Talk:Hannah Giles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contesting PROD tag

This young woman has been profiled in multiple reliable sources and her work has directly led to bipartisan legislative action against ACORN. Her name draws 500+ hits on Google News. Not sure I see how she would not be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination. Can you be more specific as to what this stub article lacks by way of notability? Per CSD A7 (emphasis per original)

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.

Ronnotel (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This stub contains adequate references and seems to be written with a neutral POV insofar as any accolades for Miss Giles are given in the cited references. This is not a case where a person lacking notability is writing about themselves nor is it an attempt to increase the credibility of someone lacking notability. The very fact that Miss Giles' actions have ultimately motivated the Senate to move speedily to propose and vote on NEW legislation (withdrawal of programmed ACORN funding) speaks for itself when considering the impact of Miss Giles' actions. The call for speedy deletion is unwarranted in this case. ⁃ Firewall 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, she's all over the news now-- and the fallout from the videos is just getting started, it would seem. I'm not personally a big fan of the people currently championing her (to put it mildly) but the idea that she's lacking in notability is no longer accurate. Clean-up for NPOV, sure, but certainly don't delete.

69.129.196.12 (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Not Neutral

This article contains far too many unnecessary adjectives and dramaticized language for an encyclopedia entry. Citing editorials praising the subject is hardly neutral unless there is also reference to criticism. If you wish people to know about the subject and her accomplishments simply detail them in a factual manner without so much commentary mixed in. 128.227.171.200 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So far the notable coverage I could find in the reliable sources has been uniformly positive. If there is negative coverage that can be reliably sourced, then that should be added as well. And yes, I do think the article is neutral. The POV tag should only be used if the tone of the article does not reflect the breadth of coverage in reliable sources. I don't think that's the case here. Ronnotel (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What? This article speaks so positively of her. She is just part of the right wing echo chamber and as such this article should explain why she has been discredited. Sure, many journalists are children of, married to or otherwise related to democratic party officials, but the democrats have not been discredited the way the neo cons have been and we need to expose their shameful ties to the right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.128.227 (talk • contribs)

We need to do nothing of the sort. Please see WP:BLP. Turning the bio pages of those with whom you may disagree politically into a WP:BATTLEGROUND is seriously frowned upon by arbcom. Personal opinions do not belong on this page - only material that can be reliably sourced, is neutral, and broadly reflects the range of coverage. Anything else will be removed. Ronnotel (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ronnotel: the tone of the article reflects the nature of the reliable sources available. No reliably sourced criticism has been written, so we can't have a section on it. Once she starts facing more criticism from reliable sources, then they can be included. Biography of living persons is very strict in this regard. Dragoneer (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT#NEWS

Can someone explain how this article squares with Wikipedia's policy NOT#NEWS?

The question is not whether the subject is a current event, but whether it is notable. I think it's pretty easy to make the case that Ms. Giles is notable - see the citations. Ronnotel (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Movement Conservative

She may call herself an aspiring "journalist," but she's more of an aspiring conservative activist. She self-reported interning at National Journalism Center, a right-wing institution that trains conservative commentators. Additionally, she is the young (20 yo) daughter of a conservative activist commentator Doug Giles. When she is referred to as a "minister's daughter" that is as meaningful as if Jerry Falwell's or Pat Robertson's daughter were referred to that way.

Most journalists have a political bias. It seems that you don't want to elevate her to the status of "journalist" simply because her bias happens to be conservative. I suspect that when a news organization like "60 Minutes" goes undercover to expose wrongdoing by big corporations, you think it's great journalism -- and your objection to Giles is that the target of her undercover investigation was the liberal ACORN. In fact, Giles' undercover work is as important and compelling as anything "60 Minutes" has ever done. 71.219.229.17 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Really needs a mention about her blatantly lying to news reporters claiming not one ACORN office turned her away that she went to, whereas the Philadelphia ACORN office has shown exactly the opposite with a filed police report. Needs a criticism section to demonstrate she's basically a liar Seelum (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "liar" would require a reliable source to support the charge. I haven't seen that kinds of language used in the higher quality sources. I've seen some cryptic statements by O'Keefe that they were never kicked out of an office and that more videos are coming. On the contrary, we've seen ACORN contradicted in their own statements multiple times. We don't know what else happened in the Philly office before the police report was filed so it's possible that Giles isn't "lying". Not conclusive. If you can find a reliable source then go ahead and add an NPOV description. I don't know that we need a "criticism" section. Ronnotel (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We should have a criticism section if one can be supported by reliable sources. Since most of the criticism is coming from ACORN (which is not a reliable source on the matter), we can't have one yet. Maybe if some liberal pundits like Olbermann or Maddow critique her. Dragoneer (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Hannah Giles/Criticisms & Comments

The following was copied verbatim, including unsigned entries. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of hypocrites, if not fools. Whatever her political leanings or motivation, this young woman and friend single-handedly exposed one of the most corrupt, destructive quasi-governmental organizations in American history. What kind of citizen - other than someone seeking to destroy our democratic heritage - would back an organization this insane? Even if you're an Obama zombie - and checked your common sense at the door - this story is a major political development that no corruption of the media, or lame attempts at rationalizing can hide.

This article may be masquerading as a "neutral" entry, but it reads more like promotional material. I've written hard news and I've written promotional material, and I can say with confidence that this is the latter, not the former.

Examples:

Ms. Giles has been lauded by conservative commentators for engaging in a series of dramatic investigative encounters with staff at the prominent left-wing community organization

• "Lauded" is not only unquantifiable but also unqualifiable—when does approbation achieve the status of "lauding"?

• The NY Times article referenced does not describe plaudits directly attributable to more than one commentator, and the conservative credentials of the commentators is not clear. Using it as a reference is about as authoritative as a sound-bite in a movie ad.

• "Dramatic" is commentary and unnecessary.

• "Prominent" is not quantified in the article and does not contribute to knowledge.

• "Left-wing" is blatantly biased and derogatory language.

Furthermore, it gives no credentials—this "encyclopedia entry" is less telling than a basic résumé.

Despite her youth and lack of journalistic experience, she conceived of, and with her partner O'Keefe, implemented a complex, multi-part investigation that revealed unethical behavior at multiple ACORN offices.

• The fact that a kid with a video camera but without journalistic credentials contrived a film project is not in itself noteworthy, except perhaps to suggest that she shows signs of being ambitious.

• "Complex"? According to whom? And what does complexity have to do with investigation, let alone journalism? Is complexity a good thing? What does complexity accomplish? Does complexity have anything at all to do with validity?

According to one editorial favorably comparing her exploits to that of the traditional media...

• "One" editorial: suddenly the bias of the editorialist is glossed over. The Washington Times's Rahn doesn't quantify any of his statements, either—witnesseth another vague reference, this time to O'Keefe's excellent reputation for investigative reporting. For a quotation in an article to be useful, it must be attributable, and it must be clear why it's significant that it is so attributable.

• "Favorably"—see "lauded," "dramatic," "prominent," and "left-wing" above. Being "favorably" compared to "traditional media" is faint praise. What does it mean? What does it count for? I've been favorably compared to Richard Dreyfuss, Cat Stevens, and Jerry Garcia before, but none of those comparisons tells a thing about my salt as a journalist.

• "Exploits" is puffery. 'Nuff said.

• "Exploits" being a plural noun, the pronoun "that" should not be singular. That's just sloppy.

This article deserves to be deleted entirely. It is neither encyclopedic nor biographical; it's just PR, nor is its subject noteworthy. Her "investigative journalism" is a tempest in a teapot.

--Scourgeofdoxies (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My previous contribution has been deleted. I assume this is because my article was not properly sourced, and involved biographical statements of both the subject and her work. I am presently gathering my references & citations for the statements that I am adding to the article.

Both Giles and her partner, O'Keefe, are enitrely controversial right now. The existing Wiki entry presents the work Giles has done in a unquestionably favorable, even innocuous light. But her work has invoked strong and substantial critism by those who question the editing and release of the videos, as well as the conclusions asserted by the film-makers. These aspects of Giles's work need to be conveyed in the entry, lest we belie the controversial nature of this now-public figure, or the public discussion her work has now generated. CeemowCeemow (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ceemow, properly sourced criticism of Giles is entirely appropriate for this article so long as it's kept neutral and does not extrapolate beyond the reliable sources. If you can suggest some I would be happy to add it myself. However, on balance there is much more laudatory coverage in the reliable source than derogatory (at least by my reckoning) and the tone of this article should reflect that. Ronnotel (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ronnotel,

Hi Ronnotel.

I hope that the article-links provided below might give substantial reason to cite Giles, O'Keefe and their work as at least somewhat more controversial than the existing Wiki entries suggest. Even though some of the responses are from ACORN itself, the issues which they raise do merit some space in any review of Giles or O'Keefe:

From The San Bernardino County Sun: http://www.sbsun.com/breakingnews/ci_13342555

The following link goes to an article in the Washington Post concerning Giles, O'Keefe & the ACORN scandal. The whole article is quite thorough, and I recommend reading the whole thing. However, the second page details some of the issues regarding the credibility of Giles's & O'Keefe's statements about ACORN (e.g., funding). It also details the manner in which their story was broke, as well as what biases they might bring to their work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704805.html?hpid=topnews

From Political Buzz Examiner: http://www.examinerd.dotcom/examiner/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d16-Video--ACORN-claims-videographer-and-Glenn-Beck-were-manipulated-by-worker-in-San-Bernadino Also: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d11-Video--Not-all-the-facts-being-told-to-us-by-Big-Government-on-the-ACORN-prostitution-video

With respect to the above links, neither Giles, O'Keefe, nor Fox News has retracted the accusation that Kaelke is a murderer, despite the release by the San Bernardino Police.

