Fox, Breitbart, and Sherrod

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

I’m not a huge Rachel Maddow fan, but this is pretty devastating.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

120 Responses to “Fox, Breitbart, and Sherrod”

  1. #1 |  James D | 

    Um, screw context … it WAS still a racist comment. End of story ….

  2. #2 |  BSK | 

    Radley… your liberal leanings are showing!!!

    There is a lot to fault Obama and his administration on in this situation, no doubt about that.

    But it’s easy to see how he gets put in an impossible situation. If he doesn’t act, the conservative pundits say, “See! He’s exactly what we thought he was! A big, white-hating racist!” Naturally, he wants to avoid this so he acts. When the true story comes out, the conservative pundits say, “See! He jumped the gun! What an idiot!” Damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t. Of course, he could always just choose to NOT listen to the media and actually do the right thing. But that would be too hard…

  3. #3 |  BSK | 

    James-

    Please elaborate. What made it a racist statement regardless of context?

  4. #4 |  BillC | 

    She should cut down on the giggling. It seems forced.

  5. #5 |  BSK | 

    BillC-

    Yea, well, that is Maddow for you…

  6. #6 |  thefncrow | 

    James D, yes, it was a racist comment, you’re right. Of course, the intent of her bringing it up was to point out that it was a racist comment, that she realized it was racist and took steps to rectify that racist attitude.

    Which, of course, is the context that was so thoroughly missing from the initial reporting.

  7. #7 |  SJE | 

    Pwnd

  8. #8 |  Len | 

    omission accomplished?

  9. #9 |  Les | 

    End of story ….

    Well, that certainly is the easy way to go, if you don’t care about truth or integrity.

  10. #10 |  PW | 

    Breitbart played the media at its own game of race card-based “gotcha!” politics and made complete fools out of a bunch of people. Not exactly above the board, but it worked nonetheless.

    I’m also quite amused by the hypocrisy of Maddow’s indignation, considering that she’s the one who tried to pull a similar stunt on Rand Paul back in May. That instance is more than sufficient to demonstrate that her “outrage” with Breitbart is hollow and self-discrediting.

  11. #11 |  BSK | 

    PW-

    So you contend that this was Breitbart’s goal all along now? You are just so damned creative when you’re spinning fact into fiction!

  12. #12 |  PW | 

    BSK – I don’t know what Breitbart’s goal was all along or even how much of the video he knew about, but I do know that he got the very predictable media to work itself into a racial frenzy over this story. And it left several people with egg all over their faces from the White House to Fox to all the other alphabet stations, though each in a different way.

    To put it mildly I have no sympathy for any of them.

  13. #13 |  PW | 

    Just in case anyone has forgotten, Madcow/MSNBC also outright falsified their transcript of the Rand Paul interview on the Civil Rights Act to make it sound as if he favored racial discrimination. And that was in addition to all the selective editing and out-of-context soundbyte games she played with that interview over the following several days.

    To put it mildly, she’s guilty of far worse than anything Breitbart did.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135280

  14. #14 |  BSK | 

    Or maybe Breitbart is just part of the very predictable media he claims to oppose…?

    Two likely scenarios:
    1.) He deliberately edited the video to unfairly disparage this women and turn what was a speech about overcoming internal racist feelings into “evidence” of anti-white racism on the part of blacks that implicitly indicts NAACP and the Obama administration (among others), at which point he is a liar who should be the first one apologizing and whose job should be in danger.
    -or-
    2.) He genuinely didn’t know the video was edited or the larger context of the speech, failed to vet the information, and jumped at the chance to expose what would be very troubling evidence of racism. If this is a case, there are a variety of reasons WHY he would take this route and I won’t speculate as to which one it might have been. Depending on that, I’m not sure the extent of his culpability in the ensuing matters, but it certainly calls his credibility into question.

    I’m sure there are other possible reasons for Breitbart to act as he did, but my assessment is these are the two likely ones, though I can’t say which is more likely.

  15. #15 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Well, there goes Fox’s heretofore unblemished record for accuracy and objectivity.

  16. #16 |  Dave Krueger | 

    You know, I’ve always wondered why they call themselves “The Most Powerful Name in News”. Doesn’t that seem to explicitly proclaim that their goal is to wield influence rather than report from a disinterested perspective?

  17. #17 |  BSK | 

    PW-

    We’re talking about Breitbart and, more importantly, the media and Obama administration’s response to the story he “broke”. Why are we suddenly putting Maddow on trial? And why are we bringing up Rand Paul?

    Oh yea… you feel the need to counter any example of potential bias by the conservative right with an example of potential bias by the liberal left. It can’t just be enough that we say, “Yea, this was fucked up.” Instead, you have to say, “Wellllll, it wasn’t really THAT fucked up and you know what was a whole lot MORE fucked up…?” My question is… why do you feel the need to do this?

  18. #18 |  BSK | 

    PW-

    Also, please don’t use the term ‘race card’. It’s both offensive and intellectually dishonest.

  19. #19 |  Sean L. | 

    “The wonder of all of this, is that anyone falls for it. Over and over and over and over and over again.”

    If by ‘anyone’ you mean the Obama administration.

    Oops.

  20. #20 |  BSK | 

    Sean-

    Right on. It’s really scary when our top politicians not only get their information from the news, but react to it based on how they think the news will respond. Massive fail by the Obama administration…

  21. #21 |  PW | 

    If you continue to play the RACE CARD, BSK, I’ll use it to describe it just as it is and however else I damn well please.

    Besides, I don’t really consider it credible when the same person claiming racial “offense” had this to say about the murderous, violent, bigoted, Jew-hating, white-hating, racial cult leader Louis Farrakhan yesterday:

    “The perception that Farakhan is a Jew-hating, white-hating hate mongering racist is partly the result of how the media has unfavorably covered him. I am not saying he is not deserving of criticism, but for every instance you offered of the media giving him a pass, there is just as much evidence of that very same media (I’m not making this a left-media/right-media thing) providing snippets of speeches outside of context to paint him as far more inflammatory than he really is.” – BSK

    So get over yourself. And get over your sympathy for Calypso Louis while your at it.

  22. #22 |  Duracomm | 

    Radley,

    You might think about what the dominant media did to folks like

    Richard Hatfill

    Jeff Skilling

    Wen ho lee

    the duke rape suspects

    Conrad Black

    richard jewell

    And hope that in the future the dominant media and liberal interest groups apply the same standard to themselves as they do to breitbart.

  23. #23 |  PW | 

    #17 – I’m putting Maddow on trial because she’s a flaming hypocrite. She used intentionally out of context quotes and an outright FABRICATED transcript to trash and smear Rand Paul as a “racist” for the better part of a week. She long ago ceded any moral authority to take offense at anything Breitbart did in this story.

  24. #24 |  BSK | 

    PW-

    A) What is the race card? Explain what you mean by it so we can actually discuss whether I am actually “playing it” or not.
    B) And what did I say about Farrakhan that was so objectionable? That there is more to him than the monster the media makes him out to be? I said he is deserving of criticism, but because of a tendency to oversimplify our understanding of people in general, we demonize him in a way that exaggerates both the intensity of his impact and the breadth of his impact. People compare him to Hitler. While, ideologically, they sure as hell share a lot more than they differ on, particularly with their views on Jews, there are still vast differences between Farrakhan and Hitler. Does Farrakhan harbor hatred for Jews and whites? Yes. He is comparable to Hitler? Not until his body count reaches into 7 figures. Does not being Hitler excuse his hatred? No. Do I think the media portrayal of him as being comparable to Hitler is inaccurate? Yes.

    If you want to construe that as sympathy, be my guest. But I don’t think it passes the sniff test.

  25. #25 |  BSK | 

    So would you say Maddow is guilty of the same thing Breitbart did? It sounds like you are. Okay. Fair enough.

    So why so much outrage at Maddow and so little at Breitbart?

  26. #26 |  James D | 

    “Please elaborate. What made it a racist statement regardless of context?”

    Let’s swap the race of Sherrod and the farmer …. would she have her job back and/or an apology? Yeah, didn’t think so ….

  27. #27 |  Sean L. | 

    After trying to be funny, I read all the squabbling here and I’ve made some observations:

    Fox news sucks
    MSNBC sucks
    Obama administration sucks
    The guy who chopped up the video sucks

    Here’s the teaching moment:
    Anyone with a vested interest in telling lies will tell them. Therefore:
    1) Stop watching mainstream media
    2) Stop believing the government (need that be said here?)

