Yeah, wasn't it about two or three years later after they could no longer deny the obvious? Also, Breitbart never anchored a major network desk and presented himself to the public as an unbiased journalist. As I understand, he is also a young man and not a seasoned journalist who should know better.
I'm not going to excuse him, but we do need to give him at least equal benefit of the doubt to what CBS gave Dan Rather.
Oh yes, the Bush files were not the first time Dan Rather got caught in a lie either, were they?
You can’t compare Breitbart to Rather. Breitbart didn’t make up fake evidence.
Everyone is holding Breitbart to a higher standard than the rest of the media.
Why do we entertain an attack on Breitbart? Because we’re are losers. The Marxists are winning. We have no courage for the fight.
This is something a GOOD wife understands - stand by your man!
Yes, let us all pretend that an edited tape that, perhaps, didn't tell all of the story was “doctored”.
And the point was not that THIS PARTICULAR SPEAKER was racist, the point was that the NAACP can be heard APPLAUDING the racism, long before it came ‘full circle’ to her realization that poor white farmers are poor and need help (perhaps) as much as a poor black farmer and that ‘one of his own kind’ could give him assistance.
Well, are we supposed to hold some guy posting a youtube video to his web site to the same standards as a major news organization doing two month’s worth of research to fake documents to nail a President?
Is there any evidence that Brietbart deliberately altered the video to make a point that was invalid? I don’t think so. His video illustrated the point he was making. Yes, it also gave a lot of people the supposedly wrong impression, but that wasn’t what he was pushing, so is it really his fault, and something he would need to be disciplined for?
Frum is an idiot. All Brietbart COULD do to the woman is post a video of her. It was people in POWER who harmed her — the NAACP and the Administration.
I do hope at least though that this incident will cool the jets of the intermitably short-fused here at FR, who are always jumping at the latest thing and running full-throttle without facts or introspection.
Check, double-check. If something looks “too good to be true”, check the source, think about how it might be biased, and how that bias might effect how you see it. Look for alternative explanations, try to find contrary evidence.
See if the story has secondary sources; check the links to see that they say what you are told, and if it’s about a story, try google to get the actual news article of the story from when it first happened.
And always remember that everybody is biased. People interpret things as they want to see them. Trust your own eyes, but not necessarily how you interpret what you are seeing. It is much better to have an iron-clad attack against your enemy tomorrow, than a half-assed attempt today that backfires.