Former ACORN staff members are filing a case against Giles and O'Keefe: http://www.investigativevoice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1243:news-flash-acorn-plans-to-file-civil-suit-criminal-complaint-against-creators-of-controversial-videos&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=44

Salon contributer Joe Conason, in defending ACORN, highlights the vitriolic context within which Giles's experiment was conducted: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/18/acorn/

Giles cannot be regarded as an evenly balanced, investigative journalist with no pointed agenda. It isn't entirely accurate to state, as the Wiki entry does, that Giles is merely a "20 year old college student who became interested in what she describes as 'exposing social injustice and abuse of power' when she attended a conference in Washington, D.C. in 2007. She is currently studying journalism at Florida International University and is a columnist for BigGovernment.com."

As the daughter of Pastor Doug Giles, host of ClashTV & author of "Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate", Hannah has a far more ideologically committed basis to her work than the existing article suggests. This is evident through her own interviews on Fox News. Without stepping into tall-tabloid-tales, her own ideological background does deserve at least some mention: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/09/acorn_smasher_hannah_giles_dad.php A collection of Pastor Giles's work can be found here: http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/

Again, to speak of Hannah as nothing more than an emerging journalist ignores her background and what she brings to her work. It would be like trying to describe Michael Moore or Noam Chompsky as nothing more than reporters, without any reference to their political beliefs.

I can accept the speedy deletion of my previous entry, since admittedly it is more of an opinion & response piece. But I think some mention really needs to made about the other side of this story: the rebuttal by ACORN, the question of editing, the timed release of the tapes at a moment when its authors were claiming that they were being ignored by the "left wing mainstream media", the ideological background, etc..

Anyhow, I'll let you make the call on any of this... thanks for your input.

I think this is a useful list but there are a number of caveats about using any of it. Also, the quality of these sources is somewhat less than the sources that are already in the article (with the exception of the Washington Post article, which is already cited). I think we can mention the threat of legal action, and add Conason to the "Reactions" section. Per WP:BLP, we must be careful about claims that rely on guilt by association. None of the material w.r.t. to Ms. Giles father or his political beliefs are relevant here. Unless a stronger link can be made that he is actively guiding her work I doubt very much that he should even be mentioned. We must also be careful about describing her own political beliefs since, because of her age, she may not have even had time to form them yet. I recall from somewhere that she may have self-described her conservative point of view and was in the original text that I used. That language seems to have been taken out however there is still language about being lauded by "conservative commentators" which makes the same point. Ronnotel (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ronnotel: Thanks, that works for me.

H Giles credibility is suspect. She is clearly politically motivated. Her lineage ('guilt-by-association' aside) and her affiliation with BigGovernment.com (a clearly conservative platform) both speak to her agenda. She also mentioned (In an interview with Chris Beck) seeking out her partner because of his work in taking down Planned Parenthood. These facts seriously denigrate her credibility, and are extremely relevant in helping the reader judge for themselves the validity of her charges. MONARCH73 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Monarch73MONARCH73 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is already pretty clear in highlighting her ties to right-leaning groups. Making judgments about Ms. Giles "credibility" is something that is best left to the reader. Ronnotel (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

10/18/09 Hello everyone. I really hate to be the "nay-sayer" here, but the article as it stands truly reads like something out of a "teen spirit" magazine. It is not an honest review of Ms. Giles or her work. It does no more than flatter Ms. Giles and reify conservative talking points. It actively ignores a fair amount of the video controversy on behalf of what appears to be political interest.

The fact remains that there are plenty of "cons" to match all the "pros" offered in the entry. And while those "cons" remain unaddressed, most the "pros" are far too casual to really merit any singular encyclopeadic entry (at least when divorced from any other context.)

No, I'm not suggesting a smear campaign... not at all. I have no interest other than a fair explanation of the subject.

As such, I do think some balance needs to go into this article. Giles has been untruthful regarding the success rate of her work. The manner in which the videos were released, and the degree of access offered to any other News Group than Fox News, were actively manipulated by the producers in order to create the dramatic impression that they were being "ignored", and (to quote Breitbart) to make the media "look imbicilic." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/?page=2.

While these issues dont need to be framed as such, they do deserve mention, because as Breitbart's aforementioned statemant makes clear, the release of the videos was more about "art" than solid journalism. Hannah's "art" involves dramatic staging. That staging is expressed in terms of how the footage is gathered, how it is processed and how it is distributed. As such, her work is something far more contrived than the standards of "journalism" will allow.

We are told in the article that this is a "free speech issue". As such, the article only focuses on the controversy over the Baltimore taping. However, the video footage also forms a "free speech issue" for ACORN itself. ACORN claims that the footage was doctored to convey the worst possible scenario. The fact that recent updates have contradicted Giles claim to 100% success does give ACORN's version of events some credibility. At the very least, since they made Giles famous, their perspective is strongly material to the subject.

In keeping with the "free speech" theme, one has to cite Breitbart's orchestration of the release method. By Breitbart's own admission, that method followed a design which would highlight reactionary assumptions about the "main stream media". If you are manipulating the release of footage in order to contrive a specific reaction, and then claim that reaction revelas a bias against you, you are hardly exemplifying the value of free speech. The nature of the release method is entirely material to any unbiased review of Giles.

Additionally, this article remains disingenuous in light of more recent updates on the story which contradict Giles's version of events (e.g., the fact that Juan Carlos Vera, and Philidelphia ACORN staff, had both called the police on Giles and O'Keefe, despite claims by the latter that no such thing had happened. The fact that Tresa Kaelke has been exonnerated of the murder charge which Giles has continued to promote, etc...).

I do think it is interesting that any criticism of Ms. Giles has been removed from this entry, and it certainly reflects a bias slanted in favor of Giles and O'Keefe. If it were simply the case that such criticisms were immaterial, i could understand. But since even the brief scentence on the criticism leveled by Joe Conason had been dumbed-down and subsequently removed, I can't help but see an interested party at work here.

Additionally, the article fails in saying too little, perhaps out of caution against saying too much. For example, are told in the intro that Giles became interested in "exposing corruption etc..." after attending a conference in Washington DC, 2007. OK, so what was that "conference"? Who hosted it? Why did it influence her? Why is it relevant to this article? Its like saying "she became a journalist after going to church", it's just fluff.

If one is only concerned with creating a Facebook-like bio on Giles, then the article is great. But it fails miserably in lending a concise and unbiased review of Giles and the work that made her a household name.Ceemow (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Giles and O'Keefe will respond to the allegations that they lied about Philadelphia. Let's wait to see what they have to say. [1]. Ronnotel (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

10/20/09 Hi Ronnotel. Well, it definately would be a good thing to have more material in this entry. As it stands, the Wiki article on Giles is too sparse (on that note, why avoid mentioning the name of the organization which hosted the conference in DC that originally inspired Giles, as mentioned in the article's intro?) Additionally, the article tends to only represent the perspective BigGov.com supporters, and leaves no room for disinterested observation, let alone criticism.

Also, regarding Philly: Why is the version-of-events presented by O'Keefe, Giles & BigGov.com so much more significant than either ACORN's version, or even the police report on the Philly incident? Above, in the "critcisms" section of this discussion page, we were told that ACORN's perspective is not credible on this matter. The discussion manuveres to a sense that the subject should not even be brought up, at least if ACORN's perspective would be included.

But since Giles and O'Keefe have openly lied about Philly, are they exempt from being paired with a response from the organization which they investigated (& that subsequently made them famous?) They stated unequivocally that they were never thrown out of any ACORN offices: "O'Keefe declined to comment on the allegedly unsuccessful attempts, but said it's a "lie" to claim that any ACORN offices "kicked us out."(see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/13/filmmaker-demands-apology-acorn-claiming-undercover-video-doctored/. In fact Catherine Russel did throw them out, & there are credible sources detailing that matter (see http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/A-Tough-Nut-to-Crack.html#). This fact compromises the credibility of the producers, whose perspective is prioritized in this Wiki entry.

The issue of credibility is especially true for Breitbart, who is hosting the event which you have linked-in through your reply above.

Breitbart, by his own admission, provided the video release exclusively to FoxNews (as well as to his own website, BigGov.com, which launched itself on the day of the first video's release (see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/.) Also, on the day of the release, both Breitbart and O'Keefe refused to meet with CNN reporters to discuss the videos, claiming that CNN would do a "hit job" on them, or distort them on camera (ibid, see also http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/).

At the very same time that they were actively dismissing CNN, they were circulating hyperbolic statements to the effect that their story was being "shunned by the mainstream media" (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550386,00.html) That very claim was what ushered this story into the limelight (see http://news.aol.com/article/the-point-acorn-scandal-federal-funds/673000)

... I mean, the whole thing gets really contrived and theatrical, not mention (as per O'Keffe's own refusal to go on CNN) really kind of paranoid (see http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/). The way these guys write about it, you'd think Giles and O'Keefe were caught by the KGB while hustling reactor-plans from behind the Iron Curtain, rather than just being asked to stand by their work, or even field questions from their opposition (something ANYONE in political journalism does: e.g., Bill Kristol, Micheal Moore, Chris Hitchens,... hell, even Obama faced the fury on Bill O'Rielly...) Why are these two to be treated like such polyannas? How & why does Breitbart have to "protect" them? That matter is quite consequential to credibility.

