About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

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

July 22, 2010 1:55 pm ET — 43 Comments

With the implosion of Andrew Breitbart's smear of Shirley Sherrod, 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.

Media: Breitbart "is not a journalist," but a "bull[y]" and "slander[er]" who can't be trusted

Fox's Smith: "[W]e did not and do not trust the source." Discussing coverage of the Sherrod story on the July 21 edition of Fox News' Studio B, host Shepard Smith said that his show declined to report on it initially because "we didn't who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of videos on the site where it was posted. In short, we did not and do not trust the source."

CNN's Cooper: Breitbart actions are "a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." On the July 21 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper said that Breitbart's video clips of Sherrod "were clearly edited to deceive and slander Miss Sherrod," and that Breitbart's efforts to "weasel his way out of taking responsibility for what he did to Miss Sherrod is a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." Cooper continued:

COOPER: "The truth matters." Breitbart posted the clip on Monday on his website. Nearly everything Mr. Breitbart said about Shirley Sherrod was either wrong or somehow slanted to make a larger point about racism and the NAACP. He initially said her speech showed a government official who allowed racist views to influence her work with a white farmer. But we now know it was a speech about her change of heart 24 years ago, when she wasn't even at the USDA. Today, Mr. Breitbart could have just apologized, said he was wrong, but he didn't. Bullies never do, nor do ideologues in our divided country. Instead, he now claims this was never about Miss Sherrod, it was about the NAACP and what he says was their racism based on the audience's reaction to her speech.

[...]

Well, the fact is there was no applause when Miss Sherrod was talking about the white farmer. And we'll talk to members of the audience who were there that night about the reaction they saw and heard and that they themselves had. Now, Breitbart also said today that there were cheers over racist comments. Again, the facts do not bear him out. The truth matters. The closest Mr. Breitbart came to an apology today was this comment.

BREITBART [video clip]: I feel bad that they made this about her, and I feel sorry that they made this about her. I'm not sure if that was done because they rushed to judgment or whether they wanted to make about Shirley versus me, because that's what it's become.

COOPER: He goes on to say he's sympathetic to what Miss Sherrod has gone through. Notice the passive voice here, because his words, quote, "they went after her," and not the NAACP. It's like the arsonist saying, "I'm sorry, ma'am, for the water damage done by firefighters." He started the fire. Andrew Breitbart said the clip he first posted proved black racism happening now at the USDA and the NAACP. It didn't. He said it proved racism in the crowd. You can decide for yourself about that. We'll play you the tapes and you'll talk -- you'll hear from audience members. He claims to feel sorry for the victim, but blames others acting on his misleading information for hurting her.

It was a phony story. It isn't the first, and it isn't the first about race. But why let the truth stop you when you're making political points? That's the way a lot of people seem to think these days, on the left and the right.

Politico's Ben Smith: "Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." In a July 22 Politico blog post on the Sherrod story, Ben Smith wrote: "The nice thing about the new-media space is how quickly it self-corrects. Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." Smith added: "And for all the talk of the speed of the Internet, online, like offline, reporting is a long, endless game, and with fewer and fewer trusted institutions to dispense it at will, credibility is a scarce and extremely valuable commodity."

MSNBC's O'Donnell: "I think [Breitbart] has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time." On the July 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Lawrence O'Donnell said that Breitbart "has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time," adding that the ACORN videos promoted by Breitbart were "manipulated in ways that were grotesquely unfair to the people in those scenes."

NPR* ombudsman: Breitbart's treatment of Sherrod shows he "is not a journalist." Commenting on the Sherrod story, NPR* ombudsman Alicia Shepard said, "Any journalist would seek comment [from the story's subject before publishing]. If Breitbart does not, he is not a journalist."

Jonah Goldberg: Sherrod is "owed apolog[y]" from Breitbart. In a July 21 National Review Online blog post, Jonah Goldberg wrote that Sherrod is "owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart." Goldberg added that Breitbart "says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I'd like to think he wouldn't have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable."

John McCormack: Breitbart's clip "was unfair," she "deserves an apology." In a July 21 postThe Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that "Breitbart's posting of the partial clip, which leaves out crucial information, was unfair to Sherrod," adding that, "Sherrod deserves an apology from Breitbart for posting the edited video."

David Frum: "Breitbart continues to defend his own 'ends justify the means' bending of the truth." Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote in a July 21 FrumForum blog post that Breitbart will "survive, and undamaged" and that "There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart's role." Frum added that "Breitbart continues to defend his own 'ends justify the means' bending of the truth."

