MSNBC serves up a lie sandwich for its viewers, and Jonathan Capehart chows down.
The Washington Post’s Op Ed page, courtesy of the paper’s liberal blogger Jonathan Capehart, was mocking Mitt Romney—he’s an out-of-touch rich guy, you know—for “waxing amazed at what he just saw or who he has just met as if he were a traveler in a strange and distant land for the first time.” Wrote Capehart:
“…Romney added to his parade of wonder with this beauty after visiting a well-known roadside convenience store chain in Pennsylvania. ‘Where do you get your hoagies here? Do you get them at WaWas? Is that where you get them? Well, I went to a place today called WaWas. You ever been to WaWas? Anybody been there? Some people don’t like . . . I know, I’m sorry. It’s a big state divide. But we went to WaWas . . . I was at a WaWas. I went to order a sandwich. You press a little touchtone key pad.… You touch this, touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier, and there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing!’
“What’s amazing is that Romney is seeking to lead a nation he appears to be visiting for the very first time. Pity he won’t settle for a t-shirt instead of the presidency as his souvenir”
Capehart’s ridicule was accompanied in its online incarnation by a video clip, courtesy of MSNBC. It was edited as Capehart represented it, and had been shown on the network accompanied by derisive laughter on the part of Andrea Mitchell and the Post’s Chris Cillizza because, you know, that Romney is such an out-of touch rich guy that it’s just hilarious.
But the video had been deceptively edited so that the context of Romney’s WaWa’s story was omitted to make him look foolish. The presumptive GOP nominee for President was talking about the red tape government imposes on businesses large and small, and the innovation the private sector can achieve if only government bureaucracies will give it room. The anecdote about WaWa’s automation wasn’t a “Golleee! What will they think of next!” demonstration of Romney’s patrician cluelessness, but an illustration of a legitimate point. [You can compare the full segment with the MSNBC distortion here.] Then, since MSNBC is so unbiased a primary source, and its parent, NBC, is so thoroughly trustworthy—as shown by its deceptive editing of George Zimmerman’s 911 call to allow Al Sharpton to use it as proof that Zimmerman is a racist— Capehart and probably other Obama-promoting journalists used the video to unfairly attack Romney….and to deceive the public.
Remember all the abuse justly heaped on the late Andrew Breitbart by the mainstream media, after he posted the Shirley Sherrod video edited to make the Commerce employee sound like a bigot, when the point of her speech to the NAACP was exactly the opposite? Remember? He was a disgrace, a liar, a travesty of a journalist, they said.
When political campaigns do this sort of thing, it is called dirty campaigning. When the news media does it, however, it is something very different, and much, much worse. It represents the end of trustworthy and objective journalism, where the very professionals who are charged with bringing truth to the public brings it lies instead, for their own purposes. It is an abuse of power, and a threat to democracy.
______________________
Sources:
Graphic: Save Jersey
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Solidly on point.
Abuse? What abuse? Power? What power?
Threat? What threat? Democracy? What democracy?
(That was just practicing for a sarcasm contest. Journalists are SO in touch!)
‘But the video had been deceptively edited’
Again!? There aren’t any penalties for this?
As someone who’s never lived more than five minutes from I-10, I posit that it would be perfectly acceptable even if Mitt Romney’s point had actually been surprise at this place called WaWa with the magic sandwich machine.
“Remember all the abuse justly heaped on the late Andrew Breitbart by the mainstream media, after he posted the Shirley Sherrod video edited to make the Commerce employee sound like a bigot, when the point of her speech to the NAACP was exactly the opposite? Remember? He was a disgrace, a liar, a travesty of a journalist, they said.”
Jack, I do remember that. The point that he was trying to make with the video was not that Sherrod was a bigot, but he was showing how the crowd reacted positively to the bigoted act that Sherrod had said she was thinking of doing, before she then described going on to do the right thing.
If Breitbart’s intent had been to show Sherrod as a bigot, then the video was deceptively edited. If his intent was to show the audience as expressing approval of a bigoted act, it was not deceptively edited. However, there is no doubt that it was foolishly edited as the unintended consequences of the edited video should not have been difficult to predict.
Anyway, I am not a big fan of the “Breitbart approach” as it seems too confrontational to me and feeds the us vs. them attitudes that support the tribalism we see in politics today.
I know the official explanation for the Breitbart cut was as you describe, but really: who can believe that? The people who run the site were and are expert provocateurs. They saw their own tape, and had to know that it hung out Shirley Sherrod as an unashamed bigot. We have to believe that the perception created was exactly as designed.
AFAIK, Breitbart didn’t have access to the whole presentation, just the cut tape. They also didn’t push for her to be fired; the administration, without vetting anything involved, did that.
And yeah, plenty of people can believe it. Given the depth and breadth of lies in political discourse today, a confrontational journalist (or two, or thousand) is just what we need. It’s organizations like the *NAACP* that are promoting “tribalism” in this day and age.
Finally, let’s not forget that this whole Sherrod thing was partly timed regarding and in response to the vilification (unsubstantiated, all of it) of the Tea Party as a bunch of racists. Say what you will about him, but he offered $10,000 cash money for proof that anybody had called the CBC the n-word. Nobody came forward, because it never happened.
There’s your context.
THAT is the setting for the Sherrod tape. Proving that even the top folks at the NAACP can and have acted racist in the past was VERY germane to the conversation at the time, don’t you think?
AFAIK, Breitbart didn’t have access to the whole presentation, just the cut tape. They also didn’t push for her to be fired; the administration, without vetting anything involved, did that.
Breitbart repeatedly used videos that were edited to hide the facts. If he didn’t know what was going on, he’s an idiot.
Also, there’s no evidence the administration pushed for Sherrod to be fired.
And yeah, plenty of people can believe it. Given the depth and breadth of lies in political discourse today, a confrontational journalist (or two, or thousand) is just what we need. It’s organizations like the *NAACP* that are promoting “tribalism” in this day and age.
A confrontational journalist confronts people with the truth. The term you’re looking for to describe Breitbart is Mudslinger. He didn’t care if what he reported was true or not, so long as it made the otherside look bad.
