Fox Nation vs. Reality: Fox News Exploits Dead Rock Star To Bash Obama

Posted by on March 22, 2013 at 2:15 pm. NO Comments :

In a particularly repulsive display of insensitivity and brazen dishonesty, the folks at Fox Nation posted a article that falsely declared “Obama Exploits Dead Rock Star For Gun Grab.”

Fox Nation

The first and most obvious problem with that article is that it is patently untrue. The allegation is that President Obama was responsible for Tweeting a photograph of John Lennon’s bloodied glasses with a message about the tragic consequences of an armed and violent society. The message in the Tweet is:

“Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the U.S. A. since John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980.”

However, the President was not responsible for that Tweet. The message and the photo was Tweeted by Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono. If anyone has a right to express outrage over the proliferation of deadly weapons, it is Yoko.

It is clear that she sent the message and the photo out with the intent that it be disseminated by her followers online. And that is precisely what someone working for the pro-Obama organization (not Obama or his White House), Organizing for America did. Re-Tweeting Yoko was not in any way exploitative. To the contrary, it was respectful because it was exactly what she wanted.

In addition, Fox misrepresented the meaning of the message by twisting it to suggest advocacy of a “gun grab.” However, it should be noted that no one – not Yoko, not Obama, not any proposal before congress – is calling for anything like the sort of confiscatory distortion advanced by Fox.

If anyone is guilty of exploiting Lennon’s murder, it is Fox. They are the ones lying about both the source of the message and the meaning of it as well. It is a disgraceful affront to Lennon’s memory (like Yoko, he was a peace activist) and to those who loved him both in his actual family and the worldwide family of his fans. So screw you, Fox. You have no standing to criticize Yoko or to speak for her late-husband.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Is Glenn Beck Going BROKE? Filing Seeks $40 Million From Outsiders He Once Renounced

Posted by on March 22, 2013 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

Glenn BeckFor several years Glenn Beck has been bragging that his enterprise was totally self-supported. He insisted that rejecting outside funding enabled him to speak freely in manner that would not be possible with outside investors and boards of directors dictating what he could do and say. Beck was very adamant about this principle and said so firmly on multiple occasions that sound eerily like televangelical appeals:

Aug 17,2011: We are running out of time. […] I do not want outside investors. We have talked about it. We have had outside investors come to us. We have had hedge funds come to us. People want to invest in my business because we are creating jobs and creating wealth. I do not want outside investors because I do not want to have to answer to anyone else.

Nov 7, 2012: This network, this company is funded by me and by you. That’s it. […] I thought we’d have more time and I’m telling you we’re going to run out of time. I need to double our subscriptions. […] I am not doing this to get rich. Believe me I don’t think money’s going to be worth an awful lot very long. […] If you haven’t subscribed, I need you to go to theblaze.com/TV and sign up now. Please. Please. Please. Right now about 300,000 people keep this network up and running, and may God richly bless your sacrifice.
Already I’ve lost quite a tidy sum, in fact figures that I never thought I would earn in my lifetime, let alone lose.

This admission that he is losing money contradicts the press releases his company issues that celebrate how richly successful he is. I can’t say whether his PR department is lying or he is himself, but either way he is deceiving his audience for personal gain. His financial woes are also evident in his recent effort to get cable companies to carry his dinky web cast. As I reported in February, this directional shift proves that his Internet business must be suffering:

“He is presently charging between five and ten dollars per month to subscribe to his programs online. If he does secure cable carriage that programming will be available for free to all of the current cable subscribers on the system. Consequently, they would no longer need to pay for the Internet access. If the Internet subscription model was working for him, Beck wouldn’t risk cannibalizing his online customers by offering them the same content for free on cable.”

All of this makes the news released today particularly significant in that it goes against much of what Beck’s image factory has been putting out. A new filing with the SEC says that Beck is seeking $40 million dollars in funding for TheBlaze, his media enterprise. That revelation would suggest that he has abandoned his belief that only by self-funding could he truly be able to express himself and expose the myriad conspiracies and plots against liberty and goodness that only he can see. This filing also suggests that Beck doesn’t have the funds to finance his glorious vision of an international media conglomerate and merchandising outlet. To say nothing of his homage to Jonestown, a residential community/theme park tucked away in some heartland hideaway.

