Sunday media call out Breitbart, Fox for running with bogus attacks on Sherrod
Numerous Sunday television and print commentators criticized Andrew Breitbart for posting the deceptively edited video of Shirley Sherrod, as well as Fox News for running with Breitbart's bogus smear.
Sunday commentators slam Breitbart, Fox for smearing Sherrod
Joan Walsh: Fox ran with Sherrod smear pushed by "discredited" Breitbart. On the July 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Salon.com's Joan Walsh criticized Fox News for running with Breitbart's deceptively edited video of Sherrod, stating that Breitbart "should have already been discredited" for pushing heavily edited ACORN videos last year. Walsh further stated that "Fox played a much bigger role [in the Sherrod story] than people want to admit," noting that the "Breitbart version of the story ran on FoxNews.com all day Monday" and that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity discussed the story on their July 19 Fox News programs.
Jane Hall: Fox ran with Sherrod story "because it fit their narrative of a very anti-Obama situation." On the July 25 edition of Reliable Sources, former Fox News contributor Jane Hall said the Sherrod video was "almost a virtual world McCarthyism" and that Fox News ran with the video "because it fit their narrative of a very anti-Obama situation."
Bob Schieffer: "A partisan blogger with an agenda ... put the heavily edited" video of Sherrod on the Internet. On the July 25 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer stated: "A partisan blogger with an agenda -- not a journalist -- put the heavily edited, totally out of context, now-infamous sound bite of Shirley Sherrod on the Internet." Schieffer further stated: "Some of the cable folk picked up this story and demanded the woman's ouster -- no calls to those involved; no checking of any kind. Just throw it out there and leave it to the woman to defend herself."
Mara Liasson: Fox among those "guilty" in Sherrod controversy. On the July 25 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News contributor and NPR correspondent Mara Liasson stated that "every entity here who did not do their homework and practice good journalism and report the entire videotape is guilty -- including Fox, who played it, but not in its entirety even after she'd been fired."
Howard Dean: Fox acted "absolutely racist." On the July 25 Fox News Sunday, Howard Dean stated of the Sherrod controversy: "Fox News did something that was absolutely racist. ... They had an obligation to find out what was really in the clip. They have been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panther crap and this [Sherrod] business and Sotomayor and all this other stuff." Dean further stated that "the tea party called out their racist fringe, and I think the Republican Party's got to stop appealing to its racist fringe, and Fox News is what did that."
Frank Rich: Breitbart is a "dirty trickster notorious for hustling skewed partisan videos on Fox News." In his July 24 New York Times column, Frank Rich wrote that "[e]ven though the egregiously misleading excerpt from Shirley Sherrod's 43-minute speech came from Andrew Breitbart, the dirty trickster notorious for hustling skewed partisan videos on Fox News, few questioned its validity." Rich further noted that Fox News touted Breitbart's edited video clip of Sherrod's comments as "what racism looks like."
Van Jones: Breitbart "promoted a misleadingly edited video of [Sherrod's] speech." In a July 24 New York Times op-ed, former Obama administration official Van Jones criticized how "[p]artisan Web sites and pundits pounced" on the Sherrod controversy, writing that "news organizations, and partisans posing as news organizations" have "cross[ed] the line from responsible reporting to dangerous rumor-mongering." Jones also wrote: "Andrew Breitbart, a prominent Internet conservative, promoted a misleadingly edited video of her speech; within hours, news outlets of all stripes were promoting it as truth."
Bring on more condemnations. Perhaps at least he might some day face the fire over one of his concoctions. Sleazy doesn't quite describe him bluntly enough.
In other words, he's the next Karl Rove.
Who said, "...never let a crisis go to waste..."?
The man who bugged his own office then called in reporters to claim that a democratic opponent did it?
The man who led the push poll attacks on John Mccain in South Carolina with the lie that he had fathered a black child?
The man who was instrumental in the actions of outing an undercover CIA operative then lied about it?
Those four are just without googling his name. You must think you are on Brent Bozo's MRC to actually spout stuff like that!!
I'm not defending Breitbart here but really, that's no reason to attack it either, stick with the facts here, please.
The full unedited video of the ACORN set up shows that O'Keefe went in dressed like a preppy college kid, not as a 70's era pimp, which was how it was pushed by Breitbart and others in the media. ACORN said they would have an investigation BASED ON THE FAKED TAPES.
When the tapes were shown to law enforcement officials what happened? No charges were filed. This proves, against your statement that not everything on them was real. Do you really think that the story would have had the legs it did without the editing?
