Yesterday, James O' Keefe filed a lawsuit against the NJ Star Ledger for defamation. MRCTV asked James a couple of questions regarding what motivated him to file the lawsuit, if this was a 'warning shot' at other outlets, if he plans on filing more, how he thinks the media would treat him and his work if he were a liberal and truth in the media.
Here's the interview which was conducted via e-mail:
MRCTV: What motivated you to file
the lawsuit against the NJ Star-Ledger?
O' Keefe: First, they said I bought a teacher drinks in
"Teachers Unions Gone Wild" despite the fact the Teacher admitted she
bought her own drink. Then they retracted their false reporting that I tried to
tap a Senator's phones -- and decided to print the same lie again. Finally,
they are reporting that I broke the law in New Hampshire
when filming voter fraud, despite the fact there is no expectation of privacy
in a public location, and I wasn't even in New Hampshire. All these things are
false and malicious -- particularly calling me a convicted felon."
MRCTV: Could this be considered a 'warning shot' at other media outlets?
O' Keefe: I welcome criticism and debate
over our investigations. However, if you falsely report I'm a convicted felon
-- if media outlets choose to disregard the truth and contradict what a United States
Attorney has said in court documents, then I will hold you accountable, bring you
into court, and bring your newspaper to justice. Remember, many of these
newspapers are not blogs, they are recipients of the Pulitzer Prize."
MRCTV: Do you plan on filing any more lawsuits against other outlets?
O' Keefe: If they have willfully
disregarded the truth, yes.
MRCTV: How do you think
the media would treat you and your work if you were a liberal?
O' Keefe: We would have a Peabody, a Pulitzer and the screenplay about our journey over
the last few years would be nominated for an Academy award.
MRCTV: Final thoughts on truth in
O' Keefe: Journalism has become so politicized that reporters can't accept the facts we
find to be true. They jump to policy ramifications that may come about in state legislatures after our
fact-finding, so they take an intellectually dishonest tact; they refuse to
accept the facts that we discovered to be true. The reason why we are so
effective -- and dangerous to the establishment -- is we ask people to believe
their own eyes and ears. We don't editorialize in our videos. We don't advance
policy agendas in our videos. We expose things for what they are using raw
visuals of events that have happened. The venerable Pulitzer Prize winners are
forced to resort to defamation and the politics of personal destruction in
order to obfuscate our findings. The game is over, starting with this lawsuit.