Furthermore, Big.Gov.com is lying when they say that the media ignored them (see http://news.turner.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4657#). They also lie when they say that the media distorted their work or tried to "impugn" them (as claimed by Breitbart, see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550386,00.html) The worst I saw was Candy Crowely's comment that one should take internet videos with a grain of salt... hardly the "hit job" BigGov.com describes. The fact that CNN simply received and aired ACORN's own statements on the matter does not mean that they were trying to "extricate" ACORN, as O'Keefe complained (and why would they? CNN had spent months riding ACORN on allegations of voter registration fraud.)

The folks at BigGov.com have already made so many misleading statements about this matter with respect to their colleagues at CNN and the rest of the so-called "MSM". They have actively tried to manipulate the circulation of their own videos to "make a point" about media, while doing everything possible to make sure their "media experiment" appears to yield only one result. If one has to contrive a whole scenario that paints oneself as a persecuted hero with info that "the MSM dont want you to know", and if one actively orchestrates things to give that impression, is that really honest?

My point with all of this is that the Giles and company have really colored their expose with a fair amount of theater and propping. Breitbart himself admits to this in his own defense of his release methods. He states that the video release method was "designed" to get a particular response from some hypothetical leftist msm (again, seehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/). He calls this method a form of "politicized art", and he is right. This means that the folks from BigGov.com really ought not to be seen as having the last words on this matter. BigGov.com made their fame from ACORN, and this is even more true for their own Hannah Giles.

We definitely need more from Giles for this entry, but we can just make this article an echo chamber of her favorite points. BigGov.com made their fame from ACORN, and this is even more true for their own Hannah Giles. Its perspective, and yes even that of people like Conason who defend them, are material to this discussion. Returning to the matter of the Conference in DC, the article says too little for fear of saying anything at all.Ceemow (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You have made the point a number of times that Giles and O'Keefe "lied" about being thrown out of the Philly office. However, they steadfastly dispute that characterization and the video they posted today seems to corroborate their account. Unless the video and audio on the tape was doctored (and the full, unedited tape has been promised), G & O'K appear to walk out of the office on their own volition and with the encouragement from ACORN to attend a future seminar. They were even handed a business card. Any police report, if indeed it was filed at the time it is claimed, seems to have been filed after the two left. In contrast, we have an uncorroborated statement from the ACORN employee that she rendered no assistance when it seems clear that she was all too willing to help with certain aspects of the transaction. In addition, we have a series blatantly false statements from ACORN management regarding the size and scope of the corruption at ACORN, each of which was demolished by the next video release. So far, I see little evidence that Hannah Giles has been purposely deceitful. Certainly nothing that would merit making such a statement on a BLP page. Ronnotel (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

10/21/09 Hi Ronnotel. Thanks for writing in the update. I'm glad you included the fact that the videos were highly edited, but i do see one small problem with your entry.

The last sentence of your posted entry is an opinion, not verifiable data. I believe it might constitute a potentially libelous statement. In neither of the references which you have provided does it say that "ACORN and ACORN's former employees on the video could choose to approve the release of the comments of ACORN workers, but so far ACORN has refused". The closest thing we have to that statement is, in one article, as follows: "In the video, the voice of the ACORN employee was muted for legal reasons. ACORN is suing O'Keefe and Giles and conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart, who posted the videos on his Web site." The other article states, "Ian Phillips, legislative director for Pennsylvania ACORN, said the video contains numerous manipulations, but "it's not on us to say, 'Release the audio.' "

These dont really show a defensive ACORN hindering the release of the audio. In fact, the associated press article states quite clearly: "ACORN has repeatedly asked that O'Keefe release all of the tapes he possesses unedited."

MediaMatters, who is specifically targeted in this latest round, states that it is Breitbart & co themselves who refuse to allow for the full video release (see http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/200910220004).

In fact, throughout this whole affair, both sides have consistently asked for a "full release" of the data, and the only people who are really in control of that release would be the folks at BigGov.com. And Breitbart, who runs BigGov, already has stated that he has an interest in managing the timed release of these videos, and is actively working on that interest (again ,see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/.)

So that last sentence in the your posted Wiki entry is an opinion, and if indeed it is O'Keefe's opinion, it should be labeled as such. Until then, I have deleted it, because it misquotes the citations and there is no evidence for it in any of the references.

Also, I disagree that the video posted today corroborates the BigGov account at all. It does that no more than it dismisses Russel's account. In fact, it seems entirely unconvincing.

I mean, you yourself can see that this video is heavily edited. And in keeping with O'K's rather theatrical staging techniques (as per his video releases in general,) O'K's running commentary really tries to make a lot more out of what are otherwise common exchanges. For instance, he seems so alarmed that Giles, after asking for a business card, receives one. Why is that so "damaging"? It proves nothing. If you have ever worked at a homeless shelter, a group home, a food shelf, or a soup kitchen, you'd know that, even if a visitor is really getting under your skin (and believe me, they often do), you HAVE to respond to them with courtesy, you HAVE to be accessible to them, no matter what. That's common practice whether you're in an NSO or a church charity. I dont know if you are familiar with that world. I can you tell for certain that the good folks at BigGov are not.

Of course, This doesn't mean that its ok to condone disgusting behavior like pedophilia. But we dont see Russel doing that either. We actually dont see much at all, outside of O'K, Giles and Russel all sitting together and chatting, with heavy narration by O'K.

In fact, with all the heavy editing and narration, this video may have actually damaged the case that Giles and O'K are trying to make. Even Fox News's Van Susteren has stated that the pair made a tactical mistake in releasing this heavily edited video, and FoxNews seems to be the primary network supporter for BigGov, O'K and Giles (see: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910220004.)

You state above: "In addition, we have a series blatantly false statements from ACORN management regarding the size and scope of the corruption at ACORN, each of which was demolished by the next video release." I'm sorry, not only does that simply reiterate BigGov.coms basic talking point & strategy, but the statement is hyperbolic. We really don't have anything of the sort from this controversy.

What we do have are naturally defensive statements from ACORN regarding this matter. We also have them being wrong on two accounts (just as the film-makers seem to be wrong on at least two accounts.) Most significantly, we also have a tactic developed by Breitbart which manipulates the videos' release and circulation in order to create a specific, pre-determined appearance. Breitbart openly admits to that (again please read his statement: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/).

We do see Breitbart being openly active in that staging process at least with respect to other media outlets (e.g., falsely claiming a media black-out when he forbade access to the producers from media networks other than Fox... i have included the citations for these in my previous response) The fact that such propping is so integral to the release of this story means that BigGov.com can not have the last word on "integrity", no matter what.

If you come from a place that does indeed support BigGov in this matter, that's fine, and that perspective should definately be evidenced in this wiki entry. But, especially since BigGov is at least as disingenuous as it claims that ACORN is, you also have to allow for the Wiki article to include a more holistic range of relevant perspectives. I'm not asking you to revamp this article to suit me, but I am trying to bring to the table aspects of this story that lay outside the political talking points offered by BigGov.com, and those talking points are showcased far too strongly in this wiki article.

Also, what do you think about the quote which heads O'K's BigGov video posting? A little precious, eh? Though not nearly as embarassing as "Chaos for Glory". So what's up with all the drama?

More importantly, since we are including updates, we should also include the updates from the San Bernardino incident, as well as from other responses to this recent video release (again, from both sides.) Additionally, the National Journalism Center has as much to do with Hannah Giles as does BigGov.com, it should be mentioned in the intro.Ceemow (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

10/22/09 Hi again Ronnotel. I have one more thing to share. I encourage you and all interested readers to watch the interview with Carol Leoning by Greta Van Sustern on FoxNews: http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/200910220004. The video is posted on the MediaMatters website, around the middle of the page, obviously in response to O'K's taunting commentary on his recent video post.

Leoning mentions that GIles and O'K refused to take questions after the NPC conference. This is very typical of the BigGov method. They evidence no transparancy at all. They refuse to take questions on anything related to the videos, except when it comes from their primary supporters at FoxNews. They react in a theatrical, unprofessionally spastic manner at the suggestion that they field questions from the opposition. Consider again O'K's vitriolic (even paranoid) response to the request to interview on CNN: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/ That's rather contrary to the bravado evidenced in the invitation for ACORN to "bring it on."

All of this occurs in a context in which Republicans have ratched up attacks on ACORN. Please review Drs. Martin and Drier's review of ACORN's bad press since the last presidential campaign: http://www.uni.edu/martinc/acornstudy.html The study was not funded by ACORN or any outside entity. In contrast to BigGov's assumption that the "leftist media" supports ACORN, Martin and Drier show a media bias AGAINST ACORN, which was evidenced in poor fact-checking on the voter-registration issue. It's relevant to our conversation about Giles and O'Keefe because the work of both producers developes entirely out of the context that Martin and Drier outline.

Both Giles and O'Keefe could push back A LOT of suspicion, and save themselves a LOT of trouble, if they were just up-front and open about their work, but they arent. They prefer this calculated, "dark knight" approach in which they come in, drop a bomb, and then refuse to say anything more about it. They have been like that since the video's release. And they butress their refusals with an unqualified and fierce hyperbole that begins with the premise that responding to questions is "dangerous" (see links to Breitbart's and O'Keefe's statements above)

Waiting a whole month to put out something just for dramatic effect is not journalism. It's really just conniving, and does nothing for their case. The more they wait on their other videos, the more damage they do to their credibility as research journalists, no matter how ingenious Breitbart's tactics might seem. Because of that insidiousness, they cannot be simply said to be "free-speech" journalists who want to "expose corruption" etc... That fact is totally evidenced in the recent video release.

