Andrew Breitbart dies of "natural causes"

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

there must have been massive evidence for ACORN to be defunded as they were!

Sure. Just like there was for the Iraq War.

You have way too much faith in your Congresscritters, Timm.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Any time a journalist does a negative story or an expose', it can hurt peoples' lives and careers. Does that stop journalists from doing these stories? Of course not.

Rupert, he LIED. I'm not talking about the clip he took out of context; I'm talking about the added narrative to the video. From the lawsuit:

"4. Specifically, Defendants defamed Mrs. Sherrod by editing and publishing an intentionally false and misleading clip of Mrs. Sherrod’s speech and added the following statements as a narrative to the clip:
• “Mrs. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars … She discriminates against people due to their race.”
• Mrs. Sherrod’s speech is “video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient.”

• “[T]his federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”
• “In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer.”
• Her speech is a “racist tale.”

And, from the lawsuit:

"39. In addition to the false and defamatory statements directed specifically to Mrs. Sherrod, the introductory slides that the Defendants added to the video segment contained false statements of fact about the position that Mrs. Sherrod held at the time that she allegedly “discriminate[d] against people due to their race.” Despite the fact that Mrs. Sherrod’s story regarding her dealings with the Spooners described events that had occurred in 1986 — twenty three years before she was appointed to her federal position — the introductory text falsely states that Mrs. Sherrod “discriminates against people due to their race” in “her federally appointed position,” in the course of administering “over a billion dollars” of federal funds. Only later, after Defendants’ deceptive editing of the video was publicly revealed, did Defendants add a “disclaimer” box to the introductory slides that stated: “While Ms. Sherrod made these remarks while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position.” The disclaimer did not appear on the video at the time it was initially embedded and published and at the time that the media firestorm ensued. "

Here's the link to the OTB post from 2011:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/shi...rew-brietbart/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, he LIED. I'm not talking about the clip he took out of context; I'm talking about the added narrative to the video. From the lawsuit:

"4. Specifically, Defendants defamed Mrs. Sherrod by editing and publishing an intentionally false and misleading clip of Mrs. Sherrod’s speech and added the following statements as a narrative to the clip:
• “Mrs. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars … She discriminates against people due to their race.”
• Mrs. Sherrod’s speech is “video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient.”

• “[T]his federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”
• “In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer.”
• Her speech is a “racist tale.”

And, from the lawsuit:

"39. In addition to the false and defamatory statements directed specifically to Mrs. Sherrod, the introductory slides that the Defendants added to the video segment contained false statements of fact about the position that Mrs. Sherrod held at the time that she allegedly “discriminate[d] against people due to their race.” Despite the fact that Mrs. Sherrod’s story regarding her dealings with the Spooners described events that had occurred in 1986 — twenty three years before she was appointed to her federal position — the introductory text falsely states that Mrs. Sherrod “discriminates against people due to their race” in “her federally appointed position,” in the course of administering “over a billion dollars” of federal funds. Only later, after Defendants’ deceptive editing of the video was publicly revealed, did Defendants add a “disclaimer” box to the introductory slides that stated: “While Ms. Sherrod made these remarks while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position.” The disclaimer did not appear on the video at the time it was initially embedded and published and at the time that the media firestorm ensued. "

Here's the link to the OTB post from 2011:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/shi...rew-brietbart/

Alright, fair enough. He should have worded it slightly differently. He should have said, "A federal appointee, who administers billions in federal funds, has admitted that several years ago in her former position, she discriminated against a white farmer."

He probably didn't even realize that she held a slightly different position at the time of her discrimination against the white farmer. But do you really think that that makes that big a difference? Does that really change the story that much? The most misleading thing he said was "discriminates", meaning currently discriminates. He should have said "discriminated", meaning in the past.

By the way, I do not think the video was "deceptively edited". I think that is a total mischaracterization. He didn't play the whole speech but he played the relevant parts (relevant to the point he was trying to make) in their entirety.

[Riot]

A recent anti-Obama Republican ad came out, and it showed a video clip of President Obama saying, about the election, " ... if we discuss the economy, we'll lose."

Except what was really said, was, "John McCain said, ' ... if we discuss the economy, we'll lose".

Yes. The President was quoting McCain word for word. But that part was left out to make it seem like the President said that.

