Fox News Watchdog

There’s nothing shocking or surprising about the latest Andrew Breitbart scam in which he released selectively-edited video of an African American USDA worker, Shirley Sherrod, and accused her of racism against a white farmer couple, the Spooners. That’s not to suggest we shouldn’t be vigorously talking about it. We absolutely should be. But the most outrageous aspects of the story are fairly typical of everyone involved: Breitbart, the so-called “liberal” news media, Democrats, Fox News Channel and all points in between.

For background purposes, it’s important to note that Andrew Breitbart is an attention-whore who is desperate to emulate his mentor, Matt Drudge, and this isn’t the first time he’s released misleading videotape “evidence” of African Americans behaving badly (or so he claims) in order to drive traffic to his various websites while augmenting his status as a player in the modern conservative movement. He previously engaged in the same chicanery when he released heavily edited and ultimately phony Jackass-style videos in which, he alleges, ACORN workers had given inappropriate advice to a (fake) pimp and a (fake) prostitute who were, among other things, seeking to engage in human trafficking. The videos turned out to be misleading at best, and the fake pimp character went on to plead guilty to charges of entering federal property under false pretense.

Breitbart scammed nearly everyone on the ACORN videos including people who should have known better, like, for example, Jon Stewart.

Breitbart has done it again. This time, he’s flimflammed the White House, the NAACP and the traditional news media.

None of this is a particularly big shocker, of course. This is what Breitbart does. He’s another Karl Rove type in that his entire modus operandi is to tangle the debate — to be an instigator. To kerfuffle everyone he engages until the discourse has become so confused, skewed and tangential that he’s able to walk away more or less unscathed while the targets of his regularly scheduled crusades are often damaged beyond repair. ACORN is a national pariah. And this week, a decent woman is out of a job.

By the way, also not shocking here is the fact that, once again, the far-right is targeting someone who is more or less a noncombatant. This isn’t the first time far-right operatives, bloggers or Fox News hosts have targeted people who aren’t participants in bigtime political discourse and who certainly don’t have the wherewithal to defend themselves against, in the case of Fox News, one of the largest media organizations in the world.

These aren’t fair fights. The far-right media has previously targeted schools, small town school administrators and, more times than I can count, children — often outing the geographic locations of these victims. And now, Breitbart and Fox News can add a notch in their pitchforks and torches for Shirley Sherrod, a low level government worker who did nothing wrong and who didn’t deserve to lose her job or to undergo this kind of media scrutiny.

What a coup, Breitbart. Who’s next? The assistant to the deputy undersecretary for paper clips and doodads?

Yesterday, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Margaret Carlson, who is normally one of the more measured and smart analysts on MSNBC, was aghast at the edited video of Sherrod’s speech. Carlson compared Sherrod to disgraced tea party leader Mark Williams and exclaimed, “It’s every bit as hateful [as the New Black Panther video]. Look at that woman! I mean, aren’t you ashamed?”

It’s possible, however unlikely, that the Morning Joe crew and Carlson were unaware of who released the tape. But at some point, journalistic instincts and restraint ought to kick in when it comes to a random videotape excerpt from a previously unknown speaker. Instead, the panel, like the White House and the NAACP, were outraged by Sherrod’s out of context remarks without bothering to investigate the source of the video and whether that source was credible. Today, on Morning Joe, Mark Whitaker and Mark Halperin were quick to indict the president while ignoring the initial media hysteria around the video. Halperin went so far as to warn the Democrats of repercussions in the midterms. Repercussions from whom? African Americans? It comes as no surprise that Halperin didn’t warn of repercussions against either Breitbart or his co-conspirator Fox News Channel.

And this will all happen again. Why? Because the traditional news media and, to a certain extent, the Democrats including the president, are too easily cowed by right-wing freakouts.

In fact, it’s happening again as I write this.