Hell even Jon Stewart fell for it at the beginning but now we know what has happened O'Keefe and Giles his accomplice are facing lawsuits from people who were wrongfully smeared and lost their livihoods because of it.
For someone claiming not to defend Breitbart you are doing a sterling job.
Brietbart is scum. Scum. Scum. Scum.
Any any RW'ers that are still protecting him and apologizing ofr him and buying his b*llsh!t are scum themselves.
Not to mention BLIND, PARTISAN, BIASED, HYPOSRITCIAL, SELF-RIGTEOUS MORONS.
------------------------------------
IMHO
I don't call people "morons", I would suggest taking that example.
You say that all the people you associate with who disagree wit hthe president don't call him names, or scum or think he was born in Kenya?
Great.
Well how many since Jan '09 have called him "arrogant" or "elitist" or "angry", you know, the new dog-whistle code words that have replaced the N-word and "uppity" in the right wing lexicon because everyone now knows what is being said when bigots use those terms.
You, in your own world think you have won the demabe because people have started name calling but in some cases it is really justified.
Breitbart is an unrepentent, unmitigated, unscrupulous, unapologetic racist, bigot and liar who has done considerable damage to good people and helped destroy an organisation which may have had its faults but did very good work and more importantly to Breitbart and his right wing cohorts GOT A LOT OF MINORITIES TO THE POLLS WHO WERE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.
They had to be gotten rid of, just like the attempt to derail the USDA just as the biggest case they have brought, the illegal disenfranchisement of African American farmers, comes to a decision soon and as a helping hand claim that the NAACP is a racist organisation who had no problem with what Sherrod had done. How better to try to make the decision harder than by claiming that one of the hardest workers in fighting for justice for these farmers is actually a reverse racist linked to an association full of reverse racists?
It was truly a Dean "duh" moment.
Besides, if the actions of the administration gave the story legitimacy, then why didn't Fox, fair and balanced, have headlines focusing on the actions of the administration. The headlines should have read: Administration responds to charges of racism.
There was a reason why the right wing attack media needed to do an about face when the full video was released. Quite simply, they were in the middle of a disinformation smear on the administration and Mrs. Sharrod that required them to attack first and ask questions later.
If Fox was mislead by all this, its because they are more interested in political activism than journalism.
When Sharrod resigned, the last thing Fox would do is investigate how quickly the administration reacted to a charge of anti white racism. Why? Because that would contradict their pro tea party media champaign to rile up conservatives as being under attack from the administration and their allies.
Fox will not even take responsibility for its error. Maybe thats because it was playing its role as a shill network for conservative politics.
You have to wonder what the breaking point would be for some of these people. How obvious does it have to be before they realize that they are being played.
A lot of this reminds me of the time before the Iraq invasion. Bush seemed to have had much of the country ready to run off the cliff. He knew how to press their buttons. The Actual reality on the ground was irrelevant.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004
Of course, actual audio/video/screen capture isn't proof!
Doesn't _Anyone_ here get the irony of all this? I am telling you Breitbart is a Red-Herring. All this "discrediting", "criticism" and the like foisted toward Breitbart in the mainstream media by legit broadcasters should be directed, in a
_serious and effective_ way,
toward Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck... and the like.
I am 100% right about this. Let the thumbs-down begin, at least you will have considered the facts!
You're a fool if you think that's a good path to follow. Or a concern troll we should ignore.
We should pay attention to Rush and Hannity and Beck AND Breitbart.
I got a thumbs down earlier on my observation that on GMA BBart was not allowed to finish his sentences... GS should have let him finish his comments regardless before he butted in.
"The Facts", I just used that for emphasis. But the fact of the matter _is_ that the Limbaughs, Hannity's and Becks, while they are criticized to a degree, do not incur significant challenge, in other words, they are not taken to task _effectively_ by mainstream/legit broadcasters, MMFA notwithstanding.
I did not say to ignore BBart. But I stand by my belief that he is a red-herring.
Not sure if the missing link comment was for me... lol
ummm, please take note: Have Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck been shamed out of the broadcast industry,,, to pardon the expression
___er, um... No!__. So my point still stands.
But we can sway some.
Your suggestion that Limbaugh and Hannity's influence hasn't changed/can't change is ridiculous, or the idea that when we pay attention to the likes of Breitbart, we're wasting effort that should be directed towards the biggest offenders is even more ludicrous.
And while Breitbart deserves to be put on the hot-seat he is not
a news (information) broadcaster of nearly the same sort as the others.
The others have have, at least to some degree, the air
of broadcast tradition and while deformed and degraded they are part and parcel of institutions which have formerly established legitimacy.