Yes, the NAACP is promoting tribalism, and that’s bad, but that doesn’t mean their isn’t political tribalism that’s bad as well. You’re trying to change the topic.
Finally, let’s not forget that this whole Sherrod thing was partly timed regarding and in response to the vilification (unsubstantiated, all of it) of the Tea Party as a bunch of racists. Say what you will about him, but he offered $10,000 cash money for proof that anybody had called the CBC the n-word. Nobody came forward, because it never happened.
So, Breitbart lied, and it’s the other side’s fault. Good show! Your argument makes it worse.
Also, anyone who still claims there wasn’t a racist element to the tea party is an idiot. The tea party greatly overlaps with the birthers. Yes there are some actual fiscal hawks that embraced the tea party, but pretending that was all that was involved is a whitewash.
There’s your context.
THAT is the setting for the Sherrod tape. Proving that even the top folks at the NAACP can and have acted racist in the past was VERY germane to the conversation at the time, don’t you think?
So, misrepresenting Sherrod showed the top folks at the NAACP had been racist in the past? Nope. It showed that Breitbart didn’t have a legitimate clip of anyone acting badly…other than blowhards like Jesse Jackson, and that’s not news. A lie had to be used instead.
Also, even if it had occurred, how was it germane to the conversation? It might be important on it’s own, but it doesn’t say a single thing about the tea party.
Breitbart so frequently used deceptively edited tapes that the site’s credibility on the Sherrod tape is non-existent. But the reasons for publicizing a video like that are irrelevant, even in a political combat context, if the tape itself was a lie, which it was. Using applause to indicate anything is a fool’s game:I’m in theater, and a couple of people applauding for nothing at all can start an ovation. It’s meaningless. The device of misleading videos has degraded broadcast journalism. It tells you something if a Breitbart trick can go mainstream.
Tgt is exactly right. (A racist idiot from the Tea Party just had to resign after she told a racist joke in public. Tarring the whole tea party movement as racist is like calling the whole Democratic Party Anti-American, but there was and is an obvious strain there. It can’t be denied.
I can’t help challenging a couple of statements in your post.
1. “Breitbart so frequently used deceptively edited tapes …”
What other tapes are you referring to, and what evidence do you have that the tapes he presented were “deceptively edited” — i.e., edited in a way that changed their meaning?
Breitbart (and the Web site he created) is/was hardly perfect, but few members of the new media make the old media eat their words as often as Breitbart and Breitbart.com.
Breitbart, you’ll recall, was the guy who singlehandedly disproved the Democrats’ bogus claim (and the mainstream media’s bogus story) regarding Tea Party members supposedly yelling racial epithets at black Congressmen. Breitbart offered to donate $10,000 if anyone could provide evidence of even one racial slur at that event.
Amazingly, despite the size of the crowd and the number of cell phones and other recording equipment present, not a single person stepped forward, and the fake story died a sudden, embarrassing death.
I give props to anybody who has the stones to stick it in the MSM’s face and back them down.
2. “Tarring the whole tea party movement as racist is like calling the whole Democratic Party Anti-American, but there was and is an obvious strain there. It can’t be denied.”
Sure it can, if your only evidence is a stupid act by one person (or even a tiny handful of people). After all, it’s not as if she was elected president of her Tea Party chapter after telling the joke — on the contrary, she was asked to resign. What more would you have demanded that they do… give her an old-fashioned witch dunking?
Moreover, show me an organization in America whose members harbor no biases whatsoever.
It’s not only unfair, but irresponsible, to use the actions of one individual as a pretext to affix the scarlet “R” to the chests of hundreds of thousands of Tea Party members. To my knowledge, no Tea Party member has even been arrested at a rally, despite the huge crowds in attendance.
Yet, conversely, the Occupy movement received respectful treatment in the media, even though dozens of participants were arrested and individual protesters engaged in such actions as defecating on a police car, attacking cops, and committing rape in the Occupy camp. When the misbehavior goes this far beyond “isolated incident,” shouldn’t it discredit the entire movement?
This is Media Matters-style partisan spinning, I.C. I know that hurts.
1) Both the Sherrod video and the O’Keefe Acorn video were deceptively edited, and there were others. If there weren’t others, then I wouldn’t have resolved that I just couldn’t trust Breitbart’s scoops as reliable. Sometimes it wasn’t a video. Sometimes it was a deceitful written headline or quote. This site believes that the ends justify the means, just like Saul Alinsky. I don’t. No ethicist does.
2) Come on. If you check, you will find that few have defended the Tea Party against accusations of racism more consistently that me, or more frequently. However, too many leaders in the tea party are unapologetic bigots. This most recent episode was hardly the first (and her joke was mild compared to what has drawn fire to other Tea Party types). I regard Sen. Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act so foolishly and racially insensitive (and justice-insensitive) that anyone who chooses to call him racist will get little argument from me. The Tea Party has tolerated a lot of wackos in leadership positions too—like Christine O’Donnell, for example…or search for “Ronbo” on this site. I respect the Tea Party movement and what its accomplished up to a point, but its leaders and members have embarrassed me and itself too many times to permit the “it’s just a few individuals” defense to pass the giggle test.
Let me get this straight — are you accusing me of “Media Matters partisan spinning”?
If so … no, that doesn’t hurt, because I don’t buy the accusation for a nanosecond. Moreover, I find plenty to question in your own purported ethics. So let’s have another go at this:
1. I tend to agree that the Sherrod video was deceptively edited, but here’s the question that any first-year defense attorney would nail you on: Can you prove that it was deceptively edited AFTER it reached Breitbart or on Breitbart’s orders, or was Breitbart merely the unwitting recipient of a deceptively edited video?
In the latter case, he can certainly be faulted for letting his partisanship and eagerness to discredit the old media overrule his sense of responsibility. But there’s a difference between being a naive and/or irresponsible journalist and being a dishonest, unscrupulous journalist.
With the Sherrod video, Breitbart is some or all of the former, but you’ve offered no proof that he’s the latter. You seem to assume that Breitbart and/or his staff did the deceptive editing, which is no more ethical (or substantiated) than asserting that Dan Rather participated in the creation of the fake historic documents that besmirched George W. Bush’s National Guard service.
