I've complained many, many times on BC about how the Right Wing seems to give no consideration whatsoever to the importance of accuracy and factuality of the information they publish, but I can't help but wonder just how big their lies have to be before Joe Everyman starts seeing the Far Right for what they really are. It's not as if the Left is always completely truthful, but as I've pointed out so often before, it's a matter of degree. The Right will see ONE fault by the Left and raise hell about it, and never seem to notice that their own faults are much more severe (see "Iraq War", for one), and many times more numerous.
Just today we've been informed that a Mexican drug cartel has invaded Texas near Laredo and took over two ranches. The story was "confirmed" by the San Diego Examiner, and was also repeated by Michelle Malkin and (gasp!) Breitbart.tv.
The fact that it never happened doesn't appear to matter that much. The Right is now backing off from the story, but is there any real backlash against those major right-wing media sites that repeated the story? Of course not. But if, say, the Huffington Post had repeated it, one can imagine how the Right would trumpet it to the heavens.
But the above is only the latest example. There's O'Keefe's fraudulent and totally false attack that took down ACORN, which was funded by Breitbart and aired repeatedly on Fox News, Then there's Breitbart's attacks on Van Jones last year about Jones' name being on an unsavory website...never mind that the owners of that site admitted they never had Jones' permission to use his name.
Just as egregious is Breitbart's takedown of Shirley Sherrod by truncating a speech of hers in such a way that it falsely made her look racist and wound up getting her fired...and THEN when the elderly white couple that were the alleged targets of Sherrod's "racism" spoke up and said that Breitbart's accusations were completely false, Breitbart had the temerity to claim the two elderly farmers were not who they said they were, that they were part of a 'hoax' to cover for Sherrod. It's worth noting that Ms. Sherrod's father was lynched by a white racist who (with others) beat him for a half hour dragged him feet-first through the county courthouse to a jail cell where he later died. None of the circumstances of her father's lynching are debated - except by the conservative site The American Spectator that says it wasn't really a lynching.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, you seem to have redefined Andrew Breitbart as the entire right wing.
And as for this story about the west Texas ranches, it came up about a week ago and those of us tied into real right wing news sources knew it had been proven false within hours of when the story first surfaced.
Of course it was the same thing with the Sherrod story. The right wing media were the first to come out and admit that Breitbart's take on the incident was flawed, a couple of days before the MSM began to pick up on it.
But you're doing a good job processing and repeating the distorted view from the left.
Dave
2 - Cannonshop
Dave, save your breath, it's just more Pravda.
Oh, and Glenn? YOU'RE LATE-if you bothered to follow the "Right Wing" media, you'd know that both the West Texas Ranches story and the Sherrod debacle were first un-masked as bullshit by (drum rolll)
The right wing media and blogosphere.
You guys on the left are still behind, I really have to wonder how much Opposition Research you bother to do before getting your news from Daily Kos.
3 - El Bicho
"'confirmed' by the San Diego Examiner,"
Why would anyone care what some unknown blogger confirmed?
"he was the first one to point out to me that it's not the facts that matter, but the emotions of the people."
You must not watch The Colbert Report because that's close to what "truthiness" is.
Any links to the right wing media being the first to expose Brietbart? Not saying they weren't but would like to see for myself
4 - jeannie danna
Great article, Glenn,
Why does the right-wing media crank this incredible amount of bullshit out?
Because it works!
Just like now with the Al Gore smear. It's just a coincidence that slandering him in the public eye not only makes him appear guilty, it will also help to discredit all that he professes.
Brrrr, I had to use an extra blanket last night it was so cold, so there is no such thing as global warming...
:)Glad your here!
5 - Glenn Contrarian
I notice that both Dave and C-shop pooh-poohed what I wrote because it was (1) eventually disavowed by the right wing media machine and (2) it's "yesterday's news"...never mind that what I was doing was demonstrating how eager some on the Right are to pick up on inflammatory news without even a modicum of fact-checking...and in the case of the Sherrod story, this got picked up by the MSM of which Fox News is now part and parcel.
Problem is, Dave nor C-shop, neither of you got the POINT of the article, which is why isn't the Right holding its own media to a standard of accuracy and factuality? If the Right were holding its own responsible, then why are the RNC and the Tea Parties still welcoming Andrew Breitbart as a 'special guest speaker'?
I believe I said in the article that it's not Breitbart that's the real outrage - it's that the Right still welcomes this MALICIOUS LIAR as a 'special guest speaker'. Can either of you point to any nationally-known pundit or politician or news organization on the Left who has foisted so many unconscionable lies upon America and yet is still trusted by the DNC and Progressive Caucus? No you can't, not by a country mile.
