O’Keefe was not just targeted by MSM backbenchers, but the Big Three: New York Times, Washington Post, and the Associated Press.

The results weren’t even close.  It was a lopsided victory for O’Keefe, as all three titans of media issued corrections on damning allegations.

According to the Big Three, O’Keefe was a racist who targeted ACORN because they register minorities to vote, and he’s already been proven to use editing tricks to deceive in his attacks on Planned Parenthood.

Oops.

In a front-page story, the Washington Post used a paraphrase to toss out what would be a bombshell admission by O’Keefe, specifically that “he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.”

As could be expected, left-wing bloggers and Daly Kosiacs pounced on this with giddy abandon.  The blogosphere was abuzz with liberals who felt vindicated, as they just knew that someone who rocked the very foundation of such a pristine and virtuous organization as ACORN had to be a racist.

What should as more of a surprise is that the AP jumped on this bandwagon, apparently without hesitation.  Yet there was plenty of reason for pause.

Had O’Keefe actually stated racial motivations, it probably would have been the lead or at least near the top of the story.  But it was buried about two-thirds of the way down.  And there were no quotations; it was the paper’s paraphrase.  Especially considering that ACORN had been crying racism from the moment that the first tape was released, it would seem important to nail that down before republishing the claim with no double checking.

This journalist became very interested in pursuing the possible racial motivations within moments of reading the Post story.  So what does a responsible journalist do?  Naturally, I called the Post reporter, Darryl Fears.

The next morning, the Post ran its correction.  Later the same day, the AP followed suit (after I e-mailed one of the bylined reporters, Pete Yost, the Post’s correction).

As for the New York Times, the “paper of record” tried to undermine the credibility of O’Keefe’s ACORN exposes by quoting an acquaintence who said he played fast and loose with Planned Parenthood, whose workers agreed to earmark money for abortions of black babies.  The article spent a great deal of time on the Planned Parenthood investigation, so that quote was indeed to de-legitimize it directly, while simultaneously calling into question O’Keefe’s ACORN work.

Except it was the New York Times that de-legitimized its smear job.  Turns out that Liz Farkas wasn’t talking about O’Keefe’s Planned Parenthood investigation at all.

None of the above was a small mistake, either in terms of relevance or harm to reputation.  Between the Big Three’s articles, there were a total of seven reporters on the byline or listed as contributors, most of whom were veterans.  That’s not even counting editors or the ample resources available to the MSM journalists.

One wonders if the MSM reporters with egg on their faces realize the irony: the 25-year-old, self-described “skinny nerd” with scarce resources has outclassed deep pocketed media titans.  He has no corrections, and each of the Big Three has one — and that’s just in the past few days.

Public trust in the mainstream is at an all-time low.  Its reaction to the ACORN revelations and ham-handed attacks on O’Keefe will only accelerate the downward spiral.

“O’Keefe, a self-described filmmaker, and Giles, the eldest daughter of a conservative Christian minister in Miami, visited ACORN offices in the summer. An ACORN spokesman said they were turned away in Miami, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, where workers called police and filed a report. But workers welcomed them in the other cities.”

First of all, this reporter repeats the false and unsubstantiated claim from “an ACORN spokesman” that James and Hannah were turned away from multiple ACORN offices. (Let’s put this rumor to rest. Footage was obtained at every office they visited and you will see them all here on Big Government.)  More disturbing is the reference to Hannah’s father and his profession.  

And in case you missed it the first time, Mr. Fears repeats himself in the very next paragraph:

“Giles is a journalism novice who has written two columns for the conservative Web site Townhall.com. Her father, Doug Giles, serves as minister of the ultra-conservative ClashChurch near Miami, where he proclaimed that liberals “spit on the Word of God,” according to a report by the Miami New Times.”

No mention that Hannah attended the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. Local angle, anyone? No, this reporter thought it was somehow more relevant to mention that her father conducts church services in Florida.

Pass the hand sanitizer, please.

As most of you outside of the MSM know by now, the House voted overwhelmingly last night to defund ACORN. And this vote, of course, came rapidly on the heels of a landslide vote in the Senate (83-7) to cut off federal funds to this organization.

Yet again there is no such headline on the front page of The Washington Post today. Nor will the reader find this headline on page 2 or 6…or 26. Instead Mr. Fears and Carol D. Leonnig present a puff piece about James and Hannah under the headline, “The $1300 Mission to Fell ACORN.” No mention of the House vote in this article, until you jump to page A16.

It seems that The Washington Post, once legendary for their commitment to investigative journalism, is demonstrating a bizarre new commitment to scrub the news from their newspaper.