Good catch Steve.

The sad thing is they WERE kidding, but the left does this to people on the right all the time and aren’t kidding. That’s the pathetic left for you.

and by the way Steve the next time some insipid moron says you’re in the tank for the libs feel free to tell them to SIT ON IT POTSY!

Don’t forget the Center for American Progress and their editing of the Tea Party trying to make them look racist. To me the only buffoons of the Sherrod issue is the NAACP and The Obama Administration. Brietbart’s motives have always been clear, same CAP or MMFA. Only difference the right could care less what these fools say and the left seems to get hung up on it.

Media Matters frequently quote people out of context, nothing new.

And yet the right could not bring itself to condemn Breitbart for such a travesty. Indeed, he is a featured speaker still at Republican events, and remains a hero. So how bad really is it for Mediamatters to present an out of context tape, afterall? That being said, I am happy to join you in condemning mediamatters. It never pays to play the game of those you condemn.

Context only counts for libs moderate; pubbies never get context matters consideration.

valkyrie101 said:
And yet the right could not bring itself to condemn Breitbart for such a travesty. Indeed, he is a featured speaker still at Republican events, and remains a hero. So how bad really is it for Mediamatters to present an out of context tape, afterall? That being said, I am happy to join you in condemning mediamatters. It never pays to play the game of those you condemn.

Plenty of Republicans have condemned it and said they are sorry to Sherrod, what sand did you just pull your head out of.

TeaBagALibby said:
Don’t forget the Center for American Progress and their editing of the Tea Party trying to make them look racist. To me the only buffoons of the Sherrod issue is the NAACP and The Obama Administration. Brietbart’s motives have always been clear, same CAP or MMFA. Only difference the right could care less what these fools say and the left seems to get hung up on it.

Hey, I remember you. You’re the idiot who thought O’Reilly was debating an ACLU lawyer the other night, instead of a criminal attorney who was not connected to or speaking for the ACLU.

Hmmm….I would think you would hide in shame for a coupla days. lolol

FOX: We Fool, You Believe!

TeaBagALibby said:
Plenty of Republicans have condemned it and said they are sorry to Sherrod, what sand did you just pull your head out of.

Rush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly. Which one condemned Breitbart?

So since conservatives here accept one of their own as “tea bag a libby” I guess the faux outrage over being called “teabaggers” is over.

Praise Him!!!!!!!!

Baby Bootie, there is a difference betweent the noun Tea Bag and the verb tea-baggiing. I’m sure Barney Frank would be happy to explain the difference to you.

MichelleF said:
Baby Bootie, there is a difference betweent the noun Tea Bag and the verb tea-baggiing. I’m sure Barney Frank would be happy to explain the difference to you.

Ummm teabagging isn’t a Gay thing thing, Mama Bigot…it’s a sex thing.

You remember sex, don’t you? lol

valkyrie101 says:
August 6, 2010 at 5:57 pm

Rush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly. Which one condemned Breitbart?

I’m pretty sure O’Reilly did. I don’t listen to the other one’s enough to say one way or another.

Of course, Breitbart’s defense is that the original story posted along with the video said that Sherrod had clarified her remarks later in the speech. That part of the original story, however, has somehow been forgotten.

“And yet the right could not bring itself to condemn Breitbart for such a travesty”

Forgive us, Blessed Merciful One! Let not our souls burn in Hell for eternity!

“I’m sure Barney Frank would be happy to explain the difference to you.”

I suggest you have “tea bag a libby” explain it to you since he chose the name. I’m sure “I’m not blue” has some keen insight to the practice as well. Perhaps you just have gay sex on the brain right?

But you can be as big as a hypocrite as you wanna be!!!!

Media Matters issued the following correction in the last twenty minutes:

*CORRECTION: The original headline on this clip did not make clear that Beck’s co-hosts were being satirical when they linked MSNBC host Keith Olbermann to the Manchester shooting. The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error.

I bet I’ve emailed Pat Gray with at least 25 requests over the past 6-9 months that he correct something they’ve said on the radio show that was demonstrably wrong and never have they corrected. This despite the fact that they make such a big deal about truth-telling, what with that dedicated line to the White House (I bet that was easy to set up; I have three!) That’s why I like to call Glenn, God’s Own Douchebag.

MichelleF said:
Baby Bootie, there is a difference betweent the noun Tea Bag and the verb tea-baggiing. I’m sure Barney Frank would be happy to explain the difference to you.

Is TeaBagALibby‘s avatar of a dog placing its genitals on a cat’s face just too subtle for you?

“Is TeaBagALibby’s avatar of a dog placing its genitals on a cat’s face just too subtle for you?”

frankly it just confrims either how truly clueless conservatives are, or just how far they are willing go to encourage their fringe elements.

And by Michelle’s “Logic” clearly that dog is a homosexual.

Good job honey, really.

They made the correction and are still more reputable than this site. And while they were kidding, is there anyhing funny about saying it in the first place? A joke should be based on some truth or irony and this was neither. This site is not well known and is clearly trying to become relevant. It’s not working so far. Just look at how Mediaite tried to spin the Kevin Pezzi story before Breitbart pulled down his article. I guess it’s clear that Pezzi wasn’t kidding? Nice try but, I still trust Media Matters more than this site. They’re track record is longer and more accurate.

Are you kidding?
Not only Olbermann!

You can throw in the network media, NY Times, AP and most of the dwindling dailies & weeklies; as well, of course, as the “WHITE-RACISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OUR PROBLEMS” racial carpetbaggers like Tawana Sharpton, naacp, Black Caucus, College professors, and the like!

ANYONE WHO EXPLOITS ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM AS A POLITICAL SMEAR – AS THESE DEMOCRATS HAVE FOR 40 YEARS!!!

MEDIA MATTERS?

Not anymore since we have BECK and FOX News!

valkyrie101 said:
And yet the right could not bring itself to condemn Breitbart for such a travesty. Indeed, he is a featured speaker still at Republican events, and remains a hero

YES, indeed he is!

And this is on his website now:

‘I Want Your Money’; New Film Skewers Obamanomics

http://www.breitbart.tv/i-want-your-money-new-film-skewers-obamanomics/

A MUST SEE!

Still all the frothing at the mouth over Brietbart from people who never even saw his original post with the videos, simply carrying the narrative they have been fed. He was not calling for Sherrod’s dismissal, the article was about the NAACP encouraging the same kind of racist behavior they had spent the previous week condemning on the right. He cited the audience reaction to her comments on white farmers, and yes — he included the redemption portion of her speech as well. But don’t let the details spoil the invective.

Ahhhhh, Steve this is MM’s SOP.

Learn it!

valkyrie101 said:
ush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly. Which one condemned Breitbart?

They didn’t have to!

The video proved that the NAACP is Racist which was Breitbart’s intent in the 1st place!

BTW, so is Shirley and her husband!

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Ummm teabagging isn’t a Gay thing thing, Mama Bigot…it’s a sex thing.

Just like aids isn’t a gay thing. It may be non-PC to say it, and there are normal people who have aids and straight people who undoubtedly teabag, but aids by and large is a gay disease, and teabagging by and large is a homo hobby.

Bootleghaircut said:
So since conservatives here accept one of their own as “tea bag a libby” I guess the faux outrage over being called “teabaggers” is over.

Boot, I always thought it was disgusting and still do. I am not a Tea Party member, but I agree with their platform od smaller government, less spending, less taxes, and following the Constitution. I lose alot of respect for people when they use the “Teabagger” term.

Patrick Henry said:
I lose alot of respect for people when they use the “Teabagger” term.

It says a lot about people, doesn’t it?

roxsteady said:
They made the correction and are still more reputable than this site. And while they were kidding, is there anyhing funny about saying it in the first place? A joke should be based on some truth or irony and this was neither. This site is not well known and is clearly trying to become relevant. It’s not working so far. Just look at how Mediaite tried to spin the Kevin Pezzi story before Breitbart pulled down his article. I guess it’s clear that Pezzi wasn’t kidding? Nice try but, I still trust Media Matters more than this site. They’re track record is longer and more accurate.

You shouldn’t trust any agenda driven (watchdog) site that doesn’t call out both sides. Bias always trumps truth and integrity these days. Also, I may be wrong, but I thought mediate was more of a political media gossip site rather than a watchdog one. I don’t think mediate falls in the same category as media matters.

PS, humor, like art, is subjective.

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 6, 2010 at 5:57 pm Rush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly. Which one condemned Breitbart? I’m pretty sure O’Reilly did. I don’t listen to the other one’s enough to say one way or another. Of course, Breitbart’s defense is that the original story posted along with the video said that Sherrod had clarified her remarks later in the speech. That part of the original story, however, has somehow been forgotten.

Not so. Breitbart alleged current racism associated with her Agriculture job. And O’Reilly did not condemn Breitbart, only Shep Smith did.

lanquihue said:
It says a lot about people, doesn’t it?

lanq, it certainly does!

juan said:
They didn’t have to! The video proved that the NAACP is Racist which was Breitbart’s intent in the 1st place! BTW, so is Shirley and her husband!

I suppose its been a couple weeks now, so go ahead and start redefining what actually happened. Here is what Breitbart posted originally, with the edited video: “this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”

Kird said:
but I thought mediate was more of a political media gossip site rather than a watchdog one.