As near as I can ascertain, every cable news reporter covering this story is taking Breitbart at his word that he received the Sherrod video pre-edited and that he hadn’t seen the full speech until after he published his irresponsible, masturbatory screed — as though Breitbart still has credibility. This scam artist is going around to every camera he can find and suggesting that his “source” only sent him the so-called “racist” part of the video, but not the full Sherrod speech. And no one is challenging him on this, or even asking him whether he himself edited the video to take out of context the remarks about helping the Spooners. This hack just engaged in yet another scam in which he duped the traditional press, and yet the traditional press is taking his mea culpa — his “but… but… but…” at face value.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and the NAACP kneejerked as soon as the Breitbart story broke and almost immediately demanded that Sherrod resign her post.

One of the reasons I so vocally and enthusiastically endorsed and supported the Obama campaign was because he seemed like a new and different kind of Democrat. Someone who wouldn’t collapse under pressure from the wingnut right. Sure, he spoke a lot about bipartisan cooperation, but I never got the impression the president would easily succumb to the crazies. While I still believe he’s a new kind of Democrat, I’m not entirely confident in his ability to call bullshit on the bullshitters and stand by his team in a fight. Too many good people have been too easily jettisoned because of loud noises from Fox News and AM radio. I get this idea of picking one’s battles, but this was an easily winnable fight and they still caved.

Though I’m not sure this is a trait reserved for Democratic politicians alone. Almost since I began writing this column, friends, commenters and colleagues have suggested that we simply ignore attacks from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Drudge. If we constantly fire back, they say, then we’re only increasing the visibility of the usual suspects and welcoming a counterattack. Last week, Dave Weigel, a reporter who I normally admire, advised that we avoid the debate about the tea party and racism because it invites a “backlash” from the right. It’s baffling to me that so many otherwise smart people would want to walk away from injustices like these simply to avoid the subsequent loud noises from the right. This attitude is what helped to marginalize and weaken liberals and progressives for too many years. An unwillingness to fight.

It’s a shame because there’s a broader point here and a growing misperception about racial bigotry circulating around the conventional wisdom. While I’m sure anyone could track down examples of anti-white bigotry by African Americans, I’m also sure if you tried hard enough you could also track down gnat shit in a pepper shaker. In other words, yes, there are black people who dislike and distrust white people because of race. Much of that hatred has to do with 300 years of slavery and Jim Crow laws — scars that haven’t yet healed, and understandably so.

But to suggest there’s an equivalency here, or systemic harm from anti-white bigotry is laughable. African Americans are 12.4 percent of the U.S. population (not the commonly and inaccurately repeated 30 percent). Whites are 75 percent of the population. To listen to the tea party or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, you’d think whites were a meek and defenseless minority being crushed under the boot of a powerful black majority.

Even if Sherrod’s remarks were flat out racist (they weren’t), and even if her remarks were representative of the views of most blacks and the NAACP, it’s numerically impossible for the sum total of 12.4 percent of the population to oppress 75 percent of the population. There’s no way. In short: there is no threat of widespread anti-white bigotry. None. Sure, we have an African American president. But the vast majority of the American government is white. President Obama is the first black president out of 44. The U.S. Senate is widely and disproportionately white (and male). There’s one African American member of the Supreme Court, and he’s a Republican. I’ll stop here because it’s absurd that I have to enumerate the minority status of African Americans in government leadership when it ought to be obvious to anyone with a brain — even if the brain resides under a pointy white hood.

And now, Breitbart is using some sort of hamfisted logic to insist that he proved his point about the alleged hypocrisy of the NAACP’s resolution regarding the tea party and race. (Breitbart also accused the white farmer couple, the Spooners, of being plants.)

If, in fact, Breitbart’s agenda was seriously more than just satisfying his own narcissism — if his agenda was to seriously point out anti-white bigotry among black people, he was doomed to fail. Partly because his lies were easily and quickly exposed by CNN, and because there’s no threat whatsoever from anti-white bigotry. In order to prove a point and to defend the tea party, the only evidence of anti-white bigotry he could find within the NAACP was a speech by an obscure government worker from Georgia, and the speech turned out to be a speech in opposition to anti-white bigotry.

