According to a Washington Post story that ran in the News Journal on Sunday, ACORN may be close to bankruptcy. It also stated that some of the stronger ACORN chapters are breaking off and operating under different names as ACORN itself may do. This is understandable given the awful reputation that ACORN has earned. “The names have been changed to protect the innocent” is what they used to say on Dragnet, but here the guilty are changing their name to protect themselves, but I digress…
I found an unbelievable paragraph in the story that would seem to be directed at readers who had not actually seen the videos of ACORN employees giving advice about how to deal with taxes when running an underage prostitution business and other helpful things. If you saw the video, it was pretty clear, but this is how it was characterized in the article:
The community organizing group was embarrassed last fall after a video sting that supposedly showed ACORN housing counselors advising two young conservative activists – edited to suggest that they were posing as a pimp and prostitute – how to conceal their criminal business.
Supposedly!, Edited to suggest!! If you did not see the videos, you might be led to a manufactured conclusion by this reportage.
I went to the Washington Post website to copy and past the quote above but was surprised to see it was different and less misleading:
The community organizing group was embarrassed last fall after a video sting that showed ACORN housing counselors advising two young conservative activists — posing as a pimp and prostitute — how to conceal their criminal business.
Gone is the “supposedly” and “edited” stuff. The link takes you to a youtube video.
My question is, did the Washington Post take it out or did the News Journal put it in. Are the WP wire stories different than the ones they publish in their papers? Just wondering.
It reminds me of another story where US Senator Jim Inhofe, who has been very critical of claims of man made global warming, even calling it a hoax (which it is) was referred to in a WP story that ran in the NJ as a “global warming denier“. When I went to the WP site I found him referred to as a skeptic which is accurate. Same sort of thing. What’s up with this.