“The concept of neutral, objective journalism is no longer” - Andy Brightbutt

...and somehow this is the fault of some liberal listserv? 

Dude, “objective journalism” probably never existed, and if it did once, massive media conglomerations killed it long ago.  I’m not even convinced that “objective journalism” is even philosophically possible.

We are closer to objectivity now than ever.  While any given media source (including blogs, etc.) may be (and probably is) biased, there are more voices accessible now than in the entire history of mankind.  Taking the cacophony of biased voices and adding in readily accessible facts, one has a better chance of actually knowing what has happened or is happening now than ever before.

That seems like a good thing to me…

“He has a theory about why the press is playing down the story: “If they go after Dave Weigel and Ezra Klein, they are going to have to go after the whole list because it is not just the sins of commission . . . it is the sins of omission of the rest of the people on the group to watch that strategy play itself out. These people aided in that crime.”” - NRO (ewww!)

....crime?  Crime?  What crime?  Is it a crime now to talk to people who may (or may not) have sympathetic political/cultural/philosophical outlooks?

And “go after” Dave Weigel and Ezra Klein?  For what?

Is this whole thing another of those incidents that took place in the Reichwing’s alternate reality, instead of the one we all live in?  What the hell is wrong with those people?...

(BTW, can someone prove that there is no “conservative” listserv, or something similar that is a functional equivalent of JournoList?  I’d bet that wingnuts actually communicate with each other right now, and do so in ways that are not public.  Of course, I expect that IOKIYAR and the Clinton Rules apply…)

Especially those three black people!!!

Who needs to prove that there isn’t a conservative listserv?  Let’s just make one up.  And when they deny it, we’ll point to those denials as proof of a conspiracy.  Just like they’ve done with the so many things, most recently the “Mexican drug gang invades Texas,” myth.

“The concept of neutral, objective journalism is no longer”

This concept was an anomaly to begin with—it began in the postwar period, and lasted until the mockery of “fair and balanced” that is Faux News. I’ll take an honest partisan mission statement over bogus claims of objectivity from a media outlet any day.

We are closer to objectivity now than ever.  While any given media source (including blogs, etc.) may be (and probably is) biased, there are more voices accessible now than in the entire history of mankind.

And more raw data and information to interpret, too. Which is why the Beltway MSM establishment spent the last week going guano crazy denouncing Wikileaks. Whatever their faults, Assange and his crew don’t claim to be reporters nor do they claim to be objective, but the access-journalism Villagers still do both despite giving Prince Bush free reign during 8 ruinous years.

Breitbart, as usual, spins this in the nuttiest way possible. In an effort to distract people from his own cutting-room lies, he falls back on the shopworn idea that the MSM makes bogus claims to objectivity not because they’re careerist poltroons and corporate whores but because they’re covering up a conspiracy by the <strike>Elders of Zion</strike> liberals.

Frenetic wiping of sweat, the pace of his speech, gesticulting and streaming thoughts,

What is Breitbart on?

More projection from the right-wing crazy house.  “We’d do it, so they MUST be doing it!!!!”

This entire episode with Andrew Breitbart clearly defines the difference between real journalists and people who maintain blogs. There are many writers who keep blogs and some of them are quite good I’m sure. I’d like to think that what I post on my own blog is well written, but I am NOT a journalist, and this is the distinction that must be made and that Breitbart emphasized with his agenda-driven video attack against Shirley Sherrod: Bloggers are not journalists for the simple reason that we are not held accountable for what we write or post. Bloggers do not hold back a piece until we have proper sources (at least two) confirmed and checked (independent sources? hello?). But this is the age of instant gratification, this is the time of post now, pay later, of instant downloads ... of ... a lack of trust amongst those who post things without having first confirmed their sources or demonstrating that what they have posted is NOT an edited excerpt that has been in the person’s possession for several months before he ‘remembered’ it and suddenly decided to post it after allegations of racism were brought up against the Tea Party and he thought it would be a grand way to dilute the broth by slipping in the nugget about racism in the NAACP and how they had a racist speaker address them ... all of which was a blatant lie of course, but that’s the role of a propagandist, isn’t it? You use the materials at hand to craft your message, to hell with the truth.

