This is damn funny...

I was reading an article from the Washington (com)Post about Breibart, a man who single-handidly put ACORN on the radar of American people and forced mainstream media to release some of the damaging information on Obama's alma mater. The author quotes a paid operative for the Soros-funded group "Media Matters", who critisizes Breitbart by saying that "Capturing a raw video isn't journalism; journalism includes some content. A real journalist would have contacted ACORN..."

In reality, this is a weird response, since the entire report on the ACORN machinations was an accurate depiction of the ACORN response to a series of questions. Two aspiring journalists contacted numerous ACORN offices and asked them for assistance in setting up whore houses, importing underage girls for prostitution and the ways to shield their profits from taxation. ACORN was only too kind to oblige - and Breitbart showed to the world the ACORN response. What exactly is the critisism here?