Mediaite, an online site, can be compared to Fox’s “News Watch”, a cable TV show. The commentators, like the Fox show, are politically bias, although here, they all seem to be slanted left. Kudos to them, however, for not censoring the comment sections.

valkyrie101 said:
I suppose its been a couple weeks now, so go ahead and start redefining what actually happened. Here is what Breitbart posted originally, with the edited video: “this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”

Then finish that thought from the piece, Val. Brietbart did not mention Sherrod until deep in his article. It was about the NAACP accepting her words and reacting positively to her more racially-tinged commentary. He did not call for her firing. And her redemption portion was included in his piece. Talk about redefining what happened; the NAACP helped get her fired before a full review of the tape, and then set the blame on Brietbart and Fox.

O’Reilly Factor – EXPOSING the Obama Administration’s POLICY of pulling I.C.E. Agents back from any illegal alien raids or deportations!

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION & HIS DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS vs. THE UNITED STATES WORKING CLASS PEOPLE!!

If you sat some chimpanzees in front of a word processor, they would invariably come up with something more reliable than the “news” at Media Matters. At least, the chimps wouldn’t be deliberately spreading misinformation.

Make a mistake, express regret and correct… That is a sign of professional practice.

I am outraged.

Now on to a more important issue: Mediaite, please – for the love of God – stop, STOP it with the red “c”.

MartiniShark said:
Then finish that thought from the piece, Val. Brietbart did not mention Sherrod until deep in his article. It was about the NAACP accepting her words and reacting positively to her more racially-tinged commentary. He did not call for her firing. And her redemption portion was included in his piece. Talk about redefining what happened; the NAACP helped get her fired before a full review of the tape, and then set the blame on Brietbart and Fox.

So you suggest, Breitbart did not perform any transgression? He does hold himself out as an investigative reporter, a journalist, so did he violate any journalistic standard? And what journalistic standard is mediamatters judged by?

valkyrie101 said:
Not so. Breitbart alleged current racism associated with her Agriculture job. And O’Reilly did not condemn Breitbart, only Shep Smith did.

WRONG, AGAIN!

This was the Caption for the video:

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement.

lanquihue said:
Kudos to them, however, for not censoring the comment sections.

Yes, Thanks to Dan!

This is one of my favorite sites because of that!

Except Breitbart posted this as part of the description of the video on his website (until he removed after his story fell apart): “this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”

…that quote devastates your argument.

valkyrie101 said:
And what journalistic standard is mediamatters judged by?

LEFTISTIC standard rather than journalistic standard!

valkyrie101 said:
Except Breitbart posted this as part of the description of the video on his website (until he removed after his story fell apart): “this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”

valkyrie101 said:
…that quote devastates your argument.

GIVE IT UP!

YOU LOSE!

well now Breitbart has new video up….

Gay conservative tea party memebers talking about the bigotry against them.

http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/08/06/gay-tea-partiers-discuss-marriage-and-bigotry/

How inclusive-better watch out-GOP-there’s room for gays under the tea party big tent where theyare respected for their knowledge of the constitution.!

“Media Matters regrets the error.”

Nah. More like Media Matters regrets getting called out for their intellectually dishonest propaganda, which they usually get away with.

juan said:
GIVE IT UP! YOU LOSE!

Mediamatters has been condemned, here, several times for selectively editing a speech to give the appearance of one thing while the exact opposite was transpiring. I am sure that mediamatters can argue that someone gave them the edited clip, and they had no knowledge that it was selectively edited. Of course Breitbart did exactly the same thing, so the irony is that you effectively condemned Breitbart out of your own mouths. LOL..

Val, you’re under the impression that myself, and for that matter others, are defending Brietbart. I’m saying he should not be the focus of the story. He posted an incomplete video, that is it. He did not “selectively edit” the content to change the thrust of the message, as has been accused. He played unedited excerpts, minutes long in their entirety, which is a different status. His article was aimed at the NAACP. That group turned around and fired Sherrod because they assumed she was his focus, then they were caught looking like fools. THAT is the real story. You can keep up the misdirection all you want, much like Media Matters, who repeatedly claimed the videos were heavily edited. They were not.

The question is why do YOU want to excuse the actions of the NAACP when they admitted they had not watched the entire video? Why do you ignore that group spending a week saying people should not listen to the racists and liars on the right, then passed off responsibility by saying they were fooled by those racists and liars?

Bootleghaircut said:
well now Breitbart has new video up…. Gay conservative tea party memebers talking about the bigotry against them. http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/08/06/gay-tea-partiers-discuss-marriage-and-bigotry/ How inclusive-better watch out-GOP-there’s room for gays under the tea party big tent where theyare respected for their knowledge of the constitution.!

For one, there have been gays in the Republican party for quite a while.

Second, why would you care about their plight anyway? If they are tea-partiers then they are racists, correct? So just discount what they have to say, as usual.

TeaBagALibby said:
Plenty of Republicans have condemned it and said they are sorry to Sherrod, what sand did you just pull your head out of.

They did? Name them – see if you can get more than, say, five?

” If they are tea-partiers then they are racists, correct?”

Not correct; you make assumptions rather quickly.But thanks for the race baiting reply- and not I’m nnot calling you a racist-I’m calling you a freaking moron for race baiting-see the one true characteristc of your average race baiter-lack of emotional intelligence.

Thanks for continuing to prove that theory as fact.

This is just Media Matters being Media Matters. This is their m.o. They search the day’s news for clips the can artfully edit to smear conservatives. It’s. What. They. Do.

kit9 said:
This is just Media Matters being Media Matters. This is their m.o. They search the day’s news for clips the can artfully edit to smear conservatives. It’s. What. They. Do.

And the point I have been discussing is that what mediamatters did is the same as what Breitbart (or the agent that Breitbart completely trusted, did). Breitbart selectively edited a tape to make it look like a woman telling a tale of redemption was a current racist. And Breitbart’s original web posting with the video included this quote: “this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.” From that it is clear that Breitbart intended to smear Sherrod, even if his primary target was the NAACP. And while you are trying to tell yourself that NAACP acted in a racist way by agreeing and clapping with what was being testified, when, you claim, Sherrod was talking about her racist thoughts, consider the clapping, and the agreeing that went along with Sherrod’s testimony of overcoming racist feelings which was also clipped. How does all that clapping, agreeing, praising, and crying by NAACP members to the redemptive part of Sherrod’s story, the part about overcoming racism, play to your the NAACP is racist meme?

Who cut the clip? Given that it was this morning’s show, Media Matters cut the clip, and they cut it the way they wanted to cut it, then when called out, corrected.

Media Matters lies and the left loves it. See how you caught them and they apologized? They’re so awesome!

valkyrie101 said:
And the point I have been discussing is that what mediamatters did is the same as what Breitbart (or the agent that Breitbart completely trusted, did).

Which means you don’t know who did it. There’s also the fact that the entire tape doesn’t help Shirley much, though another minute or two might have.

Who cut this tape? You tell me. Ask MM if you like.

Oh, and it was heinous when Breitbart “did it”, right? He issued a correction too.

Is Media Matters evil? Given the standard I’ve seen working lately, they must be. Plus, George Soros.

On the bright side, at least Glenn Beck isn’t paying attention to Media Matters like the White House does Andrew Breitbart. Nobody got fired, everything’s cool….

Pablo

Do you see the hypocrisy in you 2 comments?

Boot, people usually don’t respond to your comments because you’re a dumb amateur, but I’m curious, who gives you your racial talking points? I ask, because if it’s one of the regular progressive sites, the left has already lost, but it it’s one of those really weird, commie sites like the Kos or something, then it would be kind of fun to fuck with you with that in mind.

valkyrie101 said:
And the point I have been discussing is that what mediamatters did is the same as what Breitbart (or the agent that Breitbart completely trusted, did). Breitbart selectively edited a tape to make it look like a woman telling a tale of redemption was a current racist. And Breitbart’s original web posting with the video included this quote: “this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.” From that it is clear that Breitbart intended to smear Sherrod, even if his primary target was the NAACP. And while you are trying to tell yourself that NAACP acted in a racist way by agreeing and clapping with what was being testified, when, you claim, Sherrod was talking about her racist thoughts, consider the clapping, and the agreeing that went along with Sherrod’s testimony of overcoming racist feelings which was also clipped. How does all that clapping, agreeing, praising, and crying by NAACP members to the redemptive part of Sherrod’s story, the part about overcoming racism, play to your the NAACP is racist meme?

Val, you know smearing her was not the purpose of the article, you want that as your argumentative whiffle ball. The bulk of his article was about the orginization, not the woman. That quote you give is from the opening paragraph, and he does not mention her by name at all until much later. Why would he wait 800 words into the piece if he wanted to smear her? Because he was focusing on the orginization.

the real john t said:
Pablo

Do you see the hypocrisy in you 2 comments?

No. I see some sarcasm you probably missed, but no hypocrisy. Thanks for asking.

Just my two cents. I do go to Media Matters every now and then. Yes, they take things out of context, and this is a pretty damn big example of it. That said, not everything they report on is out of context; they do use transcripts and videos, just like Newsbusters and Media Research Center.

There. I said it. Now I’m gonna go have a beer.

Ah, they lie, but not all the time. Media Matters is awesome!

Pablo said:
Ah, they lie, but not all the time.

OH! But Breitbart never lies?

Pablo said:
Who cut the clip? Given that it was this morning’s show, Media Matters cut the clip, and they cut it the way they wanted to cut it, then when called out, corrected. Media Matters lies and the left loves it. See how you caught them and they apologized? They’re so awesome!

Mediamatters relies on third parties to provide many of their clips. They have watchers who do that function. It is likely, therefore, that like Breitbart (claims), they did not know the clip was selectively edited. Again, you condemn mediamatters for exactly the same thing that Breitbart did. So you like shoddy journalism on the one hand, but not on the other.