Ceemow (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

10/23/09: Here's an excerpt from the Philidelphia weekly: "On the amount of minutes spent in office (Neil Herrmann, Philadelphia Head Organizer stated they were in office for a 'few minutes'; Katherine always stated she believed it to be between 20-30 minutes): O'Keefe and Giles claim to have been in the office for 32 minutes. They claim to have videotape for 26 minutes and additional audio after that. This is a bizarre semantic argument. But on the face of it is appears also to be untrue. Their edited video claims to have entered the Philly ACORN office at 9:30am (their timestamp lists 9:58 as they cross the street). Yet, O'Keefe called Ian Phillips on his cell phone at 9:40 (who told him not to come in), not yet in the ACORN Housing office. They thank the receptionist (who appears to be ignoring them) on the way out (last timestamp lists 10:25.) It is unclear how this proves that ACORN or Katherine acted "criminally". Katherine recalls the first part of the conversation as a rather lengthy description of how to improve one's credit and ACORN Housing's first time home buying program." (see: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/phillynow/Phillys-ACORN-Office-Comes-Under-Fire-65342242.html#)

As stated above, Ms. Russel has always maintained that her encounter with the pair was about a half-hour. So the wiki statement that the new video posting discounts ACORN by way of time discrepancy is misleading, and should be changed.

Again, from the same article: "On being "thrown out" or "kicked out" (per various spokespeople, not Katherine): It is unclear how the edited tape proves or disproves this. There is simply O'Keefe voicing over saying it didn't happen, and referencing the amount of time as proof. Another argument over semantics here. Katherine, in her video on ACORN Housing's website, said that she attempted to get rid of them by giving them a flyer and telling them she had another meeting (the second-time successfully). If one's definition of 'kicked out' is a physical act or threat of a physical act then no, that did not occur. It is a well-known and common technique to get rid of someone by handing them something and telling them to read it over and/or call back with questions, which is what Katherine does. This makes sense given two aggressive questioners especially."(see: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/phillynow/Phillys-ACORN-Office-Comes-Under-Fire-65342242.html?page=2&comments=1&showAll=)

Also, check out this excerpt from the Washington Independant: "Kelly Shackelford, one of the attorneys helping out Giles, stuck around to answer questions, and said that the video muting was O’Keefe’s idea. It was understandable, he said, that the two twenty-something activists would limit their liability now that ACORN was targeting them in a lawsuit." (see: http://washingtonindependent.com/64668/breitbart-acorn-foes-release-strange-video-of-philadelphia-sting Weiger, the author of this article, actually wants to favor Giles and O'K, but even he has to admit that the last release offered a "strange presentation.") Again, the statement above by Giles's own lawyer throws doubt on the O'Keefe's assertion that he cannot release the audio because of ACORN.

Breitbart claims that more is on the way, and I am sure it is. I am even more sure that it will be presented in the same manipulated and contrived scenario, with no accountability and with the complete disregard for freedom of information that has characterized Breitbart's handeling of this issue so far. Ceemow (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs to be Updated, Corrected, Cleaned up and Evened Out

10/25/09 Hi Ronnotel & Everyone,

Okay, a lot has happened since Giles & Co have made the limelight, and recent updates require that the entire tone of this article be changed. As can be seen above, several viewers are critical of how over-accomodating this article is to the BigGovernment.com party-line.

UPDATES: The latest video release hasnt proven to be the slam-dunk that was promised. Even FoxNews's Greta Van Susteren, a BigGov supporter and long time critic of ACORN, has stated that the combo of the police report, the late release, the heavily-edited footage and the "battery dying" excuse, all look very bad for Giles and O'K.

Most news reviews from outside the Tea Party circuit (if i may call it that) have been mixed at best (I have read only 2 unequivocally positive reviews outside of Fox & the right-wing bloggoshpere. Both of those were from 2 traditionally conservative publications: the WA times and the Wall Street Journal, the latter of which is, itself, quite critical of BigGov's methods.)

Furthermore, the ban on ACORN funding is ending on Oct 31, and despite his best efforts, James is becoming a little more public than he might want to be (that does happen in journalism, even if your methods are unconventional.)

So I think its fair to say that this article, as well as the one on the ACORN Video Contoversy and the one on James O'Keefe, each need to be restyled into something more even in tone, less openly biased either for or against the subjects involved, and more purposefully elaborated in terms of each individual point.

The present article on Giles needs more cohesion and unity. I dont mean that in terms of content/data for or against Hannah (although both types are necessary for this article), i mean that in a purely formal sense, i.e., how this whole article reads as a single Wiki entry. Right now, we begin with high-praise for Hannah (I can almost hear Stevie Wonder singing "Isnt She Lovely" when i read the intro.) That tone continues throughout the piece, and the rythm is interuppted by a reluctant and clumsy peppering of little criticisms here and there.

I'm not trying to dictate terms, but I'd like to suggest a format for this essay that might be more fluid and inclusive, as well as one that allows for a smoother integration of updates. As Pam Fessler at NPR has rightly noted, this is "a story of accumulation," and since it is a current & ongoing controversy any encyclopedic entry about it has to accomodate for that.

Our existing Wiki entry begins in a really sloppy tone. The immediate representation of Giles in such dewy and idealistic terms truly reads like something out of a Tea Party tract. All it amounts to is the words of a controversial subject describing herself, and even a freak like Jim Jones could be cast in a positive light if he were allowed to describe his own work.

We can keep the statement Giles makes about herself, but we should have that in a section that deals specifically with Giles's own commentary on her own work. Giles has a substantial log of postings on herself, her work & her experiences in the field(see BigGov.com.) If we want to keep the quote about her "exposing corruption etc..", lets move it into a section in which Giles describes herself.

So, returning to the opening section: A better intro ought to have a very bare-bones description of Giles as a professional: who she is, age, academic background, professional backgroud, etc... Think about the thesis line in a standard academic essay. AND we need to include the name of the conference that inspired her. Then we should add a brief statement as to why she is important: "Why should you, the casual reader, want to read this?" In this case, the answer is the ACORN Video Scandal.

The next section should deal with the scandal proper. I think that a description following the AP narrative is the best. If we get too FoxNewsy, we return to the article becoming a Tea Party tract. If we get too critical, then we become an op-ed out of the Nation. So lets just say what happened. If we are to include a valid opinion that slants to one side of the debate, it should rightly be balanced with as valid a point from the other.

Also, I would avoid using the term "leftist" to describe ACORN. Even if it is the bane of republicans, and the baby of democrats, calling it "leftist" makes it sound too "Che Guevara", if you know what i mean... i just see red stars and green camo. Its too loaded a term.

Then we can get into commentary. A section on praises and criticisms, a section on ACORNS response, a section on Hannah describing herself, a section on the court case, etc... If we are going to include the "free speech" angle, we need to balance that with commentary from reliable sources that also point out the issue of the videos' editing, black-outs, narration, etc... While there are many who see this as a free speech issue, there are just as many who see the data as overly-manicured politcal propaganda manufactured by a shady and unethical cabal. We dont need to go into both arguments in the article, but since there is so much on both sides, then if one view is given, it's only right to represent the other.

Each section should be comprehensive, balanced, reliable and true to the controversy proper, moreso than to the political narratives offered by contending parties. This means that BigGov.com cannot be seen as the ultimate "truth tellers" (to use Breitbarts term). Also, each section should also be open-ended enough too allow for updating.

I think a similar makeover is due both for the entry on O'K, and for entry on the controversy proper.

While James has a more extended record of politically oriented stunts (e.g.,the colorful attempt to sabatogue condom distribution, the Planned Parenthood pranks, the Sweapstakes ruse, etc...), Hannah only has the ACORN Video Scandal under her belt. So we have to reference ACORN more thoroughly, and their perspective as as material to any entry on her as is that of BigGovernment.com's. Again, we dont want to "push" either narrative as much as we want to reference and relate both.

I think if we keep these things in mind, we can have a comprehensive, usable article that gives a far more accurate reflection of the story. We can compose something that both myself, Ronnotel and everyone in between us can look at as valid and reference-worthy.

Again, I'm not trying to dictate the terms here. but any input that doesnt hyper-politicize the article, or give either Hannah & Co., or ACORN, a complete hand-job, would be great. thanks.Ceemow (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the tone of the article should be in line with the preponderance of the coverage of the reliable sources. If the article sound laudatory, it's because it's simply quoting the overwhelmingly positive tone in the coverage. I don't know why the only criticism (Joe Conason) was removed, it or something similar should be restored. However, simply excising the article of any hint of the nearly uniformly positive coverage she received would be inappropriate per WP:DUE. Ronnotel (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ronnotel. If the tone of the article is to be in line with the preponderance of the coverage, then, even moreso, it reamins VERY one sided.

Already John Stewart, Rachael Maddow, Mike Stark, Dr. Peter Drier, Mike Shea, etc... have all pointed out the hypocrisy in BigGov's character-assault on ACORN while they simultaneously remain silent on KBR, Haliburton, Lockheed Martin etc... These sources all unifromly state that the folks at BigGov cant claim to be "exposing corruption etc..." while openly courting support from, and offering support to, the congressional backers of those companies. This fact has been pointed out several times, though not on the "Tea Party" circuit of sources. If you need the citations, I can give them to you.

Even the James Taranto, from the Wall Street Journal, who entirely supports BigGov, strongly criticizes them for their unwillingness to provide a full disclosure of their data, and cites them for "grossly unethical" behavior. Again, remember the statements from Van Susteren & Leoning. There is PLENTY of coverage that strongly, and quite reasonably, counters the BigGov line. All I'm saying is that the BigGov narrative is too strong in this present article, & it really needs to be balanced out. As you can see above, I'm not the only person to have pointed that out.

So no, the article doesnt follow the preponderance of coverage, it follows a very politically interested narrative and it needs to be balanced.Ceemow (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow up videos

Except for its first sentence, this last section is 100% identical to the text of a paragraph on the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy article under the section "Video release," with the same citations. Hence the material is appearing at both locations, but I think here on the Hannah Giles article it should logically fall under the umbrella of the main article rather than being a separate section at the bottom of the Hannah Giles article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Azure, I agree entirely. The update was added as just that, an update. The BigGov folks had a press release last week, and the addition was added rather hastily. If it is to be included, it should fall into the main body of the article.Ceemow (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Conason op-ed

I've deleted the para about Joe Conason's op-ed in Salon, because Mr Conason never mentions Hannah Giles. (Her name occurs only in the caption of a photograph.)

User:AzureCitizen has pointed out, quite rightly, that this makes the "Reception" section unbalanced. Does anyone have some citeable criticism of Ms Giles that Wikipedia rules allow to be used in the article? If so, please add it. If you're not sure, suggest it here and we'll discuss it. Cheers, CWC 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chris. Thank you for posting on the Talk Page so that we can discuss this here. As you know, this is what Conason said:

"No doubt it was fun to dupe a few morons into providing tax advice to a pimp and ho, but what ACORN actually does, every day, is help struggling families... [text omitted] ...And while the idea of getting housing assistance for a brothel was clever, what ACORN really does, every day, is help those same working families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes."

Conason may not have explicitly stated "No doubt it was fun for Giles to dupe a few morons" or "while Giles idea of getting house assistance for a brothel was clever," but it is Giles he is referring to in these statements, and similarly, the pro-Giles comments in the reception section focus attention on the fact that it was Giles idea to do this. Asserting that his criticism does not belong here because "Conason never mentions Hannah Giles" ignores the point that he really is talking about her and her actions; her name appears in the caption under her photograph at the start of the article, but no one else's name or photograph appears here, so who else could he be referring to when he talks about "duping morons into providing tax advice to a pimp and ho" or that the "idea of getting housing assistance for a brothel was clever"? The quote above originally appeared in the article and put things in full context, but you deleted it on 03-Nov-09 and trimmed it down to a single sentence. On 30-Nov-09, you've removed that sentence on the basis that it doesn't appear that Conason is referring to Giles. I respectfully disagree, and if you check the edit summaries you'll notice that my original edit prior to your deletion on 03-Nov-09 was based on the Talk page discussion between Ceemow and Ronnotel and was intended to include Conason's "criticism" in a way that provided balance. I can appreciate that you agree that there should be balance in the section - but I think removing Conason's sentence on the basis that he is not referring to Giles is a bit disingenuous, even if that is not your intention. Also, I do not think it fair to characterize Conason's statement as a polemic. Take note that polemics is the practice of disputing significant, broad-reaching topics of magnitude such as religious, philosophical, political, or scientific matters, and are written to dispute positions or theories that are widely viewed to be beyond reproach; that is not the case here. In any event, I will wait for your reply, and for others to weigh in (Ceemow? Ronnotel?) before attempting to rebalance the subsection in question. Take care, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should have some criticism. My problem with Conason's op-ed is that it is praising ACORN rather than critiquing Giles and O'Keefe. I think we can do better. As luck would have it, The Politico ran a story yesterday with some good quotes: Erika Lovley (November 30, 2009). "Citizen journalists' path to celebrity paved with ups, downs". The Politico.

Sample quotes:

• "[U]ndercover work is often considered outside the boundaries of acceptable methods."
• "O’Keefe and Giles have maintained their work is ethical."

We'll want to use this anyway, I suspect: it says that Ms Giles has "dropped out of her undergraduate education at Florida International University in order to keep up with demands for public appearance and job offers."

I also found older criticism from:

• Clark Hoyt on September 26: "[M]ost news organizations consider such tactics unethical — The Times specifically prohibits reporters from misrepresenting themselves or making secret recordings"
• Howard Kurtz's column for September 25, 2009. "I don't put much stock in the argument that mainstream journalists should have done something like this. People may think we're whores, but we don't look good in the getup. Plus, lying is a firing offense at many news organizations."

Warning: at least one "professional journalist" who has written columns strongly criticising O'Keefe and Giles for violating journalistic ethics turns out to have himself violated journalistic ethics in those very columns.

(BTW, by "polemic" I meant "an argument from first principles", which is not one of the meanings listed at Wiktionary. My mistake.)

Are other editors happy to use the Politico item? Which parts of it should we use? CWC 07:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Big Government reported Monday that NBC ran a Giles-O'Keefe-style sting involving ACORN(!) in 2004 but (BG say) were not criticized for violating journalistic ethics. See also this polemical-ish post at Big Government. We probably should wait a few days to see reactions to that BG report; if it turns out the 2004 sting did get similar criticisms, that would save us some effort. In the meantime, I still want to use the Politico.com item. Comments? Cheers, CWC 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chris, sorry I didn't respond sooner, been busy with events in regular life for the past 48 hours. I read over the articles above you hunted up (good work), although I don't think the Politico article referenced would constitute more than a sentence at most to the effect that perhaps undercover stings are outside the boundaries of acceptable journalistic methods, which seems to come across like mild speculation in the article rather than an in depth assessment of Giles journalism. Still, I did like the fact that the article focused attention more directly on Giles and O'Keefe rather than the ACORN issue. If you still want to use it rather than the Conason sentence, have a go at it (perhaps post it here on the Talk page first?) and we'll see what develops. If you want to wait a few more days to see what develops from the 11-30 BG article, that's fine too. For now, I'm going to incorporate the part about Giles leaving Florida International University from the Politico article in the lede and trim the first half of the Rahn quote (the ACORN commentary), leaving the second half (which praises Giles in comparison to the traditional media). --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, & Happy Holidays!!!! Please dont take this the wrong way, but I am seriously confounded as to why criticism of Giles, or of the nature and release of the ACORN video sting, is so hard to integrate into this article.

I mean, it starts to really seem clear that the BigGov narrative is the one being pushed here. The ONE SCENTENCE criticizing the Giles & O'Keefe is deleted from the article for fear that it makes "the reception section unbalanced" (as if it isnt unbalanced already), since it says nice things about ACORN. I'm sorry, but you cant critiize the videos without pointing out what ACORN really does and who it serves. I know that most people on Wiki or Youtube with personal computers might not be able to understand a world dominated by desperation and homelessness, such as that served by ACORN. Understanding that world is quite material to understanding what is really going on in the videos (which have been criticized as over-edited and misleading.) Pardon my personal input, but as someone who volunteers in under-priveleged communities, I can tell you that if you really understand who ACORN serves, the exchanges portrayed on the videos really do become suspect, especially in light of critcisms by Stark, Maddow, the HuffPo, WaPo etc...

Additionally, there is no shortage of valid criticism of Giles's work, and that criticism goes well beyond the issue of wire-tapping, and revolves more around the issue of misrepresenting facts for political purposes, refusing to retract false claims, or staging evidence in a disingenuous way contrived to give ficticious appearances.

At the very least, Giles is quoted on her Sept 16th interview with Sean Hannity as saying, "no ACORN office turned them away." Yet the most recent release from the LA video has O'Keefe openly stating that Mr. Harris is the one ACORN employee that refused him. Then there is the whole mess in Philly, in which we are told that O'Keefe & Giles cannot release audio on Ms Russel because of pending litigation with Baltimore ACORN, but the recent LA expose calls that excuse into question. These facts are significant to any biographical review of Giles.

Also, there is the matter of Giles's own ideology, and how it plays into her work. We have the article begin with a rather dewy-eyed statement about "fighting corruption etc...", but we also have Giles at Republican Youth Seminars exhorting people to "Attack Attack Attack. Never defend." (from the LA Times, Nov 15 "In her lecture Friday about how to take down liberal organizations and expose what she called media corruption, Giles sought to stir others to action. 'Above all, attack, attack, attack,' she said, quoting Republican consultant Roger Stone. 'Never defend.'") This quote is significant in that is speaks to Giles's own avoidance of addressing questions from outside of her comfort zone (consider the outlandishly hyperbolic excuse that BigGov gives for not interviewing with CNN, a view contradicted by their complaint that CNN had "censored" them --i.e., they "censored" themselves, willingly and for political reasons.) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Ceemow (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

" I'm sorry, but you cant critiize the videos without pointing out what ACORN really does and who it serves. I know that most people on Wiki or Youtube with personal computers might not be able to understand a world dominated by desperation and homelessness, such as that served by ACORN."