    “End of story”

  28. #28 |  InMD | 

    I’m just hoping the whole incident serves to illustrate why you can’t rely on cable news for anything. It’s nothing but a sideshow. I’m curious why there has been so little commentary on the Washington Post story that came out this week describing a massive, ineffectual post 9/11 intelligence-industrial complex. With the government spending and civil liberties implications you’d think it would be a major item of debate. Instead we got this. Not that I’m saying this story has no relevance but it seems like cable news distracts people from important stories much more than it informs them.

  29. #29 |  thefncrow | 

    “Let’s swap the race of Sherrod and the farmer …. would she have her job back and/or an apology?”

    Let’s see, a white person who briefly didn’t help a black person to the best of their ability, until they realized their own racism and went all-in to help out said same person?

    You bet your ass they’d have their job back.

    It’s embarrassing how little ammo you actually have here.

  30. #30 |  Duracomm | 

    Lets not forget what the media has done to increase the drug war hysteria and child sex abuse hysteria.

    The media incompetence, ignorance and hysteria in those areas continues to cause immense human destruction.

    The Jewell case shows just how destructive the dominant media has been in the past.

    Media Put Under Scrutiny Over Ethics in Jewell Story

    News organizations face issue of how to go about unmaking a villain.

    NEW YORK — Now that the satellite trucks are gone from Richard Jewell’s street and the microphones are packed off to some newer emergency than this summer’s Olympic bombing, a crucial question remains for the media: How do you unmake a villain?

    Jewell, a 33-year-old security guard,spent nearly three months as an international pariah after the Atlanta Journal came out with an extra edition July 30 naming him as the “focus” of the FBI’s bombing investigation.

  31. #31 |  PW | 

    Just so we’re clear on the guy you are defending here, BSK, here’s Farrakhan in his own words. It’s pretty putrid stuff. And it makes it immediately clear that Farrakhan’s beliefs about Jews are not far removed from David Duke or even Uncle Adolph himself. Nor these old quotes dredged up from the past. Some of it is as recent as last week:

    “The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road.” – Saviours’ Day Speech, Chicago, 2/22/98

    “Jewish people claim Abraham. Sorry. Sorry. I have to tell you the masquerade is over.” – Speech in Atlanta, 6/26/10

    “You are of the Synagogue of Satan and therefore will be dealt with by God.” – Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, 7/11/10

    “White people are potential humans – they haven’t evolved yet.” – Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00

    “Israel don’t represent Jews. Israel represents the whole white race.” – Speech in Atlanta, 6/26/10

    “[U]ntil Jews apologize for their hand in that ugly slave trade; and until the Jewish rabbis and the Talmudic scholars that made up the Hamitic myth — that we were the children of Ham, doomed and cursed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water — apologize, then I have nothing to apologize for.” – Interview in Swing magazine, 9/24/96

    ““See, the Jews planned and executed the Federal Reserve System… [The United States] cannot pay the interest on her debt. She’s not paying down the principal. Who got her? The international bankers. The synagogue of Satan. America’s sovereignty is all but destroyed because they want one world where they control the wealth of all the nations of the Earth and they’ve almost done it.” – Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, 7/11/10

    “”How did we get into World War II? You say Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Yes, they did, but what were the forces that created in Japan the desire or the need to force them to attack America? You don’t know that. But when America went to war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, she had to borrow money. There were the international bankers again. They financed all sides. And how many millions of Americans lost their lives? Suppose Hitler was trying to destroy the international bankers controlling Europe, but he went about it by attacking a whole people. All Jews are not responsible for the evil of the few who do evil. But certain Jews have used Judaism as a shield.” – Saviours’ Day Speech, Chicago, 2/26/95

    http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/farrakhan_own_words.asp

  32. #32 |  PW | 

    And naturally, Farrakhan has an affinity for Hitler himself:

    “Here the Jews don’t like Farrakhan and so they call me ‘Hitler’. Well that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” – March 11, 1984

  33. #33 |  Radley Balko | 

    ….And hope that in the future the dominant media and liberal interest groups apply the same standard to themselves as they do to breitbart.

    First, in all of those cases, the media followed the government’s lead. Breitbart instigated this entire episode.

    Second, I’m certainly no apologist for the way the media covers criminal justice issues. They do an awful job and aren’t nearly skeptical enough of the government. That goes for their entire coverage of the criminal justice system, not just the cases you mentioned. But do you think Breitbart and Fox News would agree with me there? Fox News would say the say the traditional media is too hard on cops and prosecutors, and that it coddles criminals. So would most of Breitbart’s bloggers. (I’ve never heard Breitbart speak about the criminal justice system, so I’m not sure what position he’d take personally.)

    Third, I’m not sure why I have to pick sides, here. You’re right. The dominant media should apply the same standard to themselves that they apply to Breitbart. And Breitbart should apply the same standard to himself that he applies to the media.

    My beef with Breitbart is that he’s basically just adding to the dumbing down of public discourse. He’s not providing an alternative to the traditional media. He’s using all the tricks he accuses the traditional media of using to push a partisan agenda. He’s fine sacrificing truth and accuracy if it means helping his team advance the ball down the field. Which of course is the very thing he accuses the media of doing.

  34. #34 |  PW | 

    The only difference between Farrakhan and Hitler is that Hitler had the means to do what Farrakhan wants to do and has explicitly said he wants to do many times. May they both rot in hell together for an eternity, as they are well suited for each other..

  35. #35 |  Cynical in CA | 

    I suppose that now we can believe the remainder of the mainstream media except Fox News.

    Suckers.

  36. #36 |  DeadGuy | 

    She suffered a horrible incident as a child, more than one, actually, but the murder of her father was the big one. I can understand why she’d simply hate all white people for all that happened to her. I don’t blame her. And she basically admitted that she did, though it was through innuendo. I could be wrong here, but that was the feeling I got.

    But, here are the statements that make her a racist:

    First, she said that she made a commitment to help black people and black people only. That clearly defines her as having been a racist in the past.

    Next, she thought it was funny that while the white farmer was “acting superior” she was deciding how much help to give him – and the whole audience chuckled, as though they all understood and it was a common occurance.

    Next, she specifically said “I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.” She did that because he was white. Then she decided to “take him to one of them…one of his own kind.” She did that because he was white.

    Another quote, “it’s not so much about white…it is about white and black.” And, “I’m thinking he’s being taken care of by the white lawyer.”

    All of that defines her past racism.

    When she had her “turn around,” it wasn’t because she had a change of heart. It wasn’t because she had an epiphany about race relations. It was because the farmer was also being discriminated against – albeit due to age, but discrimination none the less – by a rich white lawyer. It was more that they had a common enemy than it was that she decided she was no longer a racist.

    Then, at 21:00 minutes on the YouTube video, just as she was talking about going to another lawyer she had seen before with a black farmer, the tape mysteriously cuts away. I find that very odd for what is being trumpeted as the complete tape. What did she say in that section? Why was it edited that way?

    Regardless, here is the evidence of her current racism:

    “I haven’t seen such mean spirited people lately, as I’ve seen of this issue of healthcare. Some of the racism we thought was buried, didn’t it surface. Now we endured eight years of the Bushs and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.” Yes, I see, the ONLY reason Republicans are against Obama is because he is black. That is definitely a racist view. I’m pretty sure that they don’t like the President for the same reasons they didn’t like Clinton – he’s a Democrat.

    After that, for quite some time, the speech became very heartfelt – talking to the kids, extolling people of all color to work together and she even pulled in a few good quotes. I especially like the one that said skin color would exist, it just wouldn’t matter.

    But then she related another story about a black farm where two cousins up north wanted to sell it. She finally found some honest lawyers – “they were white.” And later – “they’ve got a white man already lined up to buy it.” Pointing out skin color, in that context, was completely unnecessary. It made no difference and only showed that she was extremely conscious of race – like a racist.

    I’m also still confused about where the epiphany about race occurred in her life. When, exactly did she stop being a racist? From the quotes in the speech, it sounds to me like she still is a racist. While she does see things through a lense of rich and poor, she did say, in the present tense, “it is about white and black.”

    The first tape was misleading, but the full tape does not exonerate Shirley Sherrod. She is a racist. She treats people differently because they are white – both 24 years ago and today.

    I also agree with Sean L. – they all suck, but I’d add NAACP, most bloggers on both sides of the spectrum and even Shirly Sherrod herself.

    It was a giant FAIL all around.

