaluate how Moore used rhetoric to try to make his point (so it was educating students to think critically about rhetoric, the exact opposite of "indoctrination"), and the other students from the classroom all testified that the teacher did not call the student a "teabagger." And after trying to destroy a teacher's credibility without even bothering to get the full story, Loesch never offered any context or issued any corrections.

But of course, the mainstream media will continue to offer up false equivalencies between the Left and the Right (pretending that these Breitbartian strategies are the moral equivalent of Keith Olbermann being too enthusiastic about name-calling), and will continue to treat any criticism of these dishonest and evil tactics as disagreements about political positions. It's truly sad that our standards have fallen so far that the media, for the most part, no longer pushes back against dishonest smear campaigns and attacks on the innocent.

Gateway Pundit Still Defending O'Keefe

In case you wondered if the leadership of the St. Louis tea party has any shame or sense of decency, the answer is a resounding "no." Jim Hoft, aka Gateway Pundit, is still defending James O'Keefe after O'Keefe plotted to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter on camera. Hoft posted James O'Keefe's lame explanation on his blog and said:

Good for James for coming clean on the overhyped incident.

What exactly did O'Keefe come clean on? Alex Parnee at Salon sums it up:

Unsurprisingly, he has no regrets, and the liberal media is the real guilty party.

O'Keefe's "coming clean" basically amounted to him pretending (while offering no evidence) that he wasn't really going to go through with the plan as written:

O'Keefe's defense -- posted, of course, on Andrew Breitbart's "Big Government" -- rests on us believing that the prank-outlining document obtained by CNN was a draft that O'Keefe did not plan on actually following. He says ideas for stunts are sent to him all the time (like a fancy Hollywood producer!) and sometimes he approves of the idea behind a prank without endorsing everything about it.

Some more excellent commentary from Salon about O'Keefe's idiotic excuse:

Not seduced unless she wanted to be! I mean, his "prank" as described here makes even less sense as a "political" act than the plan Wetmore wrote. He was going to lure her onto a regular boat with nothing outrageous or unusual about it, dressed conservatively, get her consent to film her, and then only "pretend" to "seduce" her if he somehow determined that she would be into that?

O'Keefe accomplice Izzy Santa seemed to think -- on the day of the planned punking -- that O'Keefe's boat was full of strawberries and champagne, and that the plan was to creep Boudreau out. There's no point to getting her on the boat and filming her if you're not going to be gross. Even if O'Keefe found elements of Wetmore's idiotic script objectionable, the idea behind it remains the same.

And the Salon piece doesn't even mention that CNN obtained an email where O'Keefe instructed Izzy Santa to print out a banner that read "The James O'Keefe Pleasure Palace" for the boat. That kind of calls into question his claims that the setup wouldn't really be "that creepy."

But of course, the St. Louis tea party, which has from its inception not shown any sliver of virtue or moral concern, is convinced that this completely gets O'Keefe off the hook.

(image credit: Gateway Pundit)

St. Louis Media Fail: Still No Comments From O'Keefe's St. Louis Accomplice

Mediaite has posted some new details from James O'Keefe's plot to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter, including a video clip from CNN's Right on the Edge special (which, ironically, would have ended up being a complete puff piece were it not for O'Keefe's disgraceful plot). Emails forwarded to CNN show fairly conclusively that O'Keefe's claim that he wasn't aware of the plan was false.

Given that this is a story with national significance, it's amazing to me that the local St. Louis media, with the exception of Chad Garrison, has failed to report on the local connection or get a quote from O'Keefe's St. Louis tea party collaborator John Burns. The original CNN report indicated that John Burns was in on the planning emails, and was asked for advice about the plan by O'Keefe:

CNN was forwarded an e-mail, sent from O'Keefe's e-mail address, to the executive director of Project Veritas, Izzy Santa; and two conservative activists, Ben Wetmore of New Orleans and Jonathon Burns of St. Louis, Missouri, dated after the call with Boudreau.

"Getting Closer," the e-mail states. "Audio attached conversation with Abbie. What do you think of her reaction guys. She said she could do it Monday, Tuesday. Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"

Burns and O'Keefe first collaborated in St. Louis by building a gulag on the Washington University campus and releasing highly edited video claiming that the Wash U administration was trying to shut them down because they were conservative. These claims were later proved false by a blog post from a student member of the Young Americans for Liberty. They later collaborated on an attempt to sabotage an LGBT rally, writing "Free Abortions" on signs according to several eyewitness reports and refusing to follow the instructions of the event organizers to comply with police requests.

I have a hard time understanding why local media would pass on the opportunity to contribute to a story of national significance. If they could get a quote from Burns about his role in the plot or about additional details, it would surely be picked up in future national reporting on this story. Furthermore, Burns is the St. Louis Field Representative for American Majority and was claimed to be the head of the St. Louis tea party's block captain program. St. Louis residents deserve to know what role, if any, John Burns played in this nefarious plot. And if those two appeals to the role of journalism in society aren't enough, this clearly is a juicy story, full of scandelous details. There really is no excuse for the local media to not be covering this.

