Saturday, February 16, 2013

Merry-go-round of irony and lies

First horse on the merry-go-round: Brietbart's story that Chuck Hagel took funding from a group called "Friends of Hamas."
  •  Second horse: Lots of conservative news sources pick up the story.
Third horse: "Friends of Hamas" doesn't actually exist.
  • Fourth horse: Is the editor-in-chief, Ben Shapiro, who published the story, still at Breitbart? Or was he fired like the NBC producer who was caught doing misleading edits on the Zimmerman 911 tape? Of course he's still at Breitbart. Scruples are for sissies, as are truth and accuracy.
Fifth horse: Breitbart tells the Washington Post 5 ways to clean up its act, like no longer publishing false charges and mysteriously removing them. Also, not publishing fraudulent stories about racist statements by an Ag Dept official Palin going to Al-Jazeera.
  • Sixth horse: How can Breitbart complain about WaPo when they just days ago inflated this fake story about Hagel? Well, it was attributed to a "Senate source [that] told Breitbart News exclusively."
Seventh horse: Didn't something similar happen when Harry Reid "heard" some story that Romney hadn't paid any income tax one year? Oh, that's probably another politically convenient fabrication.
  • I'm feeling sick. Stop this ride. Yes, stop the lies and hypocrisy.
Image: flickr.com


Update 2/20/13. The ride is still spinning. The inadvertent source of the rumor has been self-identified. He emailed a question to an unnamed "Republican aide" and less than 24 hours later it morphed into a headline at Breitbart.com. Ben Shapiro at Breitbart continues to practice "do what I say, not what I do" by claiming that [HORRORS!!!] the source, reporter Dan Friedman, knew he was wrong before he published his piece claiming to be the unwitting source. Shapiro, are you saying that's wrong? My heavens, I never would have known that from your example.  Just to say it again, the conservative media can gripe all it wants about the MSM, but until it follows more of the same rules of good journalistic practice, it won't gain credibility. As this case illustrates, again...

No comments: