The Breitbart video obviously misrepresents Shirley Sherrod's position by only showing the negative portion of her speech without including the moral. I am not condoning what they did. However, saying Breitbart was built on that video is akin to saying CNN was built on the video of the HS students at the March for Life. They both are valid sources of news that fell victim to the editor/reporter/company's own personal bias that resulted in a misrepresented position. Brietbart was sued and settled for that video. They couldn't repeat that mistake over and over without going bankrupt. All media companies make errors. All of them. To hold one to a higher standard out of political expedience shows a lack of integrity. 

My objection stems from frequently seeing Fox or Breitbart immediately dismissed without any concern for the content. I have no qualms with the source material being scrutinized BECAUSE it came from a right leaning source (questioning the validity of anonymous sources, disregarding sensationalist headlines, pointing out charged rhetoric etc), but I do have a problem with the instant dismissal of a source because of it's leaning. The narrative might be twisted. The opinion might be skewed, but the facts are mostly true. If you don't want to watch it or read it, that's your prerogative. To categorically dismiss it seems foolish. 

This is not unlike people getting labeled "far right" for having any conservative opinion. They are ad hominems that essentially attack the source of the information without having to consider it. I don't care if  you're on the left or right, consider what's being put in front of you.

---