  37. #37 |  ClassAction | 

    #23

    Hm, what? That’s not true at all. Maddow didn’t do anything of the sort. She asked Paul a question, there was cross-talk and he stuttered with a “yeah” in front of his answer. The rush transcript, which is written near-contemporaneously with the show, recorded it as a “yes.” The very next day, the Maddow fill-in host went on the air to state unequivocally that the transcript was “technically correct” but “totally misleading.” Now, it’s not really technically correct, since he said “yeah” and not “yes.” But it was immediately admitted the transcript was misleading. Since then, MSNBC has released two additional transcripts of the show, one of which removes the “yes” and one of which includes all of the cross-talk. Maddow never went back on the air and claimed that Paul actually said “yes.”

    Of course, the ironic thing is that, in fact, Rand Paul DOES BELIEVE that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people based on race, which is precisely what I, and lots of other libertarians believe. He’s just too interested in winning elections to state it openly.

  38. #38 |  PW | 

    If MSNBC called the transcript “technically correct” then they defended its use no matter how much they tried to pretend otherwise. Relative to the wrong they committed against him (which also instigated a NY Times story based on the fabricated transcript), their backpeddling was both insufficient and disingenuous.

    Besides, there was nothing “technically correct” about it – the fraudulently transcribed “yes” isn’t even correctly placed where the “yeah” as in the dialogue, because Madcow was still talking over him.

  39. #39 |  BillC | 

    If elderly black women would stop offending white people then race problems in this country would be a thing of the past.

  40. #40 |  Charlie Potts | 

    “I suppose that now we can believe the remainder of the mainstream media except Fox News.”

    That’s your defense of Fox News?

  41. #41 |  ClassAction | 

    #38

    It’s amazing that you think you’re making a point by repeating something I already said.

    The fill-in host for Maddow called it “technically correct” – which I agree is wrong, because it should be “yeah” instead of “yes.” I just listened to the video again, and it’s clear that Paul says “yeah” after Maddow stops talking. Again, this is a total non-issue. The very next day, the fill-in host called the rush transcript “totally misleading” and MSNBC subsequently released two additional transcripts. It’s also NOT REALLY totally misleading because Rand Paul actually DOES believe what he’s being accused of believing, he’s just too cowardly to admit it.

  42. #42 |  ClassAction | 

    #38

    Here’s exactly what the Maddow fill-in host says (I can’t remember his name):

    “Yeah, that is not Rand Paul saying ‘yes’ as in ‘yes private businesses have the right to say they don’t serve black people. That’s Rand Paul saying ‘yeah despite the fact that we’re talking over each other and there’s a delay in the transmission, I can hear you.”

    He then goes on to say:

    “This stuff’s important. It’s worth another step to make sure we’re all having the right discussion of the original discussion.”

    I mean, how much more clear could he be? He’s not “defending the transcript” in any meaningful sense. He’s clearly saying the transcript does not accurately reflect the meaning of Rand Paul’s words, and further, that people should take “another step” to make sure they understand what Paul actually said.

  43. #43 |  PW | 

    #42 – Compared to the damage inflicted (and likely intended) by the original transcript fraud, MSNBC’s backtracking the next day was both meager and unconvincing. If you maliciously smear somebody, whispering that you are kind of sorry for it, but not really, does nothing to mend the original wrong.

  44. #44 |  Terrorific | 

    Wait….I always thought it was “playing the race car”, like at Bonneville. Am I missing something here? The image of a black Nascar racer going up against a white one in an epic battle for media domination is pretty much entrenched in my brain at this point.

  45. #45 |  ClassAction | 

    #43

    You are tiresome to argue with. You keep moving the goal post. First (at #23) you accused Maddow of being a hypocrite for using a fabricated transcript for the better part of a week – when Maddow didn’t write the transcript, never quoted it, and her show outright called it “totally misleading” the very next day – which, since it was posted AFTER the video aired, was literally the first chance they could have disputed it.

    When challenged, you shifted to accusing MSNBC of “defending [the transcript’s] use” (at #38), despite the Maddow show’s open repudiation of how the NYTimes and several other news organizations used it, and despite the fact that MSNBC subsequently posted two additional transcripts of the same show.

    Now, when challenged again, you shift to assertions which are statements of belief that cannot be proven or disproven. You can assert all you want that the mis-transcription was a deliberate, malicious smear. There is clearly no direct evidence of this, and I think the circumstances suggest otherwise. Plus, it’s kind of ridiculous to call it a “smear” when it is ACTUALLY WHAT RAND PAUL REALLY BELIEVES (as I do, too), even if he’s too cowardly to say it on national television.

  46. #46 |  Big Chief | 

    Wow, that Maddow clip is devastating … for Maddow. In her Fox envy she spends a whole segment damning Fox for rushing the story out while failing to point out that the rest of the media did the same. She passes on hanging much on Breitbart. She shows clips just from the opinion shows while acting as if they were the “straight” news reports. And she fails to lay any blame on the only real culprit in all of this which is the Obama administration. Regardless of what the news media did they did the real harm when they forced her to resign without allowing her to give her side of the story. The MSM (MSNBC and Fox included) didn’t do a good job of getting the full story, but they also didn’t fire her. And singling out Fox news is ridiculous as well. I think I first saw the story on the MSNBC website. It didn’t give me any thing besides the Breitbart take on it either.

    It was unconscionable for the USDA to fire her without giving her the opportunity to explain herself. As culpable as everyone else is, the administration’s actions were an order of magnitude worse, probably several orders of magnitude.

  47. #47 |  UCrawford | 

    The story aside (and yes, it was really crappy how Breitbart basically did a smear piece) I find the press sniping at each other to be completely amusing. One group of hacks accusing the other group of hacks of being hacks from a position of undeserved self-righteousness.

    Frankly, I think everyone EXCEPT for Sherrod are the idiots of this story…especially the journalists.

  48. #48 |  BSK | 

    Classaction-

    You’re tilting at windmills. PW has no intention of arguing fairly.

  49. #49 |  BSK | 

    PW-

    You think Farrakhan is as bad as Hitler. I think he’s horrible but that Hitler analogies go too far. You somehow twist that into me being sympathetic towards Farrakhan. Exaggerate much?

  50. #50 |  Cd | 

    Breitbart is clearly a bomb thrower. He is not trying to be a balanced news source. You have to look at anything he does through a partisan lens. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a valid point from time to time but the partisan coloring is always present.

    However the people that tossed the first bomb here were the NAACP and their allegations of racism against the Tea Party movement. If they hadn’t done that Breitbart would have never gone where he did. Again for partisan reasons he has been defending the Tea Party against claims of racism. Breitbart had already announced he was defending that particular hill. NAACP announced they planned to attack his position. Breitbart responded.

    Now my understanding of the timeline is that Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign before Fox New ran with the story in any significant way (correct me if I’m wrong). That would mean Breitbart’s posting of the video was enough to get at least DOA to take action. It makes they look very bad and then to have the President out today complaining about the internet news cycle makes the entire government look like they aren’t grown up enough to ignore a bunch of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle.

    I don’t think personally I’d have more in common with Ms. Sherrod politically but I think she got royally screwed here. The day that anyone can have a few minutes of a speech posted on political site and have that lead immediately to being fired is not a very good day here in America. Yes there should be consequences for speech but there should also be a chance to defend yourself before you loose your job over them.

  51. #51 |  EH | 

    PW: There’s no moral authority operable here, right is right. Maddow called them out on facts and tied ‘em to Wallace and all kinds of “how you like me now?” I think that’s the part that really hurts: that she is right about the intellectual tradition being continued by Brietbart and his ilk. Heck, I feel for ya: I’d try to change the subject too if I were in your shoes. GYOFB if you want to rail on about offtopic stuff, tho.

  52. #52 |  BSK | 

    Also, PW, for someone who claims his real passion is police abuse stories and that the rest of us (or just me in particular) are obsessed with playing the “race car”, I noticed you were absent from all the posts today detailing with police debate and jumped right into the one on race. I’m pretty sure it’s you with the obsession, tough guy. That must be tough to deal with. Good luck!

  53. #53 |  JS | 

    Big Chief “In her Fox envy she spends a whole segment damning Fox for rushing the story out while failing to point out that the rest of the media did the same.”

    That’s a good point, I didn’t even think of that.

  54. #54 |  ASPECTRATIO | 

    At this point, Breitbart’s immaturity is stunningly childish, if not amusing. Quite unprofessional. “What would warrant an apology?'” says Breitbart to CNN. Andy, if ya gotta ask, then ya don’t know the difference between feelin’ the heat and seeing the light. Someday you’ll earn a seat at the table with the grown-ups. Now finish your milk, put on your PJ’s and get to bed.

