Friday, July 23, 2010

Ann Coulter Defends Andrew Breitbart

Ann Coulter says Andrew Breitbart was "set up." What happened to conservatives preaching personal responsibility. Oh, that's right. That was just bullshit.

"The whole key to this story is that Andrew Breitbart was set up. He was sent a tape that, as we now know, was massively out of context. It did look like this woman was saying something racist. When she first said it was taken out of context . . . we've heard that before from politicians telling racist jokes. This is the first time in world history it was literally taken out of context.

"It was a lovely speech. Of course the White House reacted that way -- of course you reacted the way you did. Anyone would have. I think Breitbart ought to reveal his source, because he was set up. This was a fraud. The person who sent the edited tape has to know what the full speech said, and whomever sent only that segment to Andrew Breitbart is the one who should apologize to Shirley Sherrod.

It has been awhile since I have blogged about Ann Coulter. Michele Malkin has taken Coulter's mantle.

Coulter has been accused of plagiarism. She hardly can be accused of being an expert in journalism ethics. Journalism 101 teaches students to fact-check. Breitbart is responsible for checking the videotape. Having Ann Coulter speak on behave of Breitbart isn't going to help his credibility.

Labels: , , ,


At July 25, 2010 9:38 AM , Blogger tas said...

Coulter conveniently neglects to note that Breitbart himself admitted to two things:

1) Sitting on the tape for a while
2) Not performing basic fact checking while sitting on the story (for example, contacting the family Sherrod talked about to get their side of the story)

Anyone that has pride and feels shame would be embarrassed by not fact checking a story which could easily blow up in your face. But we're dealing with people so used to lying that they've forgotten the definitions of both honesty and critical thinking.

They're either pathetic or sad. Since crying over them would be wasted tears, I'll opt for the former descriptor.

At July 25, 2010 2:51 PM , Blogger Michael Hussey said...

But we're dealing with people so used to lying that they've forgotten the definitions of both honesty and critical thinking.

I about puked when Jonah Goldberg wrote he didn't think Breitbart intentionally tried to distort the Sherrod story. Conservatives bitch about a liberal media but refuse to hold themselves to journalistic standards. Sickening.

At July 25, 2010 8:42 PM , Blogger tas said...

What I find hilarious about this "liberal media" bullshit is who they complain about. I saw a headline about Paul Krugman being a "liberal journalist" -- no, it's an opinion/editorial writer. Whose columns often run along side those of the conservative David Brooks (and William Safire before him). And they rant and rave about how MSNBC is such a liberal news network, and how journalists needed to be unbiased -- yet they never, ever mention a lick about Fox News. I mean, really? Is there any critical thought process going on at all here?

At July 25, 2010 8:58 PM , Blogger Michael Hussey said...

I saw on my Twitter feed Instapundit is still obsessed with Journolist. Shocking: Spencer Ackerman wrote stupid things. The stuff on Journolist is mild compare to Ackerman emailing his New Republic editor that he was going to bash his skull in with a baseball bat. Glenn Reynolds actually ran posts defending Breitbart. What a fucking hypocrite.

At July 25, 2010 11:37 PM , Blogger tas said...

I love the Journolist BS. Suddenly a bunch of like-minded people using the Internet to communicate with each other is a scandal of epic proportions. Uhm, isn't that specifically what the Internet is meant to be used for? That and porn, of course.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home