…and media hypocrisy:

Conservative journalist James O’Keefe has said the treatment the tape received starkly contrasts to what he got after his famous sting operations, including soliciting advice as a fake pimp from the voter-registration group ACORN, posing as an Islamist donor to NPR, and having a 22-year-old assistant obtain attorney general Eric Holder’s ballot at a Washington, D.C., polling place to prove how easy voter fraud can be.

“I think that there’s definitely been a double standard amongst professional journalists here because they’ve been pretty much raking Project Veritas [his company] over the coals for about three years,” O’Keefe told Yahoo News.

“There are no questions about whether it [the video of Romney] was dubbed or doctored, whether there are criminal, potentially state crimes committed in the course of taking that camera around, whether somebody left the camera there and walked away.”

O’Keefe noted that — unlike his videos — the source of the Romney tape remains anonymous and that “in the full raw video, the video starts apparently in the middle of the speech. . . . Journalists have to learn to be consistent. If they want to create these rules, they have to abide by them.”

Unfortunately, apparently they don’t. Of course, media hypocrisy and double standards is an evergreen topic in general.

In the Kinsleyan sense of accidentally telling the truth, that is. The paper is running a story today that essentially admits that Nakoula was arrested as a scapegoat:

The film was produced in the United States, though its origins are still shrouded. American federal authorities identified the man behind the film as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55. Though the film does not appear to violate any American laws, the authorities took Mr. Nakoula in for questioning on Saturday over possible federal parole violations connected to an unrelated criminal conviction. That action has done little to tamp down the unrest.

Emphasis mine. Was it supposed to have that effect? If so, it makes it all the worse, because it is a concession to the violent rioters, and simply encourages them, and sends the message that violence will get them what they want. As Professor Jacobson says, empowering people who set fires to define the limits of free speech is how free speech dies.

In other accidental truth telling, the paper also admits that Occupy Wall Street was a pointless fizzle.

[Update a few minutes later]

Related thoughts from Lileks (you’ll have to scroll a bit):

Can’t quite imagine Buddhists rioting over it. Can’t quite imagine Hindus giving a rancid fig for Bill Maher’s opinion. Can’t imagine Copts or Zoroastrians or devotees of Odin pounding the table and shouting THIS SHALL NOT STAND and marching off with a gun to set things right. For that matter, can’t imagine Christians in the South, Africa, or China deciding that the rest of the day shall be devoted to yelling about the existence of a movie written and performed by a comedian who’s just got religion’s number, totally, like no one else ever.

So it’s almost as if –

No, that’s silly.

Okay, I’ll say it. It’s almost as if the author of the piece is carving out a First Amendment exception based on the possible reaction of a particular set of people in a particular place in the world.

Oh, it’s just a little exception. Sure, “you can’t cry fire in a crowded theater” becomes “you can’t mail someone in another country a picture of a match.” But that’s a hard and fast line. You can see quite clearly where the emanation ends, and the penumbra begins.

Don’t give them an inch.

…then Obama is Gilligan. He’s sure not the Professor.

[Update early evening]

Well, here we go…

As revealed by Bob Woodward’s book.

Woodward also reveals the degree to which the White House confounded its allies. (Rep.Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was nonplussed when he discovered that the “administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles.”) This is a man who creates chaos by creating a leadership vacuum.

Third, the degree to which Obama frustrated his main negotiating partner, Boehner, is rather breath-taking. One minute he dangles Medicare reform (including increasing the retirement age) and assures Boehner that he understands tax reform for structural entitlement reforms are the heart of the deal ( “I got it. I hear it.”) The next he is striding into the press room to excoriate the Republicans. (Woodward notes that for all his purported public speaking prowess he spewed a great deal of double-talk. On the July 11 press conference, Woodward writes, “It was classic Obama. You had to listen very carefully and read the transcript several times to spot the inconsistencies.” )

Even Negotiations 101 were beyond Obama’s comprehension. Boehner was flabbergasted Obama insisted on daily meetings, “All we were going to do was nick everybody and irritate everyone and not accomplish anything.”

And Bob Woodward is no conservative.