What James O’Keefe and WikiLeaks Tell Us About Journalism

Should false IDs, concealed cameras and hacking skills be added to the investigative journalist’s toolbox?

Before you shudder, or laugh, consider the source of some of the most revealing stories of this election season.

The conservative, self-described "guerrilla journalist" James O’Keefe sent undercover reporters to record video of Democratic operatives describing dirty tricks: making mischief and inciting violence at Trump rallies as well as voter fraud.

Meanwhile, the hacked emails released by WikiLeaks have exposed duplicity and hypocrisy at the highest reaches of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and a discomfiting coziness between some journalists and her staff.

I’m not here to praise O’Keefe or Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, or to celebrate their methods. But their media critics do seem to be suffering from both amnesia and cognitive dissonance when they cast "edited video" and dubious sources as being beyond the ink-stained pale.

A good deal of the coverage of the WikiLeaks revelations has focused on their provenance: Are they the result of Russian hacks? This is an important angle. Unfortunately, some in the press have been too willing to use that troubling possibility to discredit or downplay the material itself – much as the Clinton campaign has.

Consider, though: Some of the most notable moments of modern journalism have involved major news organizations receiving and publishing information either stolen or surreptitiously obtained. The modern list is long, and ranges from the Pentagon Papers to an earlier WikiLeaks trove on the conduct of American foreign policy to revelations from the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. Mysteriously acquired pages from Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns may join the list, once more becomes known.

Yes, in many such cases, questions about the motives of leakers and their media abettors were raised, but only as secondary matters by a press corps and public properly focused on revelations regarding the powerful.

In contrast, O’Keefe’s motives are of primary concern to many. Yet he fits into a tradition of journalism encompassing all its colorful, sordid and at times underhanded glory. For a refresher course, see Broadway’s latest revival of “The Front Page.”

Paul Farhi of the Washington Post is on the money when he says O’Keefe’s use of concealed cameras and other such deceptions “are generally discouraged as a violation of trust between source and reporter.”

 But “generally discouraged” is a tell here. Translation: don’t do it, unless you have to. Which is why “60 Minutes” and innumerable local TV stations won’t be returning truckloads of awards won for reports involving hidden cameras. Does anyone believe the rabble-rousers clandestinely recorded by O’Keefe’s Project Veritas would have been so forthcoming if they knew their comments would be broadcast?

Perhaps the most eyebrow-arching charge against O’Keefe concerns the fact that he presents selectively edited video. Put another way, like every reporter on the planet, he and his colleagues gather a mass of material through reporting, then winnow it down to tell a story. This is called journalism when it strikes a true chord.

 O’Keefe is, of course, a partisan. He has a point of view – like opposites on the political spectrum including the filmmaker Michael Moore; Al Gore, documentarian of Oscar renown; and a lot of reporters. 

The more important questions are whether his reports stand up to scrutiny and better inform people. In the past, some of O’Keefe’s efforts have weathered scrutiny less well than others, and his misdemeanor conviction for illegal entry is troubling. But it is hard to imagine that two of the Democratic operatives filmed in the latest videos – Robert Creamer and Scott Foval – have left their jobs because of fabrications. Possible, but unlikely. 

Blanket criticisms of O’Keefe and WikiLeaks obscure the important lessons they teach us about the state of investigative reporting and why, it seems, nontraditional journalists are flourishing.

The information age provokes the reactionary impulse of secrecy. As most investigative journalists know, it is increasingly difficult to pry information from government. Freedom of information laws are under threat from officials skilled at slow-walking requests, making them expensive to news outlets in straitened times. Over-classification means that eventually delivered documents often include more redactions than useful information.

 And, as Mrs. Clinton and others have shown, the use of private systems for public business means that key information might always remain beyond journalists’ reach.

Against this are arrayed countless evolving opportunities in the digital age to obtain information and disseminate it quickly and widely to audiences receptive to upstart messengers who are otherwise skeptical of media.

Such are the dynamics of journalism much in evidence at the highest levels of politics today. In this light, the practices of O’Keefe and WikiLeaks seem inevitable, even if they make us uneasy.

Tom Kuntz is the editor of RealClearInvestigations.