Devious ideological hack Breitbart should be a pariah

In an imaginary world, an irresponsible ideological bomb thrower such as Andrew Breitbart would now have lost every shred of credibility he might have possessed in the public eye. He posted an out-of-context video clip of a black federal official seemingly spouting racist views against whites. The Obama administration quickly fired Shirley Sherrod, only later to learn that Breitbart’s chopped video clip distorted the woman’s remarks by 180 degrees. The full video clearly shows she was relating, confessing, a past incident she regretted that had taught her to overcome feelings of racial tension and to treat whites fairly.

Obama is scrambling to apologize to Sherrod and offer her a new job, and even FOX show host Bill O’Reilly is apologizing for initially being taken in by Breitbart’s hit job. Even Glenn Beck condemned it, and did not run the clip.

But I’m cynical enough to realize that in our poisoned partisan environment, Breitbart won’t be kicked to the curb and he’ll be back with more sleaze that will get at least some attention from those who have an ax to grind against the NAACP, blacks, Obama, liberals and anyone on the left. The right’s noise machine, as some call it, is an industry looking for every scrap of dirt it might use to attack the left’s power centers.

One of those power centers is the NAACP, which has become target No. 1 of late. The group has had the gall to denounce racist elements in the Tea Party movement, the lesson being, attack the Tea Party at your peril.

Shirley Sherrod got bushwhacked by a deceitful hack with political scalps to harvest. He got slavish attention until his repulsive trick was exposed. Obama and his team bungled the whole matter and looks incompetent and fearful of the rabid right and its race-baiting attack hounds.

Business as usual.

Share
This entry was posted in Why are you crying? and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Devious ideological hack Breitbart should be a pariah

  1. Doug Gibson says:

    I think that Breitbart should reveal who his source was. That might answer a lot of questions. It’s also worth pondering why the Obama administration and the NAACP initially ditched Ms. Sherrod so quickly without even investigating the hazy few moments of video.

  2. JT says:

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The left (Liberals, Socialists, Democrats, Commies, Greens, etc.) engages in this type of activity. The right (Conservatives, Tea Party, Republicans, Libertarians, etc), as you have demonstrated, also engages in this type of activity.

    Maybe people should look elsewhere for the truth, as both sides have made it abundantly clear that they lie to suit their own purposes and neither one can be trusted.

  3. CB says:

    This was so sad, her speech was very moving. We need more like her in government.

  4. midwinter says:

    The Obama administration has been remarkably cowardly about dealing with right-wing hissy fits. FOX News wants us to fire Sherrod? OK! Van Jones? OK! Jeremiah Wright? OK!

  5. Michael Trujillo says:

    Interesting. A journalist (Doug) suggesting someone should reveal his source. Hmmm. Didn’t journalists in times past go to jail rather than give up their sources? How times have changed.

  6. Doug Gibson says:

    In this case the cause just doesn’t seem that noble to me, Michael. … It’s interesting that the Obama administration panicked over an imagined Glenn Beck show and fired her without due diligence, at least accd. to Ms. Sherrod..

  7. Charles Trentelman says:

    doug — breitbart’s source was himself and his video editing machine, that’s the point here. He manipulated a video to create a false reality.

    He lied. Yeah, the obama admin overreacted and pulled a boner, but Breitbart’s crime is worse.

  8. laytonian says:

    Breitbart’s a desperate also-ran, who ONLY gets publicity (and money) when he stirs up a political hornet’s nest.

    His edited “pimp and acorn” tapes were such a smash, he knew he could do it again!

    AND….when better? When he knew the media would jump onto this, ignoring the financial services reform law that passed this week.

    Ms Sherrod is out for bear — and that bear will turn out to be Mr Breitbart, who (IF he has a source), will start crying as soon as the lawsuit is filed.

    What better way to shut up the lies, than for the people who were harmed, to sue?

    I’m also ashamed that the administration fell for this so easily.

    Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, an ex-governor with “executive experience”, has just shown how UNimportant such executive experience is, in the decision-making process.

  9. Doug Gibson says:

    I don’t care what happens to Breitbart, he should have done due diligence, but my understanding is he received the video in March as is (someone else edited it). He held onto it for several months. He didn’t manipulate it, so much as I have heard. I got this info from the WP’s Howard Kurtz’ Media Notes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201265.html

  10. Dovie says:

    What difference does his source make? Aren’t journalists responsible for verifying their information?

    Do you guys do anything anymore besides rigidly defend your personal belief systems by finding (real or imagined or fabricated) stories that support your point of view?

    Love the “everybody does it”. In the past 10-20 years, America has slipped further and further to becoming “just like everybody else”. Gonna have barbed wire, booby trapped fences along the border “just like everybody else”.

    The opposite of progressive is regressive: back to the stone age, apparently.

  11. Bob Becker says:

    Dovie wrote: “What difference does his source make? Aren’t journalists responsible for verifying their information?”

    Good question, Dovie, and the answer is, as you note, yes, they are. The fact that, as Doug reports, B got only the edited clip, and held it for months is no excuse. Merely makes clear that he had ample time to fact-check what he received in the mail and he didn’t.

  12. Michael Trujillo says:

    “I don’t care what happens to Breitbart … (someone else edited it) … He didn’t manipulate it …”

    What, exactly, is your point, Doug? Are you saying that the original “editor” of the tape should be held accountable? For what? That person did not post the video under the guise of a news story. It’s not against the law to manipulate video for your own entertainment. For all you know, the original editor could have done it as a College prank. It’s Breitbart who chose to report it as news. He’s the one who’s accountable.

    But maybe you’re making some other point that I’m missing.

  13. Obama is just a coward and a lame ass nothing much

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>