SPJ official: Breitbart is "someone with a specific agenda." Andy Schotz, ethics committee chair at the Society of Professional Journalists, said: "Basic journalism calls for getting information, checking it out, looking for context and trying to get to the truth. ... Gathering snippets and putting them out there to see what happens seems to be what is happening here. (Breitbart) is also someone with a specific agenda."

*Correction: This item previously identified Alicia Shepard as ombudsman for PBS. She is in fact ombudsman for NPR. We regret the error.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (July 22, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
      3  
      There's a silver lining to every story.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rkcomments (July 22, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
        7  
        I'm shocked that there are really people who had to wait until the Sherrod story to know that Breitbart is an insult to the profession of Journalism. With his lack of ethics and his ugly looks he should best stay out of the limelight for ever.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Porkeater (July 22, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
      4  
      This after everyone was quick to report the story, without voicing the disclaimers they are quick to utilize now. "Accused of" racism, etc.

      Then again, the place for Breitbart is obviously under the bus. Long may he remain there.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (July 22, 2010 6:25 pm ET)
        3  
        This is obviously not his first foray into his racist screed. He plays loose with facts and has no qualms about TRYING to ruin a great public servants good name. Now the new screed says the white farmers were not even married. What lengths will this right wing bigot go to to try to make the Obama Administration out as condoning racism. It is obvious now that he intends to go the limit. The new journalism rule, understand that Breitbart is a first class liar and a terrible journalist who spends not one moment in checking reliability so long as it smears first blacks and then the Obama administration. So next time he trumps up some video no matter how convincing, remember he is a racist liar of the first order and truth means nothing to him. He owes this woman millions and she should get a great lawyer immediately and sue him to stop his obnoxious, racist behavior.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (July 22, 2010 6:45 pm ET)
        2  
        Speak for yourself. I knew Breitbarts had a long history of racism. Remember we all endured the phony film of the couple at the charity, Acorn. That whole thing was so scripted that no one could mistake Breitbart's set up. He finessed his lies a little better this time. But they are lies nevertheless. He has proven what even most thinking Republicans suspected about his first so called expose' - we should have learned he was a liar and a cheat. His career is finally finished and even his political supporters do not now have the nerve to continue to endorse him due to his racist garbage. This woman should sue him for millions!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (July 22, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
      7  
      Why didn't the MSM call him out and why didn't he lose his credibility after he doctored the ACORN videos??

      The sympathy for Sharrod is definitely warranted.

      But were was this outpouring of support for the people who lost their jobs at ACORN?

      Breitbart doctored those videos as well and people were hurt by him then as well ...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 22, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
        3  
        Because the Sherrod story was introduced and exposed within the 24 hour news cycle window. The ACORN story went on long beyond that and people forget about it, and/or move on. It's the ADD of the media and the public's very short attention span.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Major Tom (July 22, 2010 4:01 pm ET)
          1  
          Not to mention the complete reluctance of the media to question any story put before them.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by sambo (July 22, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
        2  
        I suppose it's like Bush speechwriter David Frum said,Breitbart
        wont suffer any damage,nor will his credibility be affected, and he's had enough experience to know,scumbags of this caliber are excepted
        in some circles
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ws84 (July 22, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
        1 9
        The mainstream media, NAACP, and the administration were ALL guilty of jumping on the bandwagon. They lost some credibility too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (July 22, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
          5 1
          To a certain extent; however, in the legal biz, it is Breitbart's baby. He better have some good lawyers ready.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 22, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
            1  
            But who cares about Andrew Breitbart's legal troubles, if even will have any. This is a political issue, not a legal one.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (July 22, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
              4  
              This is a political issue, not a legal one.

              Not if you're Shirley Sherrod having her character defamed by Breitbart and Fox...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by indigo1968 (July 23, 2010 12:05 pm ET)
                   
                It's very much a legal issue, esp in a civil context.

                Sharrod suffered measurable damages (e.g. loss of a job, being publicly dragged thru the mud) via a statement someone else (Breitbart) doctored to make her appear to say something she did not.