Outside of Olbermann, you will rarely see mainstream take
these others to task in a serious way except, perhaps, as a jocular or abbreviated lead-in to an advertising break.
Not to mention hold them accountable in terms of ethics of broadcast "journalism" (using that term lightly).
If Dan Rather can be drummed out of the business for circumstances/issues which still seem rather of legit question, then it should not be so hard
to make these creeps feel some real heat from scrutiny.
and originality!
I never said anything frivilouos. I just said trigger happy with the lawsuit. Always with the insults you... always. Have you ever had a decent conversation or does everything have to be personal to you?
What else you got?
Really? Like what?
Brietbart set-up by the NAACP really? Is this somemore of the crazy Beck-type conspiracy theories? The NAACP sent Brietbart the edited tape that Brietbart claims shows the NAACP to be as racist as the tea-baggers. The NAACP then comes out and criticizes Sherrod initially agreeing with her firing only to make themselves look like dupes after the whole video and interviews with Sherrod,the white farmers whose farm was saved and memebers of the NAACP who attnded the event are aired. Keep posting it's quite clear who the stupid one is here.
Fox didn't sensationalize the story like other outlets did. Why aren't we blaming CNN? How did MSNBC miss this?
The USDA was concerned about America being distracted by the kind of nonsense that Beck runs with all the time. That's why she got told that she needed to resign.
I doubt that even you believe what you just wrote.
I see person X coming out of a bank and claim he is the bank robber. Since the bank did not give me their entire surveillance videos they had, X becomes the bank robber?
Please show evidence that the NAACP knew that Breitbart had this tape and also knew that Breitbart was going to send it out to fox.
Also, please show evidence that Breitbart asked for the full tape and transcripts.
Thanks in advance.
Yes and what was he doing during all that time he had the video? Well according to Breitbart he was waiting for just the right moment to release it. He sure wasn't doing much to actually verify the context and content of the video all that time he had it.
You see, Breitbart is in business to do damage and derail the media. Fox is happy to amplify the damage. Grown ups and journalist don't do that. If proof of NAACP's so called racism had any real relevance, you wouldn't wait to release it to cause the most damage.
MMFA also failed to mention that the NAACP owned the video and failed to send it or the COMPLETE transcripts to Breitbart so context could have been presented properly.
So Breitbart expects the NAACP to help him smear them. Boo hoo hoo. A real journalist does't need the whole tape. A person really interested in the truth could contact people who where there or contact the speaker for comment or a rebuttal. Honest debate requires some work. Even lazy people can name call and smear.
It is clear Breitbart was set up by the NAACP........now the question is why. Get away from this site, read, and stop making yourself look stupid.
Well all I had to do was move my car in the driveway to hear this charge from Mike Savage on the radio. Its not at all difficult to get bombarded for hours on radio and television from the many conservative media celebrities with their hours of unchallenged views on the air. There are multiple outlets for hearing conservative attack media try to squirm out of this.
Meanwhile why don't you, Billy, take a deep breath and think for a minute. If the NAACP had a plot like this, why would it work so well?
Answer: Because they would know how unprofessional, partisan, hateful, biased and lazy the right wing media celebrities are. Why planting an Obama is racist/socialist/foreign/muslim story with these people is like shooting fish in a barrel. In the meantime, thank you for giving us an example of how vulnerable some conservatives are to being manipulated by these large partisan media outlets. Billy you are being played.
I don't think it has. I don't think that Fox has suffered at all over it, and I still don't understand why Fox is the sole target in this whole mess.
Even if they did wait to report on the story until after Sherrod's resignation, it does not excuse their lack of interest in finding out exactly what happened before they went viral.
Be honest, they ran with this story so quickly and intensely because it worked well with their anti-administration pro tea party bias. Verification was not as important as continuing the attacks.
This whole incident reveals what they are up too.
Setting aside the possibility that the job title of fact-checker at FauxNoise seems an oxymoron, a lack of resources is likely. The double-edge sword is that this quote from the WaPo has driven the right wing complainers around he bend about WaPo's lack of coverage of the New Black Panthers.
Actually, it was a production company that owned the video, not the NAACP. You're conspiracy theories are more creative than Glenn Beck's, I'll give you that.
Not so for Sherrod who lost her job before she could defend herself properly. She was attacked in the media as part of a political agenda to attack the NAACP. Why? Not because the NAACP called the tea party racist. Nope. Broadbrush smears like that are what you get from conservative media celebrities like Rush, Beck, Hannity, Savage... Who project extremism to entire groups based on one alleged example all the time.
