SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Ignoring calls from numerous critics, the New York Times
refuses to own up to mistakes in the paper's coverage of the now-famous
right-wing videotapes attacking the community organizing group ACORN.
Instead, the paper's public editor, Clark Hoyt, is relying on an absurd
semantic justification in order to claim the paper does not need to
print any corrections.
As conventionally reported in the Times
and elsewhere, right-wing activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles
dressed up as a pimp and a prostitute and visited several local ACORN
offices, where office workers gave the duo advice on setting up a
brothel, concealing a child prostitution ring and so forth. But many of
the key "facts" surrounding the videos are either in dispute or are
demonstrable fabrications.
Though O'Keefe appears in various scenes in the videos wearing a garish
and absurd "pimp" costume, he in fact did not wear the outfit when he
appeared in the ACORN offices (Washington Independent, 2/19/10);
he was dressed in a button-down shirt and slacks. This fact undermines
one of the key contentions of the ACORN smear--that the group is so
hopelessly corrupt that they would dispense advice to an obvious
criminal.
What's more, the "advice" that they received, according to the
transcripts released by O'Keefe and Giles, does not appear to be as
incriminating as it was portrayed in the videos--and echoed in outlets
like the New York Times.
A review of the Times coverage:
--In an early piece (9/16/09),
readers were told of the "amateur actors, posing as a prostitute and a
pimp and recorded on hidden cameras in visits to ACORN offices....
Conservative advocates and broadcasters were gleeful about the success
of the tactics in exposing ACORN workers, who appeared to blithely
encourage prostitution and tax evasion." The Times explained:
The undercover videos showed a scantily dressed young woman, Hannah
Giles, posing as a prostitute, while a young man, James O'Keefe, played
her pimp. They visited ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn
and San Bernardino, Calif., candidly describing their illicit business
and asking the advice of ACORN workers. Among other questions, they
asked how to buy a house to use as a brothel employing underage girls
from El Salvador.
The paper also reported that O'Keefe "was dressed so outlandishly that
he might have been playing in a risque high school play. But in the
footage made public--initially by a new website, BigGovernment.com--ACORN
employees raised no objections to the criminal plans. Instead, they
eagerly counseled the couple on how to hide their activities from the
authorities, avoid taxes and make the brothel scheme work."
--Three days later (9/19/09):
"Their travels in the gaudy guise of pimp and prostitute through
various offices of ACORN, the national community organizing group,
caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist
with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution."
--New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt weighed in (9/27/09), chiding the paper for not being more aggressive in promoting the ACORN videos--lamenting that Times readers weren't as up-to-speed on the story as "followers of Fox News,"
who already knew "that a video sting had caught ACORN workers
counseling a bogus prostitute and pimp on how to set up a brothel
staffed by under-age girls, avoid detection and cheat on taxes."
--The following week (10/4/09),
Hoyt was on the ACORN case again: "To recap: Two conservative activists
with a concealed video camera, posing as a prostitute and her pimp,
visited offices of ACORN, the community organizing group, and lured
employees into bizarre conversations about how to establish a bordello,
cheat on taxes and smuggle in underage girls from Central America."
--After O'Keefe was charged in January with attempting to tamper with the phone system in Sen. Mary Landrieu's office, the Times reported under the headline, "After Arrest, Provocateur's Tactics Are Questioned" (1/28/10):
"Mr. O'Keefe is a conservative activist who gained fame last year by
posing as a pimp and secretly recording members of the community group
ACORN giving him advice on how to set up a brothel."
---On January 31, 2010:
"Mr. O'Keefe made his biggest national splash last year when he dressed
up as a pimp and trained his secret camera on counselors with the
liberal community group ACORN--eliciting advice on financing a brothel
on videos that would threaten to become ACORN's undoing.
--On March 2, 2010, under the headline, "ACORN's Advice to Fake Pimp Was No Crime, Prosecutor Says, "the Times
reported: "The ACORN employees in Brooklyn who were captured on a
hidden camera seeming to offer conservative activists posing as a pimp
and a prostitute creative advice on how to get a mortgage have been
cleared of wrongdoing by the Brooklyn district attorney's office."
But the story the Times continues to tell is wildly misleading, as a review of the publicly available transcripts of his visit (BigGovernment.com)
makes clear. O'Keefe never dressed as a pimp during his visits to ACORN
offices, seems to never actually represent himself as a "pimp," and the
advice he solicits is usually about how to file income taxes (which is
not "tax evasion"). In at least one encounter (at a Baltimore ACORN office), the pair seemed to first insist that Giles was a dancer, not a prostitute.
In the case recounted in the March 2 Times story, the transcripts
show that O'Keefe did not portray himself as a pimp to the ACORN
workers in Brooklyn, but told them that he was trying to help his
prostitute girlfriend. In part of the exchange, O'Keefe and his
accomplice seem to be telling ACORN staffers that they are attempting
to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.