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of blogging. We all have our own little ‘soap-boxes’ in the ether from which we can spout whatever we want, but let none of us be deceived - we are NOT journalists. Journalists report FOR someone (an entity that oversees their work), they adhere to an editorial policy (for better or worse), and they have boundaries set for them. The Internet (blogging included) may provide for ‘free’ journalism, of a sort, but - it is a dangerous sort - anything that is not under authority is open to being abused and used to promote a private agenda. The question of whether or not someone is a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ journalist is something that we will always face, as long as there are publishers with biases and editors with the same, there will be journalists who lean to the ‘left’ or to the ‘right’. Hopefully, the amount of lean will be minimal and barely noticed by the presence of well researched facts within the published articles. The essence of any well written article will always be that no amount of bias from the writer should be able to detract from the truth behind the sources from which the article draws upon. Of course, that also requires something from the reader that wasn’t necessarily present when Breitbart released his video of Shirley Sherrod’s supposedly ‘racist’ remarks: an audience that uses critical thinking and analysis when they see something that begs questioning.

I feel like I don’t even need to post, CC basically wrote everything I wanted but it doesn’t hurt to reiterate.  Journalism is about reporting facts in a story narrative to create a journal entry to be published by somebody with greater distribution powers than the original writer.  The problem is fundamentally nobody can keep their stories which report the facts free of bias.  One is bound to put their spin on the ideas and since most Journalists come up with intellectually left parents or grew up in working class households journalism in the US is something that is generally center-left. 

Blogging is essentially a form of storytelling similar to Journalism but without the need to be accurate.  In most cases blogs are self-supported or on free-supporting websites that make no judgment on their content which really is what separates them from Journalism.  Nobody is there fact-checking blogs for accuracy and thus men like Breibart come up and use that to their advantage.  Does Sherrod have a wonderful Libel/Slander (video editing is a gray area, so I will use both here) against him but when he writes his obtuse right-wing insanity nobody else is going to attack him because then he’ll cry First Amendment rights.  Though they rightfully should.

The First Amendment only protects the truth.  There have been dozens of cases before the Supreme Court mainly in the 19th Century that defined the First Amendment.  What Breibart has consistently done is not protected by the First Amendment nor ever was.  We are moving backwards towards a more partisan media again.  Instead of individual newspapers leaning left or right we now have networks and blogs to do it for us.  But in the face of a mounting wall of denial and intellectual suicide on the right one has to question if in 20 years will Breibart be the king of the GOP or will he be left in the dust by somebody even crazier?

The problem is fundamentally nobody can keep their stories which report the facts free of bias.

But it’s already been proven that the ideal bias-free tack is to not interfere in the conversation between sources talking to a journalist and vieweres watching one. (See Rob Corddry on The Daily Show.)

PS If we’re looking for a conservative listserv, hasn’t Grover Norquist been holding a “virtual listserv” in meat-world for almost 20 years? Not that there’s anything conspiratorial about that.

In answer to Xeranar question as to what the future may hold for Andrew Breitbart ... there’s always the possibility of Fox Noise creating something similar to the new ‘Reality’ TV channel that now exists, although it would have to be more aptly named something like ‘Altered Reality - According to Fuxed Noise’. The line-up could include marathons of Glenn Beck and his weep-a-thons (blackboards included - in fact, the studio would be a room with padded blackboard walls and floors ...), followed by a few hours of Billy Orally ... with a co-host (until she quits) - Half-Governor Sarah Palin (but really, she’d have to quit sometime in the middle of each broadcast, for the sake of the kids). Then the could fit Andy Breitbart in for an hour of ‘Breitbart’s Angels’ - specially edited videos displaying his panache for finding sleaze where there isn’t any. The Acorn tapes, Shirley Sherrod, who knows where the pattern of hateful lies will take us to next. Where, Andrew, where?

Inquiring minds want to know. Actually, I don’t give a damn what he does ... he’s a dangerous man and should be curtailed before he hurts someone (again).

In an effort to distract people from his own cutting-room lies, he falls back on the shopworn idea that the MSM makes bogus claims to objectivity not because they’re careerist poltroons and corporate whores but because they’re covering up a conspiracy by the <strike>Elders of Zion</strike> liberals.

