Big Dodge: Breitbart Again Ducks Responsibility For His Own Website

 by Oliver Willis/media Matters

Andrew Breitbart has once again ducked responsibility for a story published on one of his own websites.

In March 2011, Jason Bradley, wrote a blog post on Big Peace titled "Terror Babies': A Growing National Security Threat." In his story Bradley promoted a conspiracy theory called "ludicrous" by one expert that pregnant terrorists are coming to America to have babies.

In an interview that aired on today's edition of Univision's Al Punto, host Jorge Ramos challenged Breitbart on the post, asking Breitbart whether he shared Bradley's position. In response, Breitbart said, "I didn't even read that article" and "I've never read that, I've never heard that and I'd have to see the context of that to give you an opinion. I would never call people that are born in this country who are from Mexico terror babies."

JORGE RAMOS (HOST): In one of your websites, in "Big Peace," there was an article written by Jason Bradley titled "Terror Babies: A Growing National Security Threat." Do you share Mr. Bradley's point of view?

ANDREW BREITBART: I didn't even read that article but I can tell you this, I created the Huffington Post in the United States of America which is a left of center blog. I created my blogs which are mostly right of center and I believe in open debate in our society. That's why I believe so strongly in the first amendment, so I don't know the specifics of that article, had I known going into this interview, I would've read it and we could have talked about the specifics.

RAMOS: Well the specifics is that Mr. Bradley's view is that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are terror babies.

BREITBART: I've never read that, I've never heard that and I'd have to see the context of that to give you an opinion. I would never call people that are born in this country who are from Mexico terror babies.

The full masthead of Big Peace says, "Andrew Breitbart Presents Big Peace." This isn't a website he's just loosely affiliated with, but one which is directly tied to him.

The masthead of his website notwithstanding, this isn't the first time Breitbart has claimed ignorance when challenged about things related to his website.

When Media Matters detailed the conspiracy theories of Big Hollywood/Big Peace/Big Government contributor Michael Moriarty -- including his belief that the September 11 and Oklahoma City attacks were the work of the U.S. government -- Breitbart claimed, "I didn't know that when he first started writing, but he does not have a platform to put that on my site."

Last year, Media Matters detailed the work of then-Big Government contributor Kevin Pezzi, who used racial epithets in his postings there while also peddling a cure for cancer and sexual inventions on his website. Soon after, Big Government pulled Pezzi's work and said, "Since publishing the articles, we have been made aware of other writings from this author which do not reflect the principles and values of this site. Because of this, we have removed the articles from Big Government. While we stand by the information contained in the articles we published, we do not wish to see the underlying issue confused or diminished by other work the author has done." Big Government never mentioned Pezzi by name.

When confronted with Pezzi's record by MSNBC's Martin Bashir in April, Breitbart stated that Pezzi had submitted a piece to one of his sites for publication, but "the second we found out about him, we got rid of him."

Each Breitbart site notes that "Andrew Breitbart presents" them, but when pressed to take responsibility for what he publishes, Breitbart acts as if he has no control. But his name is above everyone else's.

Breitbart Inadvertently Admits To Lying About Sherrod's NAACP Audience

by Matt Gertz/media matters

For nearly a year, we've been pointing out that one of the blatant lies Andrew Breitbart has told to defend his smear of Shirley Sherrod is the claim that the NAACP audience she was speaking to "applauded" her supposed "racism." Last week, Breitbart appears to have accidentally admittedly lying about that response on multiple occasions.

In a profile last week of Breitbart, The New York Times helped the blogger-provocateur lie by uncritically reporting his false defense, writing that "Mr. Breitbart said... the crowd applauded when Ms. Sherrod said she did not help" a white man save his failing farm.

After I pointed out that one could easily watch the original Sherrod smear clip and determine that no such applauding occurred, the Times issued a correction indicating that the audience "did not applaud, although Mr. Breitbart stated that they did." Eric Boehlert and Brad Friedman subsequently pointed to another possible error in the Times article, which the paper's public editor is currently reviewing (Friedman has also noted that the text of the article itself has been edited to hide Breitbart's lie).