Give me a break. ACORN is a self-serving plantation that was derived from good intentions, but since has turned into a corrupt organization capable of only harming this country. Just today, Obama mentioned the main cause of the housing crisis was subprime loans, ACORN boasts about all these high-risk loans they secured for those of questionable means. Most of these people were duped into buying homes they couldn't afford by ACORN, many of which have been foreclosed on by the same banks ACORN intimidated into issuing the interest-only mortgages. ACORN will then brag about the few people they saved from foreclosures, which were caused by ACORN's fudging of the numbers to begin with. You already know about and voter registration fraud, think about all their employees that have been convicted of crimes they were allegedly instructed to commit by ACORN. Funny how quickly this organization throws poor people under the bus, best illustrated by the hidden-camera sting. It's nice how ACORN hires these people part-time, 1099 with no benefits and no way to collect unemployment when ACORN cuts their patsies loose. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies... Please Dont take this the wrong way: All of what you have stated is irrelevant, overgeneralized and overall, untrue... not to mention unecessary for this article. You are re-iterating unsubstantiated talking points developed for political purposes. If you want to get into all of that, it might be more proper to post it on the Wiki discussion for ACORN itself, rather than this one. Also, I have re-edited my statement which elicited your response, because that whole conversation will take us WAAAY off topic. All the same, who ACORN is, and who it serves, is relevant to this article. Like it or not, ACORN does have a FAR better record than what these videos relate... I mean, did you help out during Katrina? Did Rev. Giles? All the same, I want to end that issue now. A reliable, neutral explanation of who ACORN is, is not out of the question in an article about a girl who made her fortunes by surveying them.Ceemow (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take my statement the wrong way, I has no interest in editing ACORN'S article or this one. I keep it on my watch page for potential vandalism, and I like to see the editing process play out on many articles. I do get sick of the tired old argument that ACORN is a organization of color that serves the poor(ironically, it seems they do more to serve their Caucasian owners, as well as the Democratic party). I'm not sure what part of my previous comment is "untrue," I did include the qualifier "allegedly" before accusing ACORN of advising it's employees to break the law. Sometimes I like to jump up on the soapbox, no offense to you. I actually agree with you that this article is lacking in criticisms, but it's hard to find any from reliable sources. How can anyone attack her actions and the results thereof? ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, Hello again. If you would like to know what part of your statements qualify as "untrue", please read the document by Drs. Drier and Martin which I had messaged to you on your talk-page. Also, if you dont know why anyone would question or criticize the work which Ms Giles puts out, then you should follow this discussion from the begining.Ceemow (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I read it. They don't address any ACORN controversies(which are a matter of public record), instead attacking the liberal media for not protecting ACORN, conservatives and republicans for targeting ACORN. Best part is the involvement of Dr. Peter Drier, a community organizer that serves on an ACORN advisory board. I bet the fact he's a professor at Occidental College is merely, accidental. ThinkEnemies (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ThinkEnemies: Sorry hon, you did get it wrong. Please read the body of the study, not the synopsis. If you are missing the point about what the news (and you) got wrong about ACORN, then you haven't read the body of the work. Also, serving on an Advisory Board is not a paid position, nor is it ideologically binding. I know people who are Jewish but that serve on the advisory board for a local Hindu Temple. Dr. Dreier has served on several boards for countless organizations that reach across both sides of the political aisle. That's why politicians from both parties and hundreds of organizations consult him. He's just a good resource. Even republicans John McCain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Michael Bloomberg, Charlie Crist, Rick Perry, etc... have all collaborated with ACORN before, so what?

And I honestly dont think posting stuff from the "ACORNcracked website" is necessary here. Look, we should end this discussion right now, because, as I have said, we are going WAY off topic (I think we can both agree that our conversation is more appropriate to the ACORN talk-page than this one, especially if you want to elaborate on the round-house of accusations which you have outlined). If you would like the last word on the matter, please have at it. ThanksCeemow (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Err... let's stick to the topic, please: what Wikipedia should tell our readers about Hannah Giles.

Thanks, AzureCitizen, for doing those edits. Good work.

I tried drafting some criticism using the Politico item, and it was too mild, just as AzureCitizen said. Here's a second attempt:

Giles and O'Keefe were criticized for violating journalistic ethics. Clark Hoyt, public editor of The New York Times noted that "[M]ost news organizations consider such tactics unethical".^[NYT-090927] Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute said that "[U]ndercover work is often considered outside the boundaries of acceptable methods. It can be very problematic if your first value as a reporter is to tell the truth, and the first thing you do is deceive."^[Politico]

Notes:

• Much of Clark Hoyt's column is out of date now, but it's a good source for that particular criticism.
• Politico has O’Keefe and Giles responding to this criticism. I left it out because I think the existing content of the "Reception" section already covers it. What do other contributors think?
• There's a deeper set of issues not far from the surface here: new media vs old media, show vs tell, unashamed viewpoint journalism vs proclaimed objectivity. Those are issues that really interest me. Just to let other people know where I'm coming from.

Any comments? Improvements? Should we add it to the article now? Cheers, CWC 10:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chris, Thanks for all that work. Of course, I do have some caveats with the samples offered.

Please take a look at the selection of criticisms that I have offered below, as well as the reason which i have listed for not using the Politico article as a source for criticism (like you and AzureCitizen have said, it's just too mild, and, I believe, not entirely representative.)

Remember, if the Wiki entry ought to be representative of current and existing conversations which occur among reliable sources, then the criticism about Giles must take into account the features which are outlined in the sections below (e.g., the questions as to contradictions in Hannah's story, the issue of misrepresentation, the matter of supplying contrived and incomplete information, the avoidance of other news-groups which are characterized in hostile terms, etc... the links are all provided below).

At least in terms of what is actually seen as the real problem in Giles's video-work by her critics, the issue of wiretapping pales in comparison to the rest. So let's not let the wire-tapping issue dominate the sample of criticism which we are providing. It's not that the issue doesnt have a place. Rather, its that misrepresentation, over-editing, and a bizarre release method have always been the major criticisms leveled at these videos, and those points still stand.

I think your point about New versus Old journalism might be an interesting topic elsewhere, but it really isnt relevant here, at least not right now. Please dont take my dismissal the wrong way, its just that the conversation which you are suggesting hasnt been fully developed in the larger journalistic world, and Wikipedia hardly makes a good starting place for it.

Moreover, the language which you are providing in describing old journalism as "proclaimed objectivity" versus the New Journalism's "unashamed viewpoint" suggests a bias for the former. I think that starts to become really slippery. "Unashamed viewpoint journalism" gets quite close to "opinion". That's a horse of a different color, even with respect to "New Journalism". If one can say "I can provide a number of edited statements to support my beliefs, to damage my political enemies and feel no obligation for accountability on how i gather and present my data", then you dont have journalism anymore, you just have a very elaborate self-serving opinion. Even Wiki requires standards and ethics to be adhered to.

Let me illustrate by comparison. I would consider Michael Moore a political activist, not a journalist. His work is certainly news-worthy, and definately provocative, but it doesnt respect journalistic standards. No matter what I think of him, or if I admire him, he still remains outside the pale of credited journalists. His work encodes his own socio-political values into its narrative. This is the same for Giles. Many have suggested that Giles be considered more of a political activist (she does more inspirational seminar work, and her field work is, at present, limited to ACORN.) Especially considering her overt lack of accountability (eg her reluctance to meet with others outside her political bubble, or, to quote Giles: "Above all Attack Attack Attack, Never Defend"), her footage is activist, not journalistic (otherwise she WOULD maintain accountability... even Breitbart interviews and explains himself to people outside his comfort zone... hell, Pres Obama went on O'Rielly!)

So I dont think the matter of Giles as a representative of "new journalism" really is applicable right now... it might be in the future, but for right now, issues surrounding her own methodology & credibility are far more material.

Also, who is the journalist which you had mentioned as having violated ethical standards while reviewing O'Keefe? Could you provide a link to your source material? Thanks. Happy Sunday All!!! Ceemow (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Giles's Method Vrs. NBC/ACORN's: A Non-Issue for this Article

As stated above (by Chris in the "Conason Op-Ed section"), BigGov is offering an ACORN tract that shows its own participation with NBC in an undercover video sting operation. BigGov is calling foul on the idea that NBC/ACORN were not cited as "unethical" as per this operation, and it seems that Chris is suggesting we add this to the article. However, BigGov's argument is fallacious, and adding it would only weigh down this article with a point that would, by necessity, negate itself.

While the legal case with Baltimore ACORN involves local wire-tapping laws, the majority of the valid criticism directed against Giles and O'Keefe has less to do with wire-tapping, or lying to prospective sources, and more to do with their excessive editing, their release methods, and their deliberate inaccessibility to news-groups which they characterize as their "enemies" (their word, not mine.)

For example, in the Oct 21 interview with Carol Leonnig by Greta van Susteren, the major criticism offered isnt wire-tapping (which both journalists dismiss). Rather, it's the heavily edited content, the hoakie excuse that "the battery died", the police report (which contradicts the BigGov narrative), and the posture contrived through the late release of a video (whose unedited presentation Philly ACORN has been asking for already) (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910210046).

The Columbia Journalism Review criticizes Breitbart, Giles and O'Keefe for blackmailing the attorney general to meet their demands, not for wire-tapping. Greg Marx points out that if Breitbart has crucial info (and Breitbart claims to have evidence of real criminal activities), then he should forthrightly produce it, and not play some weird game with the AG Holder(http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php?page=all&print=true).

Alexandra Fenwick points out that Giles (in her interview with Sean Hannity) admits to not really knowing what ACORN actually did before she decided to "expose them". However commendable Giles's work may be, by taking that approach, Giles represents "shadows of journalism's muckraking past." (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/acorns_family_tree.php)

So the majority of the criticism of Giles's work has very little to do with wire-tapping (even as per the woebegone Conason quote.) The issues with Giles's videos are that they mis-represent and manipulate information for political purposes, and her neglect of regional wire-tapping laws don't form the meat of the arguments against her work.

