Yesterday the Village Voice published a piece “OPP: James O’Keefe, ACORN and Landrieu Stinger, Ran Racist Forum” which they erroneously claimed that James O’Keefe “organized a speaking forum for white supremacists.” This Village Voice released this update this afternoon:
James O’Keefe and Race: An Update
The Washington Independent’s David Weigel has added some clarity to the story of James O’Keefe’s role at a 2006 “Race and Conservatism” event in D.C. that featured the controversial Jared Taylor, editor of the white nationalist American Renaissance magazine, as a participant.
In a previous post, “OPP: James O’Keefe, ACORN and Landrieu Stinger, Ran Racist Forum,” the Voice mischaracterized the event, saying that O’Keefe “ran” and had “organized” what we called “a racist forum.”
We also cited a Salon story by Max Blumenthal, “James O’Keefe’s race problem,” that talked about O’Keefe’s staffing a table that was “filled with tracts from the white supremacist right.” We mischaracterized the role in the event of the Leadership Institute (O’Keefe’s employer at the time).
Weigel, who says he attended the event, points out in a post this afternoon that it was “a debate, not a forum for Taylor.”
The event was hosted by the Robert Taft Club, which Weigel calls “a proudly un-PC debate society run by young conservative activists who worked” at the institute. “O’Keefe’s position at the Leadership Institute gave him some ownership of the event,” Weigel wrote. But Weigel also quotes Marcus Epstein, who did organize the event, as saying that O’Keefe “did not collaborate with me, definitely not on that event.”
O’Keefe was indeed at the event, Weigel writes in another post: “I can personally confirm that he was there, but not that he was manning the table — nor that O’Keefe ‘planned’ the event (as Blumenthal put it) with Marcus Epstein …”
Read the full update here.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
41 Comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BigJournalism: Correction Report: The Village Voice http://bit.ly/9IuHeR…
good Alpaca
I would say that it's surprising the way that the left is attacking O'Keefe, but it really isn't. The have done the same with Palin, Brown, Breitbart and so many other conservatives in the media or politics.
With O'Keefe in particular, they need to discredit him, because they believe it will somehow exonerate ACORN.
Hey, Retracto…
NICE JOB…!
Six months from now, I hope a call from you to any statist media outlet causes loosening bowels at the target…
Of all the publications to issue a retraction, I'm shocked by this one. I would have never expected TVV to be interested in the truth.
They basically blame Max Blumenthal and Salon for making crap up.
This is probably the best retraction I've seen so far. Look for all the lefty blogs to stick to the narrative though. They'll never let go of the fantasy.
They should just stay away from O'Keefe. All these 'gotcha' smears tend to blow up in their faces.
Good for the V V. A correction is a correction.
Wiping a lot of egg off their faces.
[...] Correction Report: The Village Voice [...]
I was not aware that anyone with a brain still reads that rag. Only the very depraved, who skip straight to the back pages to check out the pics of junkies who provide "escort services" for the $50-$100 range. Well them, and perhaps some communist professors (research fellows) at my alma mater, NYU. Other readers.. possibly some folks that go to SVA. Definitely some libs from the New School up on 14th. Bunch of moochers over there, I tell ya.
.
Pillage Voice apologizes — again!
Just have to say that I love Retracto. He's becoming my favorite character on the web. Whoever thought of him (her?) deserves a raise.
I thought they changed the name of that rag to the "Village Idiot" along time ago.
Nice job, Retracto — in HELPING PAINT O'KEEFE EVEN MORE AS A RACIST.
This is what is called a Pyrrhic victory.
The trail seems to find its way back to Blumenthal, as the Village cited in its retraction/correction.
Here's the portion Andrew seems to have accidentally omitted:
"The Voice pointed out that 'there have been overt racial themes' in O'Keefe's work, and Weigel riffs on that as well, writing in 'Race and James O'Keefe' that 'Blumenthal's article is worth reading for the background on O'Keefe's race obsession at various points in his career.' Weigel adds that 'the new attention' on the 2006 event 'suggests that young campus activists with big ambitions are going to find their dabblings in extreme politics coming back to haunt them.'"
Andrew's obsessive, hysterical demand for a retraction has now spread the analysis of O'Keefe's alleged racism further into the liberal press mainstream. Bretibart's over-recation is also being interpreted as a panicked reaction implying something to hide.
there's a right way and a wrong way to ask for a retraction, Andrew. This was the wrong way. Sure, it provided plenty of red meat for your supporters. But now the people who make the decisions in the elite media are more likely to see a "pattern" of racism on O'Keefe's part.
You just don't know how to manage your mouth, Andrew.
Okay. Just stick with the narrative, "O'Keefe is racist." If it makes you feel better. Though I do wonder why investigating "race" issues makes one "racist." That's quite a mental leap don't you think?
Well, an examination and analysis of O'Keefe's focus and conduct leads one to the conclusion that O'Keefe is against black people. Occam's Razor.
Not if you pay attention to facts. Which you don't. Keep hyperventilating and change your undies.