MartiniShark said:
Val, you know smearing her was not the purpose of the article, you want that as your argumentative whiffle ball. The bulk of his article was about the orginization, not the woman. That quote you give is from the opening paragraph, and he does not mention her by name at all until much later. Why would he wait 800 words into the piece if he wanted to smear her? Because he was focusing on the orginization.

Whether that was intentional on Breitbart’s part, we do not know. He claims a third party gave him the edited tape. He claims he did not know it was selectively edited to convey the opposite of what was alleged. Though, he had the tape in his possession for a period of time and certainly had plenty of time to do due dilligence. And FOX and other networks got totally fooled by Breitbart’s scam, or “error”. You can not even admit that, and instead now run with that silly notion that Breitbart was intending to show that the NAACP was “racist” because they clapped when she was telling her story about having racist feelings toward the white farmer. When in fact, as the unedited video clearly shows, the people at the NAACP event were clapping, and praising throughout the entire testimony, and especially when she got to the punch line, that Breitbart ommitted, about overcoming her feelings and doing good for the white farmer, who claims that she saved his farm. Doesn’t that clapping, praising and crying by NAACP members in support of Sherrod’s positive and beautiful story of overcoming, prove exactly the opposite of what you claim?

Now mediamatters makes the same error, and you condemn mediamatters but still excuse Breitbart. Sounds like partisan outrage, therefore.

this is standard operating procedure at MM. This is what they do, daily. I’m surprised they bothered to admit it here. I guess being called out by Mediaite matters. Nice job, Steve!

MM wrote:
“CORRECTION: The original headline on this clip did not make clear that Beck’s co-hosts were being satirical when they linked MSNBC host Keith Olbermann to the Manchester shooting. The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error.”

In other words we got caught…damn.

“Boot, people usually don’t respond to your comments because you’re a dumb amateur, but I’m curious, who gives you your racial talking points? I ask, because if it’s one of the regular progressive sites, the left has already lost, but it it’s one of those really weird, commie sites like the Kos or something, then it would be kind of fun to fuck with you with that in mind.”

Uh….how about you just go back to ignoring my posts and save me the trouble of having to make an example out of you? That way you get to keep your dignity and I don’t have to waste any more of my time calling you a stupid asshole. I should think you get the point.

More Liberty said:
MM wrote:“CORRECTION: The original headline on this clip did not make clear that Beck’s co-hosts were being satirical when they linked MSNBC host Keith Olbermann to the Manchester shooting. The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error.” In other words we got caught…damn.

Mediamatters corrected an error by one of their unpaid watchers who listens to Glenn and Rush’s radio show and passes on interesting stuff to MM. EXACTLY, what Breitbart said, that a third party gave him the already selectively edited tape, and thus it was not his fault. But you condemn MM but still celebrate Breitbart. Why is that?

Twas despicable for MM to do that.

Having said that, there is a BIG difference in narrowing blame (even satirically) on Keith Olbermann for some Black idiot who attacked Whites than there is for assigning blame to Beck for someone who attacked a pretty obscure group like the Tides Foundation which he often singled out on his show and there appears to be evidence the loon watched his show.

To put it in other words, racial crimes have been going on in this country for centuries without Olbermann’s help. Tide Foundation crimes have been going on since that fat fuck Beck started shooting off his mouth about how they are destroying America.
See the difference in cause and effect?

Only Beckbaggers would put stock in such ludicrous analogy.

If Olbermann was doing show after show about how that beer distributor co. was destroying America then you would have decent comparison to what Beck was doing.

valkyrie101 said:
Mediamatters relies on third parties to provide many of their clips. They have watchers who do that function. It is likely, therefore, that like Breitbart (claims), they did not know the clip was selectively edited. Again, you condemn mediamatters for exactly the same thing that Breitbart did. So you like shoddy journalism on the one hand, but not on the other.

Nice try flipping the script, val, but you’re offering something for which there is no evidence and it ain’t gonna work. Media Matters does this stuff in house. That’s what it means to work for MM. You watch/listen to conservative media and smear them. They did all of this with the full intent to do it. They do it all the time. It’s what they do, all the time. It’s who they are. It isn’t “shoddy journalism” when they’re lying on purpose.

valkyrie101 said:
Whether that was intentional on Breitbart’s part, we do not know. He claims a third party gave him the edited tape.

That NAACP meeting wasn’t broadcast over national radio and satellite. Someone sent Breitbart the clip.

Pablo said:
That NAACP meeting wasn’t broadcast over national radio and satellite. Someone sent Breitbart the clip.

Well, yes, he has said that from the beginning. Did he perform due dilligence on the clip and confirm it was an accurate representation of what Sherrod said, in context? Nope. Instead he billed it on his web site, with these words: ““this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.” And several news organization, especially FOX, picked up the selectively edited video and Breitbart’s talking point. Later, the news organization realized that they had been deceived by Breitbart and that the video actually stands for the opposite of what really happened. We have to take Breitbart’s word that he did not know the video had been selectively edited. Though, according to law enforcement agencies that viewed the ACORN videos, they were also selectively edited. So that is at least strike two on Breitbart’s credibility.

And this after the fact notion that Breitbart intended the video to show NAACP racism because they were seen on the video clapping and praising Sherrod when she shared about feeling racist thoughts about a white farmer, is complete nonsense, since the clapping and praising were going on the entire time Sherrod was giving her testimony, and especially during the part she was talking about overcoming her racism, which was edited out of the video that Breitbart presented. So the selectively edited Breitbart video was cropped for only one purpose: to accuse Sherrod and the NAACP of racism when the full video showed the opposite of that.

And much outrage has been expressed here over the Media Matters error, which they apologized for, where is the outrage over the Breitbart error, which he also apologized for?

valkyrie101 said:
Well, yes, he has said that from the beginning. Did he perform due dilligence on the clip and confirm it was an accurate representation of what Sherrod said, in context? Nope. Instead he billed it on his web site, with these words: ““this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”

Which is different from being the person who intentionally cuts the context out of a clip.

And this after the fact notion that Breitbart intended the video to show NAACP racism…

After the fact? Now how is it that you can quote the previous bit from the original post and yet miss the part where he says: “Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.” How is this notion “after the fact”?

And much outrage has been expressed here over the Media Matters error, which they apologized for, where is the outrage over the Breitbart error, which he also apologized for?

Um, did you not read the eleventy-seven Mediaite posts on the matter? You commented on them.

So since conservatives here accept one of their own as “tea bag a libby” I guess the faux outrage over being called “teabaggers” is over.

Here you go, sweetie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zsUNnFVMsE

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Twas despicable for MM to do that.

Having said that, there is a BIG difference…

What the effin fuck man, are you gonna pull a Dan Rather out of your ass, or what?? The story was a complete fuck up, but let’s use it to make a point, anyway? Goddam you’re stupid.

Pablo said:
Which is different from being the person who intentionally cuts the context out of a clip. After the fact? Now how is it that you can quote the previous bit from the original post and yet miss the part where he says: “Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.” How is this notion “after the fact”? Um, did you not read the eleventy-seven Mediaite posts on the matter? You commented on them.

Yes, we take Breitbart’s word that it was an accident, an error of judgement by a third party. Though, from now on, after several incidents, we will have to put quotes around the expressions “investigative” and “journalist” with respect to Breitbart, the Moonie. Now, how is the mediamatters error any different? Also not an intentional error on the part of mediamatters. Why the castigation of http://www.mediamatters.com on this site since their error was identical to Breitbarts who you support?

valkyrie101 said:
Yes, we take Breitbart’s word that it was an accident, an error of judgement by a third party.

He didn’t say that. He said he aired what he had and that if he had it to do over again, he’d have waited for the whole tape.

Though, from now on, after several incidents, we will have to put quotes around the expressions “investigative” and “journalist” with respect to Breitbart, the Moonie.

And yet you’ll keep linking to MM, which boldly lies like no man has lied before. Because they apologize when you catch them. BTW, Breitbart is a Jew, not a Moonie. YOU LIE!!!

Also not an intentional error on the part of mediamatters.

They don’t make that defense. Why do you?

Good catch Steve, truth, something we see little in our Democrats klansman media these days.

Pablo said:
Which is different from being the person who intentionally cuts the context out of a clip. After the fact? Now how is it that you can quote the previous bit from the original post and yet miss the part where he says: “Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.” How is this notion “after the fact”? Um, did you not read the eleventy-seven Mediaite posts on the matter? You commented on them.

Have you ever been to a black church, or civil rights gathering? When someone is giving a testimony of redemption, from resentment and racism, talking about the experiences and the state of mind that “preceeded” (In this case by 24 years) the redemptive moment, there is a lot of praising and clapping that spontaneously arises throughout the entire testimony, with at least a couple Amens. The audience knew where this story was going, since her story of redemption from resentment and racism is the reason she was invited to speak. Her story was known in their circles.

This emphasis on justifying Breitbart’s initial claim (which we now know is false) with another accusation that is also false, based on the same unedited tape is ridiculous. The whole tape indicates ocassional spontaneous clapping and praising throughout. Why would these supposed “racist” NAACP people clapping over a story about feeling resentment from 24 years earlier, and also clapping and praising her story of overcoming that resentment? That part was not included in the Breitbart edit. The crowd claps when she describes her resentful and racist feelings from 24 years earlier because many in the crowd could relate to those feelings from the past.

