The White House has apolgized, Visack has apologized. Well, good for them. Sherrod has been offer a new job at the Ag Dept.
But the basic cancer of lying right wing character assassination as a variant of gotcha-ism remains unaddressed.
Breitbart remains a hero on the right. David Frum reports on the reactions of the right. Click through his links to find lots of well-deserved condemnation of the Obama administration for their callous treatment of this innocent woman. As for Breitbart . . . pretty much crickets.
When Dan Rather succumbed to the forged Bush war record hoax in 2004, CBS forced him into retirement. Breitbart is the conservative Dan Rather, but there will be no discredit, no resignation for him.
Instead, conservatives are consumed with a new snippets-out-of-context uproar, the latest round of JournoList quotations. Here at last is proof of the cynical machinations of the hated liberal media! As to the cynical machinations of conservative media — well, as the saying goes, the fish never notices the water through which it swims.
.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/tny_au_xx_usoz_4.gif)
9 comments:
I find it interesting that "liberals" feel they must defend the B.O. Administration, and/or bureaucrats at any cost, especially an Admin. which has dedicated more money to the DoD than even BushCo, staffed an economic team with people from G-sachs and the Clinton de-reg crew, dedicated billions to the bank bailout, etc.
The Sherrod fiasco was another media soap opera, jzb, on all sides. I don't care for Breitbarts sort of rightist-media hacks and satire, but does that mean we have to approve of Sherrod, just another Fed. hack? I think not. For that matter, it's a free country, sort of. Though objecting to Breitbart's...content, in a way he's expressing himself, even if in a stupid or ugly manner. The Left, or pseudo-Left loves satire (peruse dKos), except when it's directed at them. Even Chomsky sort of gets that: allowing dissent means you allow even Breitfart's hamfisted parodies....along with dKos or SNL. If the soccer mommy Dems had their way, there'd be no Breitbarts OR SNL. (Breitbart's at least not Glenn Beck with his daily sentimental idiocy)
Modern DINOs also forget that the counterculture was not about supporting say LBJ or Humphrey in '68 (or Nixon), or even unionist Demos. They were considered only slightly less evil than Nixon/Kissinger. The Demos are guilty, jzb--corrupt, smarmy corporate puercos (and 2/3 supported the war, anyway), even if not quite as guilty as repugs .
J -
Was I insufficiently harsh in my criticism of Obama and Vilsack? Did you see me defending any part of B. Hoover Obama's Bushian track record? Have I mislead you into thinking I'm in love with Obama, or any of them?
Let me disabuse you of that mistaken notion. Their spineless knee jerk cowardice at the mere threat of being criticized by the insane asshat Glenn Beck panicked them into firing a good person.
That is despicable, and beneath contempt.
Truth is, I'm no fan of Dems. But they really, truly are not as bad as the Rethugs. That is the one and only thing they've got going for them.
You can call Sharrod just another fed hack if you like, but I'm not sure what you would base that on. BTW, IMHO, the unsung villain in this set piece is her immediate supervisor, who should have gone to the mat to prevent her firing.
And the point, re: Breitbart is not the use of satire. It is making libelous shit up for nefarious political purposes. And if someone's life gets ruined - well, that's just collateral damange.
This is not ham-fisted parody. It is going out of your way to needlessly harm another human being, and that is my definition of evil.
And freedom OF speech does not imply freedom FROM being criticized, pilloried and called to account for your words. Actions have consequences. Or at least they ought to.
Libel is a crime, Breitbart is scum,
and WASF,
JzB
Well, is Breitbart a reporter, or a satirist of a sort? He's an entertainer, though for the right of course. When SNL miscontrues/lampoons a Palin, or Bush, etc they bend the truth, and in effect commit libel as well. The ACORN office bit (which Breitbart was behind) was a bit much, but it's amazing that the ACORN staff people didn't ask for credentials, etc before allowing them in the offices (in some areas, they supposedly did..that is, if we know the truth at all).
