About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Chuck Todd refers to Breitbart as a "conservative propagandist"

July 30, 2010 9:17 am ET

From the July 30 edition of NBC's Today:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (July 30, 2010 9:20 am ET)
      9 1
      You da man, Chuck.

      [http://minuet.dance.ohio-state.edu/~nicholas53/Images/Words/Optimistic/thumbs-up.jpg]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (July 30, 2010 11:15 am ET)
        1  
        Even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then.








        And Breitbart certainly fits the definition of a nut.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (July 30, 2010 9:20 am ET)
      7 1
      Nice one chuck.

      I think this is like the second time i hear him called this.

      and it seems to fit very well.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jbraskin4786 (July 30, 2010 9:21 am ET)
      7 1
      He is, isn't he? And not a very good one at that.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 30, 2010 9:21 am ET)
      7 1
      Pretty much no other way to describe him.

      ----------------------------------------
      Reality has a liberal bias.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (July 30, 2010 9:25 am ET)
      9 1
      That's like calling a Clydesdale a horse.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (July 30, 2010 9:29 am ET)
      8 1
      Now, Chuck, if you'll just take the next logical step and admit that FOX is a Conservative Propaganda Network.

      Come on... form the words.... the truth will set you free.

      Let's say it together: FOX is a.....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (July 30, 2010 9:34 am ET)
      10  

      Propaganda, and therefore "propagandist", is not a dirty word.

      It doesn't imply in any way deceit or falsity or untruth, let alone malice...

      I smell a rat here, already people are throwing this word "propaganda" around in relation to this matter, and it seems to me that might be a plan of defense.

      What I said about the word propaganda is true, it implies nothing about deceit etc, and only implies (and truly means) persuasion... again, it does not imply deceit let alone malice, and yet the charge against Fox and their underling breitbart is that they were both deceitful and perhaps malicious, isn't it?

      Don't be duped into picking up on and using carefully chosen words, that may well be intended to be put into your mouth and have you repeating them, when in fact that word (propaganda) implies something that let's Fox and their underling off easy, something that spins their deed from being false and malicious to being nothing worse than mere persuasion, which again, that's what the word propaganda means.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (July 30, 2010 9:41 am ET)
        7 1
        That's a valid point, but Propaganda is often used for deceitful and malicious purposes. I would argue that FOX's prolific dissemination of Propaganda is, indeed, a liability, since it pretends to be a News Network.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (July 30, 2010 9:57 am ET)
          6 1

          If you were accusing someone of deceit and/or malice, then you would use those words... but if you instead say propaganda, then you have neither said those words nor even implied them... instead you may have simply said what the malicious liar wanted you to say, you may have simply called them something they wanted you to call them, instead of calling them malicious and a liar, which again that's the charge against these people.

          I'm reasonably certain it is these people themselves who are floating the words propaganda and propagandist in this matter, and for the reason I've pointed out.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (July 30, 2010 10:31 am ET)
            8 1
            You could be right, but I don't see anyone on the Right using the word in reference to FOX. Propaganda has a generally negative connotation to the casual observer, which describes 95% of the American Public.

            While it is correct to refer to American WWII Posters as Propaganda, Conservative Jingoists tend to bristle at the suggestion, since for them, "Propaganda" conjures images of Pravda, Mein Kampf, and Tokyo Rose.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (July 30, 2010 11:32 am ET)
              3  
              One of my college Professors did his doctoral thesis on U.S. propaganda. It was the first time I realized that the word could have a positive connotation.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by papajohn (July 30, 2010 12:23 pm ET)
                 
              While it is correct to refer to American WWII Posters as Propaganda, Conservative Jingoists tend to bristle at the suggestion, since for them, "Propaganda" conjures images of Pravda, Mein Kampf, and Tokyo Rose.

              I'll take Pravda over the average news coverage of today here in America.

              John
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 30, 2010 12:46 pm ET)
                 
              You could be right, but I don't see anyone on the Right using the word in reference to FOX. Propaganda has a generally negative connotation to the casual observer, which describes 95% of the American Public.

              Hey... just look at what they've done to the words, "Conservative" and "Liberal"!
              Report Abuse
    • Author by whillenbrand (July 30, 2010 9:36 am ET)
      6 1
      O.T. but important:
      From the Washington Post:

      News Alert: Politically connected Wyly brothers charged with fraud
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 30, 2010 9:51 am ET)
        4 1
        Yeah, the Swiftboater backers and the very generous financial supporters of over 200 Republican politicians have been charged with fraud. Wonder how this is going to play out?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by scubcap647 (July 30, 2010 10:06 am ET)
      3 1
      It's about time someone called it. Only a matter of time before this statement is used as "evidence" of a liberal media bias.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (July 30, 2010 10:56 am ET)
      4  
      It is nice to hear someone refer to Breitbart (or Not-so-Bright-bart) in terms that more fittingly describe his particular role in life. Maybe Breitbart is finished--we can hope.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (July 30, 2010 11:21 am ET)
      3  
      Yeah, so, like what's your point? Belly-crawling, scum-sucking creature of pseudo-Conservative wingnuts is a bit harsh at this hour of the day, don't ya think?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 30, 2010 11:55 am ET)
      2  
      Stop treating him with kid gloves. He's a lying sack of filth who would sell his own mother to Osama bin Laden if it meant scoring a few cheap political points against the Obama administration.
      Report Abuse