  55. #55 |  ASPECTRATIO | 

    #40 | Charlie Potts | July 22nd, 2010 at 7:46 pm Uh, Fox is an entertainment company. The what plays at being a ‘news’ division is quite entertaining. Remember girls, smile– lots of leg and lip gloss.

  56. #56 |  Homeboy | 

    @ #36

    Deadguy,

    You couldn’t be more correct. I had come to suspect that I would go through this entire comments thread without seeing anyone address the plain and simple fact that Sherrod articulated a racist perspective in the current tense. Not only did she state that “It IS about black and white” now, in 2010, she did so in order to correct her inadvertent suggestion that race was not the primary issue underlying her current job awareness. If a white woman had acted in the obverse, admitting to past racism against blacks while framing race as the defining issue within her current professional perspective, she would be out on her can without any hope of reprieve.

  57. #57 |  ClassAction | 

    #46

    Wow, how totally devastating for Maddow to be COMPLETELY CORRECT in exposing the shameless double-talk and hypocrisy of Fox and Friends, because even though she was absolutely one-hundred percent correct about that, it’s not enough to be one-hundred percent correct about the thing you’re actually criticizing, if you don’t also manage to fit in a criticism of the 900 other things that everyone else also thinks you should be criticizing.

  58. #58 |  Tom Barkwell | 

    Rachel Maddow is a left wing pundit. Her critique of Fox News is no more devastating than the critiques Glenn Beck puts forth on the Obama administration every day. Or the critiques of the media by other pundits like Bernie Goldberg.

    Let’s be honest. All major “news” outlets have an easily discernible over-riding point of view. In an environment where the democrats have the white house and both houses of congress, Fox is far more important than all the others, combined. No one else will hold those in power accountable (certainly not an Obama cheerleader like Maddow).

  59. #59 |  BSK | 

    Tom Barkwell-

    You are right. But, when others are right, we should acknowledge that. In this instance, Maddow is right and Breitbart is wrong. Does that mean Maddow is always right or Breitbart is always wrong? No. In this instance though, it’s pretty clear Maddow is right and Breitbart is wrong. There is no harm in acknowledging that.

  60. #60 |  scp | 

    Ummm… The thing is… I have heard apologies from fox news people who jumped the gun (Breitbart is a different story). I’ve never once heard M$NBC issue a correction or apology on any of their past screw ups (although I don’t watch them any more, so I could’ve missed them).

    Maddow’s 1.) failure to mention any of the fox news apologies and 2.) shovelling that horse-s*t about Van Jones and Acorn being out of context reveals this as an opportunistic attack on Fox News, not an attempt to inform her audience.

  61. #61 |  PW | 

    I say you are sympathetic to Farrakhan, BSK, because you have a long record of trying to downplay the severity of his hatred. And it’s not just saying he’s less bad than Hitler, because pretty much every human being who has ever lived is less bad compared to Hitler. No, BSK. You actively tried to pass off Farrakhan’s many and numerous calls to exterminate the Jews and praise of Hitler as if they were only mildly offensive passing remarks taken “out of context” by the media.

    “The perception that Farakhan is a Jew-hating, white-hating hate mongering racist is partly the result of how the media has unfavorably covered him. I am not saying he is not deserving of criticism, but for every instance you offered of the media giving him a pass, there is just as much evidence of that very same media (I’m not making this a left-media/right-media thing) providing snippets of speeches outside of context to paint him as far more inflammatory than he really is.” – BSK

    That statement says more about you than it does about Farrakhan.

  62. #62 |  PW | 

    #51 – I’m not so sure its a matter of “right” in this case though. At the very worst Breitbart caught the media and Obama at their own favorite game: using out of context soundbytes to play the race card. Even the “victim” of this case is hardly sympathetic – she’s a career bureaucrat who basically exists to help farmers learn how they can milk the government’s noxious farm subsidy policy that radically distorts global food prices and effectively starves the third world.

    Fox walked away with egg on its face too, and I’m glad they did. But practically everyone involved in this sordid affair has only himself to blame because none of it would have happened if our media and political culture were not obsessed with race and hypersensitive to even the slightest controversy surrounding it.

  63. #63 |  PW | 

    Also note that I’m not denying that Sherrod was unfairly used as a pawn in this episode. I’m simply saying that on my list of people to sympathize with, she currently ranks somewhere only slightly above Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan.

  64. #64 |  André Kenji | 

    1-) No transcript of ANY TV show is 100% accurate. Blaming Maddow because of the transcript is kinda silly.

    2-) In fact, Maddow had interviewed both Ron and Rand Paul several times. So, she had no axe to grind on him. He could have easily escaped the question talking about how he admired Blacks and the Civil Rights Movement or something like that.

    How Rand expects to face the atourney general of his state in a debate? Frankly….

  65. #65 |  PW | 

    Andre –

    If the transcript is inaccurate (which it was) and its inaccuracy is being widely used and quoted to attack a person (which it also was), it is a moral obligation of the network who made the error to unequivocally correct it and apologize to the person they have wronged.

    Instead, MSNBC made a half-assed retraction that wasn’t really a retraction at all, while Madcow continued to beat the “Rand Paul wants to abolish the Civil Rights Act” drum for the better part of a week after it.

  66. #66 |  BSK | 

    PW-

    No matter what I say, you are going to think what you think. Despite elaborating on the quote you continue to offer, you seem to think that doesn’t matter and tell me I am symapthetic and an admirer of Farrakhan. Nothing could be further from the truth. But because I don’t match your vitriol and attempt to gain and promote a more nuanced understanding of him, I embrace his hatred. Bullshit.

    You can continue to be simplistic if you want. But all it will do is demonstrate your simple-mindedness.

    Let me be clear. I don’t endorse, support, defend, admire, or promote Farrakhan’s hatred. But I do recognize a railroading when I see one and there are times where Farrakhan’s comments have been misconstrued. Does this mean they aren’t still filled with hate? No. Does this mean there is more to them than pure, unadulterated hate? Yes. I’m sorry if that is hard for you to comprehend.

  67. #67 |  thorn | 

    Given how Maddow and MSNBC treated the Rand Paul issue with civil rights – Radley, you’re really starting to lose some credibility here.

    I realize it’s your blog, and you can say whatever you wish. Of course, you (understandably) believe readers are free to stay, or go… but any blogger would be lying to say that they don’t actually want readers, or care if anyone reads.

    You have good insights on SWAT issues, and your take on the drug war has some merit as well… but at times like these – genuflecting to that insufferable bitch – you might be better off silently agreeing, rather than trying to get the rest of us to.

  68. #68 |  BSK | 

    Let me break down my own statement, since apparently that is the only way to get through to you:

    “The perception that Farakhan is a Jew-hating, white-hating hate mongering racist is partly the result of how the media has unfavorably covered him.” By using the word “partly” I implicitly acknowledge that Farrakhan is still largely responsible for his own image. I also mention that the media covers him unfairly. What I mean by that is I think he is maybe a level 7 or 8 evil and the media often portrays him as a level 10 evil (on a scale of 1 to 10).
    “I am not saying he is not deserving of criticism…” Ergo, I AM saying he is deserving of criticism.
    “…but for every instance you offered of the media giving him a pass, there is just as much evidence of that very same media (I’m not making this a left-media/right-media thing) providing snippets of speeches outside of context to paint him as far more inflammatory than he really is.” When you line up all the inflammatory comments someone makes with nothing else along side them, the impression is that all they do is spew hatred and vitriol. Naturally, these are the most newsworthy statements so they get airplay. Did I deny that he was inflammatory? No. What I said is that he is not quite as inflammatory as the media makes him out to be. If you listen to the media (and people like yourself), you’d think that all he did was call for the murder of Jews and whites and never said anything else about any other topic. This is not true.

    How’s that? I’m sorry if reading comprehension is hard for you. I realize it’s easier if you decide what you think ahead of time and then just fit things to this idea, but that just pushes you deeper into your little fantasy world. Also, please read everything else I’ve said about Farrakhan.

  69. #69 |  BSK | 

    thorn-

    Radley isn’t saying he endorses Madow as a whole. But when someone is right, they are right. Maddow here is right. Would you argue that? And she does a good job outlining the situation here. So Radley linked to her. He even states his own misgivings with her in the very first (and only) sentence. What you are arguing for is further divisiveness. Once someone errs, they are out, for good. And anyone who associates with them is also out. Is that really productive?