Glenn Beck's Jonestown

Beck claims to have already raised $1.5 million of the $40 million goal. Along with everything else he says, that needs to be taken with a barrel of heavily salted Freedom Fries. One has to wonder who would invest in this sort of enterprise. Most savvy investors are aware that Beck was booted from Fox because he had alienated the advertising community that would be necessary to support this venture. They can also see the evidence of the financial struggles that are noted above. That leaves only committed propagandists and true believers in Beck’s nightmarish narrative of an apocalyptic future. Are there enough of them to bankroll Beck’s dementia? Well, maybe we should ask Pat Robertson and Alex Jones.

Update: As of July of 2014, Beck had received only $6.4 million of the $40 million he sought.


So F**king What? Fox News Bigots Falsely Tie Islam To The Aurora Theater Massacre

Posted by on March 21, 2013 at 8:28 pm. 3 Comments :

In this edition of “So F**king What?” we are treated to a repulsive display of bigotry by the Islamophobes at Fox News. Their Fox Nation web site (renowned as world-class liars) saw fit to republish a story from the uber-conservative Washington Times that alleged that James Holmes, currently in prison for the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre, has converted to Islam.

Fox Nation
[Get your very own “So F**king What?” stickers here]

The story in the Washington Times was based on uncorroborated information from an anonymous source. The basis for the assertion that Holmes is now a Muslim is, according to the source, that “the beard James Holmes sported in court last months represents his new-found faith.” Were that the criteria, it would make everyone from Abraham Lincoln to George Clooney Muslim.

So F**king What?

The first question any reasonable person would ask is “What difference does it make if Holmes did convert?” How would that change any aspect of his prosecution? The facts of the case are the same and the jury will decide the outcome based on the evidence and not (hopefully) on what religion he practices.

The point of this Fox posting is to malign Muslims by associating them with a mass murderer. The implication is that Holmes, by adopting Islam, validates what right-wing bigots regard as the heinous nature of the religion. They point to this news as proof that homicidal maniacs like Holmes have an affinity for the Islamic faith.

The problem with that shallow attempt at logic is that many more homicidal maniacs have converted to Christianity while in prison. They include murderers like Tex Watson of the Manson family and serial killer Ted Bundy. If conversion to a religion is to be regarded as an endorsement of criminal behavior, then Christians have a lot for which to answer.

The posting by the Fox Nationalists carefully edited the text from the Washington Times to exclude a paragraph that substantively altered the impression that the article would have. That paragraph said…

“[M]ost Muslim inmates are not happy with the convict’s new religion. ‘None of them condone forms of terrorism or extremism,’ the source added. ‘And they don’t want their religion to be connected to that awful shooting.’

Isn’t it interesting that that part of the article didn’t make it into the Fox posting? If it had, it would have been a lot more difficult for Fox Nation’s commenters to engage in a rabid feast of bigotry and hate. The majority of the comments expressed the belief that it was expected that a sicko like Holmes would be a Muslim. And some of the more creative cretins attempted to tie President Obama to the story, suggesting that he shared both the faith and the madness of Holmes.

Ultimately, that was the purpose of posting the story to begin with. It was an opportunity to bash the President and Muslims at the same time. For the editors at Fox it was the perfect alignment of politics and religion and they surely knew that their readers would slobber it up. There is one thing you can say about Fox: They do know their audience.


Roger Ailes Kept Glenn Beck On The Air To Irritate MoveOn And Media Matters

Posted by on March 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm. NO Comments :

Roger AilesThe new biography of Roger Ailes by his hand-picked fluffer, Zev Chafets, is getting some exposure in the press via reviews and excerpts. News Corpse recently reported that Ailes agreed to cooperate with Chafets in order to make a preemptive strike against a more critical look at his career by journalist Gabriel Sherman, whose book will be published in May. The New York Times published a scathing review that ripped Chafets for producing a book that…

“…reads like a long, soft-focus, poorly edited magazine article. For the most part Mr. Chafets serves as little more than a plastic funnel for Mr. Ailes’s observations […] he doesn’t ask his subject many tough questions about Fox News’s incestuous relationship with the Republican Party, its role in accelerating partisanship in our increasingly polarized society or the consequences of its often tabloidy blurring of the lines between news and entertainment.”

