Look! A Bear! With No Name!
Doug Mataconis and Glenn Greenwald smack a couple of CNN spokesmodels around for badmouthing “anonymous internet bloggers” in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod pogrom. And they’re not wrong! But neither of them notes what I find the really galling misdirection perpetrated here: Andrew Breitbart is a lot of things, but “anonymous” is none of them. The Sherrod lie got as far as it did because, in CNN-spokesmodel circles, Breitbart is a celebrity. A trusted brand. That’s why everyone from the Emm Ess Emm to the Obama administration jumped on the lie so quickly. It’s as if CNN spokesmodels reacted to the news of the murder of Sherrod’s father by a white farmer by explaining to their audience that, “This really shows the danger of violent Negroes.”
Comment by dissident —
July 24, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
Just another reason CNN is last place.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 24, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
If there is any good that will come out of this, it will be that no rational news outlet will make the mistake of trusting anything that comes from biggovernment.com or treating it as a legitimate news outlet. Of course, reporters make mistakes. We are human, and we work under sometimes intense deadline pressure. We probably sometimes do a poor job of summarizing long speeches. But no one can argue that the Breitbart story was an honest attempt to summarize what Sherrod really said. It was clearly malicious, and I’d be surprised if it didn’t generate a lawsuit.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 24, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Tom Jackson,
You’re right. Breitbart will be just as discredited as Bill Kristol, and nobody will ever take him seriously again.
Oh, wait.
Comment by Anticorium —
July 24, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Alternate punchline: “rational news outlet”, cue laugh track.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 24, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
If Anticorium can’t see any difference between Biggovernment.com and, say, nytimes.com, perhaps he should read more carefully. This is ignorance disguised as cynicism.
Comment by Anticorium —
July 24, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
Tell me more about how all rational news outlets will treat Andrew Breitbart as poison now that it has come out that he will try to gin up false controversy through releasing selectively-edited video that makes his opponents look bad, Tom.
One condition, though. Your answer must include the words “James O’Keefe”.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 24, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
Perhaps I’m naive — I’m the kind of guy who posts under my real name, rather than taking cheap shots under a phony one — but I think there ARE honest, conscientious reporters out there who will be shaken by this and worry about what just happened.
Comment by Anticorium —
July 24, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
I’m sorry, what was that about James O’Keefe?
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 24, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
Tom Jackson: The problem with your speculation is that it doesn’t take into account what happened the last time Breitbart pushed calculatedly dishonest videos intended to disgrace some prominent minorities and white folks working with them. That is, not a damn thing.
The history of the ACORN fraud clearly had nada, zip, zero influence on anyone in media or political power who might have said, “Hold on, we know this guy lies and champions fellow liars, let’s just see some independent verification before we do anything at all.” So the question would be, why would two clear instances of lying matter when one didn’t at all?
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 24, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Bruce:
It matters because if “two clear instances” don’t get someone’s attention, nothing will. I’m not predicting this instance will cause a revolution in the news business. I’m suggesting that there are responsible journalists, and that this will generate discussion among them.
Incidentally, focusing on just Breitbart and his minions barely scratches the surface on the amount of time, money and manpower devoted to manipulating journalists for political purposes. I cover politics and business. The stuff I get from political parties is far more manipulative and misleading than what I get from businesses, for example.
Comment by 4jkb4ia —
July 24, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
Glenn’s takedown was superb but this is what I thought of first. I now realize that it is depressing that these anchors care more about circling the wagons against bloggers than holding Andrew Breitbart up to public accountability.
Comment by Chris Quinones —
July 25, 2010 @ 12:08 am
Rather than pile on Tom Jackson, whose optimism I wish I shared, I just want to thank Jim for calling CNN staff “spokesmodels.” Actually, I think this describes S*r*h P*l*n and other empty-suit political bigwigs even better, but it’s an apt epithet for this lot too.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 25, 2010 @ 12:36 am
Tom, I’m going to guess here that there are very few actually thoughtful journalists who weren’t already on guard about Breitbart’s lies. I’ve been seeing comments about his methodology and habits for months, at least, and I assume that I’m not alone in this. Clearly there are good reporters (and editors and other folks in the biz) – I’m not trying to deny their reality, or worth. I’m mostly doubting that there’s anyone who both needed to get a clue about Breitbart and who will because of this.