  70. #70 |  Radley Balko | 

    So, “I’m not the biggest Rachel Maddow fan” = “genuflecting to that insufferable bitch”?

    Pretty sure I’m not the one who loses credibility in this exchange, Thorn.

    Frankly, Maddow grates on me. But she showed video of Fox commentators blatantly contradicting what they’d said 24 hours prior, and completely acting as if their prior comments never happened It was a devastating critique of how vapid and blatantly partisan that network has become. I don’t care who is speaking between the video clips.

  71. #71 |  NathanS | 

    Wasn’t really that devastating at all. Fox never called for her resignation. Most of the host phrases went like: “Is this racist, you decide?”

    Imagine a white person saying the same thing… It was racist, and still is racist, and is imo an average viewpoint of people in the NAACP.

    Breitbart’s article was rather tame honestly, and attempted to show how according to MSNBC, Tea Partier’s are racist for far more benign comments (such as thinking parts of the Civil Rights Act were unconstitutional), while NAACP members are just ho-hum for saying far more absurd statements.

  72. #72 |  Soup42 | 

    Uh, Bill O’Reilly explicitly said that she should resign.

  73. #73 |  André Kenji | 

    PW

    1-) Frankly, no one reads this transcripts. I read some of them only because I run a blog in Portuguese and sometimes I coment about these shows.

    2-) Frankly two, if Maddow really wanted to attack Paul on this issue there is plenty of material out there. She did not talk about these newsletters of his father, for instance.

  74. #74 |  Michael | 

    Mrs. Sherrod had a very short epiphany about her treatment of the farmer. Later in her speech she gets back on the band wagon that white people disagree with Obama’s policies because he’s black.

    The whole affair is a staged event to help the left in the fall by using race since they don’t have a successful record to run on.

  75. #75 |  David | 

    Radley, don’t you realize that agreeing with any point that someone makes is exactly the same as building an idol of them and declaring your total support for everything they’ve ever done or said, as well as anything ever done or said by anyone close to them? That’s how political discourse works.

  76. #76 |  NathanS | 

    Andre, so now people must atone for the statements of their parents? WTF?

  77. #77 |  Cyto | 

    Radley,

    I can’t get behind this being “devastating” for Fox. Her premise is that this tempest is of Fox creation and they are the ones who ginned it up. She proceeds to show clips of Fox commentators lambasting the “racist Obama official”. If you look at the video (and listen to what one of them says) all of these comments come *after* the administration has fired the bureaucrat. So the great tempest has already blown up *before* the Fox machine she’s “exposing” gets into motion. In fact, the feds have given a stamp of authenticity to the story by acting to fire her *before* they appear on-air, so it is entirely reasonable for them to run with the story as authentic (setting the bar for ‘reasonable’ appropriately low for political commentary).

    This shows the power of the Internet. Without any help from broadcast TV, Drudge and Breitbart were able to generate a political shitstorm by posting a single video clip with very, very limited commentary. Within hours “everyone” was talking about it (for values of ‘everyone’ that matter to politicians). It probably shows that the Washington press corps and the political insiders spend an inordinate amount of time on Drudge, Breitbart, Daily Kos and Huffington Post.

    It also shows that Maddow (pretends that she) doesn’t understand how copy and past works with video on the Internet, as she implies that Fox put the video on Breitbart because they had similar video posted somewhere on their website within hours. That must mean Balko is a conspirator in dozens of smear campaigns, right and left, because he is able to quickly link to video using one line captions as story copy.

    If “devastating” is “right wing commentators will jump on a story that fits their narrative about the left” then yeah, I guess that’s devastating. Having never watched the Maddow show what I actually found devastating was Maddow herself. She’s got the smirk of Jon Stewart without the charm or humor. Really painful to watch.

    What is sad is that everyone missed the true story here. This was an opportunity to acknowledge that our “racial sensitivity” is way out of whack and work to correct that. The only reason the White House and its political appointees moved so quickly to fire her is because they were concerned about charges of a double standard on race – due to months spent by these same folks setting a standard for their political opponents. And years on the race-baiting political trail for their compatriots in the Democrat party. At least this crew was honest enough to try to live by their own standard this time (act swiftly to expunge racists, or even the appearance of racism). Of course they only did that in the context of several examples of “racists in the Obama camp” being flogged by the right wing commentariate over the past year and managing a presidency with flagging popularity, particularly among white moderates.

    It is sad that the only time that I can remember a national catharsis over false charges of racism is for the single instance of an african-american suffering the effects of such. Al Sharpton’s entire career is based on a conspiracy to smear several white public officials with false charges of racism and criminal sexual assault (as in a real conspiracy, involving several members, planning, coordination and months of execution). Although there has been some outrage (almost exclusively from the right), he has grown in stature and been embraced by the left establishment. He has never apologized for his actions and stands by them to this day.

    As long as we have a standard of public discourse that allows (supports, embraces) spurious charges of racism to be used as weapons by the left while condemning the use racially insensitive comments out of context by the right, we won’t have anything approaching a “dialog on race” or “fair and balanced” commentary.

  78. #78 |  André Kenji | 

    The point is not the statements of their parents, specially because his father is a real politician, not a Jim DeMint wannabee. The point is the enviroment where most of these ideas came from.

  79. #79 |  PW | 

    Andre – the NEW YORK TIMES read those transcripts and ran a story repeating the error verbatim. They weren’t some minor, inconsequential thing that nobody noticed.

  80. #80 |  PW | 

    BSK – Your increasingly obsessive “elaborations” are not helping your case any, because it’s still apparent you are trying to soften the negative image of a truly indefensible man.

    Your statements about Farrakhan are no different than if you were to say “Sure, David Duke’s said some racist things in the past but he isn’t really as bad as the media makes him out to be, and most of his quotes are taken out of context to make him sound worse than he is.”

    People just don’t say that sort of thing about Farrakhan, about David Duke, about Hitler, or any other disgusting hate filled bigot of their ilk…except when they actually sympathize with them.

  81. #81 |  flukebucket | 

    The way she ended the segment said it all. It is not surprising that Fox does this. It is what they do. What is surprising is that people fall for it over and over and over again.

    But I have no hard feelings about Fox news. They have found their niche market and they are milking the hell out of it.

    Good for them. Milking the cash cow is what it all boils down to.

    As far as Rand Paul is concerned I do not think he should ever be ashamed of his positions. If he believes that the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing he ought to say that without hesitation or embarrassment and explain his position.

    It is like watching Sharron Angle run from the press. There is no point in doing that. Say what you believe and let the chips fall.

    If you maliciously smear somebody, whispering that you are kind of sorry for it, but not really, does nothing to mend the original wrong.

    Hell just take the Limbaugh position. “I am just an entertainer! I was just joking!”

    Works for him every time.

  82. #82 |  PW | 

    “What I said is that [Farrakhan] is not quite as inflammatory as the media makes him out to be.” – BSK

    “Hitler was a very great man.” – Farrakhan

    No. Not inflammatory at all. It’s just the media portraying him that way. /sarc

  83. #83 |  Miroker | 

    I grew up during the 60s in Gainesville, FL. My mother had just separated from my father and we were dirt poor. My siblings and I were passed around by her new boyfriend’s family from home to home while she tried to get back on her feet. We never took aid of any sort from the government. Most of this time was spent on the other side of the tracks in the ghetto.

    I saw a lot of racism, and I hate to admit it, but I had been brought up in a racist manner by my father, so I took part. That got me in trouble at school several times, as there were only 2 others at the school of the same race as I am.

    I have since outgrown my racism and look at others in a different way now. Reading the comments on this article makes me realize there are too many people who seem to still be living in the 50’s and 60’s, as far as their attitude towards people of color go. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to get past those types of attitudes is to forget about the color of someone’s skin and judge them by how they interact with others.

    Clearly, some of the comments here are from open or closet racists, though they will obviously deny it. Just so we are clear, I am a Caucasian and find it sad that some people just cannot bring themselves to get out of the past and work together to make the world a better place for all.

  84. #84 |  Miroker | 

    Forgot to add that my mother went on to marry her new boyfriend many years later, but she experienced a lot of grief during the intervening years due to the fact that the man was African American. During those years, that was a good way to have your car run off the road, find a burning cross or some other reactions that could cost a life.

    I can remember fires burning in the streets sometimes as a protest regarding ill treatment of people of color.