Throughout the months the Times
covered the story, it made a major mistake: believing that Internet
videos produced by right-wing activists were to be trusted
uncritically, rather than approached with the skepticism due to
anything you'd come across on the Web. O'Keefe and the Web publisher
Andrew Breitbart refused to make unedited copies of the videotape
public, and with good reason: A more complete viewing, as the
transcripts show, would produce a much different impression.
While the Times decide to skip
the standard rules of journalism, ACORN commissioned an independent
investigation led by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott
Harshbarger (12/7/09), which noted that the
unedited videos have never been made public.
The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some
cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover
for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms.Giles' comments, which
makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees
are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to
the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video
have been omitted from the released versions.
So what has the Times done in response? As reported extensively by blogger Brad Friedman (Brad Blog), several Times
staffers have been asked to justify the paper's lack of accountability.
In the most remarkable exchange, public editor Clark Hoyt--who had
criticized the paper for not doing enough reporting on the tapes--wrote
that the paper had made no errors that merited a correction (Brad Blog, 2/23/10).
He explained that the January 31 story "says O'Keefe dressed up as a
pimp and trained his hidden camera on ACORN counselors. It does not say
he did those two things at the same time."
It is hard to believe that Hoyt actually believes what he's saying
here. The obvious implication from the language of the article (and the
others documented above) is that ACORN was dispensing advice to someone
dressed up in an absurd pimp outfit. The Times
chose to believe that O'Keefe's work was journalism that didn't need to
be treated skeptically. The videos were in fact a hoax, and the Times
was duped. Its readers deserve to know as much--and ACORN, which
suffered serious political damage as a result of the false stories,
deserves an apology.
In his September column criticizing the paper for being slow to report
the ACORN videos, Hoyt wrote: "Some stories, lacking facts, never catch
fire. But others do, and a newspaper like the Times
needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse,
partisan itself." Worse than looking partisan, though, is being wrong.
ACTION:
Encourage New York Times
public editor Clark Hoyt to recommond that the paper investigate the
ACORN videos and produce a report that clarifies the record.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
“This isn’t about advancing the interests of retirement savers, it is about opening a new profit center for crypto and Wall Street," said one critic.
US President Donald Trump's Labor Department on Monday unveiled a proposal that would welcome private equity and cryptocurrency investments into Americans' 401(k) plans, the culmination of an aggressive Wall Street lobbying push that could leave the retirement savings of millions vulnerable to the wild swings of so-called "alternative assets."
The proposed rule, now subject to a public comment period, was issued at the direction of a Trump executive order from last year that was characterized at the time as "the holy grail for private equity."
In addition to giving employers a green light to include private equity and crypto investments in 401(k) plans offered to workers, the new rule would establish a "safe harbor" allowing retirement account administrators to avoid legal action from employees who believe their funds were steered into excessively risky products.
"The legal immunity created by this safe harbor will incentivize financial advisers to pitch these toxic products, which will become ticking time bombs in tens of millions of retirement accounts, which will no doubt result in significant losses," warned Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at the advocacy group Better Markets. "There are good reasons why 401(k) plans have been considered closed to private markets and cryptocurrencies, and those reasons have not changed. The only thing that has changed is the administration’s support for these industries and regulators’ willingness to do their bidding."
"This is no reason to endanger the retirement savings of millions of Americans," Schiffrin added.
Oscar Valdés Viera, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, similarly warned that "opening 401(k)s to these products risks turning workers’ retirement savings into a Ponzi-like scheme that throws a lifeline to an industry scrambling for fresh cash."
"This isn’t about advancing the interests of retirement savers, it is about opening a new profit center for crypto and Wall Street," said Viera. "Retirement savers should not be bailing out these high-risk industries and subsidizing the Wall Street and crypto billionaire class."
"Private equity firms should not get a free pass to loot workers’ 401(k) retirement savings."
Americans currently hold over $10 trillion combined in 401(k) plans, a huge trove of wealth that the private equity industry has been working for years to access. The Labor Department indicated that its proposed rule would apply to over 720,000 retirement plans covering roughly 118 million workers.
The American Prospect reported Tuesday that the managers of private equity firms are "already pressuring companies, third-party administrators, and the consultants who advise them to list their offerings" among workers' retirement plan options.
"One staffer at an institutional investor who is not authorized to speak to the media told the Prospect about their primary worry: that private equity will stick their most overvalued companies into continuation funds exclusively for 401(k) plan holders, or 'retail investors,' as they are known," the outlet continued. "Private credit firms are retailoring their funds for 401(k) plans as well, and some of the biggest have already struck deals with asset managers like Voya and Vanguard. 'I’d be shocked if the industry doesn’t attempt to dump their garbage onto retail,' the staffer said."
