I have some time to sit @ the computer again. In a bit more detail, this is why the Maddow report is underwhelming. She focuses on three things:

1)The Video: O’Keef and Giles represented themselves as a pimp and a prostitute, and O’Keef led people to believe he wore a pimp costume when he filmed.
“Maddow Exposes” that O’Keef didn’t wear a pimp outfit.
However: O’Keef and Giles explicitly presented themselves as a pimp and prostitute. Maddow’s complaint here has some merit because O’Keef did let people believe he wore the outfit, which he showed in an intro common to all his videos. But this is a red herring IMO since they expressly identified themselves as a pimp and a prostitute to Acorn employees and there was no confusion as to whether they were “legit.”

2) The Video: A San Diego Acorn employee gave them advice on smuggling children for a sex ring.
“Maddow Exposes” The Acorn employee asked for additional information from O’Keef (not shown in the video) and called the police.
However: The Acorn employee did appear to be giving advice when they were shooting the video. No deceptive editing involved in this count. The call to the police was not made public until after the video aired, and so the failure to show that request for a phone number only became relevant after the video was released. While it appears that the Acorn employee acted properly by calling the police, it also appears that the editing was fair.

Here, Maddow’s strongest complaint is with the way Fox reported (or failed to report) the call to the police, not with the videos themselves.

3) The Video: A South Central Los Angeles Acorn employee encouraged them in their prostitution ring.
“Maddow exposes” that the employee turned to Giles and encouraged her that she “can do anything … don’t give up” in a quest for housing.
However: O’Keef’s video shows the same ‘unedited’ portion Maddow that shows in order to prove that the video is deceptive! Ah, but if you listen carefully, here Maddow claims that Fox coverage (not the video itself) was deceptive. Moreover, Maddow fails to mention that the same woman advised them to see an Acorn supervisor who could help them. Nor does Maddow mention that when the supervisor refused to help (which O’Keef and Giles included in their video), the same woman continued to offer her personal assistance, including talking to her friends in prostitution and doing research for them, to aid their international sex business.

The videos were obviously edited. I think it would be instructive to see the unedited videos. But, if this was the best Maddow could find after watching both of the unedited videos, then it does not look like there was any selective editing by O’Keef.

Again, Maddow’s substantive complaints are about the way Fox covered the story. That’s a long way from ‘debunking’ O’Keef and Giles.