It was the pre-game show to one of the most excruciating political confession-apologies in recent memory. Andrew Breitbart, attending the Anthony Weiner presser, took to the podium before the congressman emerged to speak, claiming vindication and demanding an apology. As Politico reports it:
“I would like an apology for allowing his political protectors - and this was his strategy - to blame me, to blame me for hacking,” Breitbart said. “’Don’t worry, Breitbart is a regular whipping boy. We can accuse him of anything and the press will not hold those journalists to account no matter what they say.’
“So I’m here for some vindication,” he said, declaring that “the big problem here is the coverup and the problem of trying to deflect blame on a journalist for doing his job.”
Breitbart had reason for his pique. Many in the media—including myself, who hours before the Weiner presser wrote on this website that the Weiner “scandal” appeared to be “manufactured”—had dismissed Weinergate. Some had gone so far as to “forensically” investigate the case against the congressman, essentially doing the defendant’s work for him. Others called it a #TwitterHoax.
The theme of many reports today then is that Breitbart, vilified as a composer of scoops rather than a reporter of them in the wake of Shirley Sherrod, is looking for apologies from the open left and some R-E-S-P-E-C-T from the M-S-M. He’s getting a little bit of it from the Times today in a balanced report titled “Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Blogger, Looks for Legitimacy.” And Politico has a main-page item headlined, “Andrew Breitbart’s day of vindication.” “In Andrew Breitbart’s up-and-down career as a conservative agitator, it doesn’t get any better than this,” write Keach Hagey and Kenneth P. Vogel, before describing the surreal Breitbart-Weiner presser.
They’re probably right. But both stories remind us of the checkered reportorial history that led reporters to view this latest scandal skeptically and to consistently view Breitbart himself suspiciously. You will recall the misleadingly edited video of a speech by USDA worker Shirley Sherrod, which showed Sherrod apparently bragging that she had discriminated against white farmers. An unedited version showed she had been making a speech about racial harmony. And you will recall that James O’Keefe’s ACORN video had suggested O’Keefe dressed as a pimp to go undercover at ACORN offices. He had not. The content of the videos remained disturbing, but the deception quickly became legend.
Breitbart may legitimately feel burned and now vindicated with how Weinergate has played out. And the media may need to address the way it treats scandals on the left and right. But it would be foolish not to acknowledge that there was reason to view anything that came from Mr. Big with some suspicion. He is the man who has cried “liberal scandal” too many times before.
No doubt he will continue to make those same cries. And we will likely listen more carefully from here on out. That’s probably a good thing. There is a place for a rabble-rouser like Breitbart out there, keeping liberal politicians and pressmen on their toes. If the reporting is solid. It’s not journalism of the New York Times variety, but it’s something. Whether you agree with the level of attention Congressman Weiner has drawn this past week, it’s hard not to argue that his actions were of public interest, particularly to those in his constituency, regardless of Breitbart’s motivations for putting them out there.
New media prophet? That's a lot of pretty words to use when ratf*cker would suffice.
Drudge had his stained blue dress and has filled journalists heads with pretty little rumors and falsehoods ever since. Breitbart, disciple of Drudge started in ratf*cks and falsehoods and got this one trivial thing right. Then he spends the rest of his time whining about liberal bias while denigrating standards of objectivity.
Which is it Breitbart? Is bias a vile thing, a noble thing, or are they just things swirling around in that martinni glass you call a brain? Again, Joel, you're using a lot of pretty words when hypocrite d**chebag would do.
But then again, I'm biased... not that Breitbart should have a problem with that.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 7 Jun 2011 at 12:00 PM
Breitbart's major strategy is not journalism but to take down troublesome Democrats by any means necessary. It's unfortunate that ABC chose to collaborate with a known fabricator.
Certainly, ABC has its own checkered past -- ABC's Jeff Greenfield and Chris Vlasto were caught selectively editing a video clip from Hillary Clinton's April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. ABC News had omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, Fox News-style, Breitbart-style, to make it appear she was saying something that she didn't say. So this isn't a big leap for ABC News.
