Conservative Publisher Andrew Breitbart Dead At 43

By Alyssa Rosenberg/Think Progress

It says a great deal about the quality of publisher and provocateur Andrew Breitbart’s showmanship and his commitment to carrying a performance through that, as the news broke this morning that he had passed away at the untimely age of 43, many people weren’t sure the announcement was real. At ThinkProgress, we send condolences to his family, and remember him as an expert and captivating provocateur, even in our many serious disagreements with him on the issues.

And there’s no question that Breitbart could be a captivating presence. His Twitter feed (the last missive from it was “I called you a putz cause I thought you were being intentionally disingenuous. If not I apologize.”) was a vehicle for performance art and agitprop. A New Yorker profile of him in 2010 started with the image of Breitbart tweeting “Why is Steny Hoyer in Los Angeles sitting on Anthony Weiner’s shoulders screaming the N word into my home? Weird.” He used his feed to savage Ted Kennedy in the immediate aftermath of the Senator’s death.

That flair for the dramatic persisted off the internet: in the wake of Anthony Weiner’s Twitter flirtations scandal, Breitbart stepped off the plane in New York and went straight to a press conference to answer charges that he or someone in his employ had hacked the Congressman’s Twitter account, an event at which he complained that “72 hours in Palm Springs with your family is excruciating when you are being challenged.” It was an amusing, if self-aggrandizing, performance.

Breitbart’s more dramatic tendencies could affect his preferences in reporting. As a publisher, Breitbart’s first scalp—and his biggest—was the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which withered after a so-called sting organization by conservative prankster James O’Keefe recorded an ACORN worker on camera refusing to judge O’Keefe, in disguise, presenting himself as a pimp. The video hardly damned the organization as a whole, but the report succeeded in starving ACORN of much of its funding and eventually forced the group to reorganize. Despite the diminishing returns of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, Breitbart stood by him, and compared O’Keefe to Sacha Baron-Cohen’s Borat character, saying “I think Borat got real politicians/personalities to act in real ways that we hold them to account for. O’Keefe is more serious.”

That penchant for the dramatic and boundary-pushing also led Breitbart into places no credible journalist would tread, a tendency he held up as proof of his independence, but that led to embarrassing missteps. During the Weiner press conference, he complained that “The media says Breitbart lies! Brietbart lies! Breitbart lies! Give me one example of a provable lie!” But the edited video he published the year before that implied that Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod harbored racist sentiments against white farmers was demonstrably inaccurate and biased, and resulted in Sherrod losing her job. Breitbart declined to apologizepublicly to Sherrod, and she sued him for defamation, a suit that is still pending.

If his addiction to drama didn’t exactly help Breitbart’s network of sites become a bastion of credible journalism, his combativeness and hunger for pageviews sometimes meant that he lent his support to more positive causes. After blogger Dave Weigel left the Washington Post after his private emails were published by rival conservative outlet the Daily Caller, Breitbart gave him space to explain himself. And at a time when the Republican party was falling back on socially conservative positions to gain support, Breitbart joined the board of gay conservative organization GOProud, saying “If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.” He later left the organization, but remained supportive of its aims.

"A Classic Example Of What Is Wrong With Our National Discourse"

by Matt Gertz/Media Matters

A network that employs one contributor who repeatedly threatened to pull a "gun" on government employees and another who praised U.S. Marines for apparently urinating on dead Afghans is now hosting discredited liar Andrew Breitbart to provide political commentary. CNN anchors previously said that Breitbart lacks credibility following his use of deceptively edited video to smear former Obama administration official Shirley Sherrod as a racist.

Breitbart has appeared on CNN four times this year, including interviews with the network's hosts Dr. Drew Pinsky and Piers Morgan in panel segments during their coverage of the Iowa caucuses and theSouth Carolina and New Hampshire Republican primaries. Pinsky also hosted Breitbart on the January 20 edition of his show, Dr. Drew.

CNN is well aware of Breitbart's history of fabrications and his lack of credibility. After his infamous Sherrod smear unraveled, CNN's own Anderson Cooper calling his actions "a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." Cooper joined a wide array of media who criticized Breitbart's tactics and pointed to what Ben Smith called his "growing credibility problem."

As recently as last November, CNN's Don Lemon reported that a remark from President Obama had been "taken out of context" in an ad produced by Mitt Romney's campaign and commented, "for those on the right who are jumping on the lazy bandwagon, perhaps they should remember that context is everything. And there's always the videotape. Just ask Andrew Breitbart and Shirley Sherrod."

Even Morgan has said that it is "perfectly natural to be suspicious of Mr. Breitbart" and "understandable people might be at least skeptical" of his reporting "given his track record."

In 2010, ABC News drew  widespread criticism, including from its own newsroom, after Breitbart's website reported -- and Media Matters confirmed -- that he would be providing analysis for the network during its election night coverage. ABC's George Stephanopoulos had previously called out Breitbart for pushing claims about Shirley Sherrod that were "clearly not true." The network subsequently announced that Breitbart would "not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage," but rather would be "participating in an online-only discussion and debate" for ABCNews.com. After many recriminations, with Breitbart saying he had been promised broadcast time and ABC responding that he had "exaggerated the role he would play," ABC dropped him from its elections coverage.

Surely CNN can also find a conservative to discuss elections who hasn't had his credibility rightfully criticized by the network's own anchors.

Obama Was Marching With Civil Rights Icon In Selma, Not With New Black Panthers

by Adam Shah/Media Matters

Yesterday, Andrew Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and National Review Online's Andrew McCarthyclaimed that, in Sean Hannity's words, then-Senator Barack Obama was "hanging out" with a group of New Black Panther Party members during a 2007 event in Selma, Alabama. The charge was totally false, as it was based on cropped photos and dishonest descriptions.