Now the New York Observer has posted another excerpt that reveals the lengths to which Ailes will go to annoy his enemies. Chafets writes that Ailes had already decided “he would have to get rid of Glenn Beck,” but he didn’t take any actions to do so for many months. This stalling occurred even though he was aware that “An advertising boycott organized by ColorOfChange.org hurt revenues, and Beck’s ratings declined.” This reference to the Color Of Change action is the first time that Ailes has admitted that Fox lost money due to the boycott. He previously made emphatic denials that there had been any impact on revenue. The reason Ailes gave for putting off Beck’s departure, according to Chafets, was that he “didn’t want to give MoveOn and Media Matters the satisfaction.”

So there you have it. The CEO of a news network had concluded that Beck’s rhetoric was divisive and “over the top,” but he permitted him to continue broadcasting his race-baiting, Nazi-inflected, conspiracy theories for several more months because he was afraid to give his critics something they might celebrate. Ailes would rather poison the airwaves (and the minds of his viewers) with lies and hatred than to let his ideological adversaries think they had scored a victory. That’s the true nature of Fox News and its philosophy of journalism.

It goes without saying that Ailes’ ego-driven decision-making was flawed from the start. Delaying the cancellation of Beck had zero effect on how his critics would respond. Removing Beck from the air was a victory whether it occurred in January or July. The only person whose “satisfaction” was affected was Ailes himself. Chafets never recognizes this fact and the excerpt irrationally concludes with him asserting that “Ailes was right again.”

Chafets further sucks up by saying that, as a result of his maneuvering, “Ailes could plausibly say that he had moved Fox safely away from the fringe.” Where he gets that notion from is a mystery. Particularly in light of Fox’s acquisitions since the election that include Mark Levin, Herman Cain, Scott Brown, and Erick Erickson (who once called a Supreme Court Justice a “goat-fucking child molester”). They join fringe all-stars Sean Hannity, Eric Bolling, and Steve Doocy, among others. This is not what most people would describe as plausibly moving away from the fringe, but it is the Fox way.


Ann Coulter’s Advice To The GOP: Murder Unelectable Republicans

Posted by on March 20, 2013 at 8:38 pm. 5 Comments :

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Republican Party is in pitiful shape. The “autopsy” of the 2012 election released by RNC Chair Reince Priebus spelled out the awful truth that his party is perceived as a “narrow minded,” “out of touch” party of “stuffy old (white) men.” Unfortunately, nothing in the report recommends any practical solutions other than adjusting their messaging. In other words, shout louder but don’t revisit any of the policies that have earned you the disdain of the American voters.

Which brings us to one of the premiere Republican shouters, Ann Coulter. In a column on her blog (republished on Fox Nation), Coulter makes some pretty cogent points with regard to the Republican Party being the source of its own woes. She notes that the GOP has embraced some questionable figures who had little chance of success and, as a result, gave up winnable seats to Democrats. She cites Todd Akin, Linda McMahon, and perennial candidate John Raese. And now the GOP is about to add Mark Sanford to the list. The picture she paints of the party is one that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. So she is now suggesting that they aim significantly higher.

Fox Nation - Ann Coulter

For those who don’t remember, Luca Brasi is a character in The Godfather. He is Don Corleone’s principle “enforcer,” meaning he is a brutal and merciless killer. And that is the sort of person that Coulter thinks the party is missing. In a thinly disguised way she is advocating a Mafia-style hit on Sanford and any other wayward Republican whose candidacy is deemed too risky by Coulter and company.

Sure, she probably doesn’t really want to rub out Sanford, but the symbolism is representative of a repulsive streak of violence that permeates today’s GOP. Just yesterday a Massachusetts sheriff joked about assassinating President Obama, and the senate candidate he endorsed refused to disassociate himself from the sheriff.

