Brietbart, Faux News & Journalistic Dishonesty - Shirley Sherrod

[slurper_la]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I apologize if this has already been said. As sickening as this series of events were and as glad as I am Ms Sherrod has been proven good I am in a weird way glad this all went down this way.

If not, the rightwing dingbats would have pummeled the NAACP and the Administration mercilessly. Now instead we've had an avalanche in the opposite direction, proving FUX News is a sham operation and Breitbart is an asswipe.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I apologize if this has already been said. As sickening as this series of events were and as glad as I am Ms Sherrod has been proven good I am in a weird way glad this all went down this way.

If not, the rightwing dingbats would have pummeled the NAACP and the Administration mercilessly. Now instead we've had an avalanche in the opposite direction, proving FUX News is a sham operation and Breitbart is an asswipe.

That's true, however, there's enough criticism to go around to the NAACP and our current administration as well. The fact that the White House could be easily provoked by Faux and a bunch of Conservative blogs did upset people. Hopefully this incident will teach them that they can't be so eager to move to action when the opposition says something. They really have to investigate before they instigate.

Another story going around on the liberal blogs is the fact that Sherrod's father was actually killed by a white farmer. With that story making the rounds, it makes the scenario she reminisced about in the video even more poignant.

 

[Bbucko]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I apologize if this has already been said. As sickening as this series of events were and as glad as I am Ms Sherrod has been proven good I am in a weird way glad this all went down this way.

If not, the rightwing dingbats would have pummeled the NAACP and the Administration mercilessly. Now instead we've had an avalanche in the opposite direction, proving FUX News is a sham operation and Breitbart is an asswipe.

I came across this post from OutsideTheBeltway (OTB), which is a moderate/centrist conservative blog: there's nothing lefty/lib about it. It starts by quoting Kevin Drum from Mother Jones...

There have been three big conservative outrages that have choked the airwaves over the past couple of weeks. #1 was about a bunch of scary black men, the New Black Panther Party. #2 was about a bunch of scary Muslims who want to build a triumphal mosque on the sacred soil of Ground Zero. #3 was about a vindictive black woman who works for the government and screws the white people she deals with. The running theme here is not just a coincidence.

...then goes on to make an excellent point about "conservative media", and bear in mind that the author, James Joyner, is a conservative. Elsewhere in the same post he compares his philosophy with that of Tucker Carlson:

But both Drum and Yglesias make excellent points. Far too much of conservative media seems to be a nakedly propagandistic exercise, designed to manufacture outrage. To be sure, the general direction of media, period — see Politico and HuffPo, for example — is to do whatever’s necessary to generate traffic or ratings. But outright manipulation and distortion is qualitatively different from mere hype.


In fairness, OTB covered all the stories Drum mentioned and quickly identified them as bunk. But that’s almost our stock in trade here: Most of the Outrage of the Day stories on the left and the right are based on some combination of assuming the worst of opponents and not understanding how the system works. We occasionally fall into the same trap others do, but our default position on almost all those stories is “Meh.”

 

[Bbucko]

It's amazing! Blaming Fox, when she was fired before anything was aired. How often do you hear the left apologize.

You're flat-out wrong here. This video proves it.

And bear in mind that Andrew Sullivan, who posted it, self-describes as a conservative and always has. Though he eschews party politics (and as an British subject is ineligible to vote in national elections in the US), he's made his admiration for both Reagan and Thatcher clear forever; I remember seeing him get into shouting matches at an after-work gay bar in Boston in the 80s, when he was still attending Harvard as a graduate student.

 

[Mensch1351]

..........this disaster ought to make those who REALLY believe Fox is "fair & balanced" sit up and take notice. Any "news" agency who reports crap like this ought to NOT be called a News Agency at all. It's one thing to "spin" -- it's entirely another to "create" news based on falsifications (or downright deceit!!!!) And NO apology...NO "Oops we blundered." How could any thinking -- reasoning -- rational person EVER take Faux News at its word again???? Wouldn't you even be a "little" suspect you might be being "manipulated??" Can hardly wait for their next "BREAKING NEWS" headline!