The O’Keefe ACORN video has even less going against it. Was it edited? Sure, but so is virtually every story that appears in the media. The question is whether it was edited in a way that misrepresents what actually happened.
I’ve read accusations that O’Keefe didn’t play it by the J-school book (for instance, he supposedly didn’t really wear the pimp costume into ACORN headquarters). But O’Keefe isn’t the subject of the story. The more relevant questions are, did the ACORN employees actually say what they appeared to say on video, and if so, was it indeed in response to O’Keefe’s request for advice on how to set up a prostitution ring involving 13 underage girls from El Salvador with no immigration papers?
Watching this video — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U — I don’t know how you could conclude that the conversation was spliced. O’Keefe and his companion, Hannah Giles, are clearly having a conversation with ACORN employees, and the ACORN employees are clearly advising them on how to dodge IRS regulations, how to identify a prostitute by the euphemism of “performing artist,” and how to claim the underage girls as dependents.
So even if O’Keefe and Breitbart didn’t conduct their sting in a way that would have made Edward R. Murrow proud, they still caught ACORN employees on video instructing people on how to save thousands of dollars by lying to the government about underage prostitution. That’s why ACORN fired the employees — and to my knowledge, has never re-hired them. And unlike Dan Rather’s demonstrably phony “historic” documents about Bush, you’ve presented no evidence that the aforementioned video presents ACORN employees saying something they didn’t say or in a different context.
I don’t call that ethical either. It amounts to making the pseudo-logical argument that “because O’Keefe didn’t do everything right, ACORN employees didn’t do anything wrong.”
2. Come on yourself. Christine O’Donnell didn’t hold a Tea Party “leadership position” as you claim; she was a politician who ran on a Tea Party platform and was endorsed by the movement. Sorry, not the same.
Ditto with Rand Paul. Tea Party favorite? Yes. Weird stance on civil rights? Yes. Tea Party leader? No — politician.
You maintain that “too many leaders in the tea party are unapologetic bigots,” but I know of only two that fit that description, and both were promptly booted out of the Tea Party. So it’s your responsibility to back up your charge with specifics, as opposed to vague accusations.
And I’ll gladly meet the same standard. The following Washington Post story was titled, “Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes,” and a graduate student backs up the statement with research showing that “only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president’s race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.”
Not exactly what I’d expect from a group led by “unapologetic bigots.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html
Then again, if you have similarly detailed research that proves otherwise, then by all means, share it with the class.
Spin. Your defense of Breitbart’s sloppy journalism is “the ends justify the means.” I don’t care who edited the Sherrod tape. Breitbart had an obligation to check out its accuracy before posting it. I didn’t say that ACORN’s employees didn’t say what it appeared they said, or that they weren’t as corrupt and badly trained as it appeared that they were. Still, O’Keefe’s methods and his editing were deceptive, and they were not flagged by Breitbart when he posted them. O’Keefe did not meet the barest investigative journalistic standards—how many offices did he visit? Where were the tapes of the employees who behaved properly? etc.
With characters like Paul and O’Donnell, you’re playing the OWS game…if they embarrass the movement, they’re just hangers-on. If a tea party supporter runs for major elective office, that individual’s a leader. I know of at least two tea party officials who have had to step down because of racial slurs. I don’t know of any Democrats who have had to do this, or Occupy members. Then there’s “Ronbo,” who graced this cite. I have maintained, and continue to maintain, that the Tea Party is not motivated by racism, but denying that some of its leadership and significant numbers of its members display the verbiage and attitudes of racists is just silly. The question is not what percentage of Tea Party supporters are birthers, but rather how many birthers are tea party members.
Breitbart, like Rush Limbaugh, served a purpose by pointing out hypocrisy and facts hidden by the biased MSM—that doesn’t mean I have to whitewash him, or ignore his unethical methods. I think the Tea Party exemplifies the best in civic involvement and activism in many ways, but that doesn’t mean that I have to pretend that a lot of its members—yes, and leaders— disgrace and weaken an honorable objective with their apparent bigotry.
Well, you’re exemplifying the old Voltaire saying: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Look, if you want to play a modern-day Diogenes, toting around a lamp in your quest to find one honest journalist, then do whatever makes you smile. But in the meantime, you’re missing a much bigger picture. So I’m going to paint it for you.
You seem fixated on Breitbart’s journalism ethics, which undoubtedly could have been better. But in giving only a passing glance to the ethics of ACORN, and our elected officials, and America’s supposed “real” journalists, you’re doing a great impression of Inspector Clouseau: hassling a blind organ grinder with an unlicensed monkey while overlooking a bank robbery unfolding in the background.
It’s not as if ACORN had been an unknown quantity when O’Keefe walked in. On the contrary, the organization had already achieved widespread infamy for its last-minute mass filings of voter registrations bearing such names as Mary Poppins, Mickey Mouse and Jive Turkey.
Is it too much to ask why one of America’s major network news organizations or their offshoots, such as “60 Minutes,” hadn’t already lifted the lid on this disreputable outfit … as opposed to spending a chunk of their Sunday hour interviewing Lady Gaga? Especially since, by one estimate, ACORN received $48 million in federal tax money between 2005 and 2009.
So let’s see … we have an organization that perpetrates voter fraud, federal officials who keep sending ACORN million-dollar checks, and a mainstream media that looks the other way. Yet you reserve your harshest wrath for the littlest fish of all, the new media Web site that at least had the guts and gumption to take on all three establishments and shine some sunlight on their shadier qualities.
You want to complain about the way journalism is practiced by Breitbart and O’Keefe? Fine — but don’t just compare them to the standard of perfection. Compare them to the standard of what passes for journalism in the major media today. Stop focusing solely on sins of commission and spend as much time noticing the sins of omission, such as the news blackouts imposed on not only ACORN, but Van Jones, Fast and Furious, and for that matter, the first few months of Tea Party rallies. Ask why our federal government keeps giving millions of our tax dollars to purveyors of voter fraud.
And once you’ve processed all that, revisit the question of why Breitbart’s ethics are a bigger deal than everything else on this list.
