The conservative/Republican version of Orwell’s Ministry of “Truth” is at it again, hijacking and corrupting yet another set of words — this time it’s “blood libel.”
|By: Phoenix Woman Wednesday January 12, 2011 1:20 pm|
|By: David Dayen Monday November 1, 2010 4:30 pm|
This is part of a larger question in the progressive community over whether to share stages with the likes of Breitbart, or whether to appear on Fox News, or what have you. Some argue that they should not allow the lies of a Brietbart or a Fox to go unchecked, and that progressive voices have to be heard in those venues. Others think that no progressive should de facto legitimize a Breitbart or a Fox News. This was the argument behind the ultimately successful boycott by Democratic candidates of a 2008 Fox News Presidential primary debate.
I think the debate gets a little too intense sometimes, but in this case, with ABC dealing with their own self-inflicted drowning, I would see no reason to hand them a lifeline and a way out of it. Let them have their little Breitbart show, and I will enjoy checking the ratings the day afterwards.
|By: Jane Hamsher Saturday October 30, 2010 5:50 pm|
And it only took us what, 16 years?
|By: earlofhuntingdon Sunday August 1, 2010 4:00 pm|
Frank Rich often gets it right, as he does in today’s column on the Afghan War and the comparison between the Pentagon Papers and WikiLeaks’ publication of the Afghan War Diaries. His zingers, however, can derail an entire column. (Unlike, say, David Brooks or Ross Douthat, whose zingers make up their columns.) First, what Rich gets right…
|By: Jim White Saturday July 31, 2010 1:00 pm|
In a pitiful column in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank outlines links between Glenn Beck’s on-air rants and the actions of a murderer and would-be murderer. Yet, Milbank says we should not blame Beck for his viewers’ actions. Fortunately, the legal team that will soon take Andrew Breitbart to task for his attack on Shirley Sherrod will likely bring real consequences for its actions to the right wing attack media. Will the corporate media then continue to hold them blameless?
|By: David Dayen Thursday July 29, 2010 12:15 pm|
It’s unclear what the charges of the lawsuit will be that Shirley Sherrod will bring against Andrew Breitbart — perhaps defamation or libel — but the discovery phase, at least, should be interesting.
|By: Blue Texan Friday July 23, 2010 10:50 am|
Maybe all the pressure’s getting to him. In a candid interview, Andrew Breitbart opened up to ABC News, and revealed some rather personal information.
|By: Scarecrow Thursday July 22, 2010 8:45 am|
After being offered a new job with USDA, Shirley Sherrod told the media she indeed wants to hear from the President, to acquaint him with some realities from her life that he may not understand. So she needs to be convinced that he — the President of the United States — believes in, and will fight for, the principles he claims to hold.
|By: Scarecrow Wednesday July 21, 2010 7:15 pm|
Anyone following the Administration’s shameful treatment of Shirley Sherrod also knows that the entire episode began with a premeditated act by Andrew Breitbart, an unethical right wing thug who knowingly smeared both Ms. Sherrod and the NAACP with an obviously and misleadingly edited video.
|By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday July 21, 2010 2:45 pm|
Barack Obama ran his campaign on progressive messaging, but he basically despises liberals and hired a White House staff full of people who share those sentiments.
Rahm Emanuel’s “f*&king r%!rds” comment is symbolic of a multitude of anonymous slams against the left that are readily offered up by administration staffers to any member of the press willing to transcribe them. The White House does not want any whiff of association with the people who gave them their jobs, and it’s no wonder the President’s biggest supporters in the blogosphere are former Republicans.