James O'Keefe tries a Sting on anti-fraking film maker Josh Fox

[telemann.livejournal.com]

On Wednesday, conservative activist and controversial video sting artist James O’Keefe made an appearance in Cannes during the Film Festival with a new, secretly recorded 20-minute video that he said exposes the hypocrisy of two environmentalist documentarians and two Hollywood actors. At the end of the clip, after Josh and Rebecca Tickell, Mariel Hemingway, and Ed Begley Jr. appear to have unwittingly agreed to accept financing for an anti-fracking film from Middle East oil interests, O’Keefe claims he’s caught other allegedly altruistic actors and filmmakers in his trap, teasing a clip of a phone conversation with filmmaker Josh Fox.

But this time, O’Keefe wasn’t the only one making secret recordings. Left more than a little suspicious by years of vicious—and often surreptitious—attacks from the natural gas industry and its supporters following the premiere of his 2010 Oscar-nominated anti-fracking documentary, Gasland, and its 2012 sequel, Gasland II, Fox taped his interaction with one of O’Keefe’s minions and documented the elaborate lengths they went to entrap him.

Source.

Many thanks to malasadas for the heads-up about O'Keefe's latest adventures.

Comments

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

The people one gets into bed with raising money for a project.
Ed Begley is considered the "real deal" in regards to environmental issues.

[weswilson]

If I can put food into the mouths of hungry children, I will take money from murderers. Without editorial input or leveraged funding, the idea that a person delivering a good they feel morally strong about becomes moot. If a convicted pedophile wanted to give his money to a good cause, should we not allow him to do it?

What is sad about someone accepting money to do something they feel strongly about?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Put very simplistic it's pk to to bad if the end result is a net good?

Personally I think it is an interesting individual moral dilemma; juxtaposed with should I do good if the result is a net bad (unintended consequences). My feeling is there is no general one size fits all answer. It boils down to how much one is willing to compromise one's standards to further their agenda. For some reason this has reminded me of a quote (perhaps apocraphy) from a famous actress when she finally became a star (slightly paraphrased for my sensitivities) "At least now I don't have to give a blow job unless I want to."

[weswilson]

Would you take money from a murderer to feed starving children?

How is TAKING money from someone who is amoral a bad thing? GIVING it to them is one thing... promoting their cause is another troublesome one... allowing someone amoral to be influential in other fields could also be bad... being a business partner with someone and allowing them to make money off your venture is bad... but taking someone's money with no strings attached seems innocuous to me

[hurleyman.livejournal.com]

I think the real question is: If we only took money from those deemed morally fit, would we have any charity, whatsoever anymore?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Well, apparently the NAACP has given at least part of the money back to Dona;d Sterling, so I guess there is a line somewhere ;)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

My best answer to that is Maybe.

Ya know, what we have done is shift from a specific to generalities. The main concern if taking money from an amoral source is not a "bad thing" (and in ths case there was an agenda, I assume you have listened to the discussion) why the hiding of the source and funneling the money thru "acceptable" organizations?

I would agree that taking money with "no strings attached" is innocuous. Cynic in me wonders just how often that happens.

Bottom line: The motivation for the funding was to stop fracking to keep America dependent on foreign oil (made clear in the discussion) The motivation (hopefully) of the recipients is to stop fracking because they believe it's bad. Justification lies in the eye of the beholder...

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

" America dependent on foreign oil (made clear in the discussion) "

The "discussion" from the video I posted was heavily edited. I couldn't be sure what was said because they didn't just let the tape roll.

Also, none of this had any bearing on climate change.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

It just occurred to me; should the NAACP have returned Donald Sterling's money?