Because I sure didn't see any. 

Breitbart received a tape from a "source," sat on the tape for months, never tried to verify the contents, never provided readers with any context, never reached out to the subject of the tape, did no additional fact-finding, and then posted the tape online and labeled the subject a racist. 

Again, where was the reporting? Where was the journalism? Isn't Breitbart now facing possible legal action precisely because he refused to engage in any reporting with regards to the Sherrod story? 

It seems that way to me. So I had to chuckle reading a post at the Breitbart apologist site, Right Wing News, where the legal eagles announced any lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod against Breirbart would be a "waste of time." Right Wing News even got a quote from an attorney to back up its claim [emphasis added]:  

The burden for public figures to recover for defamatory reporting -- even when it is false -- is so high that it is effectively insurmountable. There's nothing I've heard so far about this case that would suggest why that general rule would not apply here.

That may be all well and good. But again, we're not talking about Breitbart's "reporting" (even the defamatory kind) because he didn't do any. And no, Breitbart isn't a reporter or a journalist. He's simply a private citizen who smears people. 

But please, if I'm missing something and right-wing bloggers can point out any reporting Breitbart did with regards to Sherrod story before he published his smear campaign, please fill me in. 

In a July 29 Washington Times column, Jeffrey Kuhner claimed the ruling "is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy," and that "leftist judges - elitist activists in black robes - override democratic legitimacy." Kuhner warned that the United States is in danger of becoming a "socialist superstate," and claimed "The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution." From the Washington Times:

Judicial activism is pushing America to the breaking point. This week, a federal judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's immigration law, thwarting the will of the people. The decision was ominous and will reverberate for years to come.

Judge Susan Bolton, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, is a liberal elitist who believes judicial imperialism trumps democracy. Her ruling states that local police cannot check the immigration status of people arrested or stopped for violations of the law. In her view, that would amount to an abuse of civil liberties and unduly burden the federal immigration system. She also stipulated that residents cannot be required to carry proof of legal status.

[...]

The administration and congressional Democrats are making a strategic calculation. They think the Arizona law may be popular in the short term, not just in the state but across the country, but they are convinced that in the long term, the law will backfire on Republicans - especially with the surging Hispanic voting bloc. Mr. Obama thinks he can aggressively court the Latino vote by demonizing Arizona. This is classic Saul Alinsky-style radicalism: the politics of divide and conquer, pitting races and classes against one another in the service of state power.

[...]

Arizona is where the old republic will stand or fall. It is showdown at high noon. Either America returns to its constitutional system based on real federalism, states' rights, individual liberty and decentralized power, or it continues to slide toward the darkness of a socialist superstate. Washington - with its swollen bureaucracy, imperial arrogance, rampant corruption and dangerous detachment from ordinary citizens - is despised and distrusted by many Americans. A secession of the heart is taking place - a profound alienation from the liberal ruling class.

In the future, many states - including Arizona - may decide they have no other option but to break away from the union. The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution.

Earlier this week, Glenn Beck promised a "three-day journey" that would illustrate the "motive behind many of the actions that we're seeing today in this administration" and a war of ideas, one involving concepts that are "in direct contradiction to what our founders wished." For much of the ensuing three days, viewers were treated to a stupefying array of magnets moving around the chalkboard -- magnets with familiar names like ACORN, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, and the Tides Foundation (always the Tides Foundation). All this to prove that the Obama administration is secretly implementing the Weather Underground's plans to institute a dictatorship and turn all of America into an episode of The Simpsons.

Beck started his expose of "How the Weather Underground is Secretly Governing Society and Sitcoms" on Tuesday, waving around a copy of the Weather Underground's 1969 position paper called You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows, shouting the same names he has shouted over and over and over again, and asking, "Can you remember a time, ever, where there were so many Americans, including the president, have labeled America the bad guy?"

Day 2 of Beck's consipira ... er, theory of modern governance brought a litany of doctored and distorted quotes to further prove that Obama is a Manchurian Weatherman.

Things were plugging along quite dully on Day 3, the final installment of Beck's solipsistic version of why he hated the '60s when he was 5 years old, when the D'Oh! ex machina moment arrived in the form of Homer Simpson, that notorious Weather Underground plant to upend the nuclear family and drive the kids away.

Read the full entry ...

This weekend, the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) is meeting to decide which news organization will be awarded the seat in the White House briefing room that was recently vacated by Helen Thomas. CREDO Action is currently running a campaign to tell the WHCA to award the seat to NPR, rather than Fox News.

