Breitbart Reporter Makes Stuff Up

This shouldn’t be shocking, but it is. A Breitbart reporter deliberately and selectively edited the president’s words and attributed them to a Washington Post reporter, thus showing liberal media bias etc, etc, etc.

How anyone can include their name on such an obvious and unethical hack job is beyond comprehension.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Wingnuts and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

    Why not? The people who read there won’t read anywhere else. They can say whatever they want and it will just echo around the empty heads of teh sheep.

  • muselet

    I’d invert your first sentence, Bob: this should be shocking, but it isn’t. No news source, even one as openly ideological as Big Nonsense, should twist facts like this, but it’s exactly what I expect from Breitbart and his hirelings.

    –alopecia

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    I was reading an article online….not sure where, Salon or New Yorker or Atlantic Monthly….anyway it was talking about the concept of “The Holy Lie”. That is a Mormon concept (supposedly, I’m not sure because I’m not a member of LDS) that means it is okay to lie if it serves a higher purpose. They also have the concept (again, supposedly) of “Bleeding the Beast”, which means that their religion gives them approval not to pay their taxes because the Government is evil, aka, Satan, and if you don’t pay taxes it will wither and die.

    The reason I am bringing this up is because it seems as if these concepts have infiltrated the GOP in general and have been directly shaping the way in which the party and its operatives like Breitbart are behaving. I honestly think that Breibart knows he’s lying but he actually believes he’s morally justified in doing it. He has the frothy countenance of a true believer”. It’s not just about the money or the power that he gains, it’s also about pushing the right wing agenda for him and he’ll do whatever it takes to make that happen.

    In re: to bleeding the beast, the entire GOP (meaning local, state and federal pols) seem to be getting into Government in order to cut off any and all funding so that they can destroy it. There are very few rational Republicans left who will openly say that Government is in fact necessary. Mitch Daniels, Gov of Indiana wrote a book about it, but he is not planning on pursuing anything further in politics after he leaves office. Who else is saying that we need Government? Anyone? Christie? He’s a marginal figure that will remain so if he doesn’t throw his hat into the Presidential race, which he has said he won’t do.

    I honestly think that these two ideas, not so much as religious concepts, but as moral guidelines have become part of the GOP mentality to such a degree that it is shaping everything they do and say. And we can see the ugly, ugly results all around uss.

    • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

      I think it’s simpler than that: the right has no agenda, so they have to lie to get elected and they assume their audience is too stupid or too ignorant to notice.

      • incredulous72

        They’re not assuming. ;-)

  • GrafZeppelin127

    It never ceases to amaze me how less than 30 seconds of research can debunk practically every right-wing meme that comes around.

    About a week and a half ago, a (now-former) Facebook friend linked to The Weekly Standard’s breathless announcement (no pun intended) that Obama was going to take away inhalers from asthma patients and force them to buy more expensive ones, in deference to environmental whackos, or something to that effect.

    [I]t seems that the Obama administration would rather make people with Asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer[.]

    Some follow-up comments on Facebook from other (now-former) Facebook friends expressed the required and predictable outrage, accepting the Standard’s declarations at face value.

    But the article linked therein that supposedly “proved” what the Standard was saying contained a critical piece of information that the Standard conveniently, and obviously deliberately, left out:

    The FDA finalized plans to phase out the products in 2008[.]

    That’s 2008, when the FDA was being run by… which administration controlled the executive branch in 2008? I keep forgetting.

    The article also pointed out that all manufacturers but one had already switched to the environmentally-friendly inhalers, but these were only available by prescription.

    It’s becoming the SOP for right-wingers to scream bloody murder at the latest outrage that validates their grotesque and exaggerated animus toward the POTUS, and in doing so link to this or that article, blog post, or whatever that supposedly “proves” it, only to have the linked material not only fail to prove what the linker thinks it proves/wants it to prove/has been ordered to believe it proves, but in many cases actually debunk the outrage at issue.

    This happens every time, without exception. I find it hard to even pay attention to it anymore.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Not surprising at all. It’s same tactic that Fox has been using with their “freedom filaments” cries while failing to point out that the law that phases out the old filaments was signed by George W. Bush.

  • D_C_Wilson

    “How anyone can include their name on such an obvious and unethical hack job is beyond comprehension.”

    No, what is beyond comprehension is how anyone associated with a legitimate news organization would want to be seen in the same room with Breitbart. He should be considered a pariah by anyone with an ounce of journalistic integrity.