Somehow in Breitbart’s twisted gourd this is equivalent to tea party leaders engaging in Southern Strategy politics, race-baiting and, in the case of Dale Robertson and Mark Williams, outright racism — this deliberately misleading videotape of a virtually unknown official is equivalent to Rush Limbaugh’s constant racial stereotyping or members of Congress validating the Birthers or the wide variety of racist mailers and rally signs.

Breitbart has only succeeded in underscoring how much of a buffoon he is. But somehow he managed to sell his buffoonery to the news media, to the NAACP and to the White House who, by their cowardice, only managed to empower him, making it more likely he’ll keep trying. I wonder who will be fired and disgraced next. Unless there are serious changes, it certainly won’t be the operatives responsible for these hoaxes.

Listen to the Bob & Elvis Show podcast. New episodes every Thursday!

Read more: Shirley Sherrod Andrew Breitbart, Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Acorn, Naacp Tea Party Racism, Shirley Sherrod, Matt Drudge, Racism, Fox News, Barack Obama Race, Tea Party, Naacp, Politics News

Go to Source
Go to News Feed

Fox News spent much of July 19 and 20 ginning up controversy about the false claim that Shirley Sherrod made racist remarks at a NAACP meeting earlier this year. As the claim unraveled, Fox media personalities disappeared their role in the story, continued to smear her as “descriminat[ory]” in the face of contradictory evidence, and boldly suggested the network did not contribute to the controversy.

Fox’s initial reaction: “Racist” Sharrod “must
resign”

O’Reilly: “Sherrod must resign,” her
remarks are “unacceptable.” On the July 19 edition
of his show, Bill O’Reilly played the edited portion of the tape and said “that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign
immediately.” He also falsely claimed that “the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod’s
remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com.”

Hannity called Sherrod’s remarks “[j]ust the
latest in a series of racial incitents,” called for the NAACP to be “held to account” to repudiate
Sherrod. On the July 19 edition
of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asserted that Sherrod’s comments were “[j]ust
the latest in a series of racial incidents,” and stated that “So it’s
interesting that it took the new media to expose this.” He also asked Newt
Gingrigh if, “in light of the NAACP accusing the Tea Party of being a racist
movement last week,” he thought “the NAACP should be held to account for the
very standard they were demanding from the Tea Party.”

Perino: “This video adds fuel to a growing
controversy after the NAACP” asked the tea party to denounce racists.
On the July 19 edition
of On the Record, Dana Perino
suggested Sherrod’s remarks were racist, saying that “The video adds fuel to a
growing controversy after the NAACP approved a resolution condemning the tea
party movement for not denouncing racist members.”

Doocy: Sherrod “sure sounded racist,”
is “[e]xhibit A” of “what racism looks like.” On the July 19
edition
of Fox &
Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said that Sherrod made “a speech to the
NAACP that sure sounded racist.” Later, after guest-host Ailysn Camerota
asserted that Sherrod’s remarks are “outrageous and perhaps everybody needs a
refresher course on what racism looks like,” Doocy responded that Sherrod’s
comments are “Exhibit A.”

Beck plays “videotape of USDA
administration official discriminating against white farmers.”
On the July 20
edition of his radio show, Beck says that they
“have videotape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white
farmers.” He then asks, “Have we suddenly transported into 1956 except it’s the
other way around? … Does anybody else have a sense that there are some that just
want revenge? Doesn’t it feel that way?” After playing the audio of the tape,
Beck says, “You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that.”

After the
tide turned: Fox “didn’t even do” the Sherrod story

Bret Baier absurdly claims Fox News
“didn’t even do” the Sherrod story. On the July 20 edition of
Special Report, Bret Baier
claimed “Fox News didn’t even do the story, we didn’t do it on Special Report, we posted it online.”