This is the rhetoric of the NRA, right-wing militias, secessionists, and Second Amendment cultists who misread the Constitution. It is the rhetoric of Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. It is an attitude that reeks of bloodlust and final solutions, and is held by sore losers who despise democracy.

Coulter is actually right about the folly of South Carolinians choosing Mark Sanford as their candidate for congress (he still needs to win a run-off in May), but her advice is tainted by the gruesome notion that he be dealt with by a mob hit man. Ironically, the savior for whom Coulter pines was himself offed in a bloody ordeal and the news of his passing was delivered in a memorable way. The killers wrapped a fish in his vest and sent it to the Don.

The message was clear, and it is one that the GOP should heed: Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes, and so will the Republican Party if it continues to revere people like Ann Coulter. And the party is not helped by Fox News either when they endorse this sort of treasonous garbage by rewarding it with a featured spot on their web site.


Question: Is The Tea Party Dead? Answer: It was Never Alive

Posted by on March 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm. 10 Comments :

Dave Weigel at Slate has done some fun sleuthing and discovered that the House Tea Party Caucus, launched by Michele Bachmann, is, if not dead, in critical condition and slipping away fast:

Today, the membership page for the caucus is defunct. The caucus hasn’t met since July 2012; it has posted no news since July 2012. In the press, “Tea Party caucus” has become an offhand way to refer to conservatives. In her speech to CPAC, which included a typically Bachmann-ian error about how much TANF money is wasted on administration, Bachmann didn’t mention “the Tea Party.”

The only dispute I have with Weigel’s analysis is that the Tea Party cannot be dead if it was never alive. It has long been my observation that there never was a Tea Party. All of its constituents are Republicans (or vote Republican). All of the elected representatives who associate themselves with it are Republicans. All of its policy positions are straight from the GOP Party platform. Much of it’s original organizing muscle was provided by establishment Republican operatives like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and GOP flacks Russo Marsh & Rogers. The Tea Party is, and always has been, a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, and everyone from Republican leadership to the GOP PR agency (aka Fox News) knows it:

John Boehner, House Minority Leader: There really is no difference between what Republicans believe in and what the tea party activists believe in.

Michael Steele, Republican Party Chairman: It’s important for our party to appreciate and understand that so we can move toward it, and embrace it.

Mark Skoda, Tea Party Leader: This movement is beginning to mature … not as a third party but a force to be reckoned with in the traditional party structure.

Carl Cameron, Fox News: They plan to establish separate spin off political action committees to fund raise for candidates who back Tea Party goals and the official Republican National Committee platform.

Newt Gingrich, Former GOP House Speaker: If the Republican Party offers a positive alternative in a way that Tea Party activists and independents join them, the tide could turn.

GOP Tea PartyConsequently, the Tea Party could not have died. Its purpose was to promote the most extreme, far-right positions of the GOP and to denounce compromise and cooperation. That stubbornness has resulted in unprecedented gridlock in Washington and decline in support for the Republican Party to historic lows. The Tea-publican bonds are tightly wrapped and they cannot pretend they were never an item. The GOP web site even featured a page explicitly aligning themselves with “Tea Bagging” (which is interesting because they now consider the term derogatory).

So, no…the Tea Party is not dead. It was never alive. And its place in the GOP is as firm as ever despite their failure to acknowledge it. Bachmann’s defunct caucus is a joke and the infighting between the GOP establishment and their Tea Party wing is just more fertile material for humor. Karl Rove and Sarah Palin are at each others throats. RNC chair Reince Priebus and Rush Limbaugh are feuding fiercely. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell faces a Tea-publican primary challenger. And John Boehner is being ostracized from within his own ranks.

Aah yes, these are good times.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

On The 10th Anniversary Of The Invasion Of Iraq Fox News Wants “Credit” For George W. Bush

Posted by on March 19, 2013 at 11:35 am. 4 Comments :

A lot has happened in the ten years that have transpired since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney orchestrated an unlawful assault, based on lies, on the nation and people of Iraq. More than four thousand American soldiers have died. Tens of thousands more have been disabled physically and psychologically. And hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians were killed. All of this was accomplished for a mere two trillion dollars courtesy of the American people.