After New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen said on Twitter that the Times' correction "doesn't go far enough," Breitbart responded with his typical wit and charm:

So according to Breitbart, his explanation of what happened is accurate because when he says "applaud," he doesn't mean that the audience was "clapping." He's just using "applaud" to refer to the "nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement" he mentioned in his original Sherrodpost (which, as we'll explain below do not show racism on the part of Sherrod or her audience).

This explanation fails the laugh test (as a failed Hollywood type, Breitbart really should know that when you're referring to the actions of an audience, "applauded" means engaged in clapping), but the line of logic leads us somewhere interesting: presumably, anyone who said that Sherrod's audience had been "clapping" would be incorrect, right?

I'm sure you can see where this is going. Yes, Breitbart has used the terms "applauding" and "clapping" interchangeably in describing the audience's reaction -- and has even clapped his hands while saying the word  "applauding." 

Breitbart Has Repeatedly Said Sherrod's Audience Was "Clapping"

Here's Breitbart in an interview last July on ABC's Good Morning America:

What this video clearly shows is a standard that the tea party has not been held to, is that the NAACP shows people in the audience there applauding her when she discriminates against a white farmer. ... If you want to talk about people clapping racist behavior, that's exactly what you see in this video.

A few minutes later, he returns to this point:

The video shows racism, and when the NAACP is going to charge the tea party with racism, saying that people in the audience are racist, I'm going to show you that it happens on the other side. At an NAACP event, people are applauding racism.

Not only did Breitbart say the audience was "clapping," both times Breitbart refers to the audience "applauding" Sherrod's "racism," he claps his hands. Watch (clapping at 1:16 and 6:37):

Nearly a year later, on C-SPAN, he did it again:

The NAACP excoriated the audience for its clapping and its affirmation of her telling the story about how she sent the farmer to "one of his own" and how she patronized him initially.

According to Nexis, Breitbart has also said that the Sherrod audience was "laughing and applauding" [Fox News' Hannity, 7/20/2010] and that the audience "cheers" [NBC's Nightly News, 7/21/2010] during Sherrod's story. Needles to say, these characterizations are all a long way from the "nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement" he initially cited.

What The Audience Did And What They Knew

After Breitbart began making these claims last July, CNN's Anderson Cooper and NBC's Chuck Todd both reviewed the tape. Cooper concluded that there "actually was no applause whatsoever during the speech when talking about the white farmer," while Todd found that "the reactions that Breitbart said were there are not there."

So what did the audience actually do? Watch for yourself.

As Breitbart indicated in his original post, there are "murmurs of recognition and agreement," and even laughter, when Sherrod says of the white farmer who "was trying to show that he was superior to me," "what he didn't know was while he was taking all that time trying to show he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." At no point in the clip is there clapping from the audience (i.e., "applaud[ing]").

In a 2010 interview with Sean Hannity, Breitbart explained why he thinks the audience's reaction is so crucial:

BREITBART: Did the people in the audience know that there was going to be a point of redemption?

HANNITY: No.

BREITBART: The point is that the NAACP at a dinner honoring this person is cheering on a person describing -- describing a white person as the other. [Fox News' Hannity, 7/20/2010]

There's one major problem here. The audience did know there was "going to be a point of redemption."

The full video shows that Sherrod prefaced her story about the white farmer by explaining that she had originally made a commitment "to black people only" before learning better of it:

[16:34] SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I made that commitment [to working for change], I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people -- 

AUDIENCE: All right. All right.

SHERROD: -- you know. The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm. He took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me -- I knew what he was doing.

Is it possible that nearly a year after he first smeared Sherrod, and months after she sued him, Breitbartstill hasn't watched the full video?

