Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing — after group forced to disband | Raw Story

thought you might be interested in the congressional report that shows nothing true of the nonsense from the right about acorn and nothing of any substance behind the "big government" hit video willravel mentioned above.

caveat lector, you know?
geez.

Not at all.

I am suggesting that if these pseudo-news site/blog "ambush reporters" want to be treated as journalists, they should learn about,, and practice, journalistic standards and ethics.

These standards and ethics are self-regulated on the association and organizational level. (Read: it ain't going to happen unless these pseudo-news site/bloggers join said associations and organizations.)

I agree...thats the problem and I dont have a solution other than to suggest that when they stalk a member of Congress, that member should just turn and walk away. And if the stalking continues and becomes overly aggressive, take it to the Capitol police.

Well true, but the other side of the coin is that even poor journalistic standards don't warrant sidewalk beatdowns! Wait a minute, maybe they do. Maybe that's what we need to improve journalism today.... :)

I tend to agree. As much as I like the idea of people having a vehicle that takes journalism out of the hands of big corps and allows the average Joe a voice, there still needs to be some journalistic ethics/standards involved. Some random guy trying to get hits on his blog and build his online rep by using whatever tactics he can think of to get attention isn't what we need either, it makes the blogging/amateur world of journalism look bad and gives people an excuse to ignore it all together.

Kind of a double edged sword I suppose, but in my mind the good probably outweighs the bad...we need more voices not associated with big money.

Nevermind.

I saw no "beat down" in that video (not that I'm condoning the behavior, but let's not pretend the congressman took a swing at these guys)

I agree, the more voices, the better we are served...IF they have any self-imposed journalistic standards.

But the other issue is the credibility of what you hear or see on a video interview. With a credible news organization, there is some level of internal controls to assure that the interview is not doctored or manipulated for political purposes. With an "ambush journalist" acting independently and w/o standards, there is no such control..and little recourse.

i saw a fake student who shouted something in teaparty and then when challenged as to his identity refused to answer the question----which almost anyone who was in such a situation would do. and had he answered the question the situation would not have escalated. but the point of this nitwit charade lay elsewhere: in the use of the special language of teaparty, it sets up an identification between conservative viewers and the "student" which is then given "content" through the sophomoric use of text and rudimentary editing.

the clip made no pretense to journalism. i'm not sure why the topic of journalistic ethics comes up in relation to it.

rb -

Wouldn't that be the point we are all making? Because there were no journalistic standards (not ethics) in this person's approach, the interviewee's response becomes more understandable. It doesn't justify violence or the detention of another person (holding them so that they can not leave), but the reaction seems to possess more of a human element (rather than this alleged "State sponsored" element) when one considers the approach.

I could find a dozen ambush blogger reporters hurling inflammatory questions at a congress person. Half will be conservative and half will be liberal.

it's not journalism. i suppose i would say the same thing but more strongly.

and i'm not at all sure i buy the parallel with michael moore, which seems paper-thin. at least michael moore asked coherent questions. and identified himself. and assembled the resulting footage **with context** into coherent documentaries that conservatives might not like but which nonetheless present arguments and evidence that are worth taking seriously. but this...this is just bullshit.

I think we are arguing the same thing here.

It isn't journalism because he didn't identify himself, he asked a stupid question, his motivation is not to expand the knowledge of his audience, rather to shock the audience with his edginess or assertiveness or something. However, he believes it is journalism because, heh, he's got a camera and he's asking a pseudo-political question to a politician. But anyone with access to a BestBuy and a train ticket to DC can do that.

Which brings us back to the point. If this guy were an actual journalist, and not a blogger, then he would be trained in and would most likely follow journalistic standards. He would have most likely gotten an interview from the congressman. Of course, then we wouldn't have this video or this thread. And then where would we be?

I'll just have to disagree with you about Michael Moore. His "interview" of Heston was ambush reporting, no different than this. What's worse, he went to the man's home.

To say nothing of his "creative" editing of Mr. Heston's speech in Denver.

The kid can feign shock, outrage, and injury but the truth is that he got a response that was so much better than what he had been going for.

As for it being assault, you can hardly get a cop to come to your house after your car gets broken into, is it really reasonable to call grabbing someone by the wrist and neck for two seconds assault?

Heston allowed an interview at his residence. Nobody can know what the full premise disclosed to Heston was but it wasn't as if Moore was an unknown person at the time. If you allow yourself to do an interview without doing some due diligence you deserve what you get.

I would expect nothing less than this response from you.