THAT, sirs, is the outrage. THAT, sirs, is the POINT of the article, and the question contained therein: why does the vast majority of the Right allow themselves to eagerly listen to those who lie again and again and again e.g. Breitbart and Fox News (not to mention Beck and Limbaugh)?
That is the question that neither of you addressed...and I strongly doubt you will.
6 - Doug Hunter
You can simply google a left wing source, the Huffington Post, along with the word hoax or retraction and find lots of similiar examples. The stories should be filtered out and fact checked, but if you take the time to do that you will be scooped, not get the traffic, credit, and advertising $$$'s.
Jeannie, The real question should be why does the left wing blogosphere continue to crank the incredible amount of bullshit (like this article) out? Why are you and Glenn so much more interested in personal attacks, smears, and namecalling than factual discussion?
If you want to have a reasonable talk about how big a catastrophe global warming is or is not likely to be based on scientific evidence and fact then I'm up for it. If you want a list of all the other doom and gloom 'scientific' predictions from the green left over the last 100 years or so that have turned out to be horseshit I'll provide that as well. If you're just here to namecall and circle jerk with the likeminded then don't bother responding.
7 - Baronius
Michael Moore is treated as royalty by the Democratic Party. He's guilty of at least the things you accuse Breitbart of, in a medium that allows for far more deliberation than the internet.
8 - Dr Dreadful
...as for this story about the west Texas ranches, it came up about a week ago and those of us tied into real right wing news sources knew it had been proven false within hours of when the story first surfaced.
Did you say anything?
9 - jeannie danna
Baronius, your #7 is a good example of reporting a piece of information as fact without anything to back it up:
Michael Moore is guilty of at least the things you accuse Breitbart of, in a medium that allows for far more deliberation than the internet.
:) link?
10 - jeannie danna
Doug Hunter,
I will respond only because if I don't respond, then you will have made some lame and pointless one-upmanship point in the fact that that I didn't respond, so you now have your response.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Baronius, your #7 is a good example of reporting a piece of information as fact without anything to back it up
That's Jeannie, quoted for truth...especially when Moore has NOT been shown to be foisting outright deliberate and malicious fraud upon the nation as Breitbart certainly did. But oh! I forgot! Despite the FACT that 97% of climatologists agree that global warming is REAL and that it IS caused by humanity, that's all just a big fraud in your eyes! Yeah, that's right! When nearly all of those most qualified to speak on a certain subject strongly agree on a conclusion, well, that means they must all be wrong because Republican dogma must never be called into question! For some reason this reminds me of a certain conflict between Galileo and the Catholic church....
But back to the subject at hand - in the article I included a link to over FOUR THOUSAND inaccuracies, distortions, and outright lies broadcast by Fox News commentators and newscasters since 2004. Again, I defy you or any other Right-winger to find a similar number of such by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN - there's a few lists out there, but even if you added them ALL together, they don't even approach what's foisted upon the Right wing by Fox News.
But that won't bother you or the rest of the Right-wingers who read this...because just as the research showed, facts don't mean a whole lot to you. I guess we can see now why academia is usually strongly liberal...because little things like RESEARCH and SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY are always to be mistrusted if they dare call into question Republican dogma!
12 - Cannonshop
Glenn,to be honest? you're still getting it wrong-it was "Disavowed" (i.e. DEBUNKED) before the initial stories apparently crossed your horizon of awareness. (That's the case in BOTH stories!)
#8 Doc, there wasn't a thread appropriate to discuss it on Blogcritics at the time, and doing up one unfounded rumour then having to retract in an hour or so really isn't a useful use of time. On the right, Breitbart's already a suspect source of info, it would be like reporting "Dog bites man...again" or you writing comments on one of the more paranoid Daily Kos entries from the left. (I won't go into the Michael Moore comparisons-Moore's at least kind of funny and his agitprop at least has the benefit of being mildly amusing-in a cruel, watching hollywood worship the idiot sort of way.) Making any of Breitbart's bullshit a controversy only serves to generate traffic for his site and raise his profile among the less-informed/less-intelligent. (remember? "No Publicity is Bad Publicity" in media.) Unlike the Left, folk on the right aren't inclined to reward "Journalists" (Term used loosely) for making shit up.
13 - Baronius
What part do you need evidence of, Jeannie: Michael Moore using deceptive editing or the respect he has within the Democratic Party?
14 - jeannie danna
Al Gore has been cleared of these ludicrous and false allegations...anyone who doesn't think that the filthy fossil fuel industry has their hands in this, is blinder than this idealist.
