Conservative critics of the mainstream media have been complaining lately that the MSM have ignored the sensational revelations about ACORN and how its community organizers are willing to look the other way when presented with apparent violations of the law.
But the story really hasn’t been ignored by the old-school media. It has instead become a story about a story.
The story line is that the political right is righteously excited about the series of hidden-camera videos because they discredit allies of President Obama. In one video, nearly 12 minutes long, a young man and woman posing as pimp and prostitute ask for, and get, advice from ACORN workers on how to get government housing assistance despite their line of work. The actor playing the pimp is usually described as a right-wing activist; the website on which their video first appeared is described as “conservative.”
Now the story has become the widespread scrambling of congressional and other officials to distance themselves from ACORN, including an 83-7 vote in the Senate on Monday to deny future federal housing money to the group. The Census Bureau also has ended its contract with ACORN, and ACORN’s own CEO announced an internal audit and investigation.
ACORN started almost 40 years ago. In its maturity, it seems to have toned down quite a bit, but its early adherents were often noisy and disruptive — rather like those town-hall shouters we’ve seen lately. And, by the way, screaming at one’s opponents is not “dissent,” it’s a form of assault.
Clearly, there has to be some bipartisan unhappiness with ACORN, or else the Senate vote wouldn’t have been so overwhelming. The story can no longer be ignored — nor is it being ignored. It is clearly a coup for conservatives.
Great politics, but how does it measure up as journalism?
It raises ethical questions of deception, entrapment and bias. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as long as the story reveals some problem of major importance.
One reason the mainstream media didn’t jump on this story immediately is that it was someone else’s scoop. When the competition breaks a story, often the other media’s first reaction is to find out if there’s anything fishy about the apparent blockbuster.
Then there’s the touchy business of deception. Television has long used hidden cameras as a way to get stories that can’t be verified by more conventional means. One of the most famous — or notorious — cases involved an ABC television crew falsifying job applications so they could do undercover reporting about allegedly unsanitary practices at the Red Lion supermarket chain.
But deception should be used only as a last resort. The code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists urges reporters to “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.” Some will say that what the ACORN CEO called “the indefensible action of a handful of our employees” is indeed “information vital to the public.” Others will argue it’s just another “gotcha” set-up — a form of entrapment, like NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series.
As for bias, investigative journalism — or what we have come to call investigative journalism — is often different from more straightforward reporting in that it sets out to prove a point. Almost invariably, that point is something negative. And that’s a form of bias, or definitely a point of view. When was the last time you saw an investigative piece, on print or on television, that was positive?
Now the question becomes, not one of ignoring a story, but of working it to death. By now, everyone is well acquainted with the story line. Action has been taken. Heads have rolled. Further repetition of these damaging videos risks becoming just plain nagging.
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com) is a retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post.