And Vlasto, of course, secretly collaborated with the Swift Boaters during the Kerry campaign to disseminate those known fabrications through the media. And then, Brian Ross, as everyone knows, has had his own problems with credibility.
Most troublesome of all, this entire incidents demonstrates starkly that the news agenda is set by conservative extremists, and what is "news" is whatever their conservative daddies say is news. The mainstream press are, in the end, docile stenographers to the conservative agenda.
I actually wish that Breitbart followed up on his conservative news ideas and produced *real* conservative journalism, like TPM is for liberals. That would be an endeavor of real value. One doesn't have to employ slimy, snotty little operatives like O'Keefe to sneak around and fabricate scandal to find folly and corruption on the liberal side. He should do like Josh Marshall did, and hire real journos, and hold to some kind of standards. He won't lack for material.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 7 Jun 2011 at 12:10 PM
@Thimbles.
A solid edit. "New media prophet" was a bit much.
#3 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Tue 7 Jun 2011 at 03:55 PM
Why continue with the "misleadingly edited" bit? Breitbart's story of only having that portion of the speech in his possession is much easier to buy than the "hacked," "pranked," suddenly added a bunch of new followers, hired private security firm to say taxpayer money tale that Weiner spun.
#4 Posted by Dan Collins, CJR on Tue 7 Jun 2011 at 05:56 PM
@Dan,
I agree that the theories that came up in the early days of Weinergate were far-fetched. However, I stick to the idea that we should continue to remember the Sherrod video was misleadlingly edited, because it was, whether Breitbart did it or not. If he only had a portion of the speech in hand, then he should not have made what he did of it. He should have verified that this racist-seeming segment was in fact the substance of the full speech and not a rhetorical flourish leading to a larger point. From what I can tell he did not and a massive smear resulted.
#5 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Wed 8 Jun 2011 at 09:01 AM
Someone explain to me the difference between Shirley Sherrod/Breitbart and Juan Williams/NPR. Both Sherrod and Williams expressed intial reactions to situations that betrayed gut anxiety/animosity toward a group. Both later in their statements/interviews acknowledged that these impulses had to be thought through and fought against. Every news outfit that cited Williams' statement of unease re 'people in Moslem garb' without including his later qualification of that statement is guilty of the same thing for which Breitbart is pilloried.
William Saletan of 'Slate' was willing to own up to the similarity of the cases. I'm sure CJR has people on its staff who have reading comprehension and A-B-C reasoning skills on a par with Saletan.
The double standard marches on. The 'right' is subjected to much greater scrutiny and higher standards than 'the left'. Look at all the ridiculous parsing of Sarah Palin's statements about Paul Revere's ride, or AP's assignment of 11 reporters to 'fact check' her memoir, vs. their assignment of zero reporters to do the same to the memoirs of President Obama.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 8 Jun 2011 at 01:11 PM
There is no similarity whatsoever between the Sherrod smear and the Juan Williams firing, except they both got fired. Nobody selectively edited Williams to make him appear racist -- he actually said what he meant and meant what he said -- Muslims scare him. The "double standard" goes more to liberals getting on their moral high horse and eating their own. A rightwinger can say anything at all, no matter how racist or obnoxious, no matter how egregious a lie, commit any crime, engage in any perversion, and the GOP rallies behind them to tamp down the controversy. And the mainstream media carries GOP water for them.
Saletan is nothing but a rightwing operative, so I don't know why Mr. Richard cites him as a credible source. Ha!
Once again with the self-pitying victimology. Someone fact-checked Palin and found her veracity and credibility wanting. Ringin' those bells for self-pity! Boo hoo.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 8 Jun 2011 at 01:43 PM
James, this is not not up to your usual standard of abuse. When you complain that the 'the mainstream media carries GOP water for them', are you guilty of 'self-pitying victimology', or just irony-impaired?
Saletan, like every single staff member at 'Slate', declared himself an Obama supporter in 2008. He may be 'right-wing' in your book, but the Republicans know that he's no particular friend of theirs, and in this context we are talking about simple partisanship, Repubs vs. Dems.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 01:48 PM