Satire may be ugly, but not really libel--and let's not forget we live in an Orwellian world. I trust Foxnews no more or no less than CBS or MSNBC,CNN, etc. even if the mainstream networks have a cute PC veneer....(and a Katie Couric..or I imagine Ms Maddow makes millions of shekels more than any Fox hack, be assured of that...).
you are correct insofar that Sherrod's supervisor was the spineless one. A few stupid remarks by Beck or Breitbart and they terminate her. Odd. But it had a happy ending, Jzb! Apparently at least.
Really, it may have been completely orchestrated as far as Consumerland knows, like a "distraction meme"--taking attention away from BP (another Demopublican affair, tho' the Demos forget that), the economy, the supreme court hearings, Afghan, etc. You can never be too paranoid.....
We have apples and road apples here. Satire on SNL - or Rachel's show, for that matter - is clearly satire.
Breitbart is a political commentator, he presented his libel as fact, and he has a hot line to Fox Noise, which picks up his lies and reports them as truth.
And if you don't trust Fox less than the real MSM news outlets, you are making a severe error in judgment.
BTW, my comment about Sharrod's immediate superior in no way lessens the culpability of anyone above her - all the way up to the Prez.
The Rethugs are all about distraction - they don't have anything real to offer. I don't think the dems are playing that game - at least not in this instance. They came of looking really, really bad.
Alas,
JzB
Defending corporate media and the government, Jzb, either way.
Breitbart's no different than Rachel Maddow, or Couric or Olbermann. All wealthy media-celebrities, working for massive conglomerates. And we don't know the truth.
Question Authoritay as they said in 60s. That didn't mean just GOP authority, but any statist or industrial authority, including the Demos (and believe me, I know quite a bit about the CA-DEMs. You wouldn't like to know the truth.)
I'm with you on questioning authority, Dem, Repug, Tory or Whig.
But saying the liar Breitbart is no different from Rachel or Olberman, or indeed anyone with the slightest shred of human decency is reckless and foolish. None of the commentators on the left have ever lied to me - ever. Not Kieth, not Rachel, not Thom Hartman, not Rabid Randi. I learn tings from these people - they're smart and they do their homework.
There is a huge difference. Go back to what I said about lying in the first place. It's simple, but profound.
JzB
I doubt that, but I don't watch MSM, whether the Foxnews clowns, or MS-NBC tearjerkers; I can stand about a total of approx. 12 hours a year of TeeVee (one hour a month! yay). Breitbart's more like a producer--unsavory one, to be sure-- than a pundit anyway.
Maddow for one often sounds about pretty conservative, and some of us around Ellay remember Olbermann when he was a coked-out broadcaster like in early 90s (and hardly the bleeding heart liberal...they must pay him good). But compare and contrast say Viacom (CBS/Columbia just one of their holdings) vs the company that owns Fox. Goliath and David ( again that's not to defend Fox, but they're hardly the media empire that Viacom is).
I think we're talking past each other. But you raise a point about Olberman.
He's not a bleeding heart liberal. He might not be liberal at all.
But you don't have to be to hate everything about the Bush administration, former candidate McShame, who never has held a principled position on any issue, but votes 100% against veteran's benefits, the vacuuous no-nothing Palin, Dr's Paul the greater and lesser, and the ignorant racist idiots in the tea party.
From what I've gathered - not much, really - Olberman is a prick. But he's fighting the good fight against the most heinous of the right wing organizations and corporations.
I think he's doing good and important work. Why his corporate overlords let him is anybody's guess. Maybe his ratings are good.
If you think Maddow sounds conservative, you need to get your ears cleaned.
Viacom is huge, but multi-faceted. Murdoch's NewsCorp is big enough, and has a single, tightly-focused purpose - right wing regressionist propaganda, and they are damned good at it.
Which is part of why WASF,
JzB
Post a Comment