So how does Fox News commemorate the solemn anniversary of the day that Bush commenced a campaign of mass murder against a nation that had done us no harm? By sending reporter James Rosen to the White House to beg for “credit” to be given to the Bush administration for their unfounded aggression and incompetence.

Fox News
[For more examples of Fox Nation deceit, get the ebook Fox Nation vs. Reality.]

Rosen: Just to follow up on the discussion of the Iraq War, none of us wants to plunge ourselves into counterfactual histories about “what if” and so all we have is the record of what did occur and when you stand here and tell us that Iraq today now has the option for a chance for a much better future than the past, that is only a matter of factual history only possible because President Bush decided to launch this war and send all these heroic service men and women into this mission. And so if credit is due to the service men and women, it seems to me that — a matter of logic that some credit must also be due to President Bush and his advisers and that on this occasion, do you not see it that way?

Rosen is regarded by Fox defenders as one of the network’s legitimate journalists, in contrast to the right-wing mouthpieces (O’Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, Doocy, etc.) who host the network’s more overtly biased programs. However, this question illustrates how Fox infects their allegedly “straight reporting” with partisanship even as they pretend to be fair and balanced. Beseeching the White House press secretary to lay praise on a former political foe is not an appropriate role for a professional journalist. It is closer to the services provided by a public relations rep.

What’s more, Rosen’s assertion that it’s a “matter of logic” that Bush be given credit is not remotely logical. Rosen is soliciting credit for Bush’s decision to go to war based on the outcome produced by the military. But those are two different things. Bush’s decision making was flawed and dishonest, and it is not redeemed simply because our side won. That only means that we have an effective military, not that the decision to use them in this matter was wise or praiseworthy. Press Secretary Jay Carney touches on these distinctions in his response, but later appears to humor Rosen in an attempt to move the briefing along.

Carney: James I would simply take up your first proposition that engaging in counterfactuals about what might have happened had we not gone to war in search of Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn’t exist, what would’ve happened? […] It is impossible to know obviously what course would’ve occurred in Iraq had the inspections regime continued had different choices been made.

Rosen: But it sounds to me listening to you that for what you call the “welcome development” of Saddam Hussein being gone, you are unwilling to accord President George W. Bush even a single iota of credit for that development.

Carney: I’m happy to do that, James. I think the focus on doing that is unique here, in this briefing. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was removed from power thanks to the military efforts of U.S. armed forced and they were sent Iraq by President Bush. So, obviously, there is a causal relationship and to the extent that credit is due, credit is due to him for that. That does not change I think assessments made by this President as a candidate or by many others on this day – 10 years after – about the judgments made to go to war on Iraq, to invade the country.

I am also happy to give Bush credit. He is entitled to every bit of credit for having committed atrocities and war crimes. He deserves credit for the slaughter of the innocent and the brave and for the grief of the survivors. The credit is all his for brazenly lying to the American people and the world about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. He has earned the credit for bankrupting our nation with drastic tax cuts for the rich during a time of war, the first time in history that has occurred. And all he has to show for it is a hollow sense of pride in having rid the world of Saddam Hussein, which makes this a two trillion dollar assassination contract on an aging, third-rate dictator.

Just as Rosen said, the tragic consequences of this regrettable misadventure were “only possible because President Bush decided to launch this war.” So congratulations Mr. Bush. The credit is all yours. And wasn’t it thoughtful of Fox News to ensure that the honor for all the turmoil and death you produced was rightfully placed at your feet?


Shades Of Murphy Brown: GOP Operative Clashes With Fake News Anchor

Posted by on March 18, 2013 at 11:59 pm. 6 Comments :

One of the most widely mocked skirmishes in modern politics was the battle royale between Vice President Dan Quayle and Candace Bergan’s sitcom muckracker Murphy Brown. Qualye was concerned that Brown’s irresponsible decision to have a child out of wedlock would set a bad example and he proceeded to have a public feud with the fictional character.

