I presume that I have made it clear over the years that I regard James O’Keefe’s hidden camera “gotcha!” stings both unethical journalism and just flat-out unethical generally. This is “the ends justifies the means” exemplified; I don’t care how much corruption O’Keefe uncovers and what outrages he broadcasts. His methods are unjustifiable. A so-called investigative journalist who uses such tactics is untrustworthy.
Having said that, I don’t feel constrained to ignore the evidence his wrongful methods reveal when it is persuasive, for this isn’t the courtroom. His latest bust is an example. Deshaun Eli Mack (above), a Family Services Specialist with the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), was caught on one of O’Keefe’s hidden cameras admitting how he manipulates the system to offer extended emergency Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants, proudly boasting, “I get them emergency medical all the time… just because I want to.” Emergency Medicaid for illegals is supposed to be granted on a month-to-month basis and only for severe conditions. Mack said on camera, however, that he ignores the policy and the process.
“They’re supposed to apply every month,” he said, “so I just approve them for 12 months… because I can. I make it so. I bend the rules a lot….I will twist and turn our provisions to fit the way that I want them to be.”
Nice. The arrogance is as nauseating as it is unsurprising. Asked if he felt that he was subverting the law, Mack answered, “I do that a lot.”
O’Keefe’s group confronted Mack with the surreptitious recording, and he denied that what he was recorded saying was really true. “I say a lot of things that I don’t mean,” Mack said, adding “I lie all the time.” “None of those words I said were true,” he insisted.
It should be extremely easy to check that. But even if Mack was telling the truth when he said he was lying, can a government agency defend employing someone who “lies[s] all the time”?
__________________
Pointer: JutGory
Ethics Alarms 
when I sent this to you, I suggested he was a “fick.”
from your site:
Fick: Named in honor of Leroy Fick, a lottery winner who kept receiving food stamps because of a quirk in state law, a fick is someone who openly and blatantly violates social norms of responsibility, honesty or fairness without shame or remorse.
I am not sure I was correct. While Mack’s words and actions are brazen and unapologetic, he disclaims his own language. He says he lies all the time.
he does not proudly break the law. He just claims he lies without compunction about breaking the law.
maybe he is just trying to avoid criminal charges.
maybe he is a fick. I am so confused.
-Jut
Yeah, he may be borderline. Usually with a True Fick, we know what he is boasting about. In this case, it’s either or.
Is this fick-adjacent, maybe? Leroy Fick was a jerk, but what he was doing was legal. In the case of this fellow, there are real consequences for his behavior, not least of which is losing his job. He would rather be considered a liar than have to pay a price for getting caught. Remember what I wrote once about people who are reckless with their Good Name?
Jack,
I have some questions about the unethical nature of James O’Keefe’s “journalism”. I would say his methods are ugly, but sometimes ugly things are discovered in ugly ways. Anybody who happily uses the results of his “journalism” enables this type of journalism; condemning this type of journalism sounds hypocritical to me after using his results.
Personally I have fewer inhibitions than you on his style; perhaps that is because of a different appreciation of Machiavelli. Sometimes the end does justify the means; it all depends on the end and on the means. Also James O’Keefe is not an official journalist, and may therefore not feel bound by any ethics code for journalist he has not signed, and therefore feels free to act as a free agent.
Journalism ethics has set out the conditions under which such undercover stings using surreptitious observation, recording and filming through deception can be used, which the term “last resort” applies. The work of famous 19th Century female journalist Nellie Bly is an example: she had herself committed under an assumed name to a mental institution to report on the horrible conditions there. Otherwise, it’s unethical, because it’s lying. Pretty clear cut, no? Lying is unethical. But O’Keefe is no journalist: he’s an activist, and he’s only interested in “scoops” that advance his particular political objectives. Thus his ambushes are untrustworthy. He won’t reveal stings that undercut his objectives. We don’t know how he cherry-picks the ones he uses, or how many failed stings his organization has tried before a “gotcha!” There is a reason judicial orders are often needed even for law enforcement to do this kind of thing, and why two-party consent is required in many states for one party to tape another without the other’s knowledge legally. But it’s still unethical even in the states that allow one party recordings. Why? Because it’s a shitty thing to do to anyone. Because it violates reciprocity. Because is makes society uglier and less secure, save and private. Because it sets out to embarrass someone. Meanwhile, the law has not caught up with technology: the standards for legal secret filming should be much stronger than for mere audio-taping. But again, it’s still unethical. I believe that videoing (and even photographing) people in public places is unethical without their informed consent. There are a lot of essays on this in Ethics Alarms.
Meanwhile, O’Keefe has been caught deceptively editing his stings. He’s simply not trustworthy.
As to the hypocrisy theory: once a fact/event/incident is out in the public square, how it got there is irrelevant. To take a conspiracy theory example, what if Michelle Obama’s secret lover published a photo from their hideaway that proved Michelle is a man? I would absolutely condemn that betrayal. I would argue that it would be unethical for a journalist to publish the photo. But it would also be unethical for the news media to not report new facts when they emerge
You will note that I began the piece on O’Keefe’s sting with a condemnation of O’Keefe to put the piece in a proper frame work. I think I have done this with all of O’Keefe’s work; I haven’t checked: I might have slipped up.
Finally, O’Keefe’s methods have often been sloppy enough that it’s an open question whether a subject knows what’s going on, and deliberately feeds false information to the slimeball interviewer.
The tactics are unethical. Arguing that they are justified when they uncover something important is consequentialism, making the argument a rationalization.
I am afraid that there are too many government workers who go beyond their job description, violate accepted ethics standards and codes related to their profession, or are willing to break the law in order to serve their worldview and ideology. Typically that worldview encompasses an ethic (e.g. human rights, LGTBQ+ rights, anti-racism) which creates an ethics conflict with the ethics required for the job, and that ethics conflict is resolved in favor of their worldview and ideology, without any meaningful guilt; they simply might not want to get caught.
This is how government becomes tyrannical.
C.S. Lewis wrote something about related to tyrannical government that highlights this ethic:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
You ask can the government defend his words and actions. The simple answer is YES, since we have just uncoverd the depth of their ability to do so ala the Bdien administration.
Should the governtment defend his words and actions, the ethical answer is NO, but see above.