Breitbart's Dishonest Crutch: What The NAACP "Admitted"

In his tweet, Breitbart defends his use of "applaud" by reporting that the "NAACP admitted audience's affirmative reaction." This is a talking point he broke out for his book tour, when numerous interviewers tried to pin him down on his Sherrod antics. Like most Breitbart talking points, it is deeply dishonest.

It is true that in a July 19, 2010, statement, the NAACP's Ben Jealous said he was "appalled" by Sherrod's "shameful" actions, and says that "the reaction from many in the audience is disturbing." But as the criticism of Sherrod in the statement indicates, it was released before the NAACP had reviewed the full video - including the context noted above, wherein Sherrod previews the white farmer story by indicating it was a story of redemption.

The next day, after reviewing video of the full Sherrod speech, Jealous said he had been "snookered" by Breitbart and that the clip posted on his site had been "deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias."

MINNEAPOLIS: Scumbag Wingnut Liar Andrew Breitbart Tries To Crash Netroots

King of the scumbags (and GOProud backer) Andrew Breitbart, who famously crashed the press conference of Anthony Weiner, was up to his old tricks this afternoon at Netroots Nation.

There will be no Weiner-style gatecrashing from Andrew Breitbart at the Netroots Nation conference here. That is, unless Breitbart wants to pony up $355 for a ticket. With the annual conservative Right Online conference just down the street from Netroots Nation, it was inevitable that some sort of shenanigan would occur in Minneapolis this week. And so it did, early Friday afternoon when Breitbart, camera crew in tow, showed up at Netroots unannounced and uncredentialed.

As he no doubt expected, the conservative blogger was immediately accosted by an angry progressive with a Flip cam when he stepped off the escalators at the Minneapolis Convention Center, where Netroots is being held. The attendee yelled in Breitbart's face, demanding he answer questions like "have you ever used cocaine?" and "why are you so fixated on gay magazines?" Breitbart yelled back at the guy, refusing to answer. Eventually Breitbart's security detail pulled him away and sent him toward the entrance to the conference. He was rebuffed by staffers, who denied him entry because he didn't have a credential.

Talking Points Memo reports that Breitbart left visibly "thrilled" by the incident.

UPDATE: Note how the wingnuts are already spinning this. You might recall escaped mental patient Jim Hoft (below) as the blogger who claimed the Obama administration was using a Jumbrotron to instruct the audience to applaud at the Tuscon shooting memorial.

Breitbart leaks photo of Weiner’s naked penis

By Megan Carpentier/David Edwards.

Although conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart initially promised to keep the most explicit picture of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to himself -- barring certain actions by Weiner -- an alleged picture of Weiner's naked, erect penis nonetheless leaked out this morning.

During an appearance on Sirius XM Radio's notoriously raunchy program The Opie and Anthony Show Wednesday, Breitbart reportedly showed the radio shock jocks the image that was saved on his iPhone. Though they now claim that they retrieved a still of the phone from a videotape of the show and that Breitbart didn't allow them to photograph it, the original image, now removed from Yfrog, showed a thumb in the corner of the lens, as though it was taken from a cell phone camera. Yfrog was the image-sharing service to which Weiner sent the "joke" photo of him in his boxers that started the entire scandal.

The show Tweeted the photo to its official account and brought it to the attention of the gossip sites Gawker and WWTDD. The now-removed image [NSFW] is still available at Gawker.

At a press conference called by Weiner Monday, Breitbart admitted that he had been given a more explicit photo of Weiner, but said he was trying to do the "right thing" by not releasing it.

The conservative provocateur told NBC's Matt Lauer Tuesday that he would release the photo "if Anthony Weiner decides to make it a jihad against me."

"I don't think I want to put his family through that type of thing," Breitbart said. "I could put that out there and his career would have been over today."

For his part, Weiner has thus far refused to resign, but has not commented on the release of the latest photo.

UPDATE: Breitbart told Fox News that he is "mortified" that the picture is now available. He says that "Opie" snapped the picture without permission and called it "a complete violation of trust."

