******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, March 14, 2011

What The Blaze Is Going On Here?

The tape of NPR officials trying to pry money from people who presented themselves as Muslim Brotherhood inspired, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish advocates, has damaged NPR tremendously, as reflectred in my prior post, NPR Please Meet The Fork Which Is About To Be Stuck Into You Because You Are Done.

The Blaze, which I had heard of but never really focused on, claimed that the tapes were edited in a way to make the NPR folks seem worse than they were.  I didn't have time to review The Blaze article and clips in detail, but I did watch one of the clips and it did not convince me at all that the editing was misleading. 

The Blaze has received kudos from all of the concern trolls.  NPR is using The Blaze's arguments in its defense.

Thanks to Patterico for doing the job of showing that The Blaze was wrong, No Vindication for Ex-NPR Exec: On the Blaze’s Accusations of Misleading Editing by O’Keefe.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


  1. This is the same tactic others used against Andrew Breitbart over the Pigford/Shirley Sherrod tape. They protested that Breitbart's video was so "heavily edited" that is grossly misrepresented what Sherrod actually said while releasing the entire video claiming that it proved their case. The MSM did the rest. But anyone who actually looked at the entire video could plainly see that the truth was even worse that what Breitbart portrayed. Same with O'Keefe. It's SOP.

  2. But O'Keefe released the complete, unedited tape, too, as I remember.

  3. Yes Luke, the full tape is out there now and the Associate Clinical Professor is being disingenuous again. If one takes it in, in context, tons of misleading edits are immediately apparent. O'Keefe's editing blatantly misrepresented what was going on. The Blaze did a good job detailing that, even if one doesn't have time to view the complete set of tapes.

  4. "O'Keefe's editing blatantly misrepresented what was going on. The Blaze did a good job detailing that, even if one doesn't have time to view the complete set of tapes."

    IOW, no need to actually view the tapes and make up your own mind, just accept what you're told.

  5. @nestorma

    What you say makes no sense. Why, unlike almost all journolists, would O'Keefe then voluntarily release the full tape? Ever seen "60 Minutes" do that? Ever seen Michael Moore do that? Answer: No. I guess the stark contrast between the old, fancy-editing way of doing business and the open-book transparency of some young guy pulling off stunningly successful stings and offering up the unedited tape has you robotically muttering, "This does not compute!"

    And so, Dr. Smith, it's more likely you're fiendishly searching desperately for something you wish to be there and imagining you've found it.

    I just read Patterico's critique. I suggest you do the same.

    By the way ... I'd love to see you detail the "tons" of misleading edits.

  6. I'm starting to wonder if Beck is actually a Soros plant.

  7. Didn't Glenn Beck hire a woman who used to write for some lefty blog or publication to take over the reins of The Blaze a few months back? I'm tempted to say the HuffPo, but I'm not sure which one she came from. Can't help but wonder if we're seeing her bias showing.