Pingback by Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch —
July 25, 2010 @ 3:29 am
[...] UPDATE II: Jim Henley notes the other strange aspect of this whole episode: Phillips and Roberts used the fraudulent Shirley Sherrod video as their jumping off point to attack “anonymous bloggers,” but, as Henley says: ”Andrew Breitbart is a lot of things, but ‘anonymous’ is none of them. The Sherrod lie got as far as it did because, in CNN-spokesmodel circles, Breitbart is a celebrity. A trusted brand. That’s why everyone from the Emm Ess Emm to the Obama administration jumped on the lie so quickly.” Indeed, the Sherrod episode negates rather than bolsters the point about anonymity which the CNN readers thought they were making, since the primary culprit in that fraud used his real name. [...]
Comment by Thoreau —
July 25, 2010 @ 7:50 am
The question is not whether your average journalist in the trenches will take Breitbart seriously in the future. The question is whether Breitbart will still be able to get in front of a camera and have an anchor give him his 2 minutes to make his case before saying “Well, thank you so much for appearing with us today.”
We live in a country where purveyors of utter bullshit are allowed in front of cameras to peddle their bullshit in the name of balance. A person can go in front of a camera and argue for torture and indefinite detention without trial, and rather than saying “WTF?” the anchor will simply say “Thank you so much for appearing on our show.” We live in a country where G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North are taken seriously.
Why should we think that an utterly discredited person won’t find an anchor willing to give him 2 minutes? All of the other reporters may be screaming when they see him, but he’ll get his 2 minutes if he makes it good and gets ratings.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 25, 2010 @ 10:09 am
Bruce and Thoureau,
I don’t really see a lot to disagree with here, but I can’t resist a couple of other thoughts.
“We live in a country where G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North are taken seriously.” Uh, we live in a country where all points of view are represented. This can have good results as well as bad — occasionally someone I actually agree with leaks through.
Also, does everyone in this country really get their news from TV? I look at the papers, listen to NPR during my commute and check online news sources and look at blogs such as UO. Am I really such an anomaly? Does Thoreau watch TV news for hours?
Bruce — There’s been a lot of discussion about Sherrod and Breitbart. I don’t know how much good it will do — see, I’m listening! — but it can’t hurt.
Comment by Kolohe —
July 25, 2010 @ 10:15 am
And as others has said, making CNN the *central* villain in this, is like making Judith Miller the *central* villain for OIF. Contrary to what they themselves sometimes seem to believe, the fourth estate has no executive authority.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 25, 2010 @ 10:31 am
Tom: TV does have a large audience, and don’t underestimate the influence of Fox’s success in getting themselves installed with exclusivity clauses in so many public places – lobbies, gyms, and the like. Even if you think there’s at best a weak correlation between what you hear repeated all the time and what you end up thinking yourself, it adds up and pushes on all the movable margins.
Comment by rem —
July 25, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Breitbart is a liar and a joke.
End of story.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 25, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
One oddity of this discussion is that everyone, myself included, is talking exclusively about the news media, as if news consumers don’t have any responsibility in this. Thoreau is rightly disgusted by Bill Kristol, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, etc., but who turns these guys into stars? Who listens to them, and treats them as sources of information?
My fantasy is to walk by the TV set when CNN is on and see Jim Henley. It would happen, if enough people read this blog. I’ve linked to it from two of my blogs.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 25, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
Does Thoreau watch TV news for hours?
I used to flip through news channels a lot. Then I got disgusted and stopped. Now when I want something on in the background it’s usually Food Network. Much better for my blood pressure, but hell on my cholesterol level.
Comment by Barry —
July 25, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
thoreau: “We live in a country where G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North are taken seriously.”