As we have been documenting on a daily basis - and CREDO points out in their petition - Fox News is a right-wing propaganda organization, not a legitimate news outlet.

They have collected more than 80% of their targeted 200,000 signatures. Read the petition text below and add your name to the more than 162,000 signers:

FOX News is a right-wing propaganda operation, not a legitimate news organization. Award the seat vacated by Helen Thomas to NPR, which has provided public interest coverage of the presidency and the White House for almost four decades.

At least 100 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Here are his July 29 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Rosland Capital
• Easy Water
• Newsmax
• Arriva Medical
• Goldline International, Inc.
• American Advisors Group
• Quietus
• Audibel
• City of South Walton
• DebtOK
• Arriva Medical
• Matrix Direct
• Goldberg & Osborne
• Rosland Capital
• Visiting Angels
• Merit Financial
• JG Wentworth (877-Cash-Now)
• 1-800-Servpro
• MyLife.com
• Wholesale Direct Metals
• News. Corp (The Wall Street Journal)
• Hydroxatone
• The Foundation for a Better Life

Yesterday, we pointed out that on his talk radio program, Jim Quinn repeated the myth that "pedophilia is far more rampant among the gay community than it is among the straight community." This was only the latest in Quinn's long line of attacks on the LGBT community.

Today, GLAAD has issued a call to action, urging its supporters to reach out to Quinn's syndicator, Clear Channel, and "demand that the company stop supporting these rampant, defamatory attacks on gay people's lives."

From GLAAD's statement:

After this latest incident GLAAD reached out to Clear Channel executives and urged an on-air apology from Quinn.  Clear channel responded in part by saying:

Clear Channel presents opinion programming that covers a wide range of perspectives, and which we believe ultimately achieves balance through the clash and tumult in the public forum of at-times conflicting ideas - and not by our exercise of editorial control over those opinions.  Indeed, on the broadcast in question of The War Room with Quinn and Rose, Jim Quinn's on-air partner Rose Tennent challenged his opinions regarding homosexuality. Recognizing that some members of our audience will inevitably disagree with him and at times may find his opinions flatly offensive, we believe that Jim Quinn's commentaries and debates take place within the wide boundaries of that public forum.  Differing views were presented in the broadcast itself and no apology for this discussion is warranted.

Read the entire statement.

Clear Channel's response sends a message that it is comfortable providing a platform for Quinn's misinformation and benefitting financially from it. Clear Channel also claims it does not exercise editorial control over its programs, but has in fact taken direct actions against problematic content on a number of occasions. These include cancelling the Atlanta-based radio show "The Regular Guys" for airing a graphic conversation during a break and recording colleagues using the restroom, firing a San Francisco DJ for racially charged language against Asian Americans and denigrating people with disabilities, and terminating Florida radio host "Bubba The Love Sponge" for graphic on-air discussions about sex and drugs.

Yet Clear Channel continues to give Jim Quinn a free pass to launch gratuitously offensive attacks against LGBT people and the company not only stands behind the problematic content, it continues to promote it.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

GLAAD urges you to contact Clear Channel Communications and demand that the company stop supporting these rampant, defamatory attacks on gay people's lives.

Clear Channel is failing to live up to its diversity standards that clearly state: "Our ZERO TOLERANCE policy that prohibits discrimination extends beyond our employees, into each and every market in which we conduct business." It is time for Clear Channel to stop enabling Jim Quinn's troubling pattern of on-air abuse that creates a hostile climate and puts our community in harm's way.

We pointed out back in April that Fred Barnes was one of many, many Fox News figures who have engaged in activism for Republican candidates or causes. Specifically, we noted that Barnes had keynoted fundraisers for Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) and for the Palm Beach County Republican Party.

Today, Salon.com's Joe Conason reports that Premiere Speakers Bureau, the firm that books Barnes' speaking engagements, was paid $5,500 the month before Barnes' Palm Beach appearance. He also reports on payments to Premiere for two other Barnes appearances at GOP fundraisers:

Now, however, there is further evidence that Barnes not only routinely helped Republicans raise money as a banquet speaker, but accepted tens of thousands of dollars from party organizations as well:

• In February 2006, Barnes was paid $10,000 plus travel expenses by Oregon's Lane County Republican Central Committee to deliver the keynote address at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner. (Thanks to Carla Axtman for research assistance.) These payments, recorded in filingswith the Oregon secretary of state, were evidently made through the Premier Speakers Bureau of Franklin, Tenn., which represents other Fox personalities including Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee. Barnes is no longer listed on the Premier website, but the company did not respond to phone or e-mail inquiries about its relationship with him.