In reality, the event was the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 march from Selma, a pivotal event in the civil rights movement that ended when the marchers were attacked by law enforcement at Edmund Pettus Bridge.

During the commemoration, Obama was in the company of people like the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who Martin Luther King Jr. once described as "the most courageous civil rights fighter in the South." Shuttlesworth died today at the age of 89.

Here's a picture from Reuters of Obama pushing Shuttlesworth in a wheelchair across the Edmund Pettus Bridge during the event mentioned by Breitbart, Hannity, and McCarthy:

 

This closes the book on the latest shameful attempt at race-baiting by Breitbart, McCarthy, and Hannity.

Breitbart: Conservatives ‘outnumber’ liberals, ‘and we have the guns’

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Speaking to a Massachusetts tea party group recently, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart made some comments that are raising eyebrows online this week, telling the small gathering of Republicans that he sometimes wants to “fire the first shot.”

“I’m under attack all the time,” he said. “The call me gay. There are death threats… There are times when I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot. Bring it on.’ Because I know who’s on our side.

“They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with. ”

Breitbart added that “major named people in the military” will sometimes “grab” him and say, “Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.”

This video was published to YouTube on Sept. 16, 2011.

Motor City Liberal Comment: Sorry Andrew you freaks on the right make up at least 25- 30% of the country. And what's with cowardly right wingers talking tough to other cowardly right wingers? Please Andrew you'll probably shit yourself if an 90 year old liberal woman confronts you. 

Let's be real the only time right wingers have fired guns is when they play Call of Duty or Halo on their 360s and shooting defenseless animals.

Andrew Breitbart and His Trolls

From Mike Sax/Diary of a Republican Hater




While I believe it bad form to assume your enemy is stupid, the actions of Breitbart's trolls lately have almost made me reconsider.

      First of all they keep Twitter stalking me never considering that they are helping me more than anything, Indeed so many of these tweets refer directly to the Indict Andrew Breitbart (We are currently only 14 signatures away from achieving petition goal!) http://www.change.org/petitions/mike-l-sax-indict-andrew-breitbart

      Which is great: they're advertising for the very cause they claim is wrong and hopeless. With enemies like these who needs friends? One guy actually took the time to go to the petition page to enter a snarky comment not realizing that by doing so he also has signed his name on the petition.

      Then there are the great chirpstories I've gotten out of this-the 2nd on Saturday has already gotten close to 200 views http://chirpstory.com/li/2416

     The first one now has over 600 views . http://chirpstory.com/li/2320

     Today, I got a new stalker, calls himself mad0gg. Has no point but keeps blundering on. Maybe I should write a new chirpstory... 

Let's Indict Andrew Breitbart!

By Mike Sax/Diary of a Republican Hater


 I have just started the following petition to do just this,

    "Breitbert and his partner in slander, James O'Keefe, have single-handedly destroyed many worthy public servants and institutions, most notably Acorn which provided help and assistance to many low income Americans who desired to buy homes.

    Breitbart and O'Keefe's fraudulent video-based on entrapment, lies, and doctored footage-was the basis for Acorn's slander, defunding, and criminal prosecution.

   While it was ultimately found innocent, Acorn is now broke and its reputation is wrongly sullied.

   Mr. Breitbart needs to be held accountable and found both civilly and criminally responsible as his actions have stolen literally millions from the public in the form of the services Acorn provided.

    Mr. Breitbart and O'Keefe also continue their tireless campaign against the American people and their interests, by targeting any public individual or institution that in any way serves their interests and needs.

    Currently for instance he is attacking among many other falsely maligned targets, Media Matters, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

    A prosecution of Mr. Breitbart-and O'Keefe-will serve the multiple functions of holding him accountable, recompensing his many victims, and also will provide an "ounce of prevention" by slowing down or stopping the harm he continues to work tirelessly to visit on the American people.

   A true social criminal, Mr. Breitbart must be stopped in his tracks."

    Please join with me in stopping him in his tracks by signing this petition.

    To sign please either go here http://www.change.org/petitions/mike-l-sax-indict-andrew-breitbart

    Or follow the link on the front page of Diary of a Republican Hater "Let's Indict Andrew Breitbart."

Judge allows defamation suit against Breitbart to proceed

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

A district judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Thursday that a defamation lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart may proceed to trial, according to Legal Times reporter Zoe Tillman.

The suit, filed by former U.S. Dept. of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod, had faced a motion to dismiss or relocate, which was struck down.

Judge Richard Leon did not issue a written opinion on the case.

Last year, Breitbart published a video of Sherrod describing to an NAACP conference how she overcame her own racist attitudes. However, a video from that speech was deceptively edited to make it appear that she was describing how she used the power of the government against a white farmer.

She was fired from her post at the agriculture department within hours of the clip hitting Breitbart's website, and for at least a day the world believed Sherrod was a racist who abused her power to harm a white farmer.

Once it became clear that was not the case, the government offered her the job back, but she declined. Even after a formal apology from the White House and an offer to talk to the president, Sherrod still refused.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack took it a step further and offered her a position dealing with civil rights and discrimination issues at the USDA, but Sherrod declined and vowed to sue Breitbart over his deceptive prank.

The suit also targets Breitbart colleague Larry O’Connor and one other unnamed defendant.

Lawyers for the defense argued that the suit was invalid because it was triggered by a matter of "pure opinion," not statements of fact

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."

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.