15 - jeannie danna
Prove deceptive editing, Baronius.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Cannon, Ruvy did bring the "incident" up on one thread, but nobody commented.
And anyway, isn't this one of Glenn's main points? That people tend to continue to believe something - often even more strongly - after it's been shown not to be true; and that the GOP relies heavily on this phenomenon?
I asked the question mainly because Dave often claims to criticize Republicans as harshly as Democrats when they're wrong, when in actuality his criticism tends to be meek at best.
17 - Cannonshop
#16 Doc, if that were true, the Birthers would be prominent (they're not.)
The stories in question were debunked among the Right pretty close to a full day before it was even noticed on the Left.
AS for Ruvy: he's hit-or-miss, but you can't seriously think he isn't posting with an agenda or set of filters that are biased beyond normal levels.
18 - Baronius
Jeannie, here's one.
19 - jeannie danna
Baronius, pardon me, but what is this mish mash your linking? What? Heston didn't say "cold dead hands?" And then, you didn't think it insensitive and in poor taste to place those bill boards right after Columbine?
:( ?
20 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop -
If it's not true, then why is Fox News - and Beck and Limbaugh - still so popular among the Right wing when the amount of documented inaccuracies, distortions, and outright lies on that network far outstrip even the cumulative amount by all the other MSM networks?
Why is that, C-shop?
As for your comment:
Unlike the Left, folk on the right aren't inclined to reward "Journalists" (Term used loosely) for making shit up.
Then explain Glenn Beck, for whom there is NO equal on the Left when it comes to making crap up. Explain why in polls of conservatives, Right-wing pundits Beck and Limbaugh are almost ALWAYS in the top ten (and usually in the top FIVE) of any list of the most liked/respected/influential conservatives in America?
Proofs are:
- here where Limbaugh and Beck beat Cheney and Palin;
- here at usconservatives.com where Beck was deemed the top conservative of the decade;
- and here where another list showing Sean Hannity is No. 23, Mark Levin No. 26, Laura Ingraham is No. 28 and Glenn Beck made it to No. 6 (a leap from No. 18 in 2007)...and the big surprise was that Dick Cheney beat out Rush Limbaugh for the No. 1 spot. This wasn't a poll, but an observation by an English newspaper giving a frank observation from outside the U.S. - which observation doesn't differ much from polls held within the U.S.
Now whatever your PERSONAL opinion may be, these are the opinions of the Right Wing as a whole - otherwise Beck and Limbaugh wouldn't rate so highly in ANY of these.
Will you answer those questions, C-shop? Betcha don't...and if you did try, will you include references? Please pardon my skepticism on that last request.... Oh - and I strongly doubt you'll disprove the polls I posted. Crazy-Train Beck and Family-Values Limbaugh are two of the most influential conservatives in the country and you cannot deny it.
FYI - in similar polls of liberals, the ONLY non-politician I saw in the top ten was Oprah at #7...and her shows normally don't involve politics at all!
21 - Dan
ha ha. Glenns link to support his claim of "O'Keefe's fraudulent and totally false attack that took down ACORN" is merely one of the exposed ACORN workers looking to cash on a "reasonable expectation of privacy" legal claim.
It's worth a try I suppose. If you have no shred of decency that is.
All of Glenns examples above are similary flawed. I don't think he cares though.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
I checked your ONE link to ONE set of splicing...and how exactly does this compare to Breitbart's splicing? It DOESN'T. Moore's splicing of Heston's speech does NOT change the overall meaning of the speech itself wherein he said in so many words that the mayor of Denver was wrong for telling the NRA to stay away from Denver following the Columbine killings. All the addition of the billboard did was to add inflammatory meaning, but did NOT change one whit the overall thrust of Heston's speech.
Breitbart, on the other hand, COMPLETELY CHANGED 180-OUT the meaning of Sherrod's speech, falsely making this woman (whose father was lynched by a white racist) out to be a racist herself...yet he still headlined the "Uni-Tea Rally" and is still scheduled to be a "very special guest" at an RNC function in Hollywood.
The two don't compare, Baronius. The facts do not support you - not that FACTS matter to conservatives these days (which was the whole point of the article)....
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
Why don't you do something that most Republicans don't do - like RESEARCH?
But don't worry - I did it for you. Here's a link where Andrew Breitbart admitted that he was duped by O'Keefe's ACORN hoax.
But be sure to remember that all us Democrats and liberals are Really Bad People and we're always up to no good, okay?
24 - Baronius
Here's another.
25 - Baronius
It looks like this guy did a scene-by-scene analysis of Moore's deceptions here.