reallly, republicans admire breitbart, evidently: (1 Viewer)

[liblady]

First Read - RNC fundraiser's special guest -- Breitbart

and confirmed by the rnc.

Republican National Committee Event Featuring Andrew Breitbart | TPM Document Collection

 

[Ockham]

The left still likes Bill Ayers. :shrug:

 

[liblady]

The left still likes Bill Ayers. :shrug:

oh, is he speaking for the dnc? i had no idea.

 

[Goof Noodle]

oh, is he speaking for the dnc? i had no idea.

No, he sent an empty suit instead.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Really, you don't know how to spell "really."

 

[Boo Radley]

The left still likes Bill Ayers. :shrug:

Do they? Really?

 

[mpg]

Was it confirmed that he was the one who edited the video? If not, then so what?

 

[Barbbtx]

Well, I believe Brietbart did not have the whole tape. Therefore he was just doing what he normally does and that's getting under the skin of liberals. I see no problem with him hanging out with Steele. Maybe some of his Conservatism will rub off on him. I hope they raise a lot of money.

 

[Dav]

:shrug:
I admire Breitbart. Even if he is kind of crazy and short-tempered.

 

[Renae]

oh, is he speaking for the dnc? i had no idea.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Yeah, I think the right is allowed to have it's Breitbarts seeing what the left has. Regardless if parties give them any kind of support or not.

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug:
I admire Breitbart. Even if he is kind of crazy and short-tempered.

Why would you?

 

[Dav]

Why would you?

A few, related reasons. He's a show of both what's wrong with old media, and what can be accomplished with new media. For example, when the media basically accepted upon just being told that Tea Party protestors shouted racial slurs at the CBC, he was the only one who actually questioned and investigated the incident, and basically proved that it never happened. And some of the ACORN videos may have been false, but it doesn't change the fact that no one else had bothered to do any investigating into the organization. Basically he's one of the first signs of a possible era where thanks to online citizen investigative journalism, nobody is safe from having their authority questioned, and for having their darker side exposed, including/especially the old media, which this would eventually replace.

I frankly think he released the Sharrod video more out of a short temper aimed at NAACP and a big head than out of malice or inentional deception. It would fit his profile, and as I've said before, I find it hard to believe that he'd release the clip knowing that the full video would later discredit it and embarass him.

 

[Boo Radley]

A few, related reasons. He's a show of both what's wrong with old media, and what can be accomplished with new media. For example, when the media basically accepted upon just being told that Tea Party protestors shouted racial slurs at the CBC, he was the only one who actually questioned and investigated the incident, and basically proved that it never happened. And some of the ACORN videos may have been false, but it doesn't change the fact that no one else had bothered to do any investigating into the organization. Basically he's one of the first signs of a possible era where thanks to online citizen investigative journalism, nobody is safe from having their authority questioned, and for having their darker side exposed, including/especially the old media, which this would eventually replace.

I frankly think he released the Sharrod video more out of a short temper aimed at NAACP and a big head than out of malice or inentional deception. It would fit his profile, and as I've said before, I find it hard to believe that he'd release the clip knowing that the full video would later discredit it and embarass him.

Apparently, inaccuracy is what can be accomplished with the new media. And whether it was temper, malice, deception or just plain stupidity, it really doesn't matter. What matters is he didn't do his due diligence and won't be fired for it. I don't see anything admirable about that.