From the very beginning of this issue, Breitbart has repeatedly stated that his video-release method was contrived as an attack against what he calls "the liberal democratic media complex" (see his Sept, 2009 articles in the Wall Street Journal and in the Washington Times.) This aspect of The BigGov.com agenda saturates the entire video scandal in terms of its execution, it's release, and of the whole fictitious narrative that BigGov has contrived to frame this story (i.e., Breitbart says that the standard newsgroups were "ignoring" him, Hannah & James, while in fact all 3 actively refused opportunities that were offered to share their stories with those same newsgroups. This is thoroughly documented in the ACORN Video Controversy entry.) This places BigGov's video work in a completely different category than the work conducted by NBC/ACORN.

I have read the source material BigGov offers concerning NBC, and their comparison to their own position. No where in the case citied by BigGov do we see ACORN or NBC claiming that because of this sting, all tax-agents ought to be de-funded or investigated (as BigGov does with ACORN.) No where do they claim that H&R Block should be shut down, since it is part of a larger ideological complex that the operation was meant to attack (as Breitbart does with ACORN.) We dont have NBC slowly dragging out the release of the story in order to inflict "maximum damage" to their "enemies" (as Giles & O'Keefe do.) We dont have ACORN or NBC trying to blackmail the Attorney General into catering a witch-hunt at their behest (as Breitbart most recently did), or threatening to release a torrent of damaging videos just before the next election cycle if they are not thus indulged (again, Breitbart's latest stunt.) NBC's undercover work with ACORN is of an entirely different order than the politically saturated, openly hostile and all-encompassing attack which BigGov is staging. That very big difference is what makes Giles's work unethical.

Even if one chooses to indulge the argument about undercover work, I am 100% certain that NBC fully obliged the ethical and legal standards of wiretapping in their targetted area (as any professional organization would) before embarking on that operation. If you have ever engaged in qualitative data gathering, whether for journalism, anthropology, social service, the arts etc... you'd know that there are very specific, and very accessible, standards of inquiry (even for undercover work) that need to be adhered to when dealing with humans as research subjects. Considering their own journalistic backgrounds, both Giles and O'Keefe should have known those standards. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the National Journalism Center does indeed provide those resources for its proteges. It's their own fault if they neglected these.

In light of all that, adding the proposed BigGov argument to this article would be pointless. If you put it in, you'd have to add the caveats that show how NBC's work differed from BigGov's, just as a matter of being fair and balanced. And if you add the caveats, the point is moot... its just another line in the overall BigGov narrative that feigns "persecution" for political purposes... not suitable for a Wiki entry. We'd only be beating BigGov's drum for them (yet again) if we added it.

One more point. Chris has stated above, "Warning; at least one 'professional journalist' who has written columns strongly criticising O'Keefe and Giles for violating journalistic ethics turns out to have himself violated journalistic ethics in those very columns." I have rather fat list of criticisms against Giles and O'Keefe. Could you specify who exactly was found to be in violation of ethical standards as per this issue? I have fact-checked my own sources, and have found nothing of the sort which you describe.

The most we have is a misquote by the WaPo concerning O'Keefe, and 2 very minor inaccuracies related to O'Keefe's former friend, Liz Farkas. For instance, there was a dispute over the exact dollar amount of the grant which Peter Thiel gave O'Keefe last Feb. Thiel's representative put it at $10,000, while Farkas claimed that O'Keefe told her $30,000 (either/or, O'Keefe made out like a bandit.) But all 3 of these misquotes were identified as such by the journalists in question and the articles were promptly updated and corrected to state just that (that said journalists in question did, indeed, misquote, and that they have corrected themselves.) The WaPo was explicit in its retraction and its update. That's what real journalists do. If they are wrong, they acknowledge it and edit accordingly.

That kind of self-awareness and responsibility stands in striking contrast to the outright avoidance and denial evidenced by BigGov when it comes to acknowledging their own misrepresentation of facts (and they have been caught with plenty). But, as Hannah herself said "Attack Attack Attack, Never Defend" (see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-young-conservatives15-2009nov15,0,1837509.story). If that is her professional philosophy, so be it, but it doesn't speak to a reasonable, conscientious or honest person.Ceemow (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Finding Suitable Criticism

Hi all, and Happiest of Holidays to you and yours. It has been stated above that one reason for eliminating the Conason reference was that it did not mention Giles directly. I can see that point to a degree. At the same time, and within quit reasonable limits, I dont think we need to have Giles specifically mentioned in order to reference critcism of her work.

Giles's sole "cause celebre" is the ACORN video scandal. She does not exist as a public figure outside of that story. Even as a contributor to BigGov.com, or a spokesperson for Clash Church, or as any one of countless political activists, Giles's name and career depends entirely from the execution and release of the ACORN videos. She is even credited by her colleagues with developing this operation on her own.

As such, she "IS" the ACORN video scandal. If it weren't for that scandal, she'd recieve no media attention (let alone a Wiki entry), no matter how many Republican Youth seminars she spoke at. She would have no public life without her video "experiment" ("experiment" is her word for her work, not mine.) So I think its fair to say that criticisms of the methodology of her work can be applicable to this article, even if they dont mention Hannah Giles specifically. She shares complete executive control over the videos' content, production and release method with only 2 other people. Praise/criticism of her work ought to be suitable to an article about her, despite if/how often she is directly named. ThanksCeemow (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

12/06/09 Hi again all! Chris has been good enough to provide a Politico article which he says might provide some material on critiquing Giles (see above.) With all due respect and thanks to Chris, I dont think there in enough substantial criticism in that article. Furthermore, I dont think the examples of criticism which are offered are representative of the issues concerned.

As I had stated before, the overall criticism of the ACORN video sting has more to do with it's heavily-edited content, the very real possibility of misrepresentation, the overt political orchestration, the conniving release method, the reluctance to acknowledge/retract mistakes or false claims, etc... Those are the issues. The Wiki entry should include criticism of Giles, and that criticism should refer to those issues.

I have provided these links above and elsewhere, but for convenience I'll post them here. There is PLENTY of material within these links to provide adequet substance for criticism of Giles and her work. Again, from CJR: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/acorns_family_tree.php http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php?page=all&print=true http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/seeds_of_discontent.php?page=all (this last one is more directed at O'Keefe, but in substance, it is quite applicable to Giles.)

From Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/all-you-need-to-know-abou_b_330643.html (this is an article by Mike Stark, who attended BigGov's october release on the Philly Video. It offers some scathing criticism, and a number of interesting points that I think most people here ought to deeply consider. This is especially true of Stark's point about the neighborhoods ACORN serves. If one doesnt understand that point, it would be easy to buy BigGov's narrative.)

Rinku Sen, also from the HuffPo, stated on Oct 5: "The attack on ACORN isn't about fighting corruption. If it was, then dozens of corporations with federal contracts far larger than ACORN's would be under investigation now, or would already have been cut off. The anti-ACORN Senate bill implicates any government contractor that has fraudulent paperwork, or is accused of violating lobbying or campaign finance laws. That list includes Blackwater, the private security contractor that has been implicated in civilian deaths during the Iraq war. Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is collecting a list of such contractors."(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rinku-sen/acorn-is-the-new-dirty-wo_b_307879.html) The hypocrisy implicit in BigGovs smear-campaign against ACORN (e.g., BigGov had Rep Steve King, a firm Haliburton supporter, speak on their behalf last Oct) is a consistent concern in criticism of BigGov's work.

From MediaMatters: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910210046 (this link shows the interview with Leonnig on Van Susteren in response to the Philly Video release. Even if it repeats a point made in the Wiki article about the Scandal proper, it is applicable to Giles.)

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200044 (this page shows the contradictions in Giles's and O'Keefe's story. Scroll to the bottom of the page for updates that BigGov should have acknowledged, but hasnt.)

Perhaps the most useful portion would be this quote from the last MediaMatters article- "In making public a video he withheld for more than two months, right-wing activist James O'Keefe finally acknowledged that a Los Angeles ACORN employee 'would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities' -- an admission that directly contradicts claims by his colleague Hannah Giles that no ACORN employees refused to help them. Moreover, O'Keefe's claim in the video that the Los Angeles employee was the 'only' ACORN employee who refused to help is contradicted by the fact that ACORN employees in two other cities contacted the police following their encounters with O'Keefe and Giles."

From Philadelphia Weekly: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/phillynow/Phillys-ACORN-Office-Comes-Under-Fire-65342242.html (this article points out many of the contradictions in the BigGov narrative)

The above citations ought to provide something to work with as far as real, valid and sure criticism goes, and can at least balance the rather slanted orientation which the article presently displays. On the other hand, I am totally okay with the Conason article as well.Ceemow (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A Potential Solution to the Lack of Criticism in this Article.

12/08/09 Hi All! I hope everyone is doing well. I think I might have a potential solution to the complete lack of objective critcism evidenced in the existing Giles entry.

I think the article by Fenwick in the Columbia Journalism Review might offer something quite substantial, and legitimate as per our Wiki guidelines. Here's the link (i've posted it before, but for convenience I'll post it again): http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/acorns_family_tree.php

Fenwick susinctly makes the most valid and common critiques leveled at Giles's work, and mentions her and partner O'Keefe directly. She states that the ACORN videos lack the adequet context to provide a full story, and offer incomplete information. She also points out that Hannah admits to knowing very little about ACORN when she decided that she "didnt like them", and thus developed this operation.

Additionally, there is the matter of inaccurate information (concerning the funding-amount stated on the ACORN videos, discrepencies in the story Giles/O'Keefe tells, etc...) In concert with Bowden, Fenwick points out that these features make the video work more "political activism" then journalism.

