As the campaign season rolls on, we are going to hear more from ultra-douche james O'Keefe. It is important that people know who and what he is. For the record, what he is is:
1. A criminal.
2. A liar.
3. A Con Man.
4. A dick.
5. A Douche.
This is ridiculous. It's long past time that the New York Times and other papers of record commit themselves to, at the very least, not promoting the work of known hoaxers. It is true that hoaxes, when heavily promoted as the truth by ideologues keen on sabotaging political opponents as well as news outlets too timid to point out the glaring flaws, can have considerable effect on our political discourse and on the groups ideologically targeted. And, golly, perhaps hoaxes sell a few papers, too. But should hoaxes have such effects? And is the Times comfortable with playing a key role in the public promotion of those hoaxes, time and time again, by the very same actors who pushed falsehoods on their readers the last dozen times?
To publish a story about James O'Keefe and his band of tape-editing, crime-committing, prop-wielding, hoax distributors without noting once a salient feature of all his past stories—that they were proven factually wrong—is not much better than O'Keefish journalism itself. The New York Times, of all places, should fashion itself as a paper that exposes journalistic corruption, not one that breezily helps to perpetrate it
This man films himself and others committing crimes or doing shady things near Democrats, then claims that this proves that the Democrats are criminals. And we keep listening?