 

[midlifebear]

It's amazing! Blaming Fox, when she was fired before anything was aired. How often do you hear the left apologize.

More importantly, how often do you here FOX apologize for anything? Bill of the O'Rantys, himself, apologized profusely for his cry to have the poor woman fired.

Imagine the harrrrumphness?

 

[ericbythebay]

The whole event has made the administration look really amateurish.

And Obama's "apology" call is an insult. He fires LGB people every day and doesn't call and apologize to them or offer them new jobs.

 

[B_OtterJoq]

The whole event has made the administration look really amateurish.

And Obama's "apology" call is an insult. He fires LGB people every day and doesn't call and apologize to them or offer them new jobs.

Cite?

 

[Bbucko]

Cite?

That's a reference to DADT.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

That's a reference to DADT.

It's unfair to blame the President for the DADT situation, ericbythebay: he didn't create the existing law, he didn't vote for the existing law, and he's proposed a repeal of it, just as he said he would.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "Magic Legislative Pixie Dust" that a new President can use to ensure his personal agenda is written into law within 90 days of inauguration. Pretending that there is, or that this President was somehow remiss for not repealing DADT on his second day in office, or that DADT was somehow more important in February 2009 than ensuring the economy didn't tank is sadly self-centered and endemic to interest-based politics.

For the record, I support the repeal of DADT and the equal rights for ALL citizens regardless of gender or orientation but that's not the only thing I support. I am also pretty big on:

• health care reform,
• ending the war in Afghanistan,
• shoring up the economy and restoring a sense of balance between corporate responsibility and corporate profits,
• resolving the issues with peace in the Middle East,
• promoting clean energy, and
• ensuring Iran doesn't build out a nuclear arsenal.

Those are just the ones that are top of mind. This morning.

I think President Obama has his hands full and he's pushing a rock uphill because very few of his initiatives win even minimal, grudging support from Republican party members and special interests. So, the problem the GLBT community has with the President, IMHO, is not the DADT issue -- it's not realizing that this Administration is the best hope for any GLBT agenda item to gain traction in this country. Who else is going to work towards equality? Sarah Palin? Mitch McConnell? Mike Huckabee? Bobby Jindal? The tea partiers? Seriously, do tell me.

To borrow a line from one of the people whose thinking I respect on this site:

. . . wake up and smell the Starbucks.

Change will not happen overnight and it will not happen without the necessary give and take that occurs in politics. Tearing down the President and his administration seems like a self-defeating proposition for the GLBT community.

 

[ericbythebay]

It's unfair to blame the President for the DADT situation, ericbythebay: he didn't create the existing law, he didn't vote for the existing law, and he's proposed a repeal of it, just as he said he would.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "Magic Legislative Pixie Dust" that a new President can use to ensure his personal agenda is written into law within 90 days of inauguration. Pretending that there is, or that this President was somehow remiss for not repealing DADT on his second day in office, or that DADT was somehow more important in February 2009 than ensuring the economy didn't tank is sadly self-centered and endemic to interest-based politics.


I think President Obama has his hands full and he's pushing a rock uphill because very few of his initiatives win even minimal, grudging support from Republican party members and special interests. So, the problem the GLBT community has with the President, IMHO, is not the DADT issue -- it's not realizing that this Administration is the best hope for any GLBT agenda item to gain traction in this country. Who else is going to work towards equality? Sarah Palin? Mitch McConnell? Mike Huckabee? Bobby Jindal? The tea partiers? Seriously, do tell me.

Change will not happen overnight and it will not happen without the necessary give and take that occurs in politics. Tearing down the President and his administration seems like a self-defeating proposition for the GLBT community.

You sound like a Feinstein apologist, the LGBT community already knows that straight politicians will sell us out when it is politically inconvenient.