Your argument seems to be that in a perfect world, Breitbart and O’Keefe would practice journalism the way Woodward and Bernstein did. My argument is that in a perfect world, Breitbart and O’Keefe wouldn’t even be necessary — because our fourth estate, and our elected officials, would have been doing their job all along.
U C Bias, because you are too lazy to do your research.
Who says I’m focusing on Breitbart and missing the bigger issue of ACORN? I got news for you, pal: ACORN is as dead as Andrew. When they were around, I went after them plenty–like here, and here. Not only that, but I used ACORN in my non-profit ethics courses, because the WORST thing ACORN did was cover-up embezzlement by their treasurer.
Your comment is 100% straw man, based on fiction, and a common form of attack that I specifically warn against in the Comment policies. “Why are you writing about them, when they are just as bad or worse?” The answer is that I write about everybody and all kinds of unethical conduct in all fields. Some are bad, some are trivial but illustrative, and some are horrible. My choice, my timing, my blog. ACORN got its due. Your defense of Brietbart is that the ends justify the means—which was Brietbart’s “ethics” as well.
I.C,
Your argument breaks down to “the ends justify the means” and “everybody does it”.
You complain that Jack treats Breitbart unfairly, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Jack spits all “journalists” when they leave ethical territory. See this exact post for an example.
On a different topic, you say:
“I know of at least two tea party officials who have had to step down because of racial slurs. I don’t know of any Democrats who have had to do this, or Occupy members.”
Then you haven’t been paying enough attention to the news. Or maybe you’ve been paying too much attention to the old media.
Whatever the case, I can recall three examples of Democrats uttering insensitive remarks that would have forced the average Republican to resign.
How about Harry Reid’s description of Obama as being “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Hillary Clinton, who once joked at a political event in Missouri that Mahatma Gandhi “ran a gas station down in St. Louis.”
Then there’s Obama, who told Jay Leno that his 129 bowling game was “like the Special Olympics or something.”
As for Occupy members not making racially or ethnic slurs, you must be joking. Here, even Chicago TV station WLS covered that one:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=8407349
October 26, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — As Occupy Wall Street nears the six-week mark, a vein of anti-Semitism flowing through the movement has reached Chicago. Jewish leaders say they are concerned.
This is the ugly underbelly of Occupy Wall Street: Recycled anti-Jewish prejudices from small but vocal segments of the movement whose hatred on the picket lines is being magnified on the Internet.
Now, anti-Semitic sign bearers and speakers who have latched onto the Occupy demonstrations have Jewish leaders in Chicago concerned.
*** Here’s more:
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22978/language/en-US/Default.aspx
A growing number of Israelis and foreign Jewish groups are expressing concern over the anti-Semitic flavor of some of the “Occupy Wall St.” economic protests in the US.
One of people reportedly responsible for organizing the “Occupy Wall St.” protests, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, has a history of perpetuating conspiracy theories that say the Jews control America’s foreign policies.
*** Point taken?
The Democratic comments you mention wouldn’t make anyone step down, though MSNBC and Media Matters would try. Those just aren’t racist comments. The Congressional Black Caucus members make racist statements all the time, but black racism doesn’t count, as you know. I’ll take the point on Occupy: I don’t know what I was thinking. OWS’s members specialize in anti-Semitism and have no “leaders,” but you are right.
You say: “Who says I’m focusing on Breitbart and missing the bigger issue of ACORN? I got news for you, pal: ACORN is as dead as Andrew.”
And I got news for you, buddy boy: ACORN isn’t as dead as you think. Maybe by its original name, but that’s why you can’t fall for shell games.
“ACORN Disbanding, Plans to Reorganize,” reads the Page 1 headline in a March 2010 edition of the Baltimore Afro-American, characterizing the remarks of ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis.
Lewis laid it out in more detail on Roy Paul’s New York radio show: “[W]e had to regroup, reorganize, rebrand. But folks across the country in 25 states, former ACORN chapters and former ACORN members are
still organizing on a local level, here in New York City … Our chapters
regrouped. People renamed themselves, reorganized themselves, so that they could have very good structures, and the fight continues.”
And rebrand they have. As a HUD document reveals: “On January 8, 2010, AHC [ACORN Housing Corporation] changed its corporate name and now operates as Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). AHCOA has offices in 19 cities, 14 States, and the District of Columbia.”
Click to access IED-10-002.pdf
And guess what? Last summer, HUD awarded AHOCA a $79,819 grant “to provide fair housing and fair lending information and assistance to at least 35,000 minority, non-English speaking and immigrant households in the Miami-Dade metropolitan area.”
If you really want to bone up on how ACORN’s sleight-of-hand works, check out this investigative report by Judicial Watch, titled, “The Rebranding of ACORN.”
Click to access acornspecialreport08222011.pdf
You’ll discover that unlike the Witch of the West, ACORN is neither “merely dead” nor “really most sincerely dead.”
Which is niggling around the edges, and doesn’t address my point, which is that I criticized ACORN when it was around. I’ll wait and see about any new version, thanks. If the management and board and organization is finally professional, they have the right to try again, just like AirTran and Lindsay Lohan.
Oops, make that “the Wicked Witch of the East”!
And finally, you say this:
1. “Who says I’m focusing on Breitbart and missing the bigger issue of ACORN? … Your comment is 100% straw man, based on fiction, and a common form of attack that I specifically warn against in the Comment policies.”
Nope, I’m not even interested in launching the shopworn attack that you imagine me to be making.
The gist of my point wasn’t about your lack of focus on ACORN, and I don’t have a problem with you taking Breitbart to task for the way he/they practice journalism. My argument was:
“[D]on’t just compare them to the standard of perfection. Compare them to the standard of what passes for journalism in the major media today. Stop focusing solely on sins of commission and spend as much time noticing the sins of omission.”
Which leads me to this …
2. You say: “Your defense of Brietbart is that the ends justify the means—which was Brietbart’s ‘ethics’ as well.”
Wrong again — I’m not defending the means. On the contrary, I’m saying that not only should Breitbart’s means not be necessary, but self-styled new-media investigative reporters like Breitbart and O’Keefe shouldn’t be necessary.