Beck on Fox: “Based on the facts that we have
right now, this is something that I wouldn’t air and demand a resignation on.”
On the July 20
edition of this Fox News show, Beck stated:
“I don’t think Shirley should have been fired — or, I’m sorry, forced to
resign. Based on the facts that we have right now, this is something that I
wouldn’t air and demand a resignation on.” He added that he “wouldn’t air” the
tape because “context
matters.”

Doocy on Sherrod: “What
was the big hurry for them to condemn her in the first place?” On the July 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Dana Perino and Steve
Doocy falsely
asserted that, in Perino’s words, “before the news even broke, she had
resigned.” Perino then stated that “everyone’s nerves are raw and exposed on
these racial questions, and I think we should all look before we leap.” Doocy
then stated: “What was the big hurry for them to condemn her in the first place?
I don’t get it, because the totality of what she said was out there.”

Rosen: “Did the White House
essentially railroad an innocent woman in this?” On the July
20 edition of Fox News’ Happening Now, James Rosen reported that
the additional context from Sherrod’s speech “appeared to corroborate” her
statement that she was telling the story of “how she came to see beyond race,”
and then asked: “Did the White House essentially railroad an innocent woman in
this because they are on edge themselves because of the Van Jones controversy,
the Black Panthers Party case, and other controversies?

The holdouts: Sherrod was still “discriminating” against
the farmer

Hannity doubles down, says Sherrod “still admits
discriminating,” suggested he’s unfairly “getting blamed.” On
the July 20 edition of
his show Hannity asserted that “She still admits
that she was
discriminating against this white farmer.” He added that “I’m getting blamed
and Fox News is getting blamed, but it’s the White House that made the decision before we ever aired the tape.”

O’Reilly’s ignores context, still
claims “What [Sherrod] said is ridiculous.” On the July 20
edition of his show, O’Reilly was still claiming
that “What [Sherrod] said is ridiculous,” and stated the real story is “the news
blackout” on the Sherrod story, and how “the establishment press tilts left and
is reluctant to do damage to a very liberal president.”

Go to Source
Go to News Feed

The Republican candidate for governor of New York says his Democrat opponent, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, is playing to his liberal voter base by refusing to open an inquiry into plans to build a mosque near ground zero.

Go to Source
Go to News Feed

A group of liberal journalists in 2008 sought to sweep under the rug the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal that threatened to derail then-Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller, an online publication.

Go to Source
Go to News Feed

If you have an unholy addiction to Fox News, you might have seen the nonstop editorializing about the Justice Department and the New Black Panther Party incident in 2008. According to Fox, the bipartisan independent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been investigating the allegations, lending an aura of credibility to what would otherwise be the splenetic ventings of a former Bush hire in the Department of Justice.

As a Commissioner since 2005, I can attest that there is nothing independent or bipartisan about the Commission. In the past three years, the Commission has come out in favor of ending all government minority business programs, railed against school desegregation, sat on its hands during the extension of the Voting Rights Act, advocated for the gutting of Title IX programs in college, and, most recently, decreed that elite universities only admit elite students — a backdoor, and wrongheaded characterization of affirmative action admissions policies.

So it should come as no surprise that a minor incident in a single precinct in 2008 has been elevated by the Commission’s right wing as a wedge race issue for the 2010 mid-term elections.

