traditional media is on life support for a reason (4.00 / 1)

maybe they'll eventually figure out the cause of these symptom clusters.  emails sent.

---

by: bystander @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 21:12:18 PM UTC

I just called Caroline ... (4.00 / 3)

... and got the standard schpiel that "we like to present controversial speakers, without necessarily endorsing their partisan view."  She added that Josh Wolf (who is very lefty) will be the moderator.

I told her there's a fine line between being partisan and controversial -- and knowingly committing a crime.

As a San Franciscan who has been to the Commonwealth Club several times, I have to say I'm sorely disappointed in this ...

---

by: paulhogarth @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 21:33:38 PM UTC

And if something, uh, final, happens to O'Spook there... (0.00 / 0)

... - which isn't totally impropable, since he may be a witness against powerful people - the right wing will love to put the blame on the liberals and the gays!

Those Commonwealth Club folks must be nuts to run that risk.

---

by: Gray @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 21:46:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not "journalism", That's ratfucking. Same as in Watergate. (4.00 / 1)

And that guy is even worse than Segretti! As far as we know, those lowly ratfuckers didn't engage in wiretapping. Such criminal intelligence stuff was only for the the real plumbers, like McCord, Barker or Sturgis (aka Fiorini). The similarities are striking. But where's the public outrage?

---

by: Gray @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 21:40:50 PM UTC

response to email (4.00 / 3)

My email:

re: James O'Keefe as speaker at SF's CC

Dear Ms. Sacks,

Surely Mr. O'Keefe has accrued the kind of notoriety which would reflect poorly on the Commonwealth Club.  To invite him as a speaker after his most recent shenanigans with respect to Senator Landrieu's telephones seems ill-advised.  Surely, there is someone more qualified, or at least someone who hasn't been ordered by a judge to reside with his parents until his next hearing to fill that speaker's slot.  Mr. O'Keefe may find himself in serious trouble for entering federal property under false pretenses, but your organization runs the risk of becoming a laughingstock for providing him with a respected platform.  If it weren't already established that he had participated in a fraudulently contrived film against ACORN, one could argue against assigning guilt ahead of presumed innocence, but in Mr. O'Keefe's case the "priors" aren't looking real good.  I would urge you for the sake of your organization and your profession to reconsider.

Respectfully,
[bystander]
[small city], Colorado

The reply:

Dear [bystander],

Thank you very much for your thoughts, and I certainly respect and understand why you do not like this person.

An invitation from the Club is not an endorsement of a person and their views, but a request for them to come to the Club to present their views and be questioned in public by those who both agree and disagree with them.  This polemical approach - where we sometimes invite very controversial people from various points on the political spectrum as a stimulus to discussion - is a device to provoke thought and examination.  In our view, the nature of free speech that that people figure out what is right and wrong and who they like or condemn based on listening to people themselves and making their own decisions about them.  It's the Club's role to see that those kind of encounters occur - whatever we may personally think of the people we host.

Mr. O'Keefe's activities certainly raise numerous questions about his "journalism" practices, from ethical and legal standpoints. For our event, we paired him with a moderator who would challenge and question him.

When Mr. O'Keefe was invited, we obviously had no knowledge that he would be charged with this recent criminal activity.  I somehow doubt that he will be available to make his scheduled appearance at the Club.  If he does come, it may serve to clarify for some people what he represents and the reason we have legal and ethical limits on the kinds of activities he pursues.

We encourage you to express your views on the Club's blog - www.commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

Thank you again for writing - we appreciate you raising this important concern and I hope to see you at the Club in the future.

All the best,

Caroline

Caroline Moriarity Sacks
Director of INFORUM
The Commonwealth Club
cms@commonwealthclub.org
415-597-6719

---

by: bystander @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 21:51:03 PM UTC

Thanks (4.00 / 1)

I don't know where she would draw the line at "controversial" speaker.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 22:55:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ask them if they would have Scott Roeder as speaker! (4.00 / 1)

Now, that really should be beyond the line!
Or, maybe not...

---

by: Gray @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 23:23:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How nicely they spun that! (0.00 / 0)

This polemical approach - where we sometimes invite very controversial people from various points on the political spectrum as a stimulus to discussion - is a device to provoke thought and examination.

Interesting post - thank you!

It's hard to know, though: Is this club conservative? I'm asking you because you seem to know they are.

Here's a bit from their 'about' page on their web site:

The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum, bringing together its more than 18,000 members for over 400 annual events on topics ranging across politics, culture, society and the economy.

Founded in 1903, The Commonwealth Club has played host to a diverse and distinctive array of speakers, from Teddy Roosevelt in 1911 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor Alec Baldwin and author Christopher Hitchens in recent years. Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have all given landmark speeches at The Club.

The issue of characterizing O'Keefe's activities as "new media investigative journalism" also intrigues me.

Comparing it to Watergatge, sadly, appears to be apples to oranges. O'Keefe - and his backers, which is the big question - apparently had no grand designs. Darn!

The comparison to journalism, I think, would be more accurate if, instead of talking about O'Keefe as a "new media investigative journalism" they were talking about him as a "new media yellow journalist."

I've always said, and I could be wrong, that there's nothing wrong with yellow journalism: It just depends what side one is on.

I am defining yellow j as "biased opinion masquerading as fact," as the Washington Post has done running columns from Pete Peterson's new venture Fiscal Times in their pages as actual news stories, though to be fair the WaPo labeled it as from Fiscal Times. It is yellow because Peterson is a major conservative capitalist.

Food for thought.

Neither investigative journalism nor yellow journalism require breaking the law.

Conclusion: O'Keefe is not a journalist of any stripe. He is a Conservative operative, backed by Conservative money.

---

by: Upward and Onward @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 01:14:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another reply; Dr. Duffy responds (0.00 / 0)

A carbon copy of the previous one, although I'd changed some elements of the email I sent Dr. Duffy as compared to Ms. Sacks.  Oh, well.  At least they're in synch and both on the record.

Dear [bystander]:

Thank you very much for your thoughts, and I certainly respect and understand why you do not like this person.

An invitation from the Club is not an endorsement of a person and their views, but a request for them to come to the Club to present their views and be questioned in public by those who both agree and disagree with them.  This polemical approach - where we sometimes invite very controversial people from various points on the political spectrum as a stimulus to discussion - is a device to provoke thought and examination.  In our view, the nature of free speech is that people figure out what is right and wrong and who they like or condemn based on listening to people themselves and making their own decisions about them.  It's the Club's role to see that those kind of encounters occur - whatever we may personally think of the people we host.

Mr. O'Keefe's activities certainly raise numerous questions about his "journalism" practices, from ethical and legal standpoints. For our event, we paired him with a moderator who would challenge and question him.

When Mr. O'Keefe was invited, weeks ago, we obviously had no knowledge that he would be charged with this recent criminal activity.  I somehow doubt that he will be available to make his scheduled appearance at the Club.  If he does come, it may serve to clarify for some people what he represents and the reason we have legal and ethical limits on the kinds of activities he pursues.

We encourage you to express your views on the Club's blog - www.commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

Thank you again for writing - we appreciate you raising this important question and I hope to see you at the Club in the future.

All the best,

Gloria Duffy

Dr. Gloria Duffy
President and CEO
The Commonwealth Club of California
595 Market Street Suite 200
San Francisco, CA  94105
415-597-6721 voice
415-597-6729 fax

www.commonwealthclub.org
http://www.commonwealthclub.or...
http://www.commonwealthclub.or...

The Commonwealth Club
  Illuminating Important Ideas for 106 Years
Founded February 3, 1903

---

by: bystander @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 01:22:57 AM UTC