The Breitbart thesis is that nodding in agreement, clapping or saying Amen, when a civil rights worker, who’s father was killed by an unprosecuted armed white man in a dispute over a cow, is testifying about past feelings of resentment, constitutes “racism” by those nodding or clapping. Brilliant.

Sherrod’s testimony was a model testifiying to the dynamic of overcoming racism, the exact opposite of what Breitbart suggested. That is why the entire matter was, and continues to be a shame.

valkyrie101 said:
Though, he had the tape in his possession for a period of time and certainly had plenty of time to do due dilligence. And FOX and other networks got totally fooled by Breitbart’s scam, or “error”. You can not even admit that, and instead now run with that silly notion that Breitbart was intending to show that the NAACP was “racist” because they clapped when she was telling her story about having racist feelings toward the white farmer. When in fact, as the unedited video clearly shows, the people at the NAACP event were clapping, and praising throughout the entire testimony, and especially when she got to the punch line, that Breitbart ommitted, about overcoming her feelings and doing good for the white farmer, who claims that she saved his farm. Doesn’t that clapping, praising and crying by NAACP members in support of Sherrod’s positive and beautiful story of overcoming, prove exactly the opposite of what you claim? Now mediamatters makes the same error, and you condemn mediamatters but still excuse Breitbart. Sounds like partisan outrage, therefore.

Listen to you skating around my whole point, while putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said a thing about condemning MM, so your charge of my partisan outrage is wholly your creation. What is hilarious about your rant is you railing at Brietbart for not doing due diligence, yet what was my entire point? The NAACP fired Sherrod without doing due dilligence! And they should have had an entire tape – it was a speech at their event! This proves everything I have said; you, and the media, avoid their (NAACP) culpability by pushing blame onto Brietbart.

Pablo said:
He didn’t say that. He said he aired what he had and that if he had it to do over again, he’d have waited for the whole tape. And yet you’ll keep linking to MM, which boldly lies like no man has lied before. Because they apologize when you catch them. BTW, Breitbart is a Jew, not a Moonie. YOU LIE!!! They don’t make that defense. Why do you?

No, Breitbart sold his soul to Moon. He is a Moon pawn. No, more than that, he is a horse. He took money to lend his name and effort to promoting Reverend Moon’s right wing dream. Just like Newt, Bush, Cheney, Graham, Falwell, Dole, Ensign, and a host of others. And I heard that Ailes and Hannity both pack Moon made Kahr handguns.

MartiniShark said:
The NAACP fired Sherrod without doing due dilligence! And they should have had an entire tape – it was a speech at their event! This proves everything I have said; you, and the media, avoid their (NAACP) culpability by pushing blame onto Brietbart.

Yes, the NAACP screwed up and they apologized to Sherrod and were publically humiliated over that. Same with the Dept. of Agriculture. But that is different than the continued Breitbart, FOX, right wing argument that some of the NAACP people were and voicing their approval over a story about feelings of resentment toward white people from 24 years earlier, demonstrated themselves as “racists” for having done that. Which, as I mentioned earlier is easily rebutted by the fact that the people were clapping and praising too when Sherrod was testifying about overcoming her feelings, and redeeming herself by committing to give her full heart in defending white farmers.

As for MM, my point is that the error by Breitbart and MM were identical. Both relied on third parties and accidently ran stories that stood for the opposite of what was purported. And my apologies if you were not one of those condemning MM, earlier in the thread.

freedom is slavery
war is peace

FredCPA said:
freedom is slavery
war is peace

Being drunk on Saturday morning does not make you a deep thinker.

valk, you’re right about the NAACP applause during Sherrod’s talk being a poor example of their racism. A much better example was when the NAACP invited Farrakhan as a speaker and applauded him.

valkyrie101 said:
And yet the right could not bring itself to condemn Breitbart for such a travesty. Indeed, he is a featured speaker still at Republican events, and remains a hero. So how bad really is it for Mediamatters to present an out of context tape, afterall? That being said, I am happy to join you in condemning mediamatters. It never pays to play the game of those you condemn.

Hmmmm. By this logic you should be able to produce mucho evidence of outrage against MM, right? Not to mention shunning of them by the left.

We’ll see if Olby, Matthews, Maddow, or Ed Schmuck ‘condemns’ MM for doing something that they do all the time.

All you libs hold your breath while we wait…..

writer said:
valk, you’re right about the NAACP applause during Sherrod’s talk being a poor example of their racism. A much better example was when the NAACP invited Farrakhan as a speaker and applauded him.

Here’s another good example…… supporting the NBPP.

I said Andrew Breitbart was a genius for putting the spotlight on this kind of media behavior. Now we are seeing the fruits of the focus. Glenn Beck documented, years ago, the systematic method by which medimatters, and others operate. 1) Take something out of context, 2) distribute it to other Soros media to “launder it” and 3) wait for MSNBC, or another MSM outlet, to pick it up and air it as “fact”. Manufactured credibility.

The genius is in the way the left are trapped by how Andrew played them against themselves. They keep bringing up Sherrod, which exposes criticism to the Obama admin for firing her, which brings up the fact that “context matters”. And that is where the conversation inevitably leads to the corruption in media by the Progressive left. In the end, they trapped themselves and the house of cards is falling.

Stop punching yourselves.

A relevant article on a smear campaign: http://media.glennbeck.com/docs/100americans-pg2.pdf

Thank you Steve Krakauer.

Mr B said:
I said Andrew Breitbart was a genius for putting the spotlight on this kind of media behavior. Now we are seeing the fruits of the focus. Glenn Beck documented, years ago, the systematic method by which medimatters, and others operate. 1) Take something out of context, 2) distribute it to other Soros media to “launder it” and 3) wait for MSNBC, or another MSM outlet, to pick it up and air it as “fact”. Manufactured credibility. The genius is in the way the left are trapped by how Andrew played them against themselves. They keep bringing up Sherrod, which exposes criticism to the Obama admin for firing her, which brings up the fact that “context matters”. And that is where the conversation inevitably leads to the corruption in media by the Progressive left. In the end, they trapped themselves and the house of cards is falling. Stop punching yourselves. A relevant article on a smear campaign: http://media.glennbeck.com/docs/100americans-pg2.pdf Thank you Steve Krakauer.

And here is just another example of the hypocrisy. Where was the ‘outrage’ and ‘denouncements’ over this blatantly fraudulent video put out by left-wing nuts?….

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stephen-glass-redux-thinkprogress-org-publishes-completely-fraudulent-video-labeling-tea-partiers-racists/

writer said:
valk, you’re right about the NAACP applause during Sherrod’s talk being a poor example of their racism. A much better example was when the NAACP invited Farrakhan as a speaker and applauded him.

Believe it or not, Farrakhan is an influencial black minister who’s teachings go well beyond the few racist sentiments he teaches. He is big on black people taking responsibility and improving their economic situation by hard work, going to college, and not feeling sorry for themselves. Having a speaker (who did not enunciate during his NAACP speeches any racist sentiments) talk does not imply that those who listen are racists. OK? And, of course, you have Reverend Moon befriending Farrakhan, and more than that, giving Farrakhan’s organization hundreds of thousands of dollars, and thousands of man hours in support of Farrakhan’s million family march where both Farrakhan and Moon representatives spoke to a fairly big crowd in Washington. Does that make Moon a racist? And if so, does that make the Washington Times racist? Or how about the conservative movement in the U.S. to whom Moon has invested over 2 billion dollars? The answer is, that hearing someone speak does not mean you agree with everything they say, and hearing a racist speak does not mean those listening are racist, or even imply that they are racist. Otherwise, that guy Patterson of the tea party express, who addressed tea party crowds many times, and who, based on his words, is as racist as Farrakhan, would have contaminated the entire tea party. You would not accept that notion, would you? In general, the accusation of guilt by association is ultra lame.

FearMonger said:
And here is just another example of the hypocrisy. Where was the ‘outrage’ and ‘denouncements’ over this blatantly fraudulent video put out by left-wing nuts?…. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stephen-glass-redux-thinkprogress-org-publishes-completely-fraudulent-video-labeling-tea-partiers-racists/

The tea party is not racist. There are a few racist tea partiers. And most certainly a few racists hooked up with the NAACP, which, like the tea party, is not racist. Speaking of unrelated videos, here is one where Glenn Beck compares Obama and his administration to the Planet of the Apes: http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/08/06/glenn_beck_planet_of_the_apes

valk, so it’s okay to make racist statements as long as you call on blacks to take personal responsibility for their own actions? Doesn’t David Duke do pretty much the same thing? Didn’t know you were a Duke fan, valk.

valkyrie101 said:
The tea party is not racist. There are a few racist tea partiers. And most certainly a few racists hooked up with the NAACP, which, like the tea party, is not racist. Speaking of unrelated videos, here is one where Glenn Beck compares Obama and his administration to the Planet of the Apes: http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/08/06/glenn_beck_planet_of_the_apes

I asked a question Val. Perhaps you missed it,. Here it is again…..

“Where was the ‘outrage’ and ‘denouncements’ over this blatantly fraudulent video put out by left-wing nuts?”

and btw…. the vid I posted WAS related and relevant to the discussion.

Mr B said:
I said Andrew Breitbart was a genius for putting the spotlight on this kind of media behavior. Now we are seeing the fruits of the focus. Glenn Beck documented, years ago, the systematic method by which medimatters, and others operate. 1) Take something out of context, 2) distribute it to other Soros media to “launder it” and 3) wait for MSNBC, or another MSM outlet, to pick it up and air it as “fact”. Manufactured credibility. The genius is in the way the left are trapped by how Andrew played them against themselves. They keep bringing up Sherrod, which exposes criticism to the Obama admin for firing her, which brings up the fact that “context matters”. And that is where the conversation inevitably leads to the corruption in media by the Progressive left. In the end, they trapped themselves and the house of cards is falling. Stop punching yourselves. A relevant article on a smear campaign: http://media.glennbeck.com/docs/100americans-pg2.pdf Thank you Steve Krakauer.

And yet another smear campaign…. and just guess where this one is coming from.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/stormfront-promotes-deleted-glenn-beck-white-power-twitter-fave/#comment-113089

The relevant question is….”Who is putting legs under this ‘story’?” Isn’t this the exact type-o-shit we are talking about here?

A steady stream of manufactured outrage over complete BS coming from the left and all they have to say about it is BREITBART BREITBART BREITBART blah blah blah.

Hey libs…..Where are YOUR ‘denouncements’? Where is your ‘outrage’? Is everything a one-way street?.. cuz from where I sit double-standards abound.

If you want more examples of out-of-context BS being promoted by the left just ask. I will be happy to oblige.

writer said:
valk, so it’s okay to make racist statements as long as you call on blacks to take personal responsibility for their own actions? Doesn’t David Duke do pretty much the same thing? Didn’t know you were a Duke fan, valk.

You are an excellent writer but not a good listener. Meeting a racist does not imply racism. Otherwise, what do we call Nixon who went to China and spent a few hours meeting directly with Mao, who, more than being a mere racist was also a mass murderer. Or Reagan with Gorby. Sometimes meeting with bad people can be helpful, and there certainly is no racism implied in meeting someone or hearing them speak. You want to tar people with Farrakhan, and my response, of course, is to raise the matter of Reverend Moon, who has openly taught an anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-gay, anti-woman message, while hob nobbing with half the Republican party members. By your reasoning, Breitbart is a racist, Newt is a racist, Graham is a racist, Bush is a racist, all on the basis of they spending time with, and receiving money from, the racist Reverend Moon who also claims to be the Messiah. Guilt by association is nonsense.

FearMonger said:
And yet another smear campaign…. and just guess where this one is coming from. http://www.mediaite.com/online/stormfront-promotes-deleted-glenn-beck-white-power-twitter-fave/#comment-113089 The relevant question is….”Who is putting legs under this ’story’?” Isn’t this the exact type-o-shit we are talking about here? A steady stream of manufactured outrage over complete BS coming from the left and all they have to say about it is BREITBART BREITBART BREITBART blah blah blah. Hey libs…..Where are YOUR ‘denouncements’? Where is your ‘outrage’? Is everything a one-way street?.. cuz from where I sit double-standards abound. If you want more examples of out-of-context BS being promoted by the left just ask. I will be happy to oblige.

Your defense of Breitbart, while complaining about left wing hit pieces, indicates you can dish it out, but you can not take it. Here is a youtube complilation of Beck and his “obsessive” Nazi comparisons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdTkCQupCR4

But valk, you’re always arguing that these people associating with Moon isn’t a good thing. So likewise, I’m pointing out that the NAACP associating with such people isn’t a good thing.

valkyrie101 said:
Your defense of Breitbart, while complaining about left wing hit pieces, indicates you can dish it out, but you can not take it. Here is a youtube complilation of Beck and his “obsessive” Nazi comparisons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdTkCQupCR4

Speaking of ‘not a good listener’….. I never defended Breitbart.

And btw…u never answered my question. Did u miss it again?

Critiquing Media or Self-Serving Analysis?

In the case of Media Matters, MRC and AIM, it often seems that these organizations are simply used by the men who founded them to voice their own personal criticism of the media, based on their respective ideologies. This casts doubt on the organizations as providing legitimate forms of media criticism, as they appear to mainly be driven by political ideologies more than quest for truth or accuracy.

While FAIR sets itself apart by not falling victim to this downfall as the other three media watchdogs mentioned here do, FAIR is also unique in the fact that it makes structural reform part of its mandate. The right-wing organizations in particular do not suggest any changes to the current media structure, other than a neo-liberal approach to further loosen restrictions on ownership and content. It is essential that media watchdog groups themselves view the public as citizens and not just consumers of products and political ideologies.

Read more at Suite101: Media Watchdog Groups: A Brief Overview of the Organizations That Critique the Media http://media-watchdogs.suite101.com/article.cfm/media_watchdog_groups#ixzz0vwQm4yBi

writer said:
But valk, you’re always arguing that these people associating with Moon isn’t a good thing. So likewise, I’m pointing out that the NAACP associating with such people isn’t a good thing.

My main point has always been that guilt by association, and being called a racist because you listen to someone talk, or meet someone, is nonsense. And I use the Moon connection to the Republican Party to further that argument. Because I do not think that meeting Moon, or hearing him talk indicates acceptence of his message by those who listen. That being said, Moon does more than meet people, he buys them, pays them to further his influence. Has Wright, Ayers or Farrakhan paid Obama to further there cause? Nope. And Moon brags about that influence, and brags that he controls the U.S. government. That is much further than just meeting someone.

It’s quite obvious, after reading some of the comments here regarding Media Matters, that the left is inherently racist.

Olberman causing disturbed people more disruption was right on target.. Many of these journaolist mediamattershuffingtonslate are on the edge. They should join a mulisha or something before they take out their coworkers or sexually assault their co work guys and gals.

MadCharles said:
Olberman causing disturbed people more disruption was right on target.. Many of these journaolist mediamattershuffingtonslate are on the edge. They should join a mulisha or something before they take out their coworkers or sexually assault their co work guys and gals.

You’re not well. Seek help.

valk, since Obama attended Wright’s church for twenty years and referred to him as his mentor, that goes a little beyond just ‘meeting’ him. If someone said they’d attended Klan meetings for twenty years, but were only going for the swell picnics and never heard anyone saying anything racist, you wouldn’t believe them. Obama does much the same thing, and the left believes every word.

lanquihue said:
It’s quite obvious, after reading some of the comments here regarding Media Matters, that the left is inherently racist.

Yes, they are constantly watching suspect shows and reporting on them, and you know what that kind of association can do. Imagine what would happen if you had to watch this classic Glenn blow up over and over. Trust me, you do not want to miss this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_5bmkWhL3o (start at about 1min. 30 secs)

writer said:
valk, since Obama attended Wright’s church for twenty years and referred to him as his mentor, that goes a little beyond just ‘meeting’ him. If someone said they’d attended Klan meetings for twenty years, but were only going for the swell picnics and never heard anyone saying anything racist, you wouldn’t believe them. Obama does much the same thing, and the left believes every word.

But as far as you know, Obama was not present when Wright went off. Correct? But Lindsey Graham was there when Moon, dressed in robes, had a crown placed on his head as the “King of Peace” in a Congressional building. Here is a picture: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.andrewcusack.com/moon4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.andrewcusack.com/2004/06/14/sun-myung-moon-crowned-messiah-in-washington-dc/&usg=__AfFbr6s2pT8H4xYR8rratJRvIPU=&h=313&w=435&sz=35&hl=en&start=16&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=vRxQI7GaWT8EmM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsun%2Bmyung%2Bmoon%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1

Valk, you’re a known liar, and anything you type here is meaningless.

Again with Moon, valk? So what? Two wrongs make a right? And really, valk. In twenty years, Obama had no idea of Wright’s views on race? None whatsoever? Really? Oooookaaayyy, valk.

writer said:
valk, since Obama attended Wright’s church for twenty years and referred to him as his mentor, that goes a little beyond just ‘meeting’ him. If someone said they’d attended Klan meetings for twenty years, but were only going for the swell picnics and never heard anyone saying anything racist, you wouldn’t believe them. Obama does much the same thing, and the left believes every word.

No, they don’t believe every word, they know better, just as you and I do. The difference is, they don’t care. There is no depth the left won’t sink to in order to advance their communist agenda, and if it means getting in bed with black liberation theology racists, they have no problem with that.

valkyrie101 said:
Moon, dressed in robes

But without Moon, there would be no Justin Moon, and there wouldn’t be Kahr Arms. Best concealed carry handguns ever. :)

FearMonger said:
Speaking of ‘not a good listener’….. I never defended Breitbart. And btw…u never answered my question. Did u miss it again?

You have never defended Breitbart? Really? As for your question, I looked at that video and it is hard to tell what is true and what is not true. What part do you object to?

lanquihue said:
But without Moon, there would be no Justin Moon, and there wouldn’t be Kahr Arms. Best concealed carry handguns ever. :)

Yes. I heard that Ailes and Hannity, who both have carry permits, pack a Moon manufactured Kahr arms weapon.

lanquihue said:
No, they don’t believe every word, they know better, just as you and I do. The difference is, they don’t care. There is no depth the left won’t sink to in order to advance their communist agenda, and if it means getting in bed with black liberation theology racists, they have no problem with that.

We do not usually hold a person responsible for the short comings of their pastor, or mentor. Of course it has been convenient for the right to do that, since irrationally attacking Obama is their primary, “we have no ideas but we will sink your presidency” game. But hey, back to Moon. Republicans who take his money like Newt, Falwell, Graham, Bush… and who support his nefarious agenda to take over the world as the “messiah”, do they care?

valkyrie101 said:
You have never defended Breitbart? Really? As for your question, I looked at that video and it is hard to tell what is true and what is not true. What part do you object to?

SERENITY NOW…SERENITY NOW….

And you wonder why we get so friggin’ frustrated trying to have a reasonable discussion. One more time…

HERE’S THE LINK…..

