Breitbart sued for defamation of character
That's your CBS defense? Verifying documents is hard, so they just had to air the accusations anyway? CBS is a massive multi-billion dollar corporation with resources, where as Andrew Brietbart is a guy with a blog; how are you giving one a pass on rushing a damaging (but false) story to air while demanding the head of the other for a much lesser mistake? I for one suspect the answer lays with hackery of a certain kind...
You're quite certain, huh? Well, in that case no trial should be necessary, they can just take your word for it. The whole legal system is superfluous in this case, since everything is so clear and obvious to posters on the internet.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
That's your CBS defense? Verifying documents is hard, so they just had to air the accusations anyway?
Not defending CBS but let's be honest: it's much more believable that Bush shirked his obligations during his cokehead alcoholic entitled brat phase than it is believable that Sherrod would be giving racist speeches to the NAACP while currently a high-level government employee. Bush already has a history of his record being wiped cleaner than a whiteboard thanks to his daddy and other familial connections.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Ahh, that makes more sense. I think of her as collateral damage; Brietbart wanted to take a shot at the NAACP because of their accusations concerning racism within the Tea Parties, and this video seemingly provided a good way to do it. It really had nothing to do with her personally, her speech was just a means to an end for Brietbart and whoever actually edited the tape.
Part of why I find Brietbart's claims about not having a full copy of the tape somewhat believable is that the edited version only held up for like a day before being debunked, and it was only the perfect storm of overreaction by the government that made the thing blow up so big so quickly. He's the one that ended up with the egg on his face, and I can't see a media activist knowingly setting them self up to take that kind of fall.
As far as apologizing, she immediately took to the air and made some vicious and rather ill considered accusations against Brietbart after the video broke, which to me sort of tacitly disqualifies her from legitimately expecting an apology. It's pretty hard to demand someone grovel in public for misconstruing you when you're on the air calling them a racist yourself.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Not really. Sherrod lost her job, and the right still takes Breitbart seriously. He has not been adversely affected in any serious manner from this or any of his other patently ridiculous smear job attempts at "journalism." Breitbart's brand of advocacy doesn't have any requirements to hold up to scrutiny; all he needs to do is level as many accusations as possible and watch as some of them stick in some people's minds. This partially works because the human mind tends not to record the source of an idea very clearly, so as long as he can spread misinformation and doubt he has accomplished his purposes even if everything he does ends up completely discredited.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Ahh, that makes more sense. I think of her as collateral damage; Brietbart wanted to take a shot at the NAACP because of their accusations concerning racism within the Tea Parties, and this video seemingly provided a good way to do it. It really had nothing to do with her personally, her speech was just a means to an end for Brietbart and whoever actually edited the tape.
You can call it "collateral damage" all you want, I still think she has a right to be pissed at Brietbart.
Also, there is an element within the Tea Party that is strongly xenophobic (i.e. relentlessly scapegoating illegal immigrants, questioning the President's loyalty/patriotism due to his mixed ancestry, etc..). A lot of people are going to perceive this kind of xenophobia as racism. Therefore the accusations by the left of racism within the Tea Party are more a matter of a differing perception than one of outright political fabrication. It doesn't look like the same can be said about the right's accusation that the President, and liberals in general, are racist against whites. Has Obama held strongly anti-business or anti-capitalists views at some point? More than he is willing to admit for political purposes? Perhaps he has. But the claims that his administration is racist against white people are just outright nonsense. The people on the right who are attacking on that angle (including Breitbart) are really making themselves look like racists (even if they are merely political partisans). Anyways, I think this is the source of the animosity.
As far as apologizing, she immediately took to the air and made some vicious and rather ill considered accusations against Brietbart after the video broke, which to me sort of tacitly disqualifies her from legitimately expecting an apology. It's pretty hard to demand someone grovel in public for misconstruing you when you're on the air calling them a racist yourself.
Well this is another thing that is positively maddening. Breitbart did make himself look racist by trying to feed into the whole "Obama's administration is anti-white" angle. From the left's point of view it's so absurd on it's face that it seems like only paranoid racists would believe it. Attacking the NAACP and accusing the left of reverse racism is a horrible strategy for the right. I can't recall how many advertisers Glenn Beck lost over it but he took a big hit.