One recent analysis by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) found that private equity funds for retail investors "dramatically underperformed publicly listed stock indexes" in 2025 while charging much higher fees.
Jim Baker, PESP's executive director, said Monday that "private equity firms should not get a free pass to loot workers’ 401(k) retirement savings."
“The bar for including private equity in 401(k)s should be extremely high,” said Baker. “Private equity funds have lagged public markets while charging much higher fees, and public pension funds are pulling back from the asset class. Instead, this rule risks shifting more financial risk onto workers who rely on their retirement savings for long-term security.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also ripped the Labor Department rule, saying in a statement that "Americans facing an uncertain future in Trump’s economy will now have more reasons to question the security of their retirement savings—all so that Trump’s Wall Street buddies have another pile of cash to play with."
"Anyone who cares about the financial security of working people," said Warren, "should oppose this proposed rule."
Young people are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide if they have been subject to conversion therapy, which LGBTQ+ rights advocates say is "proven to cause lasting psychological harm."
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” drawing warnings from LGBTQ+ groups that the ruling could expose children in dozens of states to the harmful practice.
Colorado's law forbade licensed physicians and mental healthcare providers from attempting to "convert" or change a minor's sexuality, a practice that the American Psychological Association has found to be both ineffective and dangerous, raising rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide in LGBTQ+ youth.
The law defined "conversion therapy" as any treatment that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
It allowed exemptions for pastors and religious organizations. It also allowed health professionals to engage in wide-ranging discussions with children about their sexual and gender identities, so long as they did not try to change the child's orientation.
Nevertheless, on Tuesday, the high court sided 8-1 with Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who said she wished to offer talk therapy to children who want to reduce same-sex attraction and argued that the ban on this practice was in violation of her First Amendment rights.
Chiles was backed by the Trump administration, as well as the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nationalist legal group with a long history of seeking to outlaw same-sex conduct.
Most famously, the group argued in support of state laws criminalizing homosexuality in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, and it has since gone on to back many other cases attacking birth control access, same-sex marriage, and transgender equality.
In the majority opinion, the conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Colorado's law “censors speech based on viewpoint" and therefore must be subject to strict scrutiny—the highest form of judicial review, which the court determined it did not pass.
The lone dissenting justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that Chiles' treatment was not mere speech, but that it was acting in her capacity "as a licensed healthcare professional," which formed the crux of Colorado's defense of the ban.
She argued that the ruling "opens a dangerous can of worms" and "threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect."
"Because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned," Jackson said.
Two liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined the conservatives in striking the law down. However, they argued in a concurring opinion that a full ban on therapy aimed at changing minors' sexuality might be more lawful than the one Colorado passed, which included carveouts for specific circumstances.
Kagan also argued that allowing Colorado to outlaw conversion therapy could backfire and give red states the legal framework to also ban counselors from providing affirmative care to LGBTQ+ minors.
LGBTQ+ rights organizations have roundly condemned the court's decision, which is expected to weaken bans on conversion therapy in the 23 states and the District of Columbia that currently have them.
"Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer," said Kelley Robinson, the president of the Human Rights Campaign. "The Court has weaponized free speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health, and well-being of children."
A 2024 mental health survey by the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, found that 13% of LGBTQ+ young people have been either threatened with or subject to conversion therapy—including about 1 in 6 transgender or nonbinary youth.
Previously, the group published peer-reviewed research in the American Journal of Public Health, showing that young people subject to conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide as their peers.
"These efforts, no matter what proponents call them, no matter what any court says, are still proven to cause lasting psychological harm," said Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black. "That’s why protections have been enacted in more than 20 states, and are supported by every major medical and mental health association in the country."
Carl Charles, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal who joined more than a dozen survivors of the practice in a friend of the court brief in support of Colorado's law, said, "I know firsthand the long-lasting harms of conversion therapy, having been subjected to it when I was 15 years old."
"This practice did not change my sexual orientation or gender identity," said Charles, a transgender man. "Instead, it destroyed important relationships and created shame and fear that took time and effort to undo. For many survivors, it is a reverberating life-long harm."
"LGBTQ+ youth do not need to be changed," Charles said. "Rather, like all youth, they need to be supported and celebrated for the unique and important people they are becoming."
Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has said he will seek to pass new legislation that complies with the Supreme Court's ruling.
"Conversion therapy doesn’t work, can seriously harm youth, and Coloradans should beware before turning over their hard-earned money to a scam," Polis said. "I am evaluating the US Supreme Court ruling and working to figure out how to better protect LGBTQ youth and free speech in Colorado."
In other states whose bans could be undermined by the ruling, efforts have already begun to ensure that providers who cause harm to children still face accountability.
