[Tzimisce]

Partisanship was not the only reason for media resistance to the Acorn story. The approach Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Giles used—lying to prospective sources or subjects—is grossly unethical by the standards of institutional journalism.

BULL$H!T! Journalists were quick to dig in to Joe "The Plumber".

To be sure, there is a world of difference between employing such tactics and reporting on the results when others have used them.

The Katie Couric Defense: I didn't lie, people talking about the lie was the story.

And there is no question that the pair's findings were newsworthy. But journalistic discomfort with their methods is a sign of integrity, not corruption.

We got caught. Now we have to cover our asses.

Reporters also were—and still are—operating on incomplete information by Mr. Breitbart's design. He refuses to say how many videos he has yet to release,

In other words: we've been made fools of. If we give our take on it, we might be embarrassed again. So better to say nothing.

Mr. Breitbart says that some reporters have pressed him for information about the unreleased videos, and these demands make him indignant: "They were the desperate attempts of defense attorneys to say, 'You have an obligation to tell us how many tapes there are.' I said, 'Isn't that interesting, because Acorn wants to know that too . . . because they don't know how big the scandal is.'"

So doing an undercover investigation is unethical. But threatening with high priced attorneys is fine?

Yet while it's true that journalists have no right to Mr. Breitbart's information, one can hardly fault them for wanting all the facts.Funny - journalists weren't the slightest bit curious when the scandal broke. But now suddenly they're demanding all the facts. Your Partisanship is showing.

While Breitbart-style opinionated journalism can provide healthy competition, it cannot substitute for straight news.

We're not getting "straight news". That's Breitbart's whole point. Naturally it's sailing over the media's heads.

[Tamar1973]

This is the same MSM which eats up and spews every PETA report taken by undercover operatives at meatpacking and fur farms without batting an eye even though those people have to lie about their true intentions to get those jobs in the first place.

[Bullish]

Their role—that of impartial watchdog and broker of information—is a vital one....

Those days are gone forever. The current MSM puts Pravda to shame in their bias and propaganda. Ya know, like running a hit piece on a candidate two weeks before a presidential election complete with phoney documents.

Many people, including myself, will never believe another word they say or print.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

“The approach Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles used—lying to prospective sources or subjects—is grossly unethical by the standards of institutional journalism”

Has undercover reporting never been done before? I think it has.

Is using taxpayer money to support pimps and prostitutes illegal? Yes. Is lying to criminals illegal? No.

I think this is a false point.