Anyways, it's no mystery to me that Sharrod would accuse Breitbart of being racist after he jumped on that band wagon, especially after everything she went through. And this is the part that's positively maddening. Right wing talking heads and bloggers simply did the equivalent of shouting "neener neener" by completely absolving Breitbart and instead mocking the Obama administration for firing her. I don't understand why Breitbart can't apologize if he isn't just being a dick.
That's your CBS defense? Verifying documents is hard, so they just had to air the accusations anyway?
Not defending CBS but let's be honest: it's much more believable that Bush shirked his obligations during his cokehead alcoholic entitled brat phase than it is believable that Sherrod would be giving racist speeches to the NAACP while currently a high-level government employee. Bush already has a history of his record being wiped cleaner than a whiteboard thanks to his daddy and other familial connections.
No, it's not and in CBS's case Bush did have a potential case of suing for defamation of charecter and winning because they continued to double down and kept at it despite evidence mounting that they were lieing through their teeth.
You want to know how blatently the memo was?
It used variable space typing which is only found on computer printers, and the font type wasn't even in existence when the memo has supposedly been written.
The memo CBS used to try to smear Bush, had to have been created on Microsoft Word, Corel Word Perfect, etc. not a typewriter.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
So as far as the emotional distress part, she should sue for the information as to whom provided the tape which apparently had been editted. She would have a case to sue that individual for emotional distress.
Sueing Bretbart over it, unless you have a corrupt judge is likely to get dismissed.
Well obviously it was some amoral conservative hack-job who chose to slander her by giving that edited video to Breitbart. Yet you seem to think only people on the left do that sort of thing. Chances are the person who edited the video didn't reveal his/her identity to Breitbart. It was irresponsible for Breitbart to trust that person. We all know he doesn't give a flying sh** though, as long as his "enemies" get hurt.
Or it was some liberal whack job that was trying to set Breitbart up to look like an idiot, who knows.
That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Even for you this takes the cake. Your stupidity would make Glenn Beck cringe in embarrassment.
Hell, Karl Rove just accused Obama of starting the whole birther nonsense in order to make the Republicans look bad.
And please, Inuyasha, please, don't tell me that Rove might be on to something.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
If we take our partisan goggles off.
It is a rather open and shut case.
She was damaged by his lies.
and since he has a history of using doctored tape.
remember Acorn anyone?
-turns out not so much involved in human smuggling
-if you have to lie and mislead to defend your view
maybe you are wrong.
we have a right to our own views but not make our own facts.
Breitbart, Beck, Fox News, Goebels, Rove, Mubarak, McCarthy, Hoover
ultimately do not forward the causes they claim to espouse.
They build houses of cards that end in the devaluing of their brand.
they are only interested in the short game.
They win most battles but end up losing the war.
which is good because they are buttholes.
as that a certain philandering Commie and my hero once said
@ JakobVirgil
Wrong, first the first set of "doctored" videos were claimed to have been doctored by individuals that had a conflict of interest in the situation.
Second, Breitbart released the video as he received it, he did not edit it.
If he was not the party that editted the video, and further was unaware as to what was missing and made a reasonable attempt to get the full video (and he did or are you saying he should have hired someone to break into the NAACP hq), then quite frankly she has no case.
Funny how Breitbart just happens to receive all these doctored videos. Terrible luck, I guess. If he had any interest in honest journalism, you'd think he would have learned to be more careful about his sources by now.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Orwell, the ACORN videos might not have been doctored, the officials that came up with that claim also had received enormous amounts of campaign cash in the past from ACORN.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Apple Got Sued |
25 Mar 2024, 12:45 am |
Donald Trump told to pay six-figure costs of firm he sued |
08 Mar 2024, 5:51 am |
Character Dynamics |
08 Feb 2024, 6:57 pm |
Which original Wonka character are you? |
26 Jan 2024, 7:10 pm |