However, their existence is like that of the Guardian Angels: If the public felt good about the safety of their neighborhoods, there’d be no need for such a group.
Likewise, if the public felt good about modern American journalism, there’d be no need for Breitbart/Breitbart.com and undercover investigators like O’Keefe: The reason they came into existence, and the reason they spurred Congress to action, was because of the information gap created by an old media whose ethical shortcomings (i.e., the sins of omission I cited) cheat an American public that depended on them to serve as impartial watchdogs.
I.C.,
There was a subtle shift here. You claim you want Jack to talk about the media’s failure to deal with X instead of talking about breitbart’s unethical behavior. To make this point, you spent multiple paragraphs on X. That makes it look like you’re worried about X. In any event, Jack actually does talk about the media’s failure to deal with topics, so your charge is unfounded
furthermore, you’re still making the “talk about X, not Y” argument that you claim you weren’t making. it just has a slightly different X than what Jack responded to. The main point, that you’re claiming that Breitbart isn’t as bad as other things, is absolutely solid.
Your second section is again denying what you are actually doing. You claim that Breitbart’s results are necessary, so that he shouldn’t be taken to task for his means. Yes, the mass media hasn’t done it’s job. Yes, that has allowed new media to fill in gaps. That though, does not mean that bad new media gets a pass. You seem to think that if X isn’t attaining goal Y, then Z using any means to attain goal Y is (1) necessarily okay, and (2) the fault of Y.
While there is need of good journalistic work, there is no need or excuse for the unethical tactics of Breitbart. Claiming that other organizations failed at doing their job does not excuse Breitbart’s bad behavior.
Jack Marshall wrote: “Which is niggling around the edges, and doesn’t address my point, which is that I criticized ACORN when it was around. I’ll wait and see about any new version, thanks.”
OK, in the spirit of sportsmanship, I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that you did criticize ACORN when it was at its worst.
Now, I believe it’s somewhere between naivete and denial to think this particular leopard is going to change its spots, given that federal tax money is mother’s milk to its members (not to mention Bertha Lewis’ statement that ACORN had fragmented into “bullet-proof community-organizing Frankensteins”).
But I suppose you can always hope that given another chance, Frankenstein’s monster won’t terrorize the village this time.
I think that’s a little bit over-heated. ACORN’s pieces re-constituting could easy save the baby and throw out the bath water, or, yes, the other way around. The problem with the old ACORN, which did some great things in communities, was that it never professionalized, and was run by activists and amateurs. Corruption and illegality naturally followed, as it always will whenever fervor isn’t gradually tempered by sound policies, an independent board, transparency and professionalism. Of course it was unconscionable for Congress (or anyone) to give any money to a such a slip-shod organization, but if it cleans up its act with new management, there is no reason why the new ACORN couldn’t succeed and be a net force for good.
I have a couple of questions.
You say:
1. “Breitbart repeatedly used videos that were edited to hide the facts. If he didn’t know what was going on, he’s an idiot.”
*** Which videos “that were edited to hide the facts” did Breitbart “repeatedly” use?
2. “Also, there’s no evidence the administration pushed for Sherrod to be fired.”
*** Really? Then you must consider not only the Washington Post, but Sherrod herself a liar, not to mention CNN.
Here are excerpts from Ed O’Keefe’s Post column on July 20, 2010:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/usda_worker_quits_over_racism.html?hpid=topnews
“Sherrod told CNN that the White House urged her to resign Monday afternoon after the video clip surfaced. “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign,” she said …
Sherrod said the White House calls came from Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary for rural development. “The administration was not interested in hearing the truth. They didn’t want to hear the truth,” Sherrod said.
*** You don’t call that evidence? And how about this follow-up report from McClatchy Newspapers:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97918/obama-administration-apologizes.html#storylink=cpy
This time, his [Obama’s] administration was forced to apologize Wednesday to a black woman it had fired the day before after hastily accepting a smear from a conservative website that used selectively edited video to accuse her of racism against a white farmer.
1) How about all the acorn videos?
2) Neither citation backs how you’re trying to use them. For the post article, all we have is Sherrod saying that people told her that the administration wanted her to resign. There is no evidence to suggest the people talking to Sherrod actually were acting on behalf of the administration
For the McClatchy article, the things you are claiming are presented without citation in the argument. Citing them is like someone citing you. Worthless.
Got a real source for your claims?
Let’s try this again:
1) You say, “How about all the acorn videos?”
Well, what about the ACORN videos? You end the post by demanding a “real source” for my claims, yet you’ve presented nothing more than a vague reference in response to my challenge: “Which videos ‘that were edited to hide the facts’ did Breitbart ‘repeatedly’ use?”
Or, to put it a different way: Tell me, specifically, which facts in the video were hidden? Because I just watched one of the videos again a few days ago, and there’s no doubt that O’Keefe and his companion were actually in ACORN’s offices, and that ACORN employees actually gave them advice on how to cheat the government (not to mention shrugging off the possibility of underage illegal immigrants being sneaked into the country for prostitution).
So … what do you think was edited out of the videos that would have changed their meaning in any significant way? What unedited part of the entire video would have made ACORN look squeaky-clean?
2) You say, “For the McClatchy article, the things you are claiming are presented without citation in the argument. Citing them is like someone citing you. Worthless. Got a real source for your claims?”
Sure I do — it’s called “that same McClatchy article you just pooh-poohed.” Apparently you missed this part, which quotes White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97918/obama-administration-apologizes.html#storylink=cpy
“I think, clearly, that a lot of people involved in this situation, from the government’s perspective on through, acted without all the facts,” Gibbs said.
He said the news media shared the blame, for spreading the story and for pressing the White House to react.
“Members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on both sides of this have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts,” Gibbs said.
*** Note the statement, “MEMBERS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION … have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts.”
There’s the evidence that you say doesn’t exist. My “real source” is Robert Gibbs, whom I presume you’ll acknowledge is indeed a member of the administration.
1) Seriously? Besides the editting to make it look like O’Keefe came in dressed like a blacksploitation pimp? Besides cutting out the acorn staffers that questioned them? Besides ignoring that some of the staffers that went along with them actually reported them?