Rep. Anthony Weiner exploring legal action over ‘Weinergate’ fiasco

By Eric W. Dolan

Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner is consulting with his lawyers after it was reported that the New York congressman sent a racy photo to a female college student from Seattle via Twitter.

"We’ve retained counsel to explore the proper next steps and to advise us on what civil or criminal actions should be taken," Weiner spokesman Dave Arnold told The Daily Caller in an email. "This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more, but we are relying on professional advice."

RELATED: College student at center of Rep. Anthony Weiner Twitter photo scandal issues statement

Weiner has claimed that his Facebook account was hacked and that, while the photo did appear on his Twitter feed, he did not send it. The photo shows a man's erect penis outlined in a pair of tight boxer briefs. The photo was first published by Andrew Breitbart'sBigGovernment.

The photo was quickly deleted along with all the other photos on the congressman's yFrog account.

Unlike a shirtless photo of former Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY), which resulted in his resignation, skeptics have doubted the authenticity of the so-called "Weinergate" image.

An analysis of a screenshot of the congressman's yFrog account, which was published by BigGovernment, shows the image was manipulated, according to the progressive blog DailyKos. The screenshot was allegedly altered to make it appear that the racy photo was associated with Rep. Weiner's account. Another DailyKos blogger has suggested that nearly the entire incident was fabricated by a conservative Twitter user.

Reuters' Anthony De Rosa noted that the phone data on Weiners' previous yFrog images does not match the data of the racy photo. "Not conclusive evidence, but puts relative suspicious about the validity of tying the image directly to Anthony Weiner’s phone," he said.

Mediaite's "resident expert" Philip Bump added that the current evidence did suggest that the congressman was the victim of a hack, but there was little to no evidence to suggest that contributors to Breitbart's websites fabricated the lewd image.

Motor City Liberal Comment: This is what these right wing bastards do they cooked up something up then they ruined someone career and when they get busted they will say it was only a prank and beg not to be sued.

Andrew Breitbart blames Glenn Beck for Shirley Sherrod scandal

• By Eric W. Dolan

Echoing claims he made on MSNBC in April, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart blamed Fox News host Glenn Beck for a clip that portrayed U.S. Department of Agriculture state director Shirley Sherrod as racist.

Breitbart accused Beck of taking the video of Sherrod and cutting it up into 15 second pieces on his radio program, ignoring Breitbart’s original focus on the NAACP and instead making it solely about Sherrod.

“He found out between the time he did the radio show and the TV show that he had screwed the pooch,” Breitbart said. “So he goes on the TV show and does a 180 degree turn and changes the entire narrative. Who suffered from that? Me because it made it look like I had gone after Sherrod. He had gone after Sherrod and then he turned her into a victim.”

Mediaite reported that Breitbart attacked Beck on Tuesday night in a series of postings on Twitter, claiming Beck had “thrown [him] under the bus” and taken content from his websites without attribution.

Watch video, courtesy of The Tolbert Report, below:

Lawyer tells Breitbart to ‘get a job’ on Fox News shoutfest

By Kase Wickman

Controversial conservative and BigGovernment.com founder Andrew Breitbart appeared on a special Fox News show called “Freeloaders.” Breitbart was set against defense attorney Al Spires, who Breitbart railed against in Big Government’s Pigford investigation.

Host John Stossel sat mostly silent as the debate devolved into shouting and name-calling between Breitbart and Spires. Spires eventually sat and repeated “get a job!” while Breitbart tried to talk over him.

Watch the clip, which originally aired May 6, 2011 on Fox Business, embedded courtesy of Mediaite.

Meet The Deathers: Andrew Brietbart Website Pushing Conspiracy Theory That Osama Might Not Be Dead

By Judd Legum

Mere hours after President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, supported by incontrovertible DNA evidence, the conspiracy theorists are hard at work. Andrew Breitbart, a prominent right-wing commentator with close ties to the Republican Party and the Tea Party, is pushing the theory on his website Big Peace.

