|Jack Dalton |
I haven't really been following this story a whole lot, but my understanding is that Andrew Breitbart posted a video to prove how the NAACP accepts racism; the video was completely out of context; the media did a shitty job investigating the story; some supervisor in the government acted foolishly in reliance of the media reports; then non-stupid people found out Breitbart's video was bullshit-- and the new media narrative became "the white house screws up relying on reports from the blameless media." Meanwhile, Breitbart insists that everyone is missing the point about his debunked video because he was only trying to prove the NAACP was a bunch a racists.
Is this correct?
One other thing: Breitbart is backpedaling into saying, "no, no, it wasn't about the speaker. It was about the crowd. Did you notice how vocally racist they were?" Watching the full video debunks this point as well.
Also, FoxNews has been surprisingly mum on this story after Breitbart was proven to be a media manilpulator.
Bill O made a brief apology, saying that he failed to "do his homework" on the story, since he had aired the doctored clip, and bragged about how only Fox News covered the story.
But he also talked about how it takes a big man to admit he's wrong, empathized with Sherrod because he knows what it's like because Media Matters took his words out of context in that "black restaurant" incident, and then demanded to know why the Obama Administration unjustly fired her. He also went on to still call her racist based on the language she used in that speech, and made some accusations about suing for money, etc, etc.
What a horrible little shit.
This has become the standard for political discourse in the US. Amazing.
I'm so goddamn glad I don't watch the news anymore. What the fuck is this? Seriously? This is on the news? Who cares about this douchnozzle or what he posts on the internet...
| Register or login To Post a Comment|