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stephen-glass-redux-thinkprogress-org-publishes-completely-fraudulent-video-labeling-tea-partiers-racists/

HERE’S THE QUESTION….

Where was the ‘outrage’ and ‘denouncements’ over this blatantly fraudulent video put out by left-wing nuts?

Please val…. I’m asking nicely…. please read the article and then answer the question. And keep in mind that you said this….

“And yet the right could not bring itself to condemn Breitbart for such a travesty. Indeed, he is a featured speaker still at Republican events, and remains a hero.”

and this….

“Rush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly. Which one condemned Breitbart?”

Hopefully the light bulb will CLICK….

Steve:
You’re poo-pooing on Tommy Christopher’s media matters partay.

valkyrie101 said:
Yes. I heard that Ailes and Hannity, who both have carry permits, pack a Moon manufactured Kahr arms weapon.

That’s so Goddam funny! I knew you’d do it, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Anyway, nice try, but if they carry Kahrs, then they carry Kahr manufactured handguns. The old man has zero point nothing to do with Kahr Arms. But if you insist on guilt by association, shall we talk about Wright and Ayers? You know, for a world famous lawyer, you’re really fucken stupid.

writer said:
Again with Moon, valk? So what? Two wrongs make a right? And really, valk. In twenty years, Obama had no idea of Wright’s views on race? None whatsoever? Really? Oooookaaayyy, valk.

Nobody said that. Lots of elderly people have racist sentiments, not just Wright. But younger people, like Obama, try to ignore them. That is different than being influenced by those old views, born from a different era, from back when blacks were beaten for drinking out of a white’s only drinking fountain. Obama never said he did not know about Wright’s racist sentiments. Though, he did deny being at the particular sermons that FOX showed ad nauseum during the campaign to try to scare white voters away from him. And nobody disputed that, either. I mean, everybody has an uncle or a friend somewhere who likes to tell racist jokes. When you hear something like that, do you then dis-own that person, walk out, and never come back? If you are like most people, you just ignore the racist sentiments and look for some more agreeable ones to relate to.

valkyrie101 said:
We do not usually hold a person responsible for the short comings of their pastor, or mentor. Of course it has been convenient for the right to do that, since irrationally attacking Obama is their primary, “we have no ideas but we will sink your presidency” game. But hey, back to Moon. Republicans who take his money like Newt, Falwell, Graham, Bush… and who support his nefarious agenda to take over the world as the “messiah”, do they care?

wow… really getting sad. I should have known better. We ‘hold them responsible’ for partaking of that hatred for 20 years….YES WE DO VAL.

As for this…” Of course it has been convenient for the right to do that, since irrationally attacking Obama is their primary, “we have no ideas but we will sink your presidency” game.”

!@@#$% %^^^ )*&&^^^^% )(%^*&&*(*.

You are pathetic and i am done with you. Please ignore my posts from now on… or at least don’t respond to them.

You are a childish and petty and MOST OF ALL… pardon my french ….. thick as a damned brick.

I hope you and Olberman keep doing exactly what you are doing.

lanquihue said:
That’s so Goddam funny! I knew you’d do it, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyway, nice try, but if they carry Kahrs, then they carry Kahr manufactured handguns. The old man has zero point nothing to do with Kahr Arms. But if you insist on guilt by association, shall we talk about Wright and Ayers? You know, for a world famous lawyer, you’re really fucken stupid.

Moon’s son, Kook Jin “Justin” Moon, founded the company with money (millions) provided by his father, Sun Myung Moon, which he paid back after it became profitable. So nothing to do with it? Hardly. Without daddy, no Kahr arms.

valk, couldn’t Obama have ‘ignored’ racist comments much better at a church where the pastor wasn’t a racist? I mean, Chicago’s a big city. I’m sure in twenty years he could have found one somewhere. Just saying.

Fearmonger, you can’t hold a rational discussion with valk. Not just saying this because I’m conservative, valk has, in the past, claimed to have been a clerk for a US Supreme Court Justice, and has claimed to be a “famous person”. He’s fun to mess with sometimes, but there’s no point in trying to hold an intelligent conversation with him.

FearMonger said:
wow… really getting sad. I should have known better. We ‘hold them responsible’ for partaking of that hatred for 20 years….YES WE DO VAL.

Again, why do you assume that knowing someone for twenty years means that you adopt that person’s racist views as your own? And in Obama’s case, half white and raised by a white woman, do you really think he is going to adopt Wright’s anti-white perspective? He was a community organizer and he attended the biggest church in his neighborhood, Wright’s church, for networking purposes. And how unfair to suggest that because Wright has some resentment against white people, born out of his experience in the pre-civil rights era, that he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Did Gorby have any redeeming qualities sufficient for he and his wife to be befriended by Ronald and Nancy Reagan? He was a murderer, you know, and the former head of the KGB. Who is worse, Wright or Gorbachev?

writer said:
valk, couldn’t Obama have ‘ignored’ racist comments much better at a church where the pastor wasn’t a racist? I mean, Chicago’s a big city. I’m sure in twenty years he could have found one somewhere. Just saying.

If you seek to bring change, you go where change is needed.

If Obama was trying to ‘change’ Wright, it didn’t work.

lanquihue said:
Fearmonger, you can’t hold a rational discussion with valk. Not just saying this because I’m conservative, valk has, in the past, claimed to have been a clerk for a US Supreme Court Justice, and has claimed to be a “famous person”. He’s fun to mess with sometimes, but there’s no point in trying to hold an intelligent conversation with him.

No, I was never a supreme court clerk, that was a rather obvious joke that you missed languihue. But yes, I am certainly famous.

writer said:
If Obama was trying to ‘change’ Wright, it didn’t work.

Who says he was targeting Wright? Obama was always more interested in the younger people, who were more open minded.

valkyrie101 said:
No, I was never a supreme court clerk, that was a rather obvious joke that you missed languihue. But yes, I am certainly famous.

The other day, you said that the “I’m famous” thing was a joke. Seriously, you shouldn’t type here while you’re fucked up on meth.

valk, that doesn’t make sense. You’re saying that Obama was there to teach young people that Wright’s racism was wrong, and yet Obama saw Wright as a mentor? That’s like saying Reinhard Heydrich wasn’t really a Nazi, he just hung around hoping Hitler would see the error of his ways, and hoped to steer the Hitler youth in the right direction.

lanquihue said:
The other day, you said that the “I’m famous” thing was a joke. Seriously, you shouldn’t type here while you’re fucked up on meth.

Never tried it. Does it improve your ability to laugh? Is so, consider trying some.

writer said:
valk, that doesn’t make sense. You’re saying that Obama was there to teach young people that Wright’s racism was wrong, and yet Obama saw Wright as a mentor? That’s like saying Reinhard Heydrich wasn’t really a Nazi, he just hung around hoping Hitler would see the error of his ways, and hoped to steer the Hitler youth in the right direction.

Ah, nothing like a good Nazi comparison to make a good argument. You might be interested in this WP article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602855.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

“Consider these tallies from Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News since Obama’s inauguration: 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 mentions of fascism or fascist, and another 24 bonus mentions of Joseph Goebbels. Most of these were directed in some form at Obama — as were the majority of the 802 mentions of socialist or socialism on Beck’s nightly “report.” ”

Ignoring your analogy, I am sure Obama encouraged Wright to overcome his racism, but, as they say, “it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks”. Obama’s core supporters, and the reason he was elected, is because younger people are hip to him, and he is hip to them.

lanquihue says: “It’s quite obvious, after reading some of the comments here regarding Media Matters, that the left is inherently racist.”

It’s quite obvious reading this remark that you have an ideological blindness to the truth. It has been the left, more than the right – by far – that opposed racism.

This isn’t about racism: it’s about selective editing of video or audio to distort what is being said. At that, no one holds a candle to Glenn Beck. This is by no means a rationalization of what Media Matters did. I use their research, and I will criticize them for this dirty trick as harshly as any critic on the right. That’s why I used the quotes from Suite 101 above.

THERE IS NO ORGANIZED EFFORT TO WATCH THE WATCHDOGS.

valk, I can’t see that bringing up Beck has anything to do with Wright. And no matter how often you bring up Rev. Moon, it doesn’t change the fact that Obama voluntarily spent twenty years attending a racist church, when many other churches were available.

They don’t really regret the error. They only regret being caught.

That is where you are wrong. Trinity United is not a “racist church”. If it was, then the tea party would be a racist movement and almost every white church in the south would have to be racist. Racism is part of culture. Racists are involved in all organizations, sometimes in leadership roles. If an organization as part of its official dogma is racist on its face, then that is another story, of course. But a Church or an organization like the tea party, is not racist itself. And certainly when Wright vents his stuff he does not speak for the church, he speaks from his own heart.

You seem to have a Catholic perspective on allegiance to what the minister says. Wright is not perceived to be infallible. He does not say, you must believe what I say. In fact, he is frequently self effacing, and is nothing more than a humble Christian struggling openly with resentment, selfishness, and all other barriers to religious insight, like everyone else. Congregants can and often do take issue with what Wright says, and there is no limitation on that, because Wright is perceived to be just a fallible man, respected, but like they. So stop thinking that if a preacher says something that everybody just believes it. People think for themselves. If your father had been a racist would you have moved out at age eighteen because cutting him off is the only thing you can do with a “racist”? You work with people, and you work it out together. That is what Trinity is to its members, a family, with problems, that all seek to understand and overcome through the fellowship of each other and the guidance of Christ our Lord.