• In February 2007, Barnes spoke at the annual  Lincoln-Reagan Dinnerheld by the Republican Party of Fort Bend County, Texas -- home of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who purchased a ticket to the event. The party organization's filing with the Texas Ethics Commission shows two payments of $5,000 each on April 26, 2007, to Premiere Speakers Bureau (with the notation "LRD 2007 Speaker - Fred Barnes") and travel expenses of $1,823. Photos of a smiling Barnes with various local dignitaries at the event, which netted a reported $70,000 for the party, can be viewed here.

• In early March 2008, Barnes served as the keynote speaker for the Republican Party of Palm Beach County at its annual Lincoln Day Dinner. Whether he received the customary $10,000 is not clear because the party's  filing with the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections show only a single payment of $5,500 to Premiere Speakers Bureau on Feb. 18. The committee reported net $120,000 in net proceeds from the event.

Conservatives have criticized Judge Susan Bolton for ruling that a provision of Arizona's immigration statute requiring law enforcement personnel to determine the immigration status of all arrestees is likely unconstitutional. They have argued that Bolton should have ignored the plain language of the statute in favor of a contorted reading of the provision requiring Arizona law enforcement to check the immigration status of "any person who is arrested."

This suggests that conservatives are willing to toss aside their professed concern over judicial activism in order to win a case about an issue that matters deeply to them.

In a post on National Review's The Corner blog, conservative activist Heather Mac Donald claimed that Bolton participated in "the Obama administration's carefully cultivated fiction" that the concerns over the Arizona immigration law dealt with the treatment of lawfully present immigrants. According to Mac Donald, what the Obama administration really wanted was to maintain a "de facto amnesty" for undocumented immigrants. Mac Donald claimed that in order to support the Obama administration's supposed cover story about the effects on lawful immigrants, Bolton misinterpreted a provision of the law that "required that 'any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.' " According to Mac Donald, "any person who is arrested" did not mean "any person" but rather only people for whom reasonable suspicion exists that they are here illegally.

On Fox News, host Arthel Neville allowed Kris Kobach, who helped draft the Arizona law and is running for Kansas Secretary of State, to make similar claims without challenge. Kobach stated:

KOBACH: The judge actually made a rather startling mistake. She misinterpreted the intent of a critical provision of the bill. And the reason that's a mistake is there's a longstanding Supreme Court rule that says when you have a law that's not been implemented yet, the court must give the best possible reading to the bill. In other words, give the bill a reading that would not be in violation of any other law. And instead, what the judge did is give the worst possible reading. I think that's going to make her opinion very difficult to sustain on appeal.

NEVILLE: Let me see if I understood what you said. You said that the judge misinterpreted -- she misread the -- your SB 1070?

KOBACH: Yeah. There was the word arrest is used in Section 2, and what she did is there are multiple interpretations of that word arrest. And she picked the interpretation that would be most problematic, but on a facial challenge, a judge is bound to give the bill the best possible reading to give the state the opportunity to implement it in a constitutional manner. She failed to do this, and I think her opinion is very weak because of that and will probably be flipped on appeal.

In fact, as Bolton made clear in her opinion, the statute unambiguously requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of every person who is arrested and that arguments to the contrary simply do not have any support in the statute's text.

Read the full entry ...

Glenn Beck took his audience into the realm of his imagination today in a segment on the Obama administration's efforts to alter a law in order to help the FBI more easily obtain internet records that might be pertinent to investigations on terrorism. Introducing the topic, Glenn Beck stated that the Obama administration is trying to change "four words" in the law that "stops people from going in and seizing internet records."

Beck's first sentence was technically true: The administration is seeking to add "electronic communication transactional records" to a list of the types of information the FBI may request without a judge's permission -- although it should be noted that this includes things like times, dates and addresses of emails but not the content of messages.