These points adequetly cover the major criticisms leveled at the video work, in addition to the points which Chris's post covers regarding wire-tapping. Fenwick hits some of the issues offered more aggresively by Mike Stark (in the his Huffington Post review of the botched Philly-video release) without being nearly as polemical.

So how about something like this:

"Giles's work has been criticized for not providing adequet context in the video releases, as well as offering incomplete information. Describing the video's as a "politically motivated piece", Alexandra Fenwick of the Columbia Journalism Review states that "there are elements of the ACORN reporting —shadows of journalism’s muckraking past—that are commendable in Giles’s and O’Keefe’s reporting effort." However, drawing a parallel with the incrimininating, yet un-vetted sound-bytes that were circulated during the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (which also lacked context), Fenwick points out that Giles's work might be more appropriate to a form of political activism, than true journalism."

Hopefully this will highlight criticism without being so harsh as to make Hannah cry herself to sleep. Any takers?Ceemow (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Imbalance in the Body of the article: Hannah & the Truth(?)

I have one more issue to go over. In the body of the work, we have some rather florid (albeit hypocritical) quotations by Hannah Giles. These are okay to keep (i mean, they do represent how Giles and her community see her), but if they remain unqualified, then they imbalance the article in favor of the BigGov.com narrative (and that really isnt appropriate for an encyclopedic entry.)

E.g.(from the Wiki entry): "In an interview with National Review, Giles stated that she thinks the suit is "silly", that she is "confused about why [ACORN] is pinning their problem on a young woman and a young man," and that she is "determined to see this through. It’s vital for young people to stand up for what they believe in and to fight for the truth to be heard."

Very nice, bravo & brava. But the fact that the videos offer a false figure for the amount of money which ACORN actually recieves, or is scheduled to recieve, is a "bold exaggeration" (to quote the WaPo).

Actually, ACORN doesnt receive that much money at all from the government. Additionally, several journalists have pointed out that, while a tsunami of tax-payer funds continue to flow to contractors like Haliburton and KBR (who HAVE been convicted of real crimes, including endangering soldiers on the field & gang-rape, AND who continue to receive public funds at the behest of Republicans like BigGov supporter Steve King), ACORN (which receives comparatively sparse amounts of public funds) is unfairly dismissed as an undeserving financial drain.

For example, the fact that ACORN is being held accountable for ficticious crimes based on a heavily edited film production stands in stark contrast to practical lack of coverage on the KBR-Jamie Leigh Jones tragedy, and the continued funding for that contractor. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/casey-ganemccalla/stand-up-for-acorn-cut-bl_b_296741.html)

So here's how Giles doesnt tell the truth:

a) the recent video release from LA contradicts Giles's assertion that no ACORN office refused her. That should be added to this entry (especially if we keep the line about "fighting for truth". How can we have her say that when she publically neglects that value?)

b) the video "boldly exaggerates" the funding figure.

c) Giles refuses to acknowledge updates on the video subjects which contradict the content of the videos (and that really hits home the point made by Alexandra Fenwick in the CJR.)

d) Giles and O'Keefe have stated that they could not provide important audio coverage from Katherine Conway Russel in their Oct release on the Philly sting. They have said that they need ACORNs explicit permission because of the wire-tapping case in Baltimore (which does not involve ACORN staff... and btw, it IS a matter of public record that ACORN wants all the videos released unedited.) The argument is fallacious and disingenuous. California has the same laws against wire-tapping that Pennsylvania does. So if legal concerns were really on the table, the LA release would have had to have been as muted as the Philly video release. But not only did BigGov release the LA video (with audio and sans ACORNs blessings), they have threatened AG holder with a tidal wave of releases just before the mid-terms next year-- http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php?page=all&print=true) So much for breaking a sweat over "legal concerns" in Blatimore, let alone the need for ACORNs permission on anything. Furhtermore, this highlights the political-activist (not journalistic) nature of these video-releases.

Considering the above, if we are going to keep the line about Giles as fighting "for the truth", we HAVE to qualify it with references to the solid facts outlined above.

One last thing, and on a different note. I apologize for the length of my postings, but the subject we are covering is VERY contentious, controverisal, and so thick with political motivations (e.g., Breitbart to Holder), suspect methods (not wire-tapping, but a host of other problems), unconvincing excuses, and almost jihadist-like rhetoric (e.g., Breitbart on the "democratic liberal media complex") that it DOES require the utmost scruntiny.

I know many folks on here accept the BigGov line with none of the healthy skepticism it deserves (Breitbart's release method seems to be an contrivance to delinberately avoid any suspension-of-disbelief... & ironically, it makes him far less believable.) I totally respect that, but that doesnt change the fact that an encyclopedic entry must convey holistic assesment of perspectives pertinent to the subject.

Like i said, i'm not trying to make Hannah cry herslef to sleep, and I wouldnt go as far as Mike Stark by calling her a "juvenille delinquent". But Giles already has several websites, youth-groups, radio-personalitites and tea-parties that make her out to be the next best thing since the non-squat flushable toilet. She doesnt need her fan club to be extended into a puportedly unbiased encylcopedic entry. Despite her deliberate avoidance of more responsible journalists with less of a political agenda, she has been called out on her bs. That needs to be represented.

Returning to the matter, if Giles is quoted as describing herself as "fighting for the truth", a few caveats HAVE to be added to show that she doesnt really live up to that standard. Nothing harsh or vitriolic, just a plain comparison of facts. Thanks all, and have a wonderful week. Ceemow (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Section dedicated to very specific proposed edits

Please, this section shall be used to propose revisions to Hannah Giles. Short, and to the point edits relating to the subject of this WP:BLP can discussed here, if they are based on good intentions to improve the article per WP:NPOV. Let us avoid conversations about "gang-rape," making "Hannah cry herself to sleep," Jihad, Haliburton, KBR, Sonia Sotomayer, Alan Grayson, Eric Holder, Jamie Leigh Jones, Steve King, Andrew Breitbart, James O'Keefe, and BigGov. The last three should only be mentioned lightly, in relation to this BLP. ACORN can be discussed in further detail due to arguments that Hannah's notability is based on the undercover stings, "If it weren't for that scandal, she'd recieve no media attention (let alone a Wiki entry)" ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

12/08/09 Hello Everyone. ThinkEnemies, Fair enough. However, since there is such a bias on here in favor of BigGov's version of events, it seems that the case for valid criticism has to be made laboriously, point by point. Nevertheless, your own point is well-taken, & I respect that.

So here's what I'd like to offer as criticism to replace the Conason op-ed. I really think the critique by Alex Fenwick in the Columbia Journalism Review makes a succinct case on purely formal grounds. This is how I think we could add it in:

"The videos produced by Giles have been criticized for not providing adequet context, as well as offering incomplete information (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/acorns_family_tree.php?page=1). Describing the video ensemble as a "politically motivated piece", Alexandra Fenwick of the Columbia Journalism Review states that "there are elements of the ACORN reporting —shadows of journalism’s muckraking past— that are commendable in Giles’s and O’Keefe’s reporting effort."(ibid) However, drawing a parallel with the political use of other un-vetted footage circulating the internet, Fenwick points out that Giles's work might be more appropriately called "political activism," rather than true journalism (ibid). Certainly, Giles remains quite active as a celebrated speaker for mobilizing young conservatives, and has won the Young Activist Award from The Young America Foundation. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-young-conservatives15-2009nov15,0,1837509.story)'

Additional citations, if necessary:

  http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910210046
  http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200044
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553423,00.html
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/09/23/DI2009092302081.html

We can paraphrase quote from Fenwick, or use another one (eg, from her, or Leonning in the WaPo ref. above?) if the expression "muckraking past" seems too incriminating (in fact, I feel somewhat inclined to do just that.)

I hope the above can offer a fair representation of the criticism of Giles without denigrating her. If it needs to be discussed, we can do it in the sections above, in order to keep this area free of rhetorical clutter. Thanks.Ceemow (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

12/09/09 Hi all, and happy winter to each & everyone! As per the arguments which I outlined in the above section titled "Imbalance in the body of the Article; Hanah & the Truth(?)", I think this caveat should be added after the quote by Hannah concerning "young people standing up for truth."

Here's what I propose (following the quote as displayed in the entry):

"'...to fight for the truth to be heard.' Nevertheless, there are inconsistencies in Giles's version of events, and her video relases have been cited for editing out 'exculpatory material that would make you see ACORN in a more favorable light.' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/09/23/DI2009092302081.html)

I would also use some of the citations offered in my last entry. This scentence can be placed in parenthesis if necessary, and bridged back into the quote from Hannah's lawyers with a connector like "however" or "Concerning the court case". Otherwise, it can preface the criticism in the "recpetion section."

Thanks... stay warm everyone!Ceemow (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

12/13/09 Happy Sunday all. I think the first line of this article needs to be changed. It states that Giles is a "columnist" for BigGov, which is entirely wrong (see the Wiki definition for "columnist", Giles does NOT fall into that category). Giles may work for BigGov, and her work is what actually created it. But Giles hasnt produced an article since the her initial statements on the first ACORN video releases (and even those articles were more akin to commentary than to coverage). Her father, the controversial Rev. Doug Giles, has been far more active than she has in contributing to Big GOvernment.com over the last few months. Even O'Keefe has been more responsive in providing "columns". Giles has been more dedicated to motivational speeches at conservative youth conventions.

Therefore, the entry should read: "Giles is a co-founder and political activist from BigGovernment.com.", or something like that. The statement that she is a "columnist" is wrong. Thanks.Ceemow (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)