Now another Republican moralist is having a spat with a pretend TV news anchor. Jason B. Whitman, the policy chair of the Young Republicans and a Breitbart columnist, responded angrily to a Tweet by Will McAvoy, the anchor of the ACN news network on HBO’s Newsroom. Unfortunately, Whitman didn’t know that McAvoy wasn’t a real person. The exchange went something like this:

McAvoy: When will the media stop talking about the politically irrelevant Sarah Palin at CPAC? I’m devoting the hour to that topic tonight!
Whitman: It’s odd that @WillMcAvot_ACN is dedicating an entire hour of his show to “politically irrelevant” @SarahPalinUSA.

Shortly thereafter, Whitman was alerted to his mistake and deleted the Tweet. That, however, did not dissuade the ersatz McAvoy from further engaging Whitman:

McAvoy: Murphy Brown and I had drinks on Sunday and could have sworn we saw Dan Quayle and @JasonBWhitman making out. Could be wrong.

This is the sad state of affairs in the world of conservatism. They are a pitifully out-of-touch congregation of ill-informed wingnuts whose grasp of popular culture consists of fan clubs for Ronald Reagan and swapping 8-tracks of Ted Nugent. No wonder their favorite news network is affiliated with 20th Century Fox, still in a century that is one behind the rest of us. Whitman’s Young Republican organization is so dynamic that they have four whole postings this year on their blog. Clearly they have their thumb on the pulse of American youth.

What is not surprising is that they would object to “lamestream” news anchor Will McAvoy. He prominently put the Tea Party in its place in an early episode of the program. The monologue enumerated some of the identifying characteristics of today’s Tea-publican Party. Coincidentally, the GOP just went public with the results of their “rebranding” study and McAvoy’s list would fill in nicely as a statement of their principles.

GOP Rebranding


Lamestream Humor: NewsBusters Doesn’t Get That The Joke Is On Them

Posted by on March 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm. 7 Comments :

Conservative pundits and personalities have been a rich source of material for satire and mockery. However, there are times when their glassy-eyed incoherence inspires more sympathy than ridicule. And this may be one of them.

NewsBusters

Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of the uber-rightist media monitor NewsBusters, posted an item yesterday that was virtually ecstatic over a new commercial for Volkswagon. He notes that it “has put a smile on a lot of conservative faces.” In the ad an envious man (Gary) discusses his intention of getting a new Passat just like the one his neighbor (Brian) owns. Then Brian tells Gary that he bought the last one, but Gary isn’t falling for it and cites a Passat ad in the newspaper as proof. Whereupon Brian says “You can’t believe the lamestream media, Gary.”

What has delighted Sheppard so much is his view that Volkswagon has validated the disparaging dig at the press that Sarah Palin popularized. He is giddy with satisfaction that the word “lamestream” was uttered in the ad. He calls it “delicious” and says it “will surely put a smile on Palin’s face.”

Perhaps so, but that is indicative of the larger problem. This ad is more ridicule than reverence, but Sheppard can’t see past his glee to notice. The clear message in the ad is that Brian’s attempt to discredit the media was an obvious ruse. The ad portrays Brian as the fool for trying to deceive his neighbor by falsely impugning the press. After all, Gary’s newspaper was correct, there are more Passats available. So, if anything, this ad illustrates how dimwitted Palin’s criticisms are.

Just like Brian, Palin’s attempts to discredit the media are an obvious ruse and few people outside of her congregation of teabaggers are fooled. Yet somehow Sheppard regards this as complimentary and evidence of the nation’s adoption of Palin’s reproach, rather than a dramatization of how silly it is. He simply doesn’t get that the joke is on him and his comrades on the right. And it’s so glaringly obvious that it’s a little sad to see him so befuddled.


Media Matters Enters The Liars Den At CPAC – Gets Ambushed By Breitbart

Posted by on March 17, 2013 at 3:47 am. 4 Comments :

Yesterday a panel at CPAC (which I believe stands for Conniving Propagandists And Crooks) was held following the screening of “Hating Breitbart,” a crockumentary glorifying the late Andrew Breitbart. The topic of the event was “The Uninvited,” a reference to fringe conservatives who are allegedly kept from appearing in the mainstream media. Participating on the panel were several Breitbart-affiliated folks, including the disgraced video mangler, James O’Keefe, and a lone representative of Media Matters, Ari Rabin-Havt.