                That's textbook defamation.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by SyphonFilter (July 23, 2010 4:19 am ET)
          1  
          Sure, distort and twist the facts. Truth is Breitbart posted a doctored video of Ms. Sherrod speaking at an NAACP function telling a story about racism, but not showing the whole story. Then FOX News is all over this story 5 time from the morning to the afternoon and evening, and their anchors are calling her a racist within the Obama administration, and the NAACP denounces her remarks based on the doctored video tape. The Radical Right wing Audience of FOX news were calling the USdA Office stating that Ms. Sherrod was a racist and they should do something about it. Ms. Sherrod also confides that during the airing of her story on FOX News, she was recieving death threats from FOX News viewers. Because of prior administration ineptitude within the USDA, they wanted to act quickly to denounce racist people. Thus Ms Sherrod's firing. People stop twisting the facts. Mr. Breitbart had an agenda, and he got his hand caught in the cookie jar. He admitted that he posted the tape because the NAACP called the Tea Party Racist, but that's not true either. The NAACP said that the Tea Party is not racist, but that there were racist elements within their organization, and that they should denounce those racists within their ranks. and today, FOX news didn't retract their story, nor tried to apologize to Ms Sherrod (Only Oreilly did). Instead they were blaming Obama for acting so quickly when they fired her. Talk about calling the kettle black.......
          Report Abuse
    • Author by tlalbert43 (July 22, 2010 2:24 pm ET)
      7  
      I just sent an e-mail to Mr. Breitman: "I'm a 67 year old former NBC Anchorman and over the years have worked with some of the great names in the new biz. Alas, Sir, you are not one of them.
      Tolfe "Lee" Albert
      Report Abuse
    • Author by theocracy (July 22, 2010 2:27 pm ET)
      2  
      Don't worry, there are still plenty of bloggers who will continue to carry water for Breitbart and his sites. It's about a warped ideology, to be sure, but it's also about links and page views. There's money and notoriety to be earned from appealing to people's basest instincts.

      Frankly, I'm starting to believe that many of the most prominent leaders in the radical conservative movement (Limbaugh, Ailes, Coulter, et.al.) don't actually hold the convictions they are purported to hold. They know that anger sells better than rational argument, and they spout their thinly-veiled racist and classist diatribes for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks--because that's where the money is.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 22, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
        6  
        "Frankly, I'm starting to believe that many of the most prominent leaders in the radical conservative movement (Limbaugh, Ailes, Coulter, et.al.) don't actually hold the convictions they are purported to hold. They know that anger sells better than rational argument, and they spout their thinly-veiled racist and classist diatribes for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks--because that's where the money is"

        Absolutely agree. They are phony to the core.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 22, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
           
        H*ll they're still at it on the Strupp column.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 22, 2010 3:15 pm ET)
        3  
        Frankly, I'm starting to believe that many of the most prominent leaders in the radical conservative movement (Limbaugh, Ailes, Coulter, et.al.) don't actually hold the convictions they are purported to hold. They know that anger sells better than rational argument, and they spout their thinly-veiled racist and classist diatribes for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks--because that's where the money is.



        That's what I've been saying for a very long time. These people don't even believe the garbage they shovel . . . they know that the way to keep their followers coming back for more is to appeal to their baser emotions and fears. As long as they keep coming back, the "leaders" will line their own pockets.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (July 22, 2010 3:24 pm ET)
          6  
          Yep. And the Republican party wonders why it has an image problem and people believe it has morphed into some far right nutbag of weirdos. They refuse to distance themselves from these defacto leaders in the media. They bow and worship at their altar afraid to pi$$ them off for fear they will turn their listeners into Democrats or something.

          There is nothing more distasteful than weak spineless unprincipled politicians who are so desperate to hold on to their base voters that they sell their values and beliefs to some loudmouth media personality who doesn't give a rip about them. Serves them right.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Major Tom (July 22, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
        6  
        Here's the rub, if you're right, they are sociopaths who care nothing for the effect they have on society.
        If you're wrong, and they do believe the tripe they spew, then they are sociopaths that care nothing for the effect they have on society.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (July 22, 2010 9:25 pm ET)
        2  
        Oh, there's no doubt.

        I had a cottage industry going for the past couple of weeks here pointing out how the impetus for the stories that were coming from the right were clearly NOT due to actual political differences, but were intended solely to demean Obama.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 22, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
      5  
      And it took them THIS LONG to figure it out? The B*llsh!t Acorn story didn't do it? Why were they so eager to accept THAT ONE? (Or any of the ones since?) Every one had just as many problems, at least from the POV of a decent journalist! If it wasn't racism that clouded their judgement, then it was conservtaive bias. There's no other explanation, save for gross incompetence... and that would have to apply to Fox as well, Conservtaives! The MSM has been CARRYING this guy sing 2008 and he's nothing by a RW Character Assassin.

      Behold your liberal media...