Tom Jackson:
“Uh, we live in a country where all points of view are represented. This can have good results as well as bad — occasionally someone I actually agree with leaks through.”
Yeah, right – that’s why so many opponents of the Iraq War were on TV beforehand, and even now, long after they were proven correct.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 25, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
Again, Barry, I wouldn’t know because I don’t get my news from TV.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 25, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
Tom Jackson is right. Breitbart is toast. Nobody’s going to pick up anything from him again, outside the far-right echo chamber.
Bill Kristol never got blasted by the media the way Breitbart is being blasted, Thoreau. They’re making him into an object of scorn in a way that Kristol never was.
Kristol is wrong about everything, but he’s never been caught out like this.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 25, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
O’Keefe and Breitbart didn’t get caught out for their dishonesty over the ACORN video until weeks or months afterwards. In this case, Breitbart got caught the very same day his blog post went up, thus making sure that the refutation was part of the big, initial media circus.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 25, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Not to mention – getting back to the original topic of the post – Breitbart, unlike Bill Kirstol, is a dirty blogger.
And not just any dirty blogger – a particularly dirty blogger who did exactly what the Oh So Serious, Adult News Media thinks bloggers do. He was grossly biased, his facts were garbage, he was dishonest in their presentation, he was sloppy and quick and didn’t check his sources…he behaved like the stereotype of what the O So Serious, Adult News Media thinks bloggers are like.
He’s toast in the real media.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 25, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Not to mention – getting back to the original topic of the post – Breitbart, unlike Bill Kirstol, is a dirty blogger.
And not just any dirty blogger – a particularly dirty blogger who did exactly what the Oh So Serious, Adult News Media thinks bloggers do. He was grossly biased, his facts were garbage, he was dishonest in their presentation, he was sloppy and quick and didn’t check his sources…he behaved like the stereotype of what the O So Serious, Adult News Media thinks bloggers are like.
He’s toast in the real media.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 25, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
Tom Jackson is right. Breitbart is toast. Nobody’s going to pick up anything from him again, outside the far-right echo chamber.
The question is, what happens if the right-wing echo chamber picks something up and demands that it be treated seriously? I know that Breitbart will not be able to get immediate MSM respect for anything, but if Fox runs with it, will the rest of the media give it attention?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 25, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
“You want us to run another Breitbart story?”
In a year or two, he will have been found civilly liable for slander in at least one, maybe two, cases. These nooz networks are businesses. They’re not going to expose themselves like that.
Comment by Glaivester —
July 25, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
This is comletely different than the ACORN story. There was lots of congratulatory coverage, and plenty of people still believe the story.
The Shirley Sherrod thing, anyone who knows about it knows that the recording was altered misleadingly.
This will blemish anything that Breitbart says in the future.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 25, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
I really hope you’re right, joe.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
July 26, 2010 @ 8:17 am
I remember when Breitbart was brought in to speak to Reason staffers about how to better utilize the web. And then when staffers worked to curry his favor so he’d post some Reason story in DrudgeReport, and then how Mike Flynn, formerly of Reason, went to “edit” BigGovernment.com, and then how Reason featured Flynn on one of its Reason TV episodes.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 26, 2010 @ 11:20 am
I really hope you’re right, joe.
Sadly, no.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 26, 2010 @ 11:39 am
Uncle Kvetch,
To be fair to joe, he predicted that major media outlets other than Fox won’t take Breitbart seriously. He didn’t predict that GOP fundraisers wouldn’t take Breitbart seriously.
However, when a party establishment takes Breitbart seriously, it will be interesting to see if major media outlets have the gumption to ignore him.
Let’s hope that joe is right when that test happens.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 26, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Fair enough, Thoreau (and joe) — it wasn’t meant as a zing as joe. I just don’t see any basis for his optimism.
Breitbart’s got zazz. People either adore him or loathe him, and that means ratings. If you think the calculations at the cable news networks extend any further than these simple truths, I have to ask where you were and what you were doing during the last few years of the 1990s….