That’s enough to say the videos were deceptive and unfairly edited to hide and misrepresent what actually occurred.
2) The sentence you quotes does not fill the void you claim it does. Where does it say that the members of the administration pushed for Sherrod to resign? What it says is that pretty much everyone made up their mind about the case without all the facts. That’s it. Nowhere is any action mentioned.
—
You’re a partisan hack who’s using every dishonest trick in the book: moving the goalposts, equivocating, misrepresenting the facts, hasty generalizations, rationalizations. You are not trying to find the truth in good faith.
I’m done with you.
Oh, spare me your name-calling and manufactured drama, tgt.
You’re only “done with me” because I challenge you to prove your half-baked assertions, which frankly read like the unsourced first drafts of a freshman J-school student and would never see print in any responsible publication.
You want to play judge and jury with my posts, constantly demanding more documentation, yet you haven’t produced a single link that supports any of your own arguments. Sorry, I noticed.
And no matter how much you want to keep shifting the focus to me, I’ll continue to hold your feet to the fire whenever and wherever I deem it appropriate. As with these claims of yours: “Also, there’s no evidence the administration pushed for Sherrod to be fired” and “Where does it say that the members of the administration pushed for Sherrod to resign?”
Here’s what turns your argument into Swiss cheese: You didn’t say the “White House” pushed Sherrod to resign — you said “administration.”
Well, the Los Angeles Times reported this on July 21, 2010 (notice again that my assertions come with links): “[Secretary of Agriculture] Tom Vilsack said the decision to fire Sherrod had been his and his alone.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-agriculture-race-20100722,0,4901454.story
In other words, tgt, you’re arguing that the Secretary of Agriculture — the man appointed by Obama to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture — is somehow not a member of the Obama administration.
That’s downright hilarious, as evidenced by this Reuters story: “May 31 (Reuters) — An Obama administration official on Thursday criticized a U.S. Senate panel for voting to block the Pentagon from buying more costly alternative fuels … U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said senators on the panel ‘may not fully understand’ …”
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL1E8GVDLY20120531
Get it now? If what you meant to say was “White House,” then I accept your mea culpa, but don’t embarrass yourself further by clinging to this already snapped limb.
And now I’m going to hold you to your own standard of proof. In your words: “So Breitbart lied, and it’s the other side’s fault.”
How interesting that you, who constantly demand more and more evidence from others, have yet to provide a single credible source that proves Breitbart lied.
Again, it’s your inattentive word choice that undermines your arguments. You didn’t say that Breitbart showed too little regard for journalistic accuracy, which I might agree with. You flat-out accused him of lying — i.e., knowingly trying to present false information as truth.
Well, as you like to say … got a real source for your claim? Because Breitbart himself “maintained that he didn’t edit the clip and that it was sent to him already edited.” That’s not what I’d call responsible journalism, but it’s not lying.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/breitbart_i_did_not_edit_this_thing.php
Yet you call me a “partisan hack” who uses “every dishonest trick in the book”? Face it, you resent me because I expose your pretentious, suck-up-to-Jack posts as the unsourced, unsubstantiated hatchet jobs that they actually are. No wonder you want to run for cover.
The “administration” v. “white house” argument may be valid, but trivial. Everything else in here is clearly junk. Like saying I write “suck-up-to-Jack posts”. I stand by my calling out Breitbart for running tapes that he knew or should have known were editted. I stand by calling it lying. Providing information as true that you can’t verify the truthfulness of is lying. I stand by my calling out of I.C. Bias as a partisan hack… his comments about the acorn tapes and his repeated reference to sources that don’t support his opinion are enough evidence for that claim to be supported.
I am proud to say that there isn’t a single “suck up to Jack”commenter here,and why would there be? But even if there were, nobody who has read EA with any consistency could plausibly accuse you, of all people, of being said suck up. You always seem so disapointed when you have to agree with me. That was really the cheapest of cheap shots.
In response to tgt’s assertions:
1. “The ‘administration’ v. ‘white house’ argument may be valid, but trivial.”
*** Of course the argument’s valid, because It undermines your entire ludicrous premise: i.e., that there was “no evidence the administration pushed for Sherrod to be fired.”
When an administration member (that would be the Secretary of Agriculture) admits that the decision to fire Sherrod was “his and his alone,” then your argument fails — period. You’d demanded “evidence the administration pushed for Sherrod to be fired” and I provided it … end of story.
Calling that evidence “trivial” once you’ve lost the argument merely demonstrates poor sportsmanship, especially since you’re the one who repeatedly demanded such evidence when you were so cocksure it didn’t exist. This sort of sour-grapes attitude belies your supposed quest to “find the truth in good faith.”
2. “Everything else in here is clearly junk.”
*** Because …??? [Cue sound of crickets chirping.]
3. “I stand by my calling out Breitbart for running tapes that he knew or should have known were editted.”
*** That’s nice, but I’ve already taken Breitbart to task for the same thing. Back on June 24 I called him a “a naive and/or irresponsible journalist” for his actions in the Sherrod matter. Next …
4. “I stand by calling it lying. Providing information as true that you can’t verify the truthfulness of is lying.”
*** Well, if that’s your standard for lying, then not only is Breitbart a liar in your book, but so is the lady you defended, Shirley Sherrod. Let’s recall what the Washington Post reported, via CNN:
“Sherrod told CNN that the White House urged her to resign Monday afternoon after the video clip surfaced. “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign,” she said.
Gee, tgt, are you aware of Sherrod ever verifying that the White House urged her to resign? No? Then she’s a liar for “providing information as true that you can’t verify the truthfulness of,” as you put it.
Naturally, that also makes every member of the major media a liar, since they’ve all reported, at one time or another, information that they could not verify (hence the ongoing need for corrections). That’s your definition and you’re sticking to it …
5. “I stand by my calling out of I.C. Bias as a partisan hack… his comments about the acorn tapes and his repeated reference to sources that don’t support his opinion are enough evidence for that claim to be supported.”