  85. #85 |  PW | 

    And on the subject of racism, here’s a lovely story out of Wisconsin about Ieshuh Griffin, candidate for the state assembly. She wants to run on the independent ticket of the “Not the white man’s bitch” party.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioo6i4p26hLbLIy5HzTSHX4cdB6QD9H3LVEG0

  86. #86 |  PW | 

    “But I do recognize a railroading when I see one and there are times where Farrakhan’s comments have been misconstrued”

    Let’s see them then! If Farrakhan’s rabid anti-semitism and violent anti-white rhetoric and behavior have been “misconstrued,” then surely you can provide an example of how he was “unfairly” represented in the media.

    As a related aside, it’s odd that you also seem to take issue with likening Farrakhan to Hitler because Farrakhan himself relishes that comparison and treats it as a badge of honor!

    “Here the Jews don’t like Farrakhan and so they call me ‘Hitler’. Well that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” – Louis Farrakhan, March 11, 1984

  87. #87 |  HerbieD | 

    Breitbart claims to have been trying to fight the claims of racism within the tea party. He did nothing of the sort. His argument basically went like this: “u call my beloved tea party racist? Well, you’re all racists! See? This video is undeniable proof!” hence diverting attention, but not squashing (rather reinforcing) claims of racism on the right. Those who call this episode a fail all the way around have it right. This nation disgust me, end of story. :P

  88. #88 |  Jim Collins | 

    Damn.

    I wonder where all of you were last year when Limbaugh got smeared for a remark he never made, all to keep him out of buying into an NFL team?

    All this week I have been hearing about how the Liberal media planned how to cover certain events, not cover certain events and how to slander people in order to get Obama elected, now that they are getting some of their own thrown back in their face, they start whinning and crying foul.

    Oh yeah. I forgot. It’s different if you are a Democrat.

  89. #89 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Last night Fox News was making a big deal about how they never reported on the story until after Sherod resigned. Cyto #77 makes that same point above. If true, then the shit storm was already well underway without their help and they were merely sucked in like everyone else. But is that in fact true? I have read all the comments, so maybe this has already been addressed.

    Of course, a news organization shouldn’t have been “sucked in like everyone else”. They’re supposed to have a higher standard of objectivity and accuracy than the general population. They are suuposed to be who we go to for the truth.

    I don’t think much of Fox News. I mostly see them as the PR department of the Republican Party, without much value as a news source. And, while I’m not as familiar with MSNBC, what I have seen of them makes me think they subscribe to a similar journalistic ethic (or lack thereof). In other words, having seen the perspective as presented by both networks, I find myself having zero confidence that I have learned anything about the truth.

  90. #90 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    If making fun of Fox News can get you paid, then we’ll all soon be rich. It isn’t a news organization. It is a commercial propoganda company with nice looking blonde ladies.

    Maddow is just (rightly) shooting stupid fish in a barrel.

  91. #91 |  PW | 

    #89 – Amen to that. Both networks are little more than propaganda wings of their respective parties.

    The way I see it, Breitbart left a big pile of dog shit on the sidewalk to see if anyone would step in it. Fox, the leftist networks, Obama, the NAACP…They all did. And instead of cleaning up, they’ve all spent the last few days trying to wipe their shoes on each other.

  92. #92 |  PW | 

    “It is a commercial propoganda company with nice looking blonde ladies.”

    As opposed to MSNBC, which is a commercial propaganda company for the other side. But instead of blondes they have Olberman, Matthews, and Madcow.

  93. #93 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    “Please elaborate. What made it a racist statement regardless of context?”

    Let’s swap the race of Sherrod and the farmer …. would she have her job back and/or an apology? Yeah, didn’t think so ….

    Man, it sucks when you ask a commenter to explain his post and he can’t formulate a legit response. State your premise if you can, please!!

  94. #94 |  Sinchy | 

    I think we should make a distinction as to being racist in the sense of not liking an other race and being a racial supremacist. I don’t condone either.
    Sherrod may have not liked whites but there is no indication that she feels blacks are superior to whites.
    Any animosity she held (or holds, I don’t know) towards whites was precipitated by living in an overtly white supremacist environment.
    Her dad was killed by a white man and the white man’s justice system didn’t give her family justice (correct me if I’m wrong but that’s the story I heard)
    So in that context she decided that she would devote her life to defending blacks from what she rightly saw as white supremacy. That was the point she was making when she mentions the farmer “acting superior”.
    On the other hand, why do fox news and many, not all, in the conservative and tea party movements constantly try to whip up racial animosity? Politically they want power but they also think they are superior to the darks, the mexicans, the gays, the poor etc.

  95. #95 |  Joe | 

    I will accept that Breitbart was sloppy in not checking the full context of that video clip. I will also accept that Breitbart went with the clip to respond to openly false and racist comments by the NAACP. That said, I have problems with Sherrod’s wearing her dislike of white people on her sleave. A government official has to rise above this. I understand her father was killed by racists and I certainly sympathize with her on that. Black farmers did get a very raw deal following the Civil War and well into the 20th Century. But she is supposed to transcend that. The full clip suggests that in part, but her actions in a broader context suggest she still consders the Department of Agriculture and whites to be more racist than not. I disagree with her.

    And why can the NAACP and Sherrod can just throw out accusations of racism by Fox and the Tea Partiers without any challenge? What is with that? Sure there a few racist Tea Partiers. They are hardly mainstream and are rejected by the vast majority of Tea Partiers. I have been to a few tea party events and never saw any racist signs and actually saw some black Tea Partiers in the crowds arguing for lower taxes and less government. And why is Fox getting blamed for the Obama Administration firing Sherrod before this story even started to air on Fox? Team Obama has a trigger finger when it comes to throwing “friends” and family of Obama under the bus when the need arises. Heck, the NAACP threw Sherrod under the bus too and they presumably heard the whole speech. Did they get a call from Team Obama to do so?

  96. #96 |  Joe | 

    The way I see it, Breitbart left a big pile of dog shit on the sidewalk to see if anyone would step in it. Fox, the leftist networks, Obama, the NAACP…They all did. And instead of cleaning up, they’ve all spent the last few days trying to wipe their shoes on each other.

    Oh it is even worse than that. They made mud patties and face make up with it before they started to lob chunks of it at each other.

  97. #97 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Correct, PW. I cannot explain why MSNBC doesn’t staff for NewsPorn, but they don’t.

  98. #98 |  Joe | 

    I think dealing with race relations going forward may be a simple and straightfoward as this.

  99. #99 |  Joe | 

    Jeff Goldstein nails the bigger issue of how the left has eroded language as a means of control and how the right may be stepping into it by mimicing their mendouchery (and how to avoid it).

  100. #100 |  PW | 

    97 – Fox goes for stupid and pretty. MSNBC goes for stupid and ugly. I think each is catering to its audience.

    For Fox, pretty simply goes over well with rednecks and southern baptists.

    For MSNBC, butt ugly helps its viewers feel better about themselves.

  101. #101 |  Joe | 

    PW, Fox is fairer than MSNBC. By a lot. I agree Fox leans right, but MSNBC is in the bag for the left.

    That said, Mika can be strangely alluring at times.

  102. #102 |  NathanS | 

    Soup43, O’Reiley = all of Fox News?

    I can count on one hand the number of times I have watched the show more than 5 minutes.

  103. #103 |  PogueMahone | 

    @ #100
    I’m not so sure about that.

    I mean, there is Mika,
    And lovely Savannah Guthrie

    And of course, the stunning Norah O’Donnell

  104. #104 |  B8ovin | 

    I have a lot of respect for Mr. Balko, but I have lost a great deal of respect for some of the people who comment on his site just in this thread. Here are some facts: Ms. Sherrod’s father wasn’t just killed by a white man. He was shot in the back over a dispute about some cows by a white farmer, who was tried by a white jury and found not guilty. For Ms. Sherrod to have a suspicion of racism in her dealings of white people isn’t racism, it is an understandable survival skill learned through experience. Having a suspicion of racism is not racist when you have been a victim of racism.

    Fact: the NAACP has never accused the Tea Party of being racist. They have asked them to condemn the racist elements that show up occasionally.

    Fact: on the same day that FOX News was relentlessly showing the edited Sherrod video, CNN was doing reports about it being misleading. Also, with Ms. Sherrod’s resignation every media outlet had a responsibility to report the story, though they did not have to support Breitbart’s tape as convincing evidence.