From that point on, however, Beck's commentary on the topic came directly from his imagination. He constructed the following ridiculous hypothetical scenario:

BECK: Let's say my company, Mercury, where we have internet records for all of our business. We also have all of our emails and everything else. Let's just say that the government decides that I'm a threat to the United States and that there's some sort of, you know, well, Glenn Beck has been communicating with a gentleman in Canada. And this gentleman in Canada has ties to a terrorist organization. Remember, they get to define a terrorist organization. Here, let me use a better one. An NRA member uses their gun to shoot something. The United States government decides that they're going to make the NRA a terrorist organization. Don't think they wouldn't do it. They make the NRA a terrorist organization. Now, anybody who has contributed to the NRA could be, in theory, scooped up and held indefinitely without a trial or a warrant. We already have that one going. They're already arguing for these things right now. It's how they define terrorist. So let's say I'm -- because I write a letter to Wayne LaPierre, he writes me back. They say, you know what, Glenn Beck has been in communication with this terrorist organization. With this four-word change, they can now not only go into the NRA without a warrant, no judge involved, on the president's word, they can go and take all internet records and seize them. Plus, this new change in the law would force the NRA or me, my company, to not be able -- we would be bound by law -- we would not be able to disclose the government has done that.

Big Government and Hot Air are among the right-wing bloggers who have hopped aboard the latest mini-outrage meme: Democratic congressman Alan Grayson spent taxpayer money through his congressional franking privileges to produce and mail a DVD to his constituents highlighting his accomplishments. Both quote from an Orlando Sentinel article on Grayson, but they don't clip the parts that put Grayson's acts into full perspective.

It's unfortunate that Big Government and Hot Air decided to dishonestly frame the issue by airbrushing out of the picture Republicans who have done the same thing as Grayson.

Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, has issued a proclamation regarding Shirley Sherrod's announcement that she will sue Andrew Breitbart:

Andrew Breitbart is going to be fine. He's done nothing wrong. I wonder if Ms. Sherrod, who is such a champion of transparency, will publicly disclose who is putting her up to this. And I also hope this champion of honesty will stop lying about Fox News. I'm also waiting for Ms. Sherrod to publicly apologize for accusing anyone opposed to nationalized healthcare of being racist. Last time I checked, that was more than half the country.

Now, I'm no lawyer, and neither is Bozell, so I won't weigh in on whether or not Breitbart's going to make it through this one unscathed. But why does Bozell automatically assume that someone put Sherrod up to this? Does he really think she's not smart/outraged/savvy enough to do this herself?

The answer, I'm guessing, is that Bozell has so thoroughly convinced himself of the liberal media conspiracy to destroy conservatives in America that Sherrod's forthcoming lawsuit against Breitbart is necessarily the brainchild of George Soros or John Podesta or Ezra Klein or whoever.

But idle speculation aside, it's revolting that right-wingers have the gall not just to defend Breitbart's behavior, but to portray him as the victim in this affair. Not surprising, since there are few things conservative media types enjoy more than playing the victim, but revolting nonetheless.

A July 28 Las Vegas Review-Journal article blares the following headline, "New Reid ad stars teacher whose job wasn't on the chopping block." The article suggests that Sen. Harry Reid's campaign ad featuring a kindergarten teacher praising Reid for saving Nevada teachers' jobs by getting the stimulus passed is disingenuous because the teacher's "specific job wasn't on the chopping block." However, as you read on, you'll see the article's own reporting undermines its premise.

First, the teacher in question, Bridget Zick, never claimed in the ad that her "specific job" was saved. Indeed, it is clear to anyone with any sense that she is a speaking generally on behalf of those whose in the education field whose jobs were saved by stimulus funds. The article features Zick saying, "We were really worried about our jobs and our kids," then airs a graphic, reporting that "Harry Reid got funds to save 3,500 education jobs in Nevada." After this graphic airs, Zick says, "We're still teaching because of Harry Reid." And, moreover, the Las Vegas Review-Journal article reports this:

Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid's campaign, said in the ad Zick is representing all Nevada educators whose jobs have been saved by the stimulus.

"She is speaking on behalf of teachers," Summers said in an e-mail when asked to clarify whether her job had been saved.

Summers said the Nevada Department of Education "didn't specify in its reports which schools would have had to lay off teachers."

Further, what the article's premise and lead does not make clear is that, as they later reported, the school district for which Zick works did receive stimulus money which allowed them to stave layoffs that the district claims it would have had to have made without those funds. The school district had "initial[ly] estimated" that there was a "potential" for 2,000 layoffs if they had not received stimulus funds. According to Clark County School Board member Carolyn Edwards, "in the case of layoffs, the teachers' contract requires they be made according to seniority. Newest employees would be the first to go. Zick, who is in her third year of teaching, might only have been in jeopardy if the initial estimate of 2,000 potential layoffs materialized." The article added: " 'The fact is we don't know how many teachers would have been laid off if we hadn't gotten that money,' Edwards said. 'The (stimulus) money saved jobs, but it didn't save specific jobs.'"