Not so Breitbart probably doesn’t allege an evil media conspiracy perpetrated by the Elders of Zion… he’s Jewish.  No idea if he’s a Zionist or not, but he is friends with batshit crazy Pam “Let’s kill all the Muslims” Geller, the vile Islamophobic proprietor of Atlas Shrugs.

What is Breitbart on?

Sounds like coke, AKA “instant arsehole.” Not that he needs chemical supplements for that, but I’m sure I could dig up a video clip of him saying “I love <strike>C</strike>coke<strike>(tm)</strike>!”

Not so Breitbart probably doesn’t allege an evil media conspiracy perpetrated by the Elders of Zion… he’s Jewish.

So are many neoCons, but they also do nothing to discourage the right-wing base’s anti-semitism. One of the first bugs to crawl out from the Journolist pseudo-scandal was “lookit how many of the members have Jewish names!” I didn’t see Breitbart or his followers rushing to slap that one down, because it never serves them well to alienate the mouth-breathers.

For Jewish conservatives, it’s often a dangerous game of “how long can we manipulate Xtian fantasists into working on our behalf while the suckers think that they’re conning us?” The whole relationship between the Xtian Zionist movement (“let’s get all them Jooos back to Israel so Jeebus can return and send ‘em to hell”) and the neoCons (“let’s figure out a way to get these anti-Semitic marks to support Israel more zealously than AIPAC”) is a case in point. Muslims just provide both groups with a common enemy.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call Breitbart a self-hating Jew—he’s more of an opportunist who thinks he can gain success by setting himself apart from “the (Jewish) liberals who run Hollywood.”

But it’s already been proven that the ideal bias-free tack is to not interfere in the conversation between sources talking to a journalist and vieweres watching one.

No, the sources themselves are bias.  Especially those willing to talk to Journalists.  Think Heritage Foundation or the EPA.  They clearly are telling a story with their facts and will advance their opinions (though in cases like the EPA they tend to be more “honest” in the sense to sticking to the logical conclusion).

Inquiring minds want to know. Actually, I don’t give a damn what he does ... he’s a dangerous man and should be curtailed before he hurts someone (again).

If Sherrod goes through with her lawsuit and wins (which is probably a given) then Breibart has very little left ahead.  Once you’re caught once the door becomes very easy to swing open again.  Most likely if he loses that court case then his carees is over.

If Sherrod goes through with her lawsuit and wins (which is probably a given) then Breibart has very little left ahead.  Once you’re caught once the door becomes very easy to swing open again.  Most likely if he loses that court case then his carees is over.

Agreed that if he loses a libel case that his career is finished, but I’m not holding my breath expecting him to lose.

I imagine he can afford much better attorneys than Sherrod, and on top of that you have to take into account just how hard libel is to prove.  Sherrod would likely meet the “public figure” standard, since she willingly appeared on national news programs in the immediate aftermath of the debacle.  That precedent was established in Richard Jewell v. Cox Enterprises (d.b.a. Atlanta Journal-Constitution), a case that was dismissed in part because Jewell made himself a public figure when he spoke to the media in response to false accusations that he was the Centennial Olympic Park bomber in Atlanta in 1996 (eventually revealed to be anti-choice shitstain Eric Rudolph).  If it is determined that Sherrod is a public figure, she must prove not only that Breitbart publisjed false or deceptive material defamatory of her character, but also that Breitbart’s libel perpetrated with “actual malice”.  She must prove that not only was the video he posted deceptive (which will be easy), but that Breitbart posted it with the knowledge that it was deceptive for the purpose of harming Sherrod’s reputation (which will not be easy).

If she does actually sue Breitbart, I hope she wins.  But I don’t think she’s likely to win, simply because it will probably be too difficult to absolutely prove Breitbart’s motives.  Even though most rational people can make a pretty good guess as to what Breitbart’s motives were, educated guesses aren’t sufficient evidence to prove actual malice in a libel case.  She’ll have to prove that he saw the full video beforehand and that he intentionally chose to use only the selected clip for the purpose of defaming her.  That won’t be easy to do.

There’s an interesting piece on this issue on Salon right now… the author is very sympathetic to Sherrod, but believes she’s far from having a slam dunk in a possible libel case.