    The idea that MSNBC and FOX News are two sides of the partisan coin is ridiculous. While Olberman is an obvious partisan, he is also a humourist (how funny he is is not the question), and he regularly admits his mistakes. Even if Maddow may have mislead in her Paul interview (and I am not conceding she did) I defy her detractors to show a history of distortions and misinformation. I defy them also to show that MSNBC has the equivalent of Beck, Hannity, Fox and Friends, O’Reilly or Cavuto. Nor could you point out network wide campaigns on MSNBC similar to FOX News’ Van Jones, ACORN, New Black Panther/Department of Justice campaigns. For the record, I do not watch either channel nor any other televised news network or show.

    I might also point out that, for me anyway, turning a person’s name into an insult, as in Maddow becoming “Madcow” is indicative of a rhetorical inanity that belies a limited intelligent position.

  105. #105 |  Joe | 

    B8ovin, I do not dispute that Ms. Sherrod’s experience is horrible. But you can have survival skills and justifiable caution, without promoting racism going forward. And some of her language and positions are frankly unacceptable from a government official.

    As for the rest of your positions, are you friggin kidding?

  106. #106 |  Jeff Spears | 

    I find nothing “devastating” about her tirade.
    It is factually erroneous on a few counts.
    In particular, the timeline of FNC airing the video falls well after the administration forced Sherrod to retire.

    I doubt that matters to those who want to prop up the narrative of Sherrod that FNC wants to roll back the civil rights era.

    Even excusing the “reverse racism” story as a morality tale of redemption, Sherrod insisted that the “8 years of bush” were somehow racist.
    In interviews she subsequently attributes racist motives to an entire news channel.
    And the record of Glenn Beck defending her on the Tuesday after she was forced out speaks for itself. Yet Sherrod continues to insist that FNC has not “corrected themselves” about the story.
    That is patently false.

    Back to Maddow, she ignores the inconvenient facts of the story. FNC didn’t air the clip all day, or even before the forced resignation. Those who did comment on it never called for her ouster, and lambasted the administration for its reaction.

    Further, apologists for the NAACP statement on the TP activists and racism have insisted that unsubstantiated claims be accepted as true, even in the face of a significant monetary reward being offered for conclusive proof of such utterances from a widely taped event.

    Truth is the first casualty of this war.
    Neither Maddow or Sherrod is speaking truthfully about FNC.
    Nor are their defenders.

  107. #107 |  PogueMahone | 

    Oh who negative banged my comment that Mika, Savannah, and Norah were HOT?

    Those chicks are total babes.
    You’re nuts.

  108. #108 |  PW | 

    “I defy them also to show that MSNBC has the equivalent of Beck, Hannity, Fox and Friends, O’Reilly or Cavuto.”

    Sure they do. Just look at their evening lineup

    5-6: Chris “Obama makes my leg tingle” Matthews who’s every bit of a gasbag as Beck
    6-7: Ed Schultz, left wing radio host turned pundit just like Hannity
    7-8: Olbermann, who openly positions himself as a left wing rival to O’Reilly
    9-10: Maddow, who looks like she’s just itching to jump into a biker bar fight with the entire Republican Party every time she appears on the air.

    They even mimic the Fox roundtable style shows with a bunch of liberals and Scarborough playing the token conservative.

    I’m not saying Fox is anything commendable in its own right, but don’t ride in here on a high horse pretending that MSNBC is anything other than a bunch of hackish partisan blowhards pushing a far left political agenda.

  109. #109 |  PW | 

    107 – DK, but the hideousness of Madcow alone more than makes up for all of them

  110. #110 |  PogueMahone | 

    DK, but the hideousness of Madcow alone more than makes up for all of them

    Heh. You’re just upset that she could kick your ass in a bar fight.

    BTW, “Madcow”!?!?
    Seriously?

    Okay then. I’ll just refer to you, “PW”, as Pussy Whipped from now on.

  111. #111 |  PW | 

    Well she is a rabid frothing-at-the-mouth partisan hack who does as much of a disservice to the left side as O’Reilly does to the right. I know quite a few bleeding heart liberals who can’t even stand her because her demeanor is so snide and caustic and her typical “stories” are cheap partisan talking points.

    So yeah. Madcow is entirely appropriate.

    As to the bar fight, I don’t doubt that she could beat up the majority of Americans in that situation. And it shows why she’s ill suited to be a spokesperson for any political cause…assuming your intent is to convert people to your beliefs. I’m not so sure MSNBC wants to do that though. They seem more interested in throwing red meat to their small but vocal rabid left audience.

  112. #112 |  EH | 

    Joe: Have you ever been known to utter the words, “the police have a hard job,” in the service of understanding for our servants in blue?

  113. #113 |  Joe | 

    “Joe: Have you ever been known to utter the words, “the police have a hard job,” in the service of understanding for our servants in blue?”

    I am ashamed to admit that I broke once after a beating with rubber hoses and spot lights in my face and they made me say it.

  114. #114 |  Elliot | 

    B8ovin (#104): ” The idea that MSNBC and FOX News are two sides of the partisan coin is ridiculous.”

    I concur. MSNBC is far more dishonest and partisan. And, considering Fox News’ record, that is saying A LOT.

    I’m glad that Madcow Maddow showed the dishonesty. I also like it when others demonstrate the disgusting propaganda on MSNBC for what it is.

    The thing is, under the Bush regime, then it was really time to turn up the heat on Fox and get them to honestly address his out-of-control budgets, Patriot Act outrages, as well as all the foreign invasion disasters and criminal behavior.

    But now that we have ObamaPelosiReid, it’s time to put the torch to MSNBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WP, etc. etc. ad nauseum. For one thing, they didn’t report the outrageous, sneaky time bomb clauses of the Health Care Deform until after it was passed. (Like the 1099 expansion which is going to swamp small businesses. And this is for “health care”? WTBF?)

    “Even if Maddow may have mislead in her Paul interview (and I am not conceding she did) I defy her detractors to show a history of distortions and misinformation. I defy them also to show that MSNBC has the equivalent of Beck, Hannity, Fox and Friends, O’Reilly or Cavuto.”

    MSNBC is far worse than those people. And, again, that’s saying A LOT.

    Go look up Madcow Maddow’s April 19 propaganda blitz, trying to argue that people who marched in support of gun rights on Patriot’s Day, the anniversary of Lexington and Concord were secretly celebrating the mass murderer Timothy McVeigh for killing children and dozens of others. For what would they celebrate him? For not killing the ATF agents he wanted to kill? Really, Maddow?

    Really?

    Then there’s the Oath Keepers she’s trashed with similar slimeball lies.

    If you’re not aware of her disgusting dishonesty in trying to link good people to mass murderers and conspiracy lunatics, you haven’t been watching her show.

    “Nor could you point out network wide campaigns on MSNBC similar to FOX News’ Van Jones, ACORN, New Black Panther/Department of Justice campaigns.”

    I just did. Ever hear of the Tea Party smears they’ve perpetrated. How about the Tea Partiers calling congress critters n*ers lie, repeated by MSNBC hosts, but never, ever substantiated, even when there was copious video available?

    “For the record, I do not watch either channel nor any other televised news network or show.”

    Then you should not have written what you just wrote. It’s better to be silent and have people guess you’re ignorant than to write some stupid crap and remove all doubt (to paraphrase Twain).

    “I might also point out that, for me anyway, turning a person’s name into an insult, as in Maddow becoming “Madcow” is indicative of a rhetorical inanity that belies a limited intelligent position.”

    Like the “teabaggers” gag?

    Yeah, it’s juvenile, but with that woman, it fits so perfectly it’s very, very hard to resist.

  115. #115 |  Stormy Dragon | 

    Next, she thought it was funny that while the white farmer was “acting superior” she was deciding how much help to give him – and the whole audience chuckled, as though they all understood and it was a common occurance.

    I find the way many people neurotically try to assert dominance in the middle of asking for assistance rather amusing myself. Does that make me racist to?

  116. #116 |  B8ovin | 

    Elliot:”Then you should not have written what you just wrote. It’s better to be silent and have people guess you’re ignorant than to write some stupid crap and remove all doubt (to paraphrase Twain).”

    Really? I take it you have watched Maddow make every comment you disagree with? Or do you read media sites and get clues to the issues you can’t or haven’t seen firsthand and then research the videos? Your argument that I am ignorant is based on the idea I can’t have knowledge without watching directly.

    You also show no substantive evidence that Maddow has disseminated. You just show she has stupid opinions. Nothing she has said or reported has led to, for instance, an entire organization dedicated to organizing the poor (read: mostly black) being destroyed on the basis of nothing. I’m not defending Maddow’s opinions, I am defending her record in comparison to what appears to be a FNC network wide record. If you seriously think MSNBC is worse than FOX News because the democrats are in power now I’m not sure we can have a legitimate discussion.