So, what it boils down to is that Zick's school district was in trouble and facing the prospect of potentially having to lay off 2,000 employees. Being a relatively new teacher, Zick could have been "on the chopping block," but, since the district got the stimulus money, they were able to avoid layoffs and didn't have decide which employees would have gotten the axe. Zick, a Reid supporter, appears in a campaign ad touting the teacher jobs saved in Nevada due to Reid's help in passing the stimulus. And, this is supposed to be evidence of the Reid campaign's dishonesty? Sorry, guys, I'm just not seeing it.

The Associated Press reported today that former USDA official Shirley Sherrod says she plans to sue Andrew Breitbart.

As Media Matters documented, Breitbart released a heavily edited video purporting to show "proof" of Sherrod's "racism" against a white farmer while serving as an Obama administration official. After Breitbart's post, Sherrod lost her USDA job, and numerous media figures attacked Sherrod as a racist. The full video of Sherrod's remarks, however, vindicated her.   

After his smear story dissolved, Breitbart falsely claimed that his story was "not about Shirley Sherrod," and attempted to redirect the conversation to the NAACP by incorrectly claiming Sherrod's audience was "applauding racism." In recent days, many in the media have criticized Breitbart's tactics, called on him to apologize, or pointed out how this episode has depleted any credibility he may have had. 

Previously:

Breitbart still insists Sherrod video "shows that she's the racist"

Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear

Breitbart flounders as his Sherrod story collapses

CNN's Cooper detonates Breitbart's NAACP applause falsehood

Media denounce Breitbart's tactics, highlight his loss of credibility

In a July 28 FoxNews.com article, Stephen Clark tries to stir controversy over Loyola University's decision not to host Fox News contributor Karl Rove because "welcoming a 'political' speaker ahead of the midterm elections could threaten its tax-exempt status." Clark suggests that the school is guilty of hypocrisy because it will host "an Obama administration appointee," and defends Rove by claiming he "is not working on any campaign this season."  

Fox News' description of Rove is incredibly dishonest. Rove helped organize American Crossroads, a fundraising group that was started with the purpose of helping GOP campaigns during the 2010 election cycle. The group has raised millions of dollars from wealthy donors and has already run anti-Democrat attack ads. The Politico wrote that groups like Rove's give "Republicans and their allies a powerful campaign apparatus separate from the Republican National Committee."

Rove is also a regular fundraiser for GOP organizations and candidates; regularly endorses Republican candidates; and has been offering campaign advice to Republicans, such as the House Republican Conference and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.

Fox News, of course, didn't tell you any of this while claiming that its employee is "not working on any campaign this season."

I ask because Fox News' Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente has claimed he told his staff on July 19 to be careful about the just-launched Shirley Sherrod attack; that the full story needed to be confirmed before Fox News touched it. Plus, Fox News needed a comment from Sherrod. 

And now in an interview with Politico, Clemente seems to brag about how right away he smelled something wrong with the Sherrod story [emphasis added]: 

But more broadly, Clemente said he has been around the block enough times to recognize the telltale signs of a fishy story, which was why he issued the note of caution to his staff.

"I've been doing this since 1978, when I started at ABC, so I've seen what has happened," he said. "Mistakes were made. After a few years, you start to get a bit of a gut feeling about was this a portion of a story, or is this the whole story?" 

Got that? As a news pro, Clemente could just tell --he knew in his gut-- that there was something not quite right about the Sherrod story. Except of course, on the day of July 19, that didn't stop Fox Nation from pushing the story online before getting confirmation regarding the context of the clip or a comment from Sherrod.

It didn't stop Foxnews.com from pushing the story before getting context confirmation or comment.

It didn't stop The O'Reilly Factor from pushing the story before getting context confirmation or comment.

It didn't stop Hannity from pushing the story before getting context confirmation or comment. 

And it didn't stop On The Record from pushing the story before getting context confirmation or comment. 

But yeah, other than that, on July 19, folks at Fox News definitely seemed to take Clemente's go-slow advice very, very seriously. 

This is becoming rote. Once again, the Daily Caller is flogging the JournoList archives, and once again they've attached a salacious headline to the story that is not supported by the evidence they present.

Today's piece is headlined: "Political operatives on Journolist worked to shape news coverage." It fits in nicely with the overall theme of the Daily Caller's JournoList coverage, which is that the now-defunct listserv was the epicenter of the liberal media conspiracy (a theme that they've pretty effectively undermined themselves). The actual story, though, contains just two examples of political operatives working to "shape news coverage," and even the Caller acknowledges that the efforts weren't very successful.