In California, which has a similar ban on conversion therapy to Colorado’s, state Sen. Scott Weiner (D-11) introduced a bill proposing a longer statute of limitations and making it easier for LGBTQ+ individuals to bring malpractice claims against medical professionals who subject them to conversion therapy.
Weiner noted that the Supreme Court's ruling "explicitly states that malpractice claims for conversion therapy are different than bans," since they require a plaintiff to demonstrate injury caused by their treatment.
"You can’t 'convert' someone who’s LGBTQ—full stop—and people who think you can are peddling quackery," Weiner said. "California will always have the community’s back."
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline can be reached by calling or texting 988, or through chat at 988lifeline.org. The Trevor Project, which serves LGBTQ+ youth, can be reached at 1-866-488-7386, by texting "START" to 678-678, or through chat at TheTrevorProject.org. Both offer 24/7, free, and confidential support.
The sentencing of a man for child pornography is but one of dozens of cases—including charges or convictions for child sex crimes, rape, and weapons offenses—involving pardoned January 6 attackers.
President Donald Trump was elected twice on promises of upholding "law and order," but his blanket pardon of January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—dozens of whom have since run afoul of the law—is drawing renewed criticism in the wake of one particularly heinous crime.
On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts sentenced Daniel Tocci to four years in prison followed by five years of supervised release after he was convicted of possessing more than 100,000 child pornography images, as well as photos and videos showing extreme deadly violence against women and animals.
Tocci had been previously charged with crimes connected to the storming of the US Capitol on January 6. Trump—who was impeached for a historic second time for inciting the insurrection—pardoned more than 1,500 Capitol insurrectionists, including those who brutally attacked law enforcement officers, on his first day back in the White House.
The largest US police union warned at the time that the mass pardon sent "a dangerous message" that would "embolden" criminals, a warning that was echoed by numerous civil society groups.
However, Trump was undaunted, railing against a "corrupt" system that wrongfully persecuted "patriots."
Those pardoned "patriots" subsequently went on what the editors of The New York Times on Tuesday described as a "crime spree." At least 33 of them were rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes between the time of their pardon and December 2025, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"Six of the pardoned January 6th insurrectionists are charged with committing child sex crimes, ranging from sexual assault to possession of child pornography," CREW continued. "At least five were charged with illegal possession of weapons, including at least two who had a previous domestic violence conviction. Five were arrested or charged with driving while impaired or under the influence. In two of these cases, the defendant’s reckless driving resulted in a fatality. Two were charged with rape."
This is Andrew Paul Johnson. Andrew was convicted of insurrection on January 6 for assaulting cops.Trump pardoned Andrew. 9 months later, Andrew was caught molesting children, sharing CSAM, & buying victims' silence by giving them money from a Justice Dept settlement.Trump protects pedophiles.
[image or embed]
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) March 6, 2026 at 7:30 AM
The Times editors wrote that Trump's "self-serving pardons are so numerous that public attention cannot keep up with them."
"He has created a veritable pardon industry, in which people with White House connections accept payments from wealthy convicts," they continued. "Among those on whom he has bestowed freedom are dozens of people convicted of fraud."
In May 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 fraud-related felonies after he falsified business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election.
"He has also pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, a former president of Honduras, who helped traffic hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States, and Ross Ulbricht, who was serving a life sentence for running Silk Road, a sprawling criminal enterprise that sold drugs," the Times editors added.
Yet Trump ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife for alleged narco-terrorism offenses. He also ordered the campaign of nearly 50 airstrikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs on the high seas and sent troops into Ecuador in the name of fighting drugs.
Emboldened by their pardons and, critics say, Trump's aura of impunity, some pardoned Capitol insurrectionists have parlayed their participation in the attack into runs for elected office. Some are reveling in their embrace by a Republican Party that has enabled Trump's crimes for years and has whitewashed the terror that lawmakers of both parties felt during the Capitol attack.
Steve Bannon: The J6ers are here at CPAC! All of them! The J6 choir is gonna play the Kennedy Center! pic.twitter.com/Lkj3nRPxqD
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) February 20, 2025
Others are suing the federal government for tens of millions of dollars, alleging that the law enforcement officers—five of whose deaths are linked to the events of January 6—physically and emotionally harmed them that day. One woman, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed while storming the Capitol; the Trump administration agreed to a nearly $5 million settlement with her family and the Air Force offered full military funeral honors.
Responding to Tocci's sentencing for child pornography possession, Scott Kelley Ernest, a former white supremacist who now helps others leave hate groups, quipped on Bluesky, "Another one bites the dust... until Trump hires him to be an ambassador."
That's exactly what the president did for Charles Kushner, the father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who in 2005 was convicted of 18 felony counts including illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Trump pardoned the elder Kushner in 2020 and, in 2025, appointed him ambassador to France and Monaco, a known hub of illicit financial activity.