No,the NAACP was careful to point out that it was elements in the tea parties that were racist. That was a responsible adult way to criticize.
Well look at the childish way these tea party spokesmen reacted to the criticism. To get hysterical and attack
The same goes with Fox. They desperately wanted more evidence in their campaign to make the president and their critics look extreme and radical. They wanted proof that their distortions were true more than they wanted the truth.
They were not fair, they were not balanced and they seem reluctant to take responsibility for their actions.
Why shouldn't Dean, a governor, be held to the same standards as Fox? Does that mean it's okay for Fox to mis-speak about anybody and everybody, or does that only count when somebody is talking about Fox?
Can you tell me how they did this?
Sure but in this case Dean was talking on Fox. Its not the same thing if the people you are talking about are right there and can reply.
Well look at the childish way these tea party spokesmen reacted to the criticism. To get hysterical and attack
Adults get criticized all the time and don't take it personally. the NAACP did not attack the tea party. They made it clear that there were certain things they had seen at tea party rallies that they didn't like. They did not call all tea party participants racist.
Instead of confirming that they are not racist and reminding people of how such things are not going to be tolerated, the tea party spokesmen got on a campaign to call the NAACP racist and not just elements of it. Their point was that the NAACP had no right to criticize them because of their racism. They also played the victim role and over exaggerated the NAACP criticism as a personal attack. I am sorry but this kind of childish back and forth is very common among conservative media celebrities who dish it out but can't take it.
Though you may be right in identifying that group of people, you cannot seriously leave out Olbermann, Maher, Maddow, and others on the left who have constantly referred to the Tea Party activists in derogatory ways. One of those ways is to call the ENTIRE MOVEMENT racist. Get your stuff straight before you try to come in here and paint an incomplete picture.
The rest of your post is for another time and place. I think most people on here call it trolling.
-"You and others do a good enough job proving it here"
I have never been a part of any tea party, but I'll play along. Tell me one thing I have stated that makes me come across as crazy. Am I carzy because I see the world differently than you? That is craziness. That's diversity of opinion.
-"if one video was enough proof by Brietbart to paint a civil rights organiztion started in the early 20th century as racist"
I don't think I ever said they were racist so you are building an incredible strawman. I'm sorry we see the world differently. Once again, maybe you should try being civil instead of being so personal. Maybe you should look it up for yourself, but I think your favorite logical fallacy is ad hominem attacks.
No but Brietbart and Fox were. They are broadbrushing the whole organization. Is that OK with you? You seem to have a strong need to defend them. Why?
It's not a minor mistake when the evidence you are using to call an organization racist is bad evidence or false testimony. I have a lot to work with, but unlike others on MMFA, I want to stick to the point and topic the best I can and refrain from insulting or making things personal.
Here you go folks. Conservatives can dish it out but they can't take it. Please Grunt, by all means comb through all those non-conservative programs and point out where they are unfair and inaccurate. Find evidence where they lie or misquote people. I absolutely encourage any honest effort to point out where they speak without facts or misquote people. Why you can even start a website doing that if you want.
One of those ways is to call the ENTIRE MOVEMENT racist. Get your stuff straight before you try to come in here and paint an incomplete picture.
That is not what the NAACP did. Yet that's what they got.
In the meantime it is undeniable that for a long time there has been a concentrated effort by powerful conservative interest and their conservative media celebrity attack dogs to derail our political discourse through lies and distortion. These people have hours and hours on the air without rebutal. Are you OK with that?
Could you explain that? I believe my very first line confirmed the poster's point and expanded on it. "Though you may be right in identifying that group of people..."
-"Please Grunt, by all means comb through all those non-conservative programs and point out where they are unfair and inaccurate."
Well, considering I watch everyone of those programs fairly consistantly, I don't need to comb through anything. However, I will stick only to this topic of "painting with a broad stroke". I believe Maddow was the first (I can't be sure) to start referring to the tea partiers as "teabaggers". As evidenced by her juvenile laugh when doing so, she was being derogatory in referencing them that way. Early in the tea party movement, Olbermann had on Janeane Garofalo. She made the following statement in reference to the tea partiers.
-- "It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up... we've discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe... And again, this is about racism... These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House... because as I've said, the Republican hype and the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement." --
The interview goes on with Olbermann agreeing with all of it. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. Do you find the things said there to be the absolute truth? Or is it sensationalism? Marginalization? Stereotyping?
I love Bill Maher's show. Seriously. I don't miss an episode, but he also paints very broadly. If you want plenty of Olbermann lies, go to olbermannwatch.com. Do you really think dishonesty only takes place on the right????? Wow!! You may want to expand your news sources a little bit...
