James O'Keefe's Tactics Questioned

Filmmaker and activist James O'Keefe made headlines again recently following his Jan. 25 arrest in New Orleans. Best known for his controversial 2009 undercover videos concerning the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in which he and a partner posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking business advice, O'Keefe, along with three other men, now faces a charge of entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. The charge stems from his attempt to interfere with phone lines at the office of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana by entering her office disguised as a telephone technician while secretly filming the episode.

In interviews with Sean Hannity and Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, O'Keefe claims to have been investigating constituent complaints that Sen. Landrieu's phones had not been working, giving them no access to her New Orleans office during a period of critical health care debates. When addressing the ethical nature of his behavior, O'Keefe has justified his actions, likening his stories to those of well known undercover journalism stories such as PrimeTimeLive's Food Lion story.

However, as Greg Marx has written in an article today for the Columbia Journalism Review, O'Keefe's argument stands on shaky ground. Pointing to a list created by Bob Steele of Poynter Online, Marx argues that good undercover journalism involving hidden cameras must meet two criteria. First, the information must be of "profound importance," reveal "great system failure," or be able to prevent harm to individuals. Second, the list requires that "all other alternatives for obtaining the same information be exhausted." According to Marx, O'Keefe's current project involving Sen. Landrieu meets neither of these criteria, as it had clear political motivations and the problem did not require such serious measures.

Why must journalists worry about radicals in the vein of O'Keefe? Undercover journalism, if done correctly, can be an excellent tool. However, as Marx again points out, if undercover journalism is done incorrectly or insensitively it can hurt the reputation of all journalists. In addition, information obtained undercover is not as likely to be believed by the public, further diminishing the credibility of journalism. Marx argues that O'Keefe's brand of journalism falls in this category in several ways.

I highly agree with Marx on the issue of James' O'Keefe's "reporting." While I understand that certain situations and stories require the use of disguises or false identities, such situations should be handled with a greater sensitivity than O'Keefe demonstrates. Another point Marx argues that I agree with is that O'Keefe fails to show his evidence in the context of a traditional news report, making his "reports" overly sensationalized and based merely in shock value. While some may herald O'Keefe as a new type of reporter, I hope that media consumers continue to understand and condemn the flaws within his work.