In his Friday column for the LA Times, media critic James Rainey notices something that I've also noticed -- much of the press is treating Breitbart's heavily edited clip of Shirley Sherrod as if it fell out of the sky.
FOX has been running with the line that they didn't report anything until after Sherrod had been fired, but that's not true of Bill O'Reilly and their online presence. As Rainey points out, the "FoxNation.com website followed with the video and the accusatory headline: 'Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer.'"
But remember, the story is about Shirley Sherrod, the NAACP, the USDA, and the White House. The clip just spontaneously popped into existence, without any help from some "Brainfart" guy or whatever his name is. A massive hoax has been played on the media and our government and no one seems at all interested in the hoaxer.
Meanwhile, Rainey gives us a taste of what Breitbart is like -- obsessive and more than a little unhinged:
We all know Breitbart never released those unedited tapes. And we know why.
But what's an enraged Breitbart look like? Let's take a gander. Here's Breitbart at CPAC, attacking blogger Max Blumenthal for exposing racism within the tea party:
"Accusing someone of racism is the worst thing you can do..." I'll let you recover from that little bit of hypocrisy for a bit, as well as that of the rest of Breitbart's projection of his own guilt ("you destroy people's lives!").
The bulk of Breitbart's... Oh, what the hell, let's be generous and call it an "argument"... The bulk of his argument here consists of personal attacks, insults, and belittlement. It's pretty damned fact-free. And that's Andrew Breitbart; a big seething ball of tightly wound anger and self-righteousness, with a sort of faith in liberal evil that requires no facts to back it up. He probably thinks he's actually debating Blumenthal, like a rightwing troll tossing firebombs in a blog comment thread or on twitter. He is -- and I mean this in a factual sense, not as ad hominem -- a total prick. Just a world-class, championship-level asshole. Before you accuse me of doing the same thing Breitbart did to Blumenthal, I give you the clip above. I brought evidence. About the only way he could be more abusive would be to hit Max. And if he did, that crowd still would've cheered him (there's some irony for you).
This lunatic defrauded the national media. I suppose that they'd rather not spend a lot of time talking about that, but that doesn't mean we have to play along. This is not the "Sherrod case," this is "Andrew Breitbart's hoax." Everyone should be talking about it that way or not at all. The story is Breitbart and whether anyone in the media will ever give him the time of day again.
[C]ertain media outlets have played the story and the political ramifications for the Obama administration (and there are questions to be answered) as if they sprang out of the ether. There's a continuing rush to talk about effect, and very little desire to talk about cause -- the steaming pile of misinformation delivered on a platter by one individual with a giant ax to grind...
Many news outlets reported on the controversy and the video, most jumping in after Sherrod had resigned. But it was the select few -- led by conservative bloggers and some segments of the Fox News empire -- that embraced the attack from the start.
A Fox News executive released notes from an internal meeting to show that the network's news producers had been urged to treat the video story with caution. But anchor Shepard Smith zinged some, including programs on his own network, for swallowing the story whole.
"We didn't know who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement," said Smith, adding that Breitbart's history didn't inspire great confidence. "In short -- we did not and do not trust the source."
FOX has been running with the line that they didn't report anything until after Sherrod had been fired, but that's not true of Bill O'Reilly and their online presence. As Rainey points out, the "FoxNation.com website followed with the video and the accusatory headline: 'Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer.'"
But remember, the story is about Shirley Sherrod, the NAACP, the USDA, and the White House. The clip just spontaneously popped into existence, without any help from some "Brainfart" guy or whatever his name is. A massive hoax has been played on the media and our government and no one seems at all interested in the hoaxer.
Meanwhile, Rainey gives us a taste of what Breitbart is like -- obsessive and more than a little unhinged:
Indeed, anyone who has watched television in recent days has seen an unrepentant Breitbart insisting he did nothing wrong. His previous encounters with controversy reveal a similar pattern — make no concessions, savage critics, change the subject and keep attacking. Don't bet he's finished with Shirley Sherrod.
I saw this up close last year when I wrote about the "sting" that a couple of young videographers performed on the liberal activist group ACORN. Breitbart posted and touted the videos as proof of liberal evil. He became enraged when I urged him to release the unedited tapes so the public could see everything that happened between ACORN workers and videographers James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles.
We all know Breitbart never released those unedited tapes. And we know why.
But what's an enraged Breitbart look like? Let's take a gander. Here's Breitbart at CPAC, attacking blogger Max Blumenthal for exposing racism within the tea party:
"Accusing someone of racism is the worst thing you can do..." I'll let you recover from that little bit of hypocrisy for a bit, as well as that of the rest of Breitbart's projection of his own guilt ("you destroy people's lives!").
The bulk of Breitbart's... Oh, what the hell, let's be generous and call it an "argument"... The bulk of his argument here consists of personal attacks, insults, and belittlement. It's pretty damned fact-free. And that's Andrew Breitbart; a big seething ball of tightly wound anger and self-righteousness, with a sort of faith in liberal evil that requires no facts to back it up. He probably thinks he's actually debating Blumenthal, like a rightwing troll tossing firebombs in a blog comment thread or on twitter. He is -- and I mean this in a factual sense, not as ad hominem -- a total prick. Just a world-class, championship-level asshole. Before you accuse me of doing the same thing Breitbart did to Blumenthal, I give you the clip above. I brought evidence. About the only way he could be more abusive would be to hit Max. And if he did, that crowd still would've cheered him (there's some irony for you).
This lunatic defrauded the national media. I suppose that they'd rather not spend a lot of time talking about that, but that doesn't mean we have to play along. This is not the "Sherrod case," this is "Andrew Breitbart's hoax." Everyone should be talking about it that way or not at all. The story is Breitbart and whether anyone in the media will ever give him the time of day again.
