New York Times 'Stands Behind' Its Contested Reporting on the ACORN 'Pimp'

"There is nothing for us to correct ... We stand by our reporting."

That was the innocuous enough position from Greg Brock, New York Times "Senior Editor/Standards," in reply to a Letter to the Editor sent to the Times by a reader of The BRAD BLOG requesting a correction to recent reportage from the "paper of record" concerning right-wing activist James O'Keefe, on the heels of his federal felony arrest late last month. O'Keefe was arrested in New Orleans as an alleged ringleader in a conspiracy with three others, attempting to gain access, for reasons still unknown, to the phone system of Louisiana's Democratic U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.

Incredibly, Brock originally cited claims by Fox News and O'Keefe himself as sources for why the New York Times stood by its apparently unverified and apparently incorrect report. "We believe him," Brock wrote, because he said as much on Fox News, apparently.

The matter went from the absurd to the ridiculous in fairly short order, as Brock then seemed to contradict himself by claiming the Times' source wasn't actually Fox or O'Keefe, but that the Times stood by its reporting because of a mysterious, unpublished video said to back up the claim, along with testimony from ACORN employees.

Though both the video and statements from ACORN employees were cited as evidence their story was right, Brock refused to share evidence for either of the claims. That, even after an independent report from the former Attorney General of Massachusetts -- released in early December, but never mentioned in the Times' recent report (or any report in the paper to my knowledge) -- directly contradicts their reportage.

In short, the Times suggested in an article a week ago Sunday -- and at least seven others prior to it, all published after the release of the former MA Attorney General's report -- that O'Keefe was wearing his infamous pimp outfit inside the offices of ACORN while speaking to employees in his now-infamous hit videos. In actuality, according to the December 7 report by AG Scott Harshbarger, in direct contradiction to the Times reporting, he was not.

As Harshbarger writes:

Although Mr. O'Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student -- in slacks and a button-down shirt.

Instead of acknowledging the Times' error, and the fact that the "paper of record" never seems to have even reported the findings of the Harshbarger report at all, the remarkable email thread with Brock, published in full below, devolves into absurdity. He went on to suggest he didn't actually speak for the Times; that his comments on its behalf in reply to a Letter to the Editor should not be published publicly; and that the video he claims to have seen that backs up the Times' reporting was never actually released publicly and couldn't be shared with me. Also, he explained, the interviews with ACORN employees, which he said described the pimp outfit O'Keefe was wearing, were run elsewhere, not by the Times, though he was unable to cite exactly where it was those comments were run.

The entire matter, after I eventually jumped into it in hopes of making sense of it all, would eventually include a request to the Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, to examine the puzzling "standards" applied by Brock, "Senior Editor/Standards," in the entire bizarre affair.

That bizarre affair is likely best illustrated by the actual emails themselves, posted below, in order, in full. But first, the background as to what happened here, and why this particular original request from a reader, for an important correction from the "paper of record," is no small matter, particularly as the investigations move forward on O'Keefe's right-wing dirty tricks and several alleged state and federal crimes. The country and the bulk of the corporate media relies in no small part -- and apparently, at their own peril -- on the New York Times to get these sorts of stories right. If this incident is any indication, the country is in big trouble.