Andrew Breitbart dies of "natural causes"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a little more on the whole O'keefe ACORN story. As I said, O'Keefe heavily edited the videos, making the videos quite misleading. This discredits much of what was on the videos, but not everything. Here is the truth about the unedited O'Keefe videos:

"By December 2009, an external investigation of ACORN was published that cleared it of any illegality, while noting that its poor management practices contributed to unprofessional actions by some low-level employees.[42][43][44][45] In March 2010, ACORN announced it would dissolve due to loss of funding from government and especially private sources.[46] On March 1, 2010, the district attorney for Brooklyn found that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN staff in New York.[6][47] In late March 2010, Clark Hoyt, then public editor for The New York Times, reviewed the videos, the full transcripts and the full audio. Hoyt wrote, "The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."[48]"

Read that last sentence very carefully. I think I will repeat it. "But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." That is from the New York Times after reviewing all the transcripts and all the unedited O"Keefe videos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

[Riot]

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

You can say whatever you want. But you have no evidence. Did Shirley Sherrod admit that when the white farmer came to her 20 years ago, that she was somewhat reluctant to help him because he was white? The answer is "yes".

Do you think your rhetoric is compelling? I'll do my imitation of you. Barrack Obama promised he would close Gitmo. He also promised that he would force companies selling GMO (genetically modified) foods to label them. He hasn't done either one of those things. He is a "liar". He is "scum". He is "evil".

By calling Obama a "liar" and/or "scum", does that make my case more compelling? Does that make me sound more intelligent?

By the way, if someone did call Obama a "liar" about these things, at least it would be accurate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you think your rhetoric is compelling? .

LOL - I'm not trying to "compel" you. I don't care what you think about Andrew Breitbart. Think whatever you wish.

I already know what I think about that loser. He's been around quite a few years, and "what he is" was always quite evident.

Your postmortem rewrite isn't something I'm interested in buying. You said, "Breitbart was no worse than anyone else."

Uh. No. No way in hell, in fact. So it goes.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

....broken record much?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

You can take the Breitbart Hate Tour elsewhere.

According to your definition of what a "lie" is, you are "lying" about O'Keefe. According to your definition, if you only tell half the truth to mislead people about something, then that is a "lie".

That was exactly what you did with O'Keefe. You didn't give us an honest assessment of the ACORN story. Did you tell us what the guy from the New York Times told us? He reviewed all the unedited tapes and transcripts. He said, "The most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."

You didn't tell us that, did you? You tried to act like O'Keefe's whole ACORN sting was misleading and out of context. That is not true. Some of it was misleading and out of context, but much of it was not. You didn't tell us that. So does that make you a "liar"?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

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.

[timmgirvan]

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.

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

[Antitrust32]

i will always be grateful to Breitbart and co for shutting down that sham organization ACORN.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i will always be grateful to Breitbart and co for shutting down that sham organization ACORN.

Yeah, well see how the shut down has affected people...







It's all Obama's fault..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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

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".

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).

More important, from the perspective of journalistic ethics, those investigations revealed that the videotapes released and promoted by Breitbart’s website were selectively and deceptively edited to serve as propaganda, not news.

http://www.salon.com/2010/07/21/acorn_10/

The right-wing zealots were forced to release their unedited ACORN pimp tapes to California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Brown found that O'Keefe had never claimed to be a pimp, and that the editing was creative to the point of dishonesty.

He's not the first to find similar nefarious-ness behind the ACORN tapes. James O'Keefe, an activist who thinks he's a journalist, had claimed that he'd wandered into ACORN offices dressed as a pimp, accompanied by a friend dressed as a prostitute, and found them willing to dispense illegal advice. Previous investigations had found that, and Andrew Breitbart (his mentor at BigGovernment.org, who aired the videos) had done some, um, creative editing.

But Brown's findings are the most damning yet. Here, via MediaMatters, is one excerpt from Brown's office's report, and another from their press release. The findings echo those of all the professionals — including the Brooklyn DA's office — who have looked into the matter

http://gawker.com/5508190/okeefe-and...everely-edited
.

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

[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.

[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.

[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!