The NAACP resolution, which so offended Breitbart and company, specifically did not condemn the tea party as racist, rather, it said that the tea party was tolerating some racist involvement in their ranks. Like Patterson, for example, of the tea party express. It called on the tea party to disavow racism, and the tea party federation came through with a rebuke of Patterson that led to his resignation. That’s what I am talking about, brother, nice. Now the NAACP owes you one.

Stu and Pat are two of the funniest guys I’ve ever heard . They watch out for Glenn and they like him . Glenn is a truly good man and important to this country . People that curse Beck and say nasty things have never heard him , or they’ve been poisoned by the ignorance of the liberal hyperpartisans . I’ve been struck by how so many liberals go from zero to nasty so fast .

valkyrie101 said:
Breitbart sold his soul to Moon.

They have scanned the contract an uploaded it at Media Matters. Breitbart gave Moon his soul, but in exchange he gets to hang out with Elvis.

Wow, you went way back for that one. Excellent. :-) But Elvis is in Heaven. Breitbart is a calvary officer riding with the army of the undead.

Valkyrie, okay, I’ll give Elvis a rest. But questions remain. If all writers for the Washington Times are automatically Moonies, are the subscribers also Moonies? If I read an article online that comes from the Times web site, am I Moonie too? And how about the newspaper delivery boy who drops the Times off on the doorstep? Is he an honorary Moonie? He is taking money from Rev. Moon, after all…..

I mean, I can understand from a few years ago, when the internet was not up to speed, a person like Breitbart might be able to claim that he did not believe that Moon, or his representatives exercised any control over the paper they spend 50 million a year on, as dubious as that sounds, but since the internet age you can google Moon and all kinds of stuff instantly jumps out. I mean, Breitbart chose to take the money. And there are hundreds of people around the trough also taking it. And that money came from either the blood of Unificationists being squeezed in Japan, or from the bank accounts of those who have been defrauded by the Unification movements’ “spiritual sales” in Japan. And that money is then given to the Breitbarts of the world, and far more significant people, to pay for their support of Moon’s vision of a right wing religious theocracy.

Anyone who still thinks Breitbart has anything valid to contribute to American politics or cutlural progress is delusional. We have real problems, real families and real issues to help and solve, yet this egomaniac
who can’t even edit a tape properly commands the nations’ attention and air-time.

And yes, the Tea-Party do admit and covertly support racists. My father is an upstanding member,
exquisitely bigoted. He’s impressed by c nostalgia harking back to an earlier, invented America where the complexities of today apparently didn’t exist. He’s old, he’s allowed to be crazy.

What’s your excuse TeaBagLibby?

Ah yes folks, we are America and we are pathetic.

Anyone who still thinks Breitbart has anything valid to contribute to American politics or cutlural progress
is delusional.

We have real problems, real families and real issues to help and solve, yet this egomaniac
who can’t even edit a tape properly commands the nations’ attention and air-time.

And yes, the Tea-Party do admit and covertly support racism. My father is an upstanding member,
exquisitely bigoted. He’s impressed by nostalgia harking back to an earlier, invented America where the complexities of today apparently didn’t exist.

He’s old, he’s allowed to be crazy. What’s your excuse TeaBagLibby?

Ah yes folks, we are America and we are pathetic.

Carolyn McEvoy said:
Ah yes folks, we are America and we are pathetic.

Speak for yourself, you fucken douchebag.

felixw said:
If all writers for the Washington Times are automatically Moonies, are the subscribers also Moonies?

Sure, and all New York Times writers and subscribers are Jews.

Carolyn McEvoy said:
And yes, the Tea-Party do admit and covertly support racism.

And the tally continues….

How many is that now Tommy?

Pablo said:
Sure, and all New York Times writers and subscribers are Jews.

Some quotes for you:

“Judaism committed a historical sin in front of Jesus, so Jewish people experienced the Holocaust under Hitler. Without God’s permission, would it really have been possible for Hitler to do such a massacre? Islam is a religion which originally should not have come into being…” –Chung Hwan Kwak (formerly Moon’s chief assistant and CEO of the Washington Times for several years), November 10, 2003.

“Israel took the rod of the Jewish nation centering on the providence. That was wrong. The Holy Land must be transferred. How can the Jews who killed Jesus claim the birthplace of Jesus as their Holy Land?…” —Sun Myung Moon, May 21, 2007.

“This is the time when I can carry out a revolution. I can exercise my authority according to my wish. In the future 70, 80 or even 90% of the world we know today will disappear. What can I do with an offspring of enemy?” —Sun Myung Moon

“As the Lord of the Second Advent I am the owner of this world of death. But I have prepared everything–the medicine and injection, even the hospital to save all of humanity. No one else has done it, therefore, the world must follow Rev. Moon. There is no other solution, no other direction or choice…” —Sun Myung Moon, 1997.

“When you work hard, Congressmen and Senators must be controlled by you. You must talk to them very clearly based on that authority. You are given to that total authority…” —Reverend Moon speaking to Unification Church members, April 8, 2004.

“The Religious Leaders that attend Father will have more and more influence over other religious leaders and soon they will influence political leaders as well…” —Sun Myung Moon, July 1, 1992.

“The time is coming that we have to abolish the concept of separation between church and state. We need a political party centered upon religious ideology. The world of democracy is based upon the ideology of brotherhood. That is why Cain and Abel struggle exists there. Changes of power always head towards the satanic side. This democratic period in human history is passing away. Soon the heavenly sovereignty will be established to lead the world.” —Sun Myung Moon, 1996

“It is time for the UN, the US government, God’s will and the Unification Movement to be in alignment….”

“I could be meeting senators, house representatives and all the other important people of America everyday.” —Sun Myung Moon, March 27, 2007.

“Where is the root of the problem of divorce? It is in the woman. When she finds someone richer, smarter or more capable she will leave the man for another. Who do the children belong too? Where did the seed come from – the man or the woman? The seeds of life comes from man. The woman is like the field that nourishes the seed.. Women should not leave their husbands. If you join the Women’s liberation movement is that good or bad.” —Sun Myung Moon, October 1, 2003.

“Do you like white people or black people? One reason you like darker people is that throughout history, perhaps the race that killed more people is the white race, not the other way. It’s not reasoning, it is a fact. When you go to spirit world there are not many white people in heaven.” —Sun Myung Moon, 1991.

I could go on and on… Somehow I think Moon’s game is slightly different than the Jewish people that own the New York Times. Don’t you agree?

Carolyn McEvoy said:
Ah yes folks, we are America and we are pathetic.

Maybe your america is…but my AMERICA is alive and well and on the path to being restored and not transformed as the current admin. wants. All are welcome so save your race card for your next bridge game.

Here is the central difference w/ MM – they actually had the moral integrity to correct their article. And they did it without backbiting, sour grapes, or watering the correction down. Get back to me when pretty much any right-wing blogger or media outlet does the same.

valkyrie101 said:
I could go on and on… Somehow I think Moon’s game is slightly different than the Jewish people that own the New York Times. Don’t you agree?

Yes, and everyone who writes for them follows the ideology of the owner. That was your premise, right?

And that money is then given to the Breitbarts of the world, and far more significant people, to pay for their support of Moon’s vision of a right wing religious theocracy.

Yep, there it is. Breitbart and Moon, just as tight as Obama and Bill Ayers.

snidelywhiplash said:
Here is the central difference w/ MM – they actually had the moral integrity to correct their article. And they did it without backbiting, sour grapes, or watering the correction down. Get back to me when pretty much any right-wing blogger or media outlet does the same.

Bill O, Sherrod, last week

Pablo said:
Yes, and everyone who writes for them follows the ideology of the owner. That was your premise, right? Yep, there it is. Breitbart and Moon, just as tight as Obama and Bill Ayers.

And yet you reject Moon’s influence as being significant on Breitbart (not to mention Newt, Bush, Dole and a host of others) a man who took big money from Moon, and wrote regularly for his newspaper, which Moon claims is influencing the entire world further to his plans on world conquest, but you consider Ayer’s or Wright’s influence on Obama to be a travesty, and a sure sign that Obama is a Marxist and a racist? Why is that? Why the double standard? And that is my main point concerning Moon. You and your friends live in a glass house.

Okay, Valkyrie, at least you made it clear. The newspaper boy who delivers the Washington Times takes money from Rev. Moon. Ergo, he is a Moonie.

Of course, no one else defines membership in a church the way you do. But since when have you really worried much about the meaning of words, huh?

StandUp says: “Maybe your america is…but my AMERICA is alive and well and on the path to being restored and not transformed as the current admin. wants. ”

Here something you may not realize: most people don’t want to go BACKWARD, in Glenn Beck’s direction. Oh yes, there are millions of you, and you’re loud, in Beck’s case, very loud. So long as you choose to follow an uneducated charlatan who is more concerned about his self-promotion than he is with the direction of the country, those of us who recognized the need to fundamentally transform the fossil fuel driven economy with an economy that is post-fossil fuel. What the current Administration want the country and our civilization needs. Just because an uneducated master manipulator of conservatives buttons doesn’t have a clue, doesn’t mean that most Americans want th “restore” America, whatever-to-hell that means. No, hell no; we won’t return to a capitalism that owned politicians and ruled the country. Actually , we’re pretty damn close to this now. Reversing 100 year of progress in protecting the public interests of the American people as a whole will not make thing better for average Americans, not by any stretch of the imagination.

StandUp; you are following a false prophet.

MichelleF said:
The sad thing is they WERE kidding, but the left does this to people on the right all the time and aren’t kidding. That’s the pathetic left for you.