If it is determined that Sherrod is a public figure, she must prove not only that Breitbart publisjed false or deceptive material defamatory of her character, but also that Breitbart’s libel perpetrated with “actual malice”.

See this is why I have to believe she’ll win easily.  Lying to create a new story in paper or speech is easy to avoid.  He clearly altered the video and admitted to it several times.  His alteration of the video to create a new image to defame her character and cause her to lose status as a public official is certainly proof of libel with actual malice.  She can file in his federal court district ( I’m not sure of his home base, I imagine New York or LA) and thus could draw a more favorable court.  Continuing this argument, her popular appeal in a court room of jurors could send Breibart into a spiral he could never escape from.

See this is why I have to believe she’ll win easily.  Lying to create a new story in paper or speech is easy to avoid.  He clearly altered the video and admitted to it several times.

I’m unaware of him altering the video or him confessing to altering it.  As far as I know, what he did was show only a selected clip of the video which would lead the viewer to draw incorrect conclusions about Sherrod, because the viewer didn’t get to hear Sherrod’s comments in the context of the rest of her speech.  Everything he presented her saying in the video she did in fact say, but her allegedly controversial comments were shown to not be so controversial when shown in the full context.

In any case, unless there is evidence that he knowingly put the video out there while being fully aware that the full video would have portrayed Ms. Sherrod in a much better light, it’s a tough case to prove.  You don’t just have to prove that the full video is less damning than the small clip, but that Breitbart was personally aware of the existence and context of the full video before he made the decision to post the shortened video.  As far as him “altering” the video, it depends on what a judge and/or jury decides qualifying as “altering”.  Based on what I’ve seen, it looks like he showed only a tiny selected clip, but the clip itself was unaltered… the comments Sherrod made were made exactly as shown in the clip, but the clip doesn’t include anything she said after the allegedly controversial comment about how she initially dealt with the white farmer.  If altering means showing only a small selected clip which distorts the true context of the overall speech, then yes, the video was altered.  But if altering means that he actually changed the video in such a way to depict Sherrod saying things that she didn’t actually say, then no, it wasn’t altered.

His claim right now is that he had no knowledge of the full video when he posted the clip that he posted.  Unless there is specific evidence showing that he did in fact know about the full video beforehand and yet still chose to only show the shortened clip to create a deceptive and defamatory narrative about Ms. Sherrod, actual malice will be nearly impossible to prove.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Breitbart is absolute scum, and I’m pretty certain that he knew exactly what he was doing when he ran with this video.  But my belief is just based on a gut feeling, which unfortunately wouldn’t qualify as definitive proof in a libel suit.  Is there a link of Breitbart acknowledging that he had knowledge of the contents of the full video before he decided to post the shortened clip?

Anyway, yes, I agree that Andrew Breitbart acted with malice in his presentation of the Sherrod video.  But I’m doubtful that his malice can be substantively proven in a court of law.  He can play dumb, and the honus is on the plaintiff to show that he fully knew what he was doing when he posted that video.

Leona brach in Tränen aus, musste aber nicht ins Krankenhaus. Sie rannte aus der Bücherei und führte die Stunde nicht zu Ende. Sie entschuldigt sich bei ihren Fans dafür.
ed hardy swimwear
louis vuitton handbags
true religion for men and women
true religion

I’m unaware of him altering the video or him confessing to altering it.  As far as I know, what he did was show only a selected clip of the video which would lead the viewer to draw incorrect conclusions about Sherrod, because the viewer didn’t get to hear Sherrod’s comments in the context of the rest of her speech.  Everything he presented her saying in the video she did in fact say, but her allegedly controversial comments were shown to not be so controversial when shown in the full context.

He cut down the video into selected clips and mashed them together into a single paragraph.  Fox was given the video as it was shown with the splices pushed together to create a deranged statement of racism.  He didn’t “show only selected clips” he sent to Fox a full video with jumps in it to make her talk like a marionette.  He then admitted to altering the video to display his point both on CNN and elsewhere.  He all but cut his own throat.  He just assumes he is indestructible because he managed to lie and nobody sued him yet.  The acorn videos were questionably liable but the workers did say certain boneheaded things.  Sherrod did nothing and he edited her words together.  In several of the cases she used common language to end a sentence and then rebut it which is normal but he edited out the rebuttal.  That constitutes the libel case.