Read the full entry ...

It's always helpful when people inside Fox News confirm what Media Matters has reported as fact, even if the channel's outside defenders prefer to toil in conspiracy as they flail around desperately trying to make up excuses for Rupert Murdoch's channel. Not that I think this confirmation from inside Fox News will quiet the online boo birds, but it's worth noting now that they're claiming both Media Matters and Fox News are lying about the facts in the case. 

Good luck with that one guys. 

This by-now tiresome debate centers around whether or not Fox News jumped on Andrew Breitbart's bogus Shirley Sherrod smear campaign. We all know that on the day it broke online, Bill O'Reilly hyped the story on his primetime show, presented Sherrod as a racist, and demanded she "resign immediately." Of course, at the time O'Reilly didn't have the slightest clue what the whole story of the Sherrod tape was. But that didn't stop him from maligning a black women in the Obama administration. (O'Reilly later apologized to Sherrod.) 

So if O'Reilly was demanding Sherrod's ouster, that meant Fox News covered the story before she was forced out, right? Not quite. While his show tapes at 5 p.m., it doesn't air until 8 p.m., and Sherrod resigned shortly before 8 p.m. and July 19. So technically Fox News, or so the claim goes, didn't cover the story before she resigned and so all those people who claim Fox peddled the Sherrod attack are smearing Fox News! 

But of course, Fox News did peddle the story before Sherrod resigned. Fox News peddled the story online. And Fox News peddled it in two different online forums prior to Sherrod's resignation on July 19.

And in a new report from Politico, Fox News Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente confirms that fact [emphasis added]:

Read the full entry ...

The bias-hunting super sleuths at NewsBusters seem hell bent on cramming in as much stupidity as they can before their five-year anniversary, and Noel Sheppard is doing more than his share of the cramming.

Apparently, according to Sheppard, the JournoList scourge can be found everywhere, even on televised panel discussions:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Wednesday demonstrated how the dissemination of Democrat talking points and marching orders via the JournoList can be even more effectively employed on television.

In a "Hardball" segment about a new Democratic National Committee ad that looks to connect the Republican Party with the "more extreme elements" of the Tea Party, Matthews chatted with Republican strategist Todd Harris and the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress's Jennifer Palmieri about whether the strategy will work.

What was most interesting was how Matthews, almost like a JournoLister, seemed to be drawing from a discussion he had with his panelists on last weekend's syndicated program bearing his name.

Get it? Matthews was being just like a JournoLister because he said something on Hardball that was vaguely similar to something Howard Fineman said a few days ago on The Chris Matthews Show. The big scandal, according to Noel Sheppard, is that Chris Matthews repeated something he heard.

To those of us whose views on the media are not insanely warped, this is what's called opinion journalism, wherein you ask different people for their views on a particular subject. And, anyone who has ever watched more than one episode of Hardball should know that when Matthews hears what he thinks is an interesting point, he's going to repeat it. A lot.

This isn't particularly controversial, and it's also nothing like JournoList, which was a private email listserv, and not a publicly televised discussion. Also, neither JournoList nor Matthews are or were issuing "marching orders" for Democrats.

But for people like Noel Sheppard, whose view of the media seems to be shaped by equal parts paranoia and ignorance, this is a very big deal.

From the July 28 edition of Comedy Central's Colbert Report:

Previously:

Overhyped conservative nonsense of the day: Obama hates the Boy Scouts

On his Fox News show last night, Glenn Beck distorted five quotes from progressives in two minutes. You have to hand it to him -- the man works hard.

All this quote-cropping was part of Beck's attempt to shore up his laughable conspiracy theory that the Obama administration is secretly governing from the Weather Underground manifesto. He began by reading from a section of the manifesto that indentified "enemies" of the Weather Underground, which Beck summed up as "management, corporate lawyers, the evil executive class." He then asked, "Is there any attack at all that seems familiar?" and rolled a montage of four clips.

Beck's first bit of video evidence that the Obama administration is covertly using the playbook of a bunch of 1960s "hippies" -- a word he literally hissed during the show last night -- was a clip of Barack Obama saying this: "I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn't want to pay taxes to inner-city children to -- for them to go to school."

That's not even a complete sentence. How could anyone possibly think this is a fair representation of what Obama said?

Read the full entry ...