In the course of the discussion (video below) O’Keefe protested that he felt he was “held to a higher standard than any Pulitzer Prize winner.” Whereupon, BreitBrat editor Larry O’Conner defended O’Keefe by rejecting the notion that just because O’Keefe’s videos were found to have been deceptively edited that “everything O’Keefe does should be considered a fraud.” Actually, that’s precisely what should be done when someone has proven he’s a fraud on multiple occasions.

The discussion eventually veered off into an attack on Media Matters with O’Conner questioning the veracity of their content. When Rabin-Havt began to defend himself, in what seemed to be a transparently staged tossing of the baton, O’Conner recognized Breitbart’s Editor in Chief Joel Pollak in the audience and asked him to weigh in on the subject.

Pollak was visibly upset at what he characterized as a smear directed at him by Media Matters. He cited an article that he claimed accused him of being a birther. Standing in the audience he pointed his finger at Rabin-Havt and arrogantly insisted that “The next word out of your mouth should be ‘Sorry.'” But that was just a small portion of the generalized indictment he made of Media Matters:

Pollak: There’s a Media Matters method, it’s this: You make a statement in the headline that is not proven in the article. The lefties to whom you sell your material, or distribute your material, don’t care about the proof, they care about the headline. So you put in that headline that I’m a birther even though you admit I’m not a birther.

Alright, let’s break this down. First of all, Pollak’s assertion that Media Matters makes unproven statements in their headlines is itself unproven. Media Matters is meticulous about documenting what they publish, and the “lefties” and others who read it care very much that thoroughness. As for the article Pollak referenced, it was posted on Media Matters on March 13, with the title “What The Media Need To Know About CPAC 2013.” Notice that there is nothing in the headline about anyone being birther and that Pollak isn’t in it at all. So much for his thesis that Media Matters composes false headlines and fails to back them up.

Ironically, Pollak’s complaint applies perfectly to his own article on Breitbart News that Media Matters was writing about in the first place. That article’s headline was “The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'”

Breitbart News

From the wording of that headline it would not be much of a stretch to conclude that the article was advancing birtherism by questioning Obama’s birthplace. Pollak said that he only intended to make a point that Obama, or his representatives, altered his biography when it suited him. However, that was not the inference in his headline. And it could be said of Breitbart what they said of Media Matters – that they “don’t care about the proof, they care about the headline.” What’s more, the first paragraph of the article began by affirming the birtherism in the headline:

“Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as ‘born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.'”

To be fair, there was a “Note from Senior Management” appended to the top of Pollak’s article that asserted that “Andrew Breitbart was never a ‘Birther,’ and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.'” The fact that that note was necessary is telling in itself. But it’s a rather hollow disclaimer when the headline and the opening paragraph seemingly contradict it. Pollak also wrote that “The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.” That’s true, but as Rabin-Havt pointed out, he had not called Pollak a birther. He had simply asserted that Pollak and Breitbart were still responsible for advancing the birther theme even if they themselves did not subscribe to it. And they did that by publishing articles with misleading headlines and expecting to absolve themselves of the birther taint by rejecting it several paragraphs later.

This bit of theatrics staged by the BreitBrats fits nicely into their modus operandi. It is the sort of ambush that Breitbart himself would have enjoyed pulling off. And it even starred Breitbart’s budding video propagandist, little Jimmy O’Keefe. But once again, when the facts are revealed in full, their deceit is all too apparent. The Media Matters article did not call Pollak a birther in the headline. Although Breitbart’s article did question Obama’s birthplace in their headline.

So the BreitBrats got together and conspired to ambush Rabin-Havt with a false accusation that he had done what the BreitBrats actually did do. And then they complain when nobody will take them seriously, and they wonder why they are “The Uninvited” and why everyone hates Breitbart.