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

More On McCaskill & the Democratic National Convention flap

The New York Times vs. Claire McCaskill (photos from the Wall Street Journal and Official Congressional Bio Guide)

Just to follow up on Adam's post and my post yesterday. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) gave an interview yesterday where she harshly denounced a New York Times report that claimed she privately worked against St. Louis's bid for the Democratic National Convention. Jake Wagman at the Post Dispatch has a compilation of numerous St. Louis officials who back up McCaskill's contention that she never privately advocated against St. Louis, including Mayor Slay and his chief of staff. However there are a couple of points on this controversy which continue to concern me:

Republicans have been making noise about McCaskill's comments since Tuesday. They've been emailing various journalist with statistics on the economic benefits a party convention would have brought to St. Louis, while juxtaposing this information with the report that McCaskill privately urged party leaders not to choose St. Louis in order to insinuate, that she put her own political career above the economic health of the city. This activity certainly gives me pause because that's what I argued in my earlier post and I do not share the agenda of the RNC.

Wagman's article states that, "It is possible that McCaskill supported hosting the convention, while at the same time wondering how it would effect her -- the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive." However its worth noting that Wagman cites a February 1st article by Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times which reports:

Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, publicly supported having St. Louis host the convention, but she raised several concerns to the White House, according to party officials familiar with the selection process. She questioned whether her re-election would be complicated if the convention were held in St. Louis

This language differs greatly from an earlier blog post Zeleny wrote which I cited in my first post:

Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.

In this earlier post McCaskill certainly doesn't seem to be "wondering" as Wagman states but rather "arguing" in a attempt to persuade Obama administration officials that a convention in St. Louis could hurt her politically and should be held elsewhere. She cites specific reasons, including a lack a fund-raising dollars from Democratic donors and protesters presumably from the Tea Party which were pervasive during Ed Martin's failed congressional campaign. These are logical arguments that any candidate in McCaskill's position would have made. True, the same could be said for "moderate" Democrats in North Carolina, but Obama polls significantly better there than in Missouri. These details from Zeleny's blogpost make it more believable McCaskill would privately argue against a St. Louis bid even in the face of her denials.

McCaskill and others also point out that the New York Times relied on anonymous officals, in an attempt to discredit the story. While this is a fair point, anonymous sources have become a fixture of journalism in Washington. As Adam points out Judith Miller among other New York Times journalists used anonymous sources to falsely make claims about Iraqi WMDs. However Zeleny has not faced any charges of journalistic malfeasance and is generally respected with plenty of access to "senior party" officials.

Earlier on Wednesday Zeleny stated he "stood by his story." Furthermore according to Chris King at the St. Louis American, Zeleny's editor also backs up the story. Adam makes the fair point, that Zeleny might have misinterpreted his source however Zeleny has repeatedly stood by his article when questioned about it. So either Zeleny, his source, or McCaskill are being dishonest.

Its hard to justify why a White House official would falsely claim McCaskill argued against the convention particularly since this official gave specific arguments she made against hosting it in St. Louis. There would be little motivation for anyone in White House to harm McCaskill politically, since she's almost universally regarded as a "close friend" of the Obama Administration. The anonymous official might have thought that a disclosure would not make waves outside of the beltway therefore not think before speaking to Zeleny.

As for McCaskill she issued a vigorous denial which will play itself out. Perhaps few in the press will follow up on this story and it will die. However if the New York Times's account is accurate it shed's light on McCaskill and the respect she holds for Missourians. What ever the case I hope more facts come out to better understand the situation.

The Paper of Record Vs. The St. Louis Paper of Record

Following up on Kevin's post, I think Jake Wagman did a nice job of following up on the New York Times anonymous claims, digging in and getting some info, and presenting the relevant facts that people need to make up their own mind. More of this, please.

New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny had previously cited an unnamed "top party official" to suggest that McCaskill actually campaigned against the DNC being held in St. Louis:

Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.

Of course, the New York Times does not have a great track record with anonymous sources, considering that it was the paper most responsible for the belief that Iraq had secret stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction based entirely on anonymous (and extremely questionable) sources. But Wagman takes it a step further than speculation and gets quotes from a couple of the people most involved in fighting for the convention in St. Louis, Mayor Slay and St. Louis City Dems head Brian Wahby. From Wagman's article:

"Absolutely ludicrous," said Brian Wahby, co-chair of the convention host committee. "We had no bigger champion than Claire McCaskill."

While distancing herself from Obama may help her re-election chances in Missouri -- where the president's approval ratings are below the national average -- the enthusiasm generated by a St. Louis convention would have certainly made up for, if not eclipsed, any potential liability.

Political psychology aside, Democrats say that nobody wanted a St. Louis convention more than McCaskill, who lives in Kirkwood.

Mayor Francis Slay tweeted that he had no doubts about her "unwavering support." The party's national spokesman called her a "one person Chamber of Commerce."

Now I don't know Wahby or Slay very well, but my sense is that they have a pretty strong notion of loyalty: I seriously doubt they would be this supportive of McCaskill if she had sabotaged the DNC bid. As Wagman points out, it's actually not mutually exclusive that McCaskill might have been aware of some political costs but nevertheless have been a strong champion for the convention. My guess is that either the reporter or the anonymous "top party official" might have heard some of the concerns expressed either by McCaskill or someone else, and interpreted those concerns a little too strongly. The reporter should have spoken to more people on the St. Louis committee to get a better sense of McCaskill's efforts.

Also worth noting, Chris King at the St. Louis American is doing an excellent job following up with the New York Times and is documenting it on Twitter.

This round goes to the St. Louis paper(s) of record.