On Breitbart’s website, J. Michael Walker, suggests Obama take a number of extraordinary steps so he can “make sure [Osama] is dead.” Pictures are apparently not enough. Walker asserts that he needs to be able to “walk right up to bin Laden’s corpse and view it.” More:

The free world, particularly the United States, has a right to make sure Osama bin Laden is really dead. Every American has a right to walk right up to bin Laden’s corpse and view it. We are entitled to know for a fact that the witch is dead. No shroud for dignity’s sake, please – bin Laden’s naked, bullet-riddled corpse should be put on display in lower Manhattan for all the world to see. The entire body should be digitally scanned, inside and out – and made available for everyone to take his or her own picture.

Walker ads that “For us Doubting Thomases out there – we need to see in order to believe.”

Brietbart isn’t alone. On Twitter, Emily Miller, a senior editor at the Washington Times demanded “proof” that Osama is dead.

With birtherism quickly losing steam after the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate, will the right-wing follow Brietbart’s lead?

M.C.L Comment: I guess the Koch Brothers pay this asshole per hour not per cooked up scandal via doctored videos.

Andrew Brietbart smearing college professors with deceptively edited video

By Muriel Kane

Andrew Breitbart, who sponsored the heavily edited "pimp" videos that destroyed the anti-poverty group ACORN, is now using the same technique to go after two college professors for statements they allegedly made while teaching a course at the University of Missouri on Labor, Politics and Society.

According to MediaMatters, Breitbart's BigGovernment website has started running a series of videos from the class, claiming that they "instruct students on how fear, intimidation, and, even, industrial sabotage are important and, often, necessary tools."

MediaMatters' analysis of the videos, however, reveals that they have been edited to make it seem that the professors were endorsing the kind of "thuggish" tactics that they were actually rejecting.

In the edited version, lecturer Don Giljum appears to be saying, "Because I think if you look at labor's history over the years, you'll find that, you know, we've had a very violent history with violent protests-- [CUT] ...in certain instances, strategically played out, and for certain purposes, that industrial sabotage doesn't have its place. I think it certainly does."

The unedited video, however, shows that Giljum was actually saying, "I think if you look at labor's history over the years, you'll find that, you know, we've had a very violent history with violent protests and reaction to suppression. ... It certainly makes you feel a hell of a lot better sometimes, but beyond that I'm not sure as a tactic today, the type of violence or reaction to the violence we had back then would be called for here, and I think it would do more harm than good."

Even more deceptively, Professor Judy Ancel is shown saying, "Violence is a tactic, and it's to be used when it's appropriate-- the appropriate tactic." But the full clip makes it clear that she was quoting a 1960s student radical in a documentary film that her class had just watched.

In a statement reprinted by Crooks and Liars, Ancel further explained, "After students had watched a film on the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Workers’ Strike and the assassination of Martin Luther King, they were discussing nonviolence. I said, “One guy in the film. . . said ‘violence is a tactic, and it’s to be used when it’s the appropriate tactic.’ . . . “ The class proceeded to discuss and debate this. Thus Mr. Breitbart’s editing has literally put words in my mouth that were not mine, and they never were mine."

The Brietbart smears are already being widely repeated by conservative websites under headings such as "Shut Down Labor Studies Now" and Union Leaders Teach Labor Studies Courses on Communism, Violence, Industrial Sabotage & Frying Cats.

Officials at the University of Missouri-Kansas City arestanding behind Ancel and have also raised questions about whether the privacy rights of the students in the videos were violated by Breitbart's unauthorized use of their images.

However, Giljum -- who was already planning to retire on May 1 -- was forced to resign prematurely. He says that he was told to do so by a dean, who was being pressured by her superiors.

M.C.L Comment: Still don't understand why media outlets(outside of Fox News) keeps booking this guy, all Andrew Breitbart does is whine and make shit up.