Yeah, those words weren't changed, either. But that ad was a lie, too. And yes, indeed it was "deceptively edited" with "only the relevant parts" played.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

A recent anti-Obama Republican ad came out, and it showed a video clip of President Obama saying, about the election, " ... if we discuss the economy, we'll lose."

Except what was really said, was, "John McCain said, ' ... if we discuss the economy, we'll lose".

Yes. The President was quoting McCain word for word. But that part was left out to make it seem like the President said that.

Yeah, those words weren't changed, either. But that ad was a lie, too. And yes, indeed it was "deceptively edited" with "only the relevant parts" played.

That would obviously be a case of "deceptive editing". I don't think anyone would dispute that. Another case of "deceptive editing" was the guy at NBC who edited the 911 call in the Martin case. And I think the ACORN tapes were deceptively edited.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That would obviously be a case of "deceptive editing". I don't think anyone would dispute that. Another case of "deceptive editing" was the guy at NBC who edited the 911 call in the Martin case. And I think the ACORN tapes were deceptively edited.

I agree about NBC. Considering that the entire tapes had been out for a day or two already, why they did that was ridiculous. I think it was just a morning show time saving cut, as it wasn't an initial story release about them, it was a followup interview discussion if I remember right (didn't see any NBC stuff until after they were caught editing unfairly). But it was wrong to do so.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope. Just gullible congresscritters. And a public that doesn't pay attention when the story is later debunked.

Just google "ACORN Breitbart fraud" and you'll gets multiple hits on the exposure of Breitbart as a dishonest liar about ACORN, when investigated by various Attorneys General and the Congressional Research Service".





Hey - what do you think of ALEC, btw? Pretty outrageous, huh?

That is all well and good but it still doesn't change the fact that the New York Times reviewed all of the ACORN unedited tapes and transcripts and concluded, "The most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is all well and good but it still doesn't change the fact that the New York Times reviewed all of the ACORN unedited tapes and transcripts and concluded, "The most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."

Oops, sorry, I wrote an answer but mixed up Sherrod and ACORN. So deleted it. My bad.

Lissen, I don't care what the NY Times thinks - I care that it was found that Breitbart LIED and ACORN did not do what it was accused of.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Oops, sorry, I wrote an answer but mixed up Sherrod and ACORN. So deleted it. My bad.

Lissen, I don't care what the NY Times thinks - I care that it was found that Breitbart LIED and ACORN did not do what it was accused of.

You can hang your hat on your conclusion. I will hang my hat on the fact that the New York Times said the most damning evidence against ACORN on the videos was legitimate.

Here is a quote from your article from a previous post: "Investigations by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, among others, have served to exonerate ACORN of the most outrageous charges of criminality (while still criticizing ACORN employees and leadership).

It says the Attorney Generals and DAs were critical of ACORN employees and their bosses. Just because nobody was charged with a crime, that doesn't mean that they didn't do anything wrong. They obviously did plenty wrong and that is why the AGs, the DAs, and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service were very critical of ACORN.

[Riot]

Evidence obtained by [Attorney General] Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California.

One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted.

At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."

I agree that Breitbart was indeed a "passionate conservative", and I'm sure those that liked his work will miss him.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree that Breitbart was indeed a "passionate conservative", and I'm sure those that liked his work will miss him.

I would never condone any journalist "deceptively editing" a story. With regard to the ACORN story, I don't know if O'Keefe was to blame, or Breitbart, or both. But whichever one of them (or both) was responsible, I would condemn that behavior. I don't think a journalist should ever do that.

However, I still do think they uncovered some good stuff. The New York Times thought so and even the AGs, DAs, and the non-partisan commission were very critical of ACORN after reviewing the undedited tapes and transcripts.

With regard to Jerry Brown's comments, he is not exactly unbiased. He is a partisan, liberal democrat.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

A recent anti-Obama Republican ad came out, and it showed a video clip of President Obama saying, about the election, " ... if we discuss the economy, we'll lose."

Except what was really said, was, "John McCain said, ' ... if we discuss the economy, we'll lose".

Yes. The President was quoting McCain word for word. But that part was left out to make it seem like the President said that.

Yeah, those words weren't changed, either. But that ad was a lie, too. And yes, indeed it was "deceptively edited" with "only the relevant parts" played.

it might be edited but the message was spot on!