    As for racist elements in the Tea party movement, there are plenty of examples. When discussing a black president’s health care bill you don’t have to make a poster of him as a witch doctor. Mark Williams was the head of the Tea Party Express. One look at this “satire” letter regarding the NAACP is enough to show racism at the highest level.

    P.W. There are far more conservative guests on MSNBC than on FNC. Despite Matthews feelings for Obama, his guests skew to the right. The most recent I could find showed 55% conservative to 41% liberal. I’m taking the figures with a grain of salt as they come from Media Matters (oh no, George Soros!). However, you would be hard pressed to show numbers anywhere near that for FNC. There is not a single equivalent of Pat Buchanan on FNC, nor an equivalent of Malkin or Coulter on MSNBC as regular guests.

    Jeff Spears: “FNC didn’t air the clip all day, or even before the forced resignation. Those who did comment on it never called for her ouster”

    Huh? It is hardly an accomplishment to not call for the ouster of a person if you don’t address the issue until after her resignation. While FNC may or may not have “shown the clip all day” they pushed the story all day, to the point that Shepard Smith criticized his own network for doing so, to the point that Bill O’Reilly apologized, to the point that Laura Inghram admitted a mistake. And while FOX News’ on air shows may not have pushed for Sherrod’s resignation and reported on it prior to that point, it’s web site certainly did.

    And I don’t understand your blindness to what I wrote. The NAACP did not limit their criticism to the bill signing parade/charade incident. They were addressing the movement as a whole. Do you honestly think Mark Williams “letter” wasn’t racist? Have you never seen some of the interviews with Tea Party members in which they describe overt racism (including horrendous attacks on hispanics and middle eastern peoples)? The NAACP has two purposes: to fight racism and promote opportunities for black Americans. Is it a surprise that they find racism BY SOME in the newest and most reported political movement troubling?

    Joe- In what way has Sherrod promoted racism? By telling how she overcame hers? By insisting that the struggle is not white vs.black but the poor overcoming the obstacles put in their way by the system? If you want to accuse her of “classcism” I won’t argue with you in the least. But given her position isn’t that recognition of what farmers face an attribute?

  117. #117 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Just so I have my list of “Agitator Posts What Am Most Popular”:

    1. Abortion
    2. Criticism of Republicans/Fox News
    3. Bacon stuff

    Why are so many people bent out of shape on this one? This is just politicians being politicians. Some of them just happen to work on TV.

    If you think one is “better” than the other, just wait a couple weeks.

    Journalism? R.I.P. Mr. Russert. I’d say he was the last one that even tried.

  118. #118 |  Elliot | 

    Boyd, Tim Russert was not a very good journalist. He threw softballs just a bit faster than Larry King. Maybe he was a congenial fellow, but that doesn’t make one a good reporter. And, it certainly is no indication of trying–just the opposite.

    John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano are head and shoulders above just about anyone else on TV these days. They have a respect for individual rights and don’t march in lockstep with most of the Big Government loving media (whether it’s Obama worship, GodBlessAmerica911SupportTheTroops, or the War on Drugs).

    On the net, Radley Balko, Warren Meyer, and Billy Beck give three different perspectives, giving some unique and desperately needed angles on news stories, many of which would not otherwise be known by many.

  119. #119 |  Joe | 

    Joe- In what way has Sherrod promoted racism?

    By calling Tea Parties, Breitbart, and Fox News racist. Are those groups partisan? Sure. MSNBC, CNN, Democrats, and the NAACP are partisan too. Racist? No. And Breitbart and Fox were reacting to the NAACP. Which by the way, like Sherrod, uses racist hyperbole to its partisan advantage. While her language is most assuredly racist, I am willing to think she is just saying it to try to gain some political advantage. Still, it is BS. Which is why the link I had above to Morgan Freeman saying it is time to not talk about race makes so much sense. It is time to go back to thinking about this country as out of many, one.

  120. #120 |  Elliot | 

    B8ovin (#116): “I take it you have watched Maddow make every comment you disagree with?”

    Yes, I have. I watched the specific episodes of her show when she made the specific comments which I addressed above (April 19 smears, Oath Keepers, Window War). You can go to my blog and find a number of citations and direct links to the very episodes of her show to which I refer.

    You admitted you don’t watch these stations, and yet you presume to know enough to call the only TV network which isn’t filled with pro-ObamaPelosiReid sympathizers as worse than the most egregious passel of “left”-leaning sycophants on a major TV network.

    I’m sorry, but your ignorance is of no use in this discussion.

    As a libertarian atheist (anti drug prohibition, pro open immigration, anti foreign military involvement, etc.) I can tick off dozens of points an hour on which I disagree with the Fox hosts. But when I watch MSNBC, I’d wear out the pause and rewind button to be able to make a comprehensive list of factual errors, distortions, and blatant lies. It’s just that bad. I get a headache watching these rotten pretenders.

    “Your argument that I am ignorant is based on the idea I can’t have knowledge without watching directly.”

    My statement that you are ignorant is based upon your admission that you are ignorant (#104): “I do not watch either channel nor any other televised news network or show.”

    “You also show no substantive evidence that Maddow has disseminated. You just show she has stupid opinions.”

    Look it up. See my blog for some direct citations. You cannot dismiss as merely “stupid opinions” Rachel Maddow deliberately smearing people who peacefully march in support of gun rights on the anniversary of Lexington and Concord (Patriot Day) as somehow being in support of a mass murderer whose horrifying actions accomplished none of his stated goals. Nor is she merely being “stupid” to bring Potok on her show to smear libertarians as “hate groups.”

    She is engaging in calculated, cynical propaganda. What else do you expect from an Air America Radio host?

    “Nothing she has said or reported has led to, for instance, an entire organization dedicated to organizing the poor (read: mostly black) being destroyed on the basis of nothing.”

    Is this a reference to ACORN? You must be joking. Does tossing about platitudes about “the poor” somehow make theft of taxpayer dollars by fraud or blatant election fraud somehow immune to accountability? Plenty of governments and groups claim to be helping “the poor” and the worst of them ended up murdering tens of millions of “the poor”. Besides, ACORN only got a temporary taxpayer funding hit (a few months) and reorganized under different names. Nor were they held accountable for about 98% of the other illegal things they did. That group ought not receive any taxpayer dollars, as they engage in political activity. Let Democrats give their own money to fund them.

    I have a lot of differences with many of the people who claim to be “Tea Partiers” but I’ve seen the majority of the rank and file protesting in support of individual rights and reducing government intrusion into our lives (a far more concrete and morally appropriate goal than the nebulous goal of purportedly helping “the poor”). MSNBC, CBS, and many other of the networks have engaged in concerted efforts to marginalize the good Tea Party people by focusing on the fringe elements, distorting the facts.

    That is far worse than holding ACORN accountable for their criminal activity.

    “I’m not defending Maddow’s opinions, I am defending her record in comparison to what appears to be a FNC network wide record.”

    How the bloody hell do you presume to be in any position to mount such a defense if you don’t watch these networks? You should just quit making things up to suit your political biases, sit down in front of the TV (or internet videos), learn a few things, and then come back here with some substance.

    “If you seriously think MSNBC is worse than FOX News because the democrats are in power now I’m not sure we can have a legitimate discussion.”

    Good thing that’s not the case. My point is that decent people ought to be interested in seeing the Fourth Estate expose government corruption and abuse of power when those people actually are in power and poised to enact devastating legislation, instead of acting as the Fifth Column for the people who are destroying my grand children’s future economic prospects. That means I don’t excuse Fox for enabling the Bush excesses, but it also means it’s time for people who rightfully attacked them during the previous administration to wake the hell up and start challenging the media to stop acting like lapdogs for big government under the Democrat banner.

    “As for racist elements in the Tea party movement, there are plenty of examples.”

    No, there aren’t. There are a tiny number of assholes and probably a handful of agents provocateur who know that holding up a racist or illiterate sign at a rally would be sure to make the press.

    The “Tea Party Express” is a GOP PAC attempting to wear the mantle of a grassroots organization (Astroturf, as opposed to the typical individual who identifies with the Tea Party “movement” on principle, rather than in pursuit of a partisan objective), and the fact that one of their leaders made an idiotic attempt at satire says nothing about the 99.999% of others.

Leave a Reply