The President could require personal approval of all discharges and get around to approving them when it fits into his schedule, or he could offer political appointments in other departments at the same pay grade and benefits to those that have been discharged. He does neither.

He's had both houses of congress with the largest majorities in a generation and support of 70% of the public to repeal DADT, yet he's put minimal effort forth.

The President is just another employee and he works for me. If his job performance is substandard, I'm going to treat him like any of my other employees and let him know about it.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

You sound like a Feinstein apologist, the LGBT community already knows that straight politicians will sell us out when it is politically inconvenient.

The President could require personal approval of all discharges and get around to approving them when it fits into his schedule, or he could offer political appointments in other departments at the same pay grade and benefits to those that have been discharged. He does neither.

He's had both houses of congress with the largest majorities in a generation and support of 70% of the public to repeal DADT, yet he's put minimal effort forth.

The President is just another employee and he works for me. If his job performance is substandard, I'm going to treat him like any of my other employees and let him know about it.

Puzzling that you would prefer to ignore political reality and chase the elusive 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' ideal.

I'll overlook your ignorance of how political appointments work and just go to the important thing that you seem to be rebutting and not really addressing: who exactly do you think can do a better job?

 

[ColoradoGuy]

. . . the LGBT community already knows that straight politicians will sell us out when it is politically inconvenient.
. . .

As to this "victim" mentality? I'm afraid it doesn't play well in the majority of America and my advice would be that you approach this smartly if you want to advance your agenda. My opinion only, of course.

 

[b.c.]

The “misinformed” might do themselves well to also be advised of certain facts re. this administration’s accomplishments on LGBT issues - as evidenced in the links below (and elsewhere if they chose to check it out):

Stonewall Democrats applaud commitment of President Obama to LGBT equality | Stonewall Democrats

Maybe it's just me...: A List 30 Accomplishments by the Obama Administration on LGBT Equality

 

[ericbythebay]

Maybe it's just me...: A List 30 Accomplishments by the Obama Administration on LGBT Equality

Seriously? People are still referencing Andy's list? He's a much better financial writer than party apologist. Aravosis put out a nice analysis of that list back in May.

 

[ericbythebay]

I'll overlook your ignorance of how political appointments work and just go to the important thing that you seem to be rebutting and not really addressing: who exactly do you think can do a better job?

I think the President can do a better job.

 

[deleted15807]

I think the President can do a better job.

Was that the question?

 

[b.c.]

Seriously? People are still referencing Andy's list? He's a much better financial writer than party apologist. Aravosis put out a nice analysis of that list back in May.

I did a search on it and came up with the two links offered. There were others. Or are you suggesting that the information contained in both is bogus? And if so how does that record compare to the Republican alternative? (here's a hint: see thread here: http://www.lpsg.org/189731-wingnuttery-spreads-to-texas.html)

 

[ericbythebay]

I did a search on it and came up with the two links offered. There were others. Or are you suggesting that the information contained in both is bogus? And if so how does that record compare to the Republican alternative? (here's a hint: see thread here: http://www.lpsg.org/189731-wingnuttery-spreads-to-texas.html)

I'm suggesting that the so-called accomplishments don't have much, if any, impact on 99% of the LGBT community.

The Republican alternative is irrelevant, Democrats control the White House and majorities in Congress.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm suggesting that the so-called accomplishments don't have much, if any, impact on 99% of the LGBT community.

Stop exaggerating.

The Republican alternative is irrelevant, Democrats control the White House and majorities in Congress.

How shortsighted.
Even if Democrats have "control" and didn't come close to meeting all of your demands, what do you think would happen if the other side, being the Republicans, took over? They have a more detailed history in voting against legislations that provide support to LGBT causes. You think we'd be at a better place? You think talk about repealing DADT would be going on? How about the push for gay marriage rights? You think all of the Republicans would be listening to you?

The LGBT community may not have everything they want, but it would be foolish to bite the hand that is trying to feed you... even if it's a hamburger when you prefer a T-Bone steak. And I can say this as a gay man.