Tea Party Activist In On Plan to "Seduce" CNN Reporter To Speak At Rally Tomorrow

John Burns, the St. Louis Tea Party activist who was included in planning emails on Jame O'Keefe's plot to "seduce" CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau by isolating her on a boat full of sex toys and pornography, is scheduled to speak tomorrow at a Southern Illinois Tea Party rally in O'Fallon, Illinois.

According to the original CNN report, Burns (along with Ben Wetmore and Izzy Santa) was sent an email by O'Keefe asking if they thought he could lure Bordreau on to the boat:

"Getting Closer," the e-mail states. "Audio attached conversation with Abbie. What do you think of her reaction guys. She said she could do it Monday, Tuesday. Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"

Izzy Santa, it turned out, had a conscience and warned Boudreau about the plot. Burns and Wetmore, obviously, did nothing to stop it.

The tea party rally is being organized by Gina Loudon, a self-proclaimed conservative Christian who previously called O'Keefe a "hero."

Sadly, no St. Louis media has yet gotten a quote from Burns about his role in O'Keefe's scheme, although Chad Garrison did write about it at the RFT.

Tea Party's John Burns Involved In James O'Keefe's Plot to "Seduce" CNN Correspondent

John Burns of American Majority and the St. Louis tea party was implicated in a story about disgraced conservative hitman James O'Keefe's ploy to "embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating palace of pleasure' and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show," according to CNN. Burns is best known in St. Louis for leading the tea party's failed efforts to block funding for public transportation, for ridiculously accusing Washington University of "fraud" in the aftermath of a hoax conducted by him and O'Keefe, and, worst of all, for writing "free abortions" on the back of a sign in an attempt to sabotage pro-gay marriage rally.

The CNN article claims:

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

O'Keefe was reportedly going to introduce the segment as follows, according to documents obtained by CNN:

My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

Please sit back and enjoy the show.

It's not entirely clear what John Burns' role was in the plot. The article cites him as being included in O'Keefe's email correspondane about the plan:

CNN was forwarded an e-mail, sent from O'Keefe's e-mail address, to the executive director of Project Veritas, Izzy Santa; and two conservative activists, Ben Wetmore of New Orleans and Jonathon Burns of St. Louis, Missouri, dated after the call with Boudreau.

Burns would not respond to CNN. Hopefully, some local reporters can get to the bottom of this.

Maddow Smackdown of Tea Party Hero

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

California A.G. Report Exposes O'Keefe as a Fraud: Relevance for St. Louis

The Brad Blog has a detailed account of yesterday's California A.G. report that found "no violation of criminal law" on the part of ACORN in the phony right-wing story that claimed that ACORN was running a child prostitution ring, a story that ultimately destroyed the group. On the other hand, the report said that the facts presented, "strongly suggests that [James O'Keefe] and [Hannah Giles] violated state privacy laws." It's worth reading the whole blog post, but here are a few key findings:

O'Keefe never actually posed as a pimp, despite suggesting that he did.

The report said that O'Keefe, "did not act as a journalist."

O'Keefe and Giles's video critically relied on telling a story where Giles was actually trying to escape from an abusive pimp, and they were asking the ACORN workers to help.

The A.G. describes the videos by O'Keefe and Giles as "severely edited," which fits with the Brooklyn D.A.'s assessment that they were a "highly edited splice job."

Keep in mind that O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart's campaign was designed specifically to take down ACORN because ACORN is an important liberal institution that has registerd tens of thousand of minority and low income voters. The right wing has been trying to destroy the organization for a number of years. So O'Keefe and Giles went into ACORN offices with a story specifically designed to provoke sympathy in normal feeling humans, then edited the tapes to make it look like the ACORN workers were encouraging prostitution. Breitbart (O'Keefe's employer) even suggested that ACORN was aiding and abetting child prostitution. And, for the most part, the right wing attack was successful, basically destroying through a completely fabricated story one of the few national groups that actually organized on behalf of the poor.

So what is the relevance for St. Louis politics? First, James O'Keefe is a close friend of John Burns, the faux leader of anti-public transportation group "Citizens for Better Transit." O'Keefe visited St. Louis a couple times to help with Burn's antics, and also was a speaker at a St. Louis Tea Party rally as well as a guest on Dana Loesch's show. O'Keefe was described as a "hero" by Gina Loudon, and Loudon, Loesch, and Bill Hennessy have all defended him after his arrest in New Orleans.

Furthermore, many St. Louis Tea Party members have connections to Andrew Breitbart. John Loudon, Jim Gateway Pundit Hoft, and Dana Loesch have all written for Breitbart's site Big Government. They regularly promote his stories, and he does so with theirs.

But more importantly, I think that if you really want to understand the guiding ethos of the St. Louis Tea Party, you should start by understanding Breitbart. The unethical and misleading tactics. The red-faced spittle attacks and argument-through-talking-louder approach to life. The "flipping the script" of constantly accusing liberals of racism and sexism while simultaneously complaining about political correctness. These are all the things Breitbart embodies, and the qualities that the St. Louis Tea Party leadership tries to emulate.