An actually useful report on ACORN would be a magazine level piece that discusses the organization, its history & goals, how successful they have been, and in this context also cover its flaws and problems. And, put it in context -- that is, government funding? How much as compared to others? This would be an honest and productive path while the skewered reporting now, driven by controversy based on politics, is not how journalism should work. [Rachel Maddow's segment tonight, perhaps the first of several, was a start in the right direction.]
The slapdash job of reporting, for some reason promoted by Jack Shafer, is akin to reporting on the Catholic Church by focusing on its child molestation charges, efforts by certain Catholic groups to promote controversial political causes, and largely ignore the rest. And, this for an institution that the general public actually knows about. This would help you learn something, but what exactly is another question. Me personally, I never heard of ACORN, though I might have read about it in passing at some point, until the attacks on Obama. I doubt I am unique in this regard.
Doing this for certain conservative organizations, let's say those who are against abortion, would reasonably be deemed unfair. So, what is ACORN? Wikipedia as usual helps provide a thumbnail sketch:
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a collection of community-based organizations in the United States that advocate for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues. ACORN has over 400,000 members and more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters[1] in over 100 cities across the U.S.,[2] as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado.[3] Maude Hurd has been National President of ACORN since 1990.
We learn about the issues they focus upon:
* 1.1 Predatory lending and affordable housing
* 1.2 Living wages
* 1.3 Katrina relief
* 1.4 Education
* 1.5 Voter registration
* 1.6 Gun control
* 1.7 Home Defender Program
Do we hear about this in the coverage of ACORN? Do we hear about their efforts against predatory lending, helping to lead to major settlements? Their efforts to help the victims of Katrina? Not really. Being told that they are "advocates for poor people" is not quite that. This is simply shoddy journalism. If ACORN is such a big deal, so dangerous and worthy of scorn, we should know more about it. Instead, again Shafer finds this appealing for some reason, we get a caricature approach.
Are there problems? Yes. As with many major institutions (and charities), there have been various troubling incidents, including embezzlement by a brother of the founder [again, this occurs in any number of institutions we accept as benign] and a few cases of paid voting registration workers padding their lists [which ACORN reported and was widely exaggerated; Republican Party operatives were also caught breaking the law, in lesser reported incidents ... meanwhile, actual governmental actions in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere caused major problems with actual voters ... Mickey Mouse et. al. not actually voting].
Likewise, there are various accounts of problems with management, which is quite unsurprising given the size and nature of the organization. The organization also appears to be somewhat loosely organized, thus the possibility that some local offices or workers can do things that do not follow the dictates of the group overall. OTOH, an organization based on a community centered approach might not be as shocked as others that some members in need of housing or other protections might dabble in prostitution. Sen. Vitters might relate. [This account is kind of amusing in a fashion on that front.] In some cases, to the degree the teenage prostitution stuff was accepted, things can go too far. This is however far from unique to ACORN and a few vids does not mean -- as some gleefully imply -- we should toss the baby out with the bathwater.
A reasonable reporting approach could be useful in helping an organization with various beneficial aims & a history of doing much good to address such problems, just as reporting pushed reforms in the Catholic Church as to their sex scandals. Such reporting, as with police abuse or whatnot, will show some bad things being done by overall benign institutions. Again, it would be useful if the reporting informs the public of the relatively small amount of government funds provided, what the funds was used for overall, and point to the problems with those who get much more money. Ironically, the House bill* targeting ACORN ... if handed correctly ... could do just that.
If reporting on these vids were done in such a context, it could be a useful thing. The coverage, which even reported this one aspect in a somewhat slipshod fashion, leads me to be dubious.
---
* I made a couple comments to that post, including noting the progressive potential of good public officials (here a prosecutor and law clerk) becoming members of Congress and noting the House bill is problematic. The bill does potentially have a broad reach, but its title and selective singling out of ACORN in its text point to the selective nature of its content and its overall bill of attainder qualities.
It is different from the more singularly anti-ACORN Senate amendments, so a conference version must be made.