-"These people have hours and hours on the air without rebutal. Are you OK with that?"
In what way? I am able to acces both sides of any story basically. No "rebutal"??? What are you talking about? MMFA claims to refute, don't they?? Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Schultz, Maher, Air AMerica (are they still in business?), and more offer a counterpoint to the right. Do we live in the same world???
I'm not ok with lying from either side.
Could you explain that? I believe my very first line confirmed the poster's point and expanded on it. "Though you may be right in identifying that group of people..."
Your reply just proved my point. Your complaints about liberal commentators seem mild compared to what comes out of people like Beck and Savage. Janeane Garofalo seems to be doing what Bill Oriely does all the time, insult people he doesn't agree with. you guys dish it out but can't take it when it happens to you.
You say you are not OK with lying from either side yet your response to seeing conservative media get criticized is not to denounce it but to to complain that other people are doing it.
I don't care for arguments based on personal attacks, smears, and the misquoting of what people say. I doubt many on this site would deny that it does happen all across the media spectrum, but this site focuses on Conservative media. Why?
One reason is that conservative media has engaged in a well funded campaign to derail our democracy and civic discourse. Please give me examples of where any liberal pundits have dominated our debates with false stories and innuendo to the extent that conservative pundits do. Death panels, Monica, Panthers, Birthers, socialism...
So Janeane Garofalo doesn't like the Tea parties. I don't see her or anyone else's dislike for them significantly derailing their message. I think everyone in the country knows who they are and what they stand for. As far as a protest movement goes, they don't have much to complain about. Tea parties, for some reason seem to expect immunity from criticism. They can't expect to have signs comparing our president to a monkey and not get some flak... But I guess I am wrong.
"You guys"?? What does that mean? As if I am part of the right wing media??? Why can't I be an independent thinker? Why can't I be an observer? It is sickening how many people on this site lump everyone together. Deal with me and what I say. You don't have to lump me in with everyone else.
-"your response to seeing conservative media get criticized is not to denounce it but to to complain that other people are doing it."
NOOO!!! My point was that you were acting as if it is one sided. As if the left-wing was somehow self-righteous when it comes to truth telling. Like they have some exclusiveness. Again, a criticism of one is not a defense of another.
-"Please give me examples of where any liberal pundits have dominated our debates with false stories and innuendo to the extent that conservative pundits do."
Here are a few off of the top of my head;
-Conservatives and libertarians are racists
-They hate poor people
-They want to force women into back alley abortions
-They are all misogynists
-They want children to starve to death
-They only care about rich people
-They are war mongers
Would you like me to go on?
-"Tea parties, for some reason seem to expect immunity from criticism."
No one said they should be immune from criticism. In fact, people should encourage criticism. It makes your stances more grounded in truth. However, I think their is a difference between slander and criticism. Calling the movement racist is irresponsible. Calling select members racist is fine. However, no matter how many times you say it, it hasn't happened that way. They have used a broad brush approach. Criticize their opinions and their political views, but there is no reason to destroy the people involved personally. In my opinion.
all that keyboard cowboy posturing aside, we're still waiting.
Meaning he was acting the way Fox and many conservative media celebrities often do. It seems to work for them and their political allies all the time.
NOT AT ALL!!!! Why are you defending Fox? All you are telling me is that Howard Dean supposedly did something that the conservative media celebrities on Fox do everyday. If Dean misspoke, he did it on Fox to their face and they had an opportunity to correct him. I am sure a large powerful media network can handle that.
On a side note, don't you find it scary that Obama and this administration is so scared of Glenn Beck that they fired someone in fear of him possibly showing the video (something that didn't even happen)?
I have no problem with someone criticizing Dean if he misspoke, but somehow Fox, Rush and Tea Parties are off limits.
and as eb points out, solid SOLID arguing points as well. why, next i expect an "OH YEAH MAN!" coming out of you.
That would mean that you would have to venture outside the MMFA website and read other sources of information. I don't imagine that you do that too often, since you use the word "hatemonger".
Well, you wouldn't would you? Open your eyes now and then.
The subject of this thread is a classic example as rightly pointed out by grunt.
What about Beck, who the day after the story broke, asked for the full video, and defended Sherrod? No comment?
I also appreciate the few conservatives who are willing to go on this site and actually discuss the issues and who are at times willing to concede that the right wing media has indeed gone too far.
Like for example, MMfA's very own research.
Now to answer your question just look above at the post by Johaely. Then do yourself a favor and look at the article titled Brietbart Sherrod timeline. It's easy to find.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210055