Both the conservatives and the liberals are equally guilty of these actions. The extreme left and the extreme right may differ in view points but the thing they share over anything else is their despicable tactics and their skewed view on reality.

felixw said:
Okay, Valkyrie, at least you made it clear. The newspaper boy who delivers the Washington Times takes money from Rev. Moon. Ergo, he is a Moonie. Of course, no one else defines membership in a church the way you do. But since when have you really worried much about the meaning of words, huh?

Come on felix, now you are being silly. Using a newspaper boy to claim that Breitbart is not influenced by Moon? Breitbart has gone to see Moon speak, they all have. But not the newspaper boy. He is spared.

valkyrie101 said:
Come on felix, now you are being silly.

If there is any silliness here, it comes from your bogus way of linking people to the Unification church. I am simply applying your logic — namely if someone takes money from a Moon-owned business, that person is a Moonie. If that logic leads to crazy and implausible results, you should look in the mirror for the reason why.

So, I listened to the both clips — and guys? It doesn’t matter where the clip was stopped. You were indulging, once again, in the “It’s not us being racist and inflammatory, its them” meme — and think that slipping in a quick “obviously, we’re making a point” gives you the ‘satirical’ out. It doesn’t. Context, boys, context. Did you make the statement? Oh, absolutely. Did you add a mild disclaimer? Sure. Does that negate the former wild accusation? Oh, heck no. But are you too mealy-mouthed to own your own words. Sure.

felixw said:
If there is any silliness here, it comes from your bogus way of linking people to the Unification church. I am simply applying your logic — namely if someone takes money from a Moon-owned business, that person is a Moonie. If that logic leads to crazy and implausible results, you should look in the mirror for the reason why.

Its not just the money, it is the committment to further Moon’s agenda in exchange for the money. And that requires consent on the part of he who takes the money.

GlennBeckReview said:
StandUp; you are following a false prophet.

I don’t follow anyone so shut the fuck up and leave me alone for the last time

OMG!!! STU AND PAT GOT FIRED!!!!

Heh. Steve, you’re getting a shout out for this piece, in a good way.

What amazes me about all of this uproar is that ALL news media is based on grabbing a 20 second sound-bite. You would hope they grab one that represents the overall content, but mostly they do not.

Breitbart’s video was many minutes and they complained he should have released all 40 minutes. Yet, in all the replays of his video and her speech none of them showed more than 20 seconds. What 20 seconds did they pick and why? Irony?

MEDIA MATTERS are a bunch of LOSER LYING COMMIE CRUDBALLS who have NO credibility. -yawn- zzzZzzz…

StandUp says: “I don’t follow anyone so shut the fuck up and leave me alone for the last time”

And I don’t follow your orders. Technically, this is the first time you’ve told me this.

If you don’t want your comments commented upon, I suggest you not post any here. YOu have a problem with my free speech?

Sunnyr says: “MEDIA MATTERS are a bunch of LOSER LYING COMMIE CRUDBALLS who have NO credibility. -yawn- zzzZzzz…”

Media Research Center is a bunch of LOSER CORPORATE EXTREMIST CRUDBALL SHILLS who have NO credibility. -yawn- zzzzZzzzz.

You see Sunny, both sides of the media watchdog efforts play this game. Who’s watching the watchdogs?

GlennBeckReview said:
So long as you choose to follow an uneducated charlatan who is more concerned about his self-promotion than he is with the direction of the country

Mirror mirror on the wall……

Hey GBR. We get it. GLEN BECK BAD…..GRRRRR.

Give it a rest would ya’?

valkyrie101 said:
Why is that? Why the double standard?

Long, personal “mentor” relationship. Do you think Breitbart has ever even met Moon?

valkyrie101 said:
the committment to further Moon’s agenda in exchange for the money

If delivering Rev. Moon’s newspaper to the doorstep is not furthering his agenda, I don’t know what it. And if the newspaper deliverer isn’t getting paid, I will eat my hat. So those delivery boys are clearly Moonies. Probably their Moms and Dads too, since they step in to deliver the paper when the kid is sick.

I’m just waiting for you to tie Gog and Magog into this too. You always manage to do so….

felixw said:
If delivering Rev. Moon’s newspaper to the doorstep is not furthering his agenda, I don’t know what it. And if the newspaper deliverer isn’t getting paid, I will eat my hat. So those delivery boys are clearly Moonies. Probably their Moms and Dads too, since they step in to deliver the paper when the kid is sick. I’m just waiting for you to tie Gog and Magog into this too. You always manage to do so….

I think your paperboy argument is a little weak. As for Gog and Magog, I am not too hip on what those really are, but Bush seems to think they represent, I guess, the sunnis and shiites, or something like that. Chirac couldn’t figure it out either.

Kudos to Steve Krakauer. Media Matters, just like David Axelrod and company exist to twist the truth and create false impressions. What a great job eh? “What do you want to do when you grow up Johnny?” Johnny, “I want to grow up to be a liar and twist the truth.” Again, kudos to Krakauer for exposing the losers at MM.

Intresting that Oberman has gotten away with what he says…definitely a double standard…but in listening to the program that morning…I heard what they said…and knew that the media would take and run…the only problem I saw was if someone were to come in in the middle of the program and hear what they were saying…on the other hand is was sad to hear jokingly regard the deaths of the 8 innocent people in context with K Oberman….now they have to hit the sidewalks for new jobs….

FearMonger says: “Give it a rest would ya’?”

Awe, FearMonger, you don’t like it that I have your hero pegged, do you? Tough. I’m writing a story now about how Beck’s reaction to this is sheer hypocrisy since Beck Breitbarted Obama’s G-20 press conference. Outside of The Glenn Beck Review and someone over at NewsHounds, the media did not take notice.

Beck’s webcast rant on Media Matters is one more example of his hypocrisy

On August 6th, Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog organization, had a headline with an audio clip on a posting about Glenn Beck’s sidekicks, Pat Grey and Stu Burguiere, who were sitting in for Beck on his radio show on August 6th. That clip took their remarks out of context in a manner that Andrew Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod. On his website on August 10th, Beck takes them to task for their selective editing, but never mentioned that he did the same thing, only far more egregious, along these lines to President Obama’s G-20 press conference on June 29th. This is not just a double standard: it is sheer hypocrisy on Beck’s part, another example that should – but does not – destroy his credibility among his morally righteous followers. It should also be addressed by the mainstream media, but they don’t seem to have noticed Beck’s baseless deception nor subsequent hypocrisy on this media matter.

The original headline at Media Matters was “Beck sidekicks Gray and Burguiere: Keith Olberman and media responsible for Manchester shooting,” and their video clip excluded the following remark by either Grey or Burguiere that “Keith Olbermann was not responsible for any shooting.” That part was left out of the Media Matters audio clip because Media Matters cut the audio off right before Gray and Burguiere made that clear.

Since then, Media Matters of America has changed that headline to “Beck sidekicks equate linking Beck to CA shooter with blaming Olbermann for Manchester rampage,” and extended the audio clip to include the clarification about this that the two made.

Media Matters also added a comment, “CORRECTION: The original headline on this clip did not make clear that Beck’s co-hosts were being satirical when they linked MSNBC host Keith Olbermann to the Manchester shooting. The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error.”

On his webcast of August 10th, Beck excoriates Media Matters:

“I’ll show you one of [progressive's] blatant lies next….” Beck first makes a sales pitch for Carbonite.com, a company that apparently has not joined well over 100 others in the boycott against Beck. He then continues:

“Now speaking of dorks in their mom’s basement, Media Matters…They edited Stu and Pat wildly out of context, and here’s the edited clip. [He plays the original segment Media Matters posted without the clarification his sidekicks went on to make.] That’s where Media Matters left it. Unfortunately, for them, here’s the rest of the clip. [Beck played the remaining remarks they made which Media Matters now includes in their clip.] Kind of helpful to include that part, no? This issued a statement saying they regret the error. That was an error? My response to that is, ‘Media Matters baseless said they regret doing baseless doing smear campaigns that they do on a daily basis…They don’t regret it. The ends justifies the means to progressives. Their only goal is to discredit you, me or anybody else, any conservative that stands in their way. Maybe even, you know, get us off the air. This is a group literally created by Hillary Clinton. [Quoting no one specifically] ‘Glenn Beck baselessly smears and distorts.’ Baselessly? Really? Roll the tape: [Video of Mrs. Clinton speaking] ‘…progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress…’ [Beck cutting her off] Ah yes, the woman who models herself after the early 20th century progressives like Woodrow Wilson. So, she was involved in creating Media Matters. And they are funded by a George Soros front group that’s hiding behind another George Soros front group. That’s all these guys are, a political mouthpiece. And that’s great, you know. You can be a progressive hack site if you want to be. Just be honest and upfront about who you really are. Until then, no need to apologize, because, ha ha ha, I know you, and you don’t mean it.”

Beck’s criticism would not ring so hallow if he would express regret for “Breitbarting” (yes, it HAS become a verb now) President Obama’s G-20 press conference on June 29th. On his show that day, Beck not only pieced two unrelated video clips together, but he proceeded to turn Obama’s call for a “level playing field” for trade with China into a completely baseless distortion about the President wanting to level all incomes around the world to $14,602/year. In other words, Beck is hypocritically guilty of doing what Breitbart did to Shirley Sharrod and what Media Matters did to Grey and Burguiere only worse. He has not even acknowledged this video editing, and the mainstream media has not yet noticed Beck’s June 29th example of Beck’s video editing or this subsequent hypocrisy with his attack on Media Matters.