*** If name-calling is the best you’ve got, tgt, then by all means go with it. I’ll again point out that it’s bad form to take pot shots at my sources while providing none of your own in this entire thread — demonstrating your apparent inability to provide the kind of basic evidence that you constantly demand of others. On the other hand, thanks for proving my point.
6. “Like saying I write ‘suck-up-to-Jack posts’.”
*** Come on, tgt, we both know that when it comes to Jack, you’ve done more water carrying than the constellation Aquarius, at least on this thread. Without even breaking a sweat, I can find “me too, Jack” examples from three of your posts:
— [To Jack:] “Solidly on point.”
— [To me:] “You complain that Jack treats Breitbart unfairly, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Jack spits all ‘journalists’ when they leave ethical territory.”
— [To me:] “In any event, Jack actually does talk about the media’s failure to deal with topics, so your charge is unfounded.”
We get it, tgt: You’re a Jack fan. But I honestly think Jack is more than capable of defending his own premises without you auditioning for the role of his online Barney Rubble.
Jack Marshall wrote: “(N)obody who has read EA with any consistency could plausibly accuse you, of all people, of being said suck up. You always seem so disapointed when you have to agree with me. That was really the cheapest of cheap shots.”
Well, Jack, I guess it all depends on your definition of sucking up, but I just provided three examples in my post to tgt. Whether or not tgt engages in such behavior routinely is open to debate, but I think it’s safe to say that on this particular thread, tgt hasn’t seemed at all disappointed to agree with you … repeatedly.
As for my “suck-up” comment being “the cheapest of cheap shots,” I think that’s a bit excessive, especially considering that I was called a “partisan hack who’s using every dishonest trick in the book” … with nary a referee’s whistle from you.
Please note the difference between criticizing someone’s writing as opposed to launching an ad hominem attack on the writer.
He agrees with me because he agrees with me. Since when was agreement “sucking up?” Cheap shot.
I.C.,
1) I used the term administration to mean white house and president messaging staff when it seems the term is more often used to mean the entirity of the political positions in the executive branch. That was my mistake. The evidence is valid, but it points to my misstatement in using the term administration as a synonym for white house. That was a trivial issue. You’re still wrong on your original point.
2) I followed up this comment with descriptions of what was wrong and why. I see only 2 ways your comment makes sense. Either (A) You are intentionally lying about my post or (B) you are completely incompetent when it comes to reading comprehension. Take your pick or back off your statement.
3) So, the plan was argue for point X. After opponents don’t break down, claim that you were on their side before they were, but in a different location. I’m not sure what that buys you. It’s looking like maybe I should add an option (C) above that you have no understanding of logic.
4) First, you’re confusing Sherrod with CNN. Second, the situations are not parrallel. Sherrod never said the White House urged her to resign, so there was no need for her to verify it. I’d also note that the media’s corrections tend to be of the good faith variety, not the “This’ll hurt them, so I don’t care if it’s true” variety.
5) I stand by my statements.
My “name calling” wasn’t an ad hominem attack. Instead, it was an accurate summation based on the evidence at hand.
I also don’t see anything hypocritical in my requests for evidence. I haven’t provided links because the arguments I have been making are off of agreed to facts and actual common knowledge, where common knowledge is used in the game theory sense. The arguments you are making require premises that are not agreed to.
6) That I happen to agree with Jack on this topic does not make my posts on this topic ass kissing. I have strenuously disagreed with Jack repeatedly on Ethics Alarms on topics ranging from abortion to drugs to OWS to religion. You are suggesting that anyone that agrees with your opponent is just a follower of them. That’s poisoning the well. If you had said that about some other poster, you might have gotten away with it, but anyone who’s read this blog even occasionally can see how lame that argument is when applied to me.
—-
I’m also going to respond to your comment directed at Jack about me sucking up and his unfair treatment of the two of us. Not because Jack can’t speak for himself, but because you are also attacking me and my argumentation style.
I agree with points, not people. Valid points are agreed to no matter who says them. Similarly, invalid arguments are ridiculed mercilessly, even when they lead to conclusions that I like. You gave one example where I agreed with something Jack said and 2 examples of me pointing out that specific claims against Jack were baseless. A third party pointing out false statements is not sucking up to one of the parties. It’s part of the general duty to accuracy and fairplay. What’s left is a general agreement. By your logic I’ve sucked up to most people I’ve had discussions with, on all sides of the discussions.
As for your unfair treatment argument, you’re making a false equivalence. I clearly don’t suck up to Jack, so your statement was obviously false. My statement appears to be representative of your actions.
Also, I still have not launched an ad hominem attack on you. To paraphrase Ken@Popehat, being butthurt is not actionable.
In response to tgt, here are your claims in order:
1. “The evidence is valid, but it points to my misstatement in using the term administration as a synonym for white house.”
*** See, that’s just it: What evidence have you offered regarding the Sherrod case? The only thing I’ve seen is your repeated argument that there’s nothing that proves the administration/White House pushed for Sherrod’s firing. That’s possibly true, but it no more constitutes evidence than me asserting that there’s nothing to prove that Andrew Breitbart knowingly presented a video that was deliberately edited to make Sherrod look bad (as the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”).
You don’t seem to understand the difference between arguments and evidence.
2. “I followed up this comment with descriptions of what was wrong and why.”
*** No, you didn’t — you followed up that comment with vague accusations against me: “[H]is comments about the acorn tapes and his repeated reference to sources that don’t support his opinion are enough evidence for that claim to be supported.”
Again, you seem unclear on the concept of “evidence.” What specifically about my “comments about the acorn tapes” makes me any more of a partisan hack than you, given your unwavering insistence that the White House didn’t push for Sherrod’s firing? What, besides partisanship, explains your zeal for disparaging Breitbart while displaying undue concern that Obama not be tied to the Sherrod firing in any way?
Moreover, you’ve failed to provide a single reference to a source that doesn’t support my opinion — nor, tellingly, have you provided a single reference to a source that supports yours.
Links, tgt — they’re not just for cuffs anymore!
2A) “I see only 2 ways your comment makes sense. Either (A) You are intentionally lying about my post or (B) you are completely incompetent when it comes to reading comprehension. Take your pick or back off your statement.”