Facts hurt his brain. It's like trying to stuff a cinder block through a cheese grater.
Well, yes. There have been overt racial themes in O'Keefe's work. Like in this project.
There were overt racial themes in MLK's work too. So, who's a racist? Well, anyone that disagrees with a liberal.
You don't seem to get that Andrew is well aware of liberal media spin. The fact that they'll continue to do it is not a reason to refrain from calling them out on it in strong terms.
You made a mistake, Bryan. I'll correct your statement below:
"A misinterpretation and misrepresentation of O'Keefe's focus and conduct leads ACORN water-carriers to the conclusion that O'Keefe (and anyone to the right of Che and Mao) is against black people. Slander and libel."
Fixed it! You're welcome.
I would like to thank the Village Voice for having the honor to make this correction. While I disagree with effectively all of their editorial positions, it is good to see them being ethical enough to admit when they have made an error in their reporting. That significantly sets them apart from MANY of their journalistic colleagues. Thank you, Village Voice!
Yeah..the truth…i do not think that was it…we still have this pesky defamation law that could result in a lawsuit…can you say, "CMA"?
Once again we see the "false but true" argument and "it is the seriousness of the charges."
Okay, if none of the stuff that points to the so-called "pattern" are true, is there a pattern?
Or is what you are really saying is that O'Keefe is going after corruption, all African Americans are corrupt, thus he is going after African Americans. Is that what your argument is? If so, who is the real racist?
I know this is hard for the left to comprehend, but there are actually people of all sexes and all races who do not judge people according to race, religion, or politics. And it is possible for people to be different from you and not be evil.
So, when did talking to black people become "racist"…what so is he also pitting hispanics against blacks by using the fictional story of bringing young mexican prostitutes to the us in his acorn investigation? but, i guess that since he was talking to "black people" that makes him racist…wow…i guess i'm a racist too…since i talk to "black people"
O'Keefe goes after Planned Parenthood (link above by Pablo) for the part they play in the destruction of potential black individuals. This group was founded upon principles of selective cleansing of "undesirables".
Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, also fights against Planned Parenthood, and the mega-murder facility they plan to build near Houston. She conveys that this would also have been the position of her uncle, and that Planned Parenthood is misappropriating him:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5902.html
Therefore it's very hard to say that O'Keefe is a racist, unless of course you're prepared to also say that MLK and Alveda were/are racists.
This was brilliant. Nicely said mousiemarie.
The Village Voice is hardly a place for accurate reporting, and has zero credibility – actually less than the National Enquirer, which (truthfully) reported on the Edwards scandal for months before the mainstream press finally was forced to report. As an aside, the National Enquirer also reported for months on the continued philandering of William Clinton – which we now know to be true – yet none of THAT has been reported ANYWHERE, even on Drudge. Heck, it was reported as one of the reasons for the OBAMA victory. But, hey, what gives here – if some Republican ex-President was doing something like that it would be front page news. What gives? Why is the mainstream media still able to get away with this nonsense? And why aren't conservative news sources at least saying something about this – after all the Edwards story is front page news? Why is Bill Clinton given a pass when he is given procured women on foreign trips, as reported by the Enquirer? Why does he get a pass?
What the heck are you talking about?
Not according to Kevin Martin, who has actually met the guy.
Maybe O'Keefe is against the programs that have destroyed several generations of black culture in the US (and similar situations around the world that have ghettoized the race). His actions certainly attest more to that viewpoint than a traditional racist viewpoint.
I'm not sure how he's supposed to be 'against black people' when he's trying to show how PP is happy to accept racist-motivated donations, ACORN is dispensing illegal advice rather than creating legitimate opportunities and help for black people, and going to a debate to listen to a black conservative take on racists. Occam's razor points actually to those who want to keep him down being the real racists. Seriously. The facts point to YOU.
Liars got caught!
Your pushing a totally discredited dialogue. Dream up something else.
(1) locate buttocks
(2) find & grasp neck
(3) tug – vigorously
(4) extract head from buttocks
(5) get feet off of Mom's couch
(6) get a job
And who cares enough about The Villiage Voice to follow up on a 'correction'? As if we'd expect them to get anything right the first time–
Moral equivocation is the fungible commodity the libtards used so well. I think they really hate the fact that we read their Alinski 'play book'. Too bad Alinski did not provide direction on how to 'counter' his own strategies. They have become incredibly easy to predict.
Whatever, they corrected themselves, that's something, good for them.
Wow playing the race card yet again, good grief can't these guys come up with something better? This card is so dog eared it's a joke when someone throws it on the table, kind of like an old Old Maid's card that has seen better days. Everyone knows what it is, and no one is going to pick it up. Get a new schtick boys, you are looking silly to say the least.
[...] publications, including The Village Voice, actually did issue corrections and retractions. You can see Salon’s correction note here, [...]
First, thanks for your astute post. I like your website and find it extremely instructive. I like your talent of saying (by blogging) tiny things that other blogger do not take time to say. I found it by doing a search on Bing as a consequence I for certain will return here when I have more time.Thanks