      -------------------------------------------------------
      ...four times is the charm, I guess!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Scupper Joe (July 22, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
      4  
      YEAH! The media denounces Breitbart.
      Hmmmm.
      Give 'em a week and they'll be plastering his lies all over, again.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by didi (July 22, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
      4  
      Where is O'Really & Insanity's "refudiation"?

      Should I wait?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by didi (July 22, 2010 3:25 pm ET)
      4  
      Breaking News:

      On the Hannity show last night, Ann Coulter said that Breitbart was set up. LMAO
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Disposable_Lawyer2010 (July 22, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
        3
      I don't think Breitbart did anything wrong. If anyone needs to apologize, it's the NAACP and the White House. For cryin' out loud, it was the NAACP's tape! How could they not have reviewed it or even recognized it! And to make it worse, they won't even own up to being completely incompetent!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (July 22, 2010 4:05 pm ET)
      1  
      Well, that's one down.... but the Queen still lives...

      [http://www.legendsofhorror.org/images/aliens/alienspic1a.jpg]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (July 23, 2010 12:49 am ET)
           
        Nice pic of Roger Ailes.

        Captures his good side.

        Well, if he HAD a good side, that would be it.

        I guess.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by voltaire (July 22, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
      6  
      Breitbart is and always will be a lying POS. He'll do anything to advance his agenda, truth be damned. Same as Limbaugh, Coulter, et al. The real problem here is that these people, who decades ago would be yelling on the corner or in the subway, have been mainstreamed. Magazines, newspapers, tv shows treat them as cuddly curmudgeons who are just on the other side of the political spectrum. And Fox News gives them legitimacy. Just as what happened with his faux ACORN scandal, Fox News welcomes Breitbart as if he were a returning hero from WWII and accepts everything he says without any diligence or investigation. Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham and the Down Syndrome crew of Fox & Friends all took what he was selling at face value because it bolstered the narrative they propagandize. It is really unbelievable that they all get away with this, over and over again. The wingnuts get to launder their bats--t crazy theories on a major cable "news" network. And then they scream liberal bias in the media if other outlets don't pick up their story. (It worked with ACORN; so far, thankfully, it doesn't seem to be working with their New Black Panther/DOJ conspiracy theory.) Of course, I can't let the Obama administration off the hook here. It is sad that they are afraid of their own shadow whenever Fox attacks them and that they did not do their own diligence and investigation of this tape.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (July 22, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
        2  
        Well said.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (July 22, 2010 4:49 pm ET)
        1  
        very good post. it would be nice to think that maybe the powers that be would read it and take your post to heart.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by djur (July 22, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
         
      What's this "left and right" garbage from Cooper? You find me a single analogous figure to Breitbart on the left in the last 50 years and I will eat my shoe a la Herzog.

      Nobody left of the American center matches Breitbart in terms of (a) partisan identification, (b) political extremism, (c) media coverage, (d) bankrupt ethics, and (e) range of influence. And he's not the only one (see: Limbaugh, Rush; Beck, Glenn; Hannity, Sean).
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (July 22, 2010 9:40 pm ET)
      1  
      The first round of media criticism of this numskull is easy. Those people in the media willing to stand up and support Breitbart are not taken seriously (are you listening Rush?)

      However, slamming Breitbart is just the first step. Most media, including the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have all done things like Breitbart at one time or another. The next steps is some good old fashioned self evaluation.

      The news organizations need to re-examine their own policies and procedures and, perhaps, publish a manifesto promising their readers/listeners that they won't print stories without adequately fact-checking.

      This huge disaster for Breitbart could prove an opportunity for the main stream news media to have a fresh start.

      Here's hoping....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cornelison (July 22, 2010 10:11 pm ET)
         
      Breitbart's been on Fox's "Red Eye" "comedy" program. Red Eye used to be funny before Obama won. Now it's all insults to lefties. The comedians there are no longer funny.

      Oh, wait. I get it. Breitbart's really a comedian.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Anne_Parsley (July 23, 2010 12:03 pm ET)
         
      It's obvious the right wing media & its cohorts are going to continue to do whatever they can to discredit & ruin Obama & the Democratic Party.

      The WH should have known when you combine Breithbart & Beck there's nothing good about it. The WH response was wrong. The WH immediately reacted without completely checking out Breithbart's allegations. So this story caused another 4 day sensation & the WH lost.

      Hopefully this is a "teachable moment" for Obama. There is so much on this country's plate we can not afford to get caught up in this silliness.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by papajohn (July 24, 2010 9:53 am ET)
           
        The media have largely taken the opportunity to trash the Obama administration and let themselves off the hook. What's wrong with MMFA?

        John
        Report Abuse