Here are the unvarnished facts: The New Black Panther Party is a fringe, racist organization of a few hundred individuals nationwide. Two of their members engaged in what can charitably be termed a misguided attempt at voter intimidation or protection (they were standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia with a 95% African American voter base, so it’s not exactly clear what they were trying to do, and I don’t think they knew either). One carried a nightstick. Poll watchers inside the polling place did not report anyone commenting positive or negatively on their presence. However, several white McCain election monitors arrived on the scene, one with a videocam (that went straight to YouTube) and a verbal confrontation ensued. Aside from that contretemps, however, no voters were intimidated, no voters complained, and, in fact, the Panthers were gone well before noon after the police arrived and asked them to leave. Later, the Bush Administration DoJ charged the two and the national leader of the Panthers with a Voting Rights Act Section 11(b) voter intimidation charge, which allows Justice to request an injunction against them. When the Obama Administration took over, a decision was made to only proceed against the idiot with the nightstick and dismiss the charges against the others.

Somehow, the decision to dismiss the remaining charges has become Exhibit A in the indictment against the Obama Administration as proof that there exists a double standard in protecting the voting rights of blacks versus the voting rights of white.

The only proof that this vast left-wing conspiracy exists comes from a conservative Republican activist named J. Christian Adams, who was a staff attorney in DoJ until about a month ago. Adams was one of the new hires made by the scandal-plagued Bush DoJ, in which two separate independent reports found that hiring inside DoJ and the Civil Rights Division was plagued by illegal consideration of ideological and political grounds. Adams, who while at Justice continued to attack President Obama in public writings, alleges that individuals within Justice have made statements that they are not interested in protecting the voting rights of whites.

It should be noted that there is zero — repeat, zero — substantiation of his claims by anyone who was not part of the tainted hiring and promotion process within the Bush Justice Department. And there is certainly zero — again, repeat, zero — claims that anyone has come forward with a complaint that the rights of white voters have been violated and ignored by DoJ.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the Bush DoJ, both before and including the time that Adams claims he was a nonpartisan prosecutor of voting rights violations, ignored numerous examples of blatant voter intimidation. Arizona anti-immigration activists harassing Latino voters while wearing fake badges and openly carrying guns; campaign officials targeting new voters of immigrant backgrounds with false information that immigrants can’t vote; cross-burnings in racially-charged elections, and more were all ignored by the Bush DoJ.

Yet do you hear any hue or cry from the Civil Rights Commission right-wing majority? Do you see subpoenas being issued for the DoJ officials responsible for those decisions during the Bush Administration? Of course not.

The Commission has become the attack dog lackey of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. The only bipartisan agreement is between the two Democrats on the Commission (Arlan Melendez is the other Democrat) and Abigail Thernstrom, one of the Commission’s conservative Republicans (and with whom I disagree about 90% of the time), that the Commission investigation into this matter is a one-sided predetermined farce. The remaining five members have made statements that are McCarthyesque, hinting that secret cabals of attorneys within DoJ are conspiring to violate the voting rights of white, employing scare tactics that “massive voter fraud” will go forward under the Obama DoJ. Our report is due in September — timed, of course, for the mid-term elections — and it will be no surprise when it issues a hysterical red-baiting screed castigating the Obama Administration.

The lack of credible evidence is no deterrent to my colleagues. The hypocrisy in ignoring the Bush DoJ’s lack of prosecution of far more egregious cases is not a barrier. The fact that this individual case is practically insignificant in the annals of voting rights law is simply ignored.

Lost in this partisan political dogfight is the true mission of the Commission – to deal honestly, factually, and courageously on matters of discrimination and race in this country. At its inception, the requirement that the Commission be evenly divided between the two political parties was more a concession to the politics of appropriations approval than it was in terms of the partisanship of its members. It is exactly the reverse today. As it continues to allocate its dwindling resources to this fools’ errand, its credibility continues its inexorable fade into obscurity.

Luckily, the President has two appointments in December that will tilt the balance of the Commission back at least towards a 4-4 liberal-conservative balance. Perhaps then — but I’m not holding my breath — we can get back to the real work at hand at dealing with the real race and discrimination issues still confronting our country today.

Read more: Michael Yaki, Fox News, New Black Panther Party, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Obama, Civil Rights, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Politics News

Go to Source
Go to News Feed