*** OK, my pick is (C): You are completely incompetent when it comes to understanding the definition of “evidence.”
3. “So, the plan was argue for point X. After opponents don’t break down, claim that you were on their side before they were, but in a different location.”
*** Nope, re-read my original post, paying particular attention to the numbered headings, and you’ll see that “the plan” was to question two specific comments — one that claimed Breitbart “frequently used deceptively edited tapes,” and the other that referred to an “obvious strain” of racism in the Tea Party.
Those were my major points, as indicated by the numerals; all else in the post was secondary. If it blows your skirt up to point out that I gave props to Breitbart for sticking it to the media establishment, fine, but you also have to acknowledge that I described Breitbart and his Web site as “hardly perfect.”
4. “[T]he situations are not parrallel [sic]. Sherrod never said the White House urged her to resign, so there was no need for her to verify it.”
*** Need I remind you that you’re the one who called Breitbart a liar based on the following definition: “Providing information as true that you can’t verify the truthfulness of is lying.”
Let’s review: During her CNN interview, Sherrod said, “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign.”
Unless you now want to concede that the White House did, in fact, want her to resign, it’s obvious that Sherrod could not verify the truthfulness of the information she provided to CNN. The fact that she was supposedly quoting someone else (or three someone elses) is irrelevant, since the information she presented as true made it onto the national cable news anyway.
Ergo, if Breitbart is a liar by your definition, then Sherrod is a liar. Or neither is a liar. Hey, it’s your definition, so argue it out in your own mind and tell us which side wins.
5. “My ‘name calling’ wasn’t an ad hominem attack. Instead, it was an accurate summation based on the evidence at hand.”
*** Sure it was an ad hominem attack, because instead of challenging my arguments with evidence, you tried to discredit them by calling me names and impugning my honesty.
Problem is, you presented no evidence, at hand or otherwise, to support your rant accusing me of “moving the goalposts, equivocating, misrepresenting the facts, hasty generalizations, rationalizations.”
Specifically … when did I move the goal posts? When did I equivocate? When did I misrepresent the facts? When did I hastily generalize? When did I rationalize?
Again, we see that your understanding of the word “evidence” is apparently as hazy as your understanding of the word “administration.”
6. “I’m also going to respond to your comment directed at Jack about me sucking up and his unfair treatment of the two of us. Not because Jack can’t speak for himself, but because you are also attacking me and my argumentation style.”
*** Do my eyes deceive me, or is the person who mocked my objection to being personally attacked now boo-hooing about unfair treatment in print?
My first thought is to give your “argumentation style” every bit as much consideration as you gave mine — that is, to refer you to own sophomoric advice about being “butthurt.” If you want a more civil response, stop acting as if you’re the smartest guy in the room and accept the fact that intelligent people can disagree on complex issues.
6A. “You are suggesting that anyone that agrees with your opponent is just a follower of them. That’s poisoning the well.”
*** Wrong — it would be “poisoning the well” if I had implied that your arguments are invalid BECAUSE you’re a follower of my opponent. However, your claim is a half-truth, because my full sentence reads: “Face it, you resent me because I expose your pretentious, suck-up-to-Jack posts as the unsourced, unsubstantiated hatchet jobs that they actually are.”
When you take my remark in context, it’s obvious that the main reason I regard your arguments as invalid isn’t because they happen to agree with Jack, or because they sound pretentious, or because they’re often hatchet jobs, but because they’re unsourced and unsubstantiated.
6B. “I agree with points, not people. Valid points are agreed to no matter who says them. Similarly, invalid arguments are ridiculed mercilessly, even when they lead to conclusions that I like.”
*** If that were true, you’d devote much of your posts to mercilessly ridiculing your own arguments, which are often buttressed by nothing more than your own pontifications. A classic example is this unsupported statement of yours: “The tea party greatly overlaps with the birthers.”
Based on what? Nothing you’ve posted in this thread. If Obama’s birthplace were really a major concern of Tea Party members, they’d have publicly expressed it at their protests. Yet a Washington Post story about a study of signs at a Tea Party rally found that “only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president’s race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.”
Not exactly what I’d call “great overlap” with the birther movement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html
6C. “Also, I still have not launched an ad hominem attack on you. To paraphrase Ken@Popehat, being butthurt is not actionable.”
*** Being “butthurt” would require an attack of substance, as opposed to the unsubstantiated name-calling you specialize in. One needn’t have incurred injury to question the consistency of a blog host who calls foul on a term like “sucking up” while swallowing the referee’s whistle on the greater infraction of launching an uncorroborated personal attack.
Jack Marshall wrote:
He agrees with me because he agrees with me. Since when was agreement “sucking up?” Cheap shot.
*** Merely agreeing with you is not “sucking up” in my book. However,
restating someone else’s position in post after post strikes me as, at the very least, excessive and unnecessary … unless, of course, one genuinely believes that the other person is ineptly defending his position, in which case he should add something new to the debate.
But with grandiose remarks such as this — “In any event, Jack actually does talk about the media’s failure to deal with topics, so your charge is unfounded” — tgt sounds to me like a kid attending fantasy defense attorney camp.
Nevertheless, I’ll take your opinion on this matter into consideration in future posts.
I’m curious, however, why you bypassed my second point — i.e., Why did you call foul on my “sucking up” remark — which was directed at tgt’s words and not him personally — while ignoring his personal attack on me: “You’re a partisan hack who’s using every dishonest trick in the book.”
You own Comment Policies invite us to point out when we think you’re not upholding your own rulebook. To be sure, I have no problem with you, tgt or anyone else taking issue with what I write, but when you condemn one side for using a term like “sucking up” while allowing the other side to engage in unsubstantiated personal attacks that include disparaging a person’s honesty, you’re not enforcing your house rules consistently in my estimation.
Mr. Smug, Charlie Gibson can’t retire soon engouh. Why should we have to listen to him for the rest of the year? Oh ya, we don’t have to! That must be why I don’t any more.If any of these other networks was smart, they would start doing some UNBIASED reporting and watch their ratings skyrocket. The first one that does it could benefit greatly.