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 26, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
Breitbart was scheduled for that event months ago.
Let’s see how this plays out.
Comment by albatross —
July 26, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
I wonder how hard it will be to find another Breitbart, and to fashion some kind of covering story to justify why the current one was Borked and so deserves a sinecure at some think-tank, from which he can continue his hard-hitting, politically-incorrect reporting on the world.
Comment by Barry —
July 26, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Tom Jackson — July 25, 2010 @ 6:25 pm “Again, Barry, I wouldn’t know because I don’t get my news from TV.”
You forgot to close your pretentious a-hole tag.
(sorry, Jim, Thoreau, but this guy’s either a fool or dishonest)
Comment by dhex —
July 27, 2010 @ 9:35 am
he’s not wrong, though. you know things are bad when the best thing on all morning (besides bloomberg) is zignev brzenewski…zbignev brzienski…(gives up and looks it up on wikipedia)…is zb giving a measured defense of the hideous realities of government force.
the rest of it is being yelled at by idiots of the beckmaddowian axis or, if you’re lucky, some kind of small market show that caters to your belief system (democracy now or maybe some jesus programming or, uh, other things?)
no doubt the future will be filled with breitbarts, just as the past was. agitprop isn’t going anywhere because, as noted, it works.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 27, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
beckmaddowian axis
I’m sure you have your own perfectly cromulent reasons for pretending that Beck and Maddow are mirror images of each other…but that doesn’t stop it from being bullshit.
Have you actually watched both shows, or do you just take the word of the commenters at IOZ about this kind of thing?
Comment by dhex —
July 27, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
i’ve watched about the same amount of both (an hour or so total).
it is an hour lost to the sands of time. alas.
anyway, if i were to wrap the 700 club up with, say, creflo dollar, would you complain? they’re vastly different in many respects, different audiences, different rhetorical approaches, etc.
plus you gotta admit that “beckmaddowian axis” sounds fucking amazing. even as a professional neologistician i amaze myself sometimes.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 27, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
it is an hour lost to the sands of time. alas.
Fair enough. I honestly can’t argue with that.
FWIW, I watch Maddow on occasion because my partner is a big fan and I’m too lazy to get my ass off the couch and do something more productive. And I think she’s a damn sight better than most in terms of both style and substance, even if you don’t agree with her politics: she’s whip-smart, and her light ‘n’ snarky approach is a perfect foil to Olbermann’s ponderous earnestness.
And in marked contrast to Glenn Beck, the person she plays on TV is, from all appearances, sane.
But when you get right down to it, it’s still 60 minutes devoted to the excruciating daily minutiae of the entertainment arm of the military-industrial complex, and we all have better things to do with our time.
plus you gotta admit that “beckmaddowian axis” sounds fucking amazing.
I wouldn’t go that far, no. But yeah, it’s good.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 27, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
dhex coined “Generation Veal.” He’s allowed to conflate whatever he wants to conflate, as long as the neologism sounds awesome.
So I have blogged. So it shall be done.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 27, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
dhex coined “Generation Veal.” He’s allowed to conflate whatever he wants to conflate, as long as the neologism sounds awesome.
Well, consider me schooled. “Generation Veal” is pure awesome.
Comment by Tom Jackson —
July 27, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
“You forgot to close your pretentious a-hole tag.
(sorry, Jim, Thoreau, but this guy’s either a fool or dishonest)”
This blog sure isn’t Marginal Revolution.
Comment by Chuck C —
July 27, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
“Look! A Bear! With No Name!”
Has it been through a desert?
Comment by Allyn Isidore —
July 28, 2010 @ 7:29 am
Good article dude Thank you
Pingback by Les blogueurs anonymes sont “une bande de lâches” selon CNN » Article » OWNI_Live!, —
August 2, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
[...] Breitbart n’est pas anonyme, et même plutôt célèbre dans le milieu politico-médiatique souligne Jim Henley. “L’anonymat n’a rien à voir du tout avec l’incident” critique [...]