From WaPo:

Breitbart posted a video he received from an anonymous source that showed Sherrod speaking at an NAACP civil rights dinner. There she told of the hesitation she had felt decades earlier when a white farmer came to her for help while she was working for a cooperative intended to aid black farmers who were losing their land at a fast rate.

The video, which did not include Sherrod’s remarks in full, made it appear that she did not help the white farmer as much as she could have, through counseling and other assistance, to save his failing farm. Sherrod became an instant lighting rod — painted as a racist African American bureaucrat. The incident served as an example of Breitbart’s ability to polarize.

Try again. You're fake news, bro. Now I can dismiss everything you say from here to eternity.

---

From WaPo:

Breitbart posted a video he received from an anonymous source that showed Sherrod speaking at an NAACP civil rights dinner. There she told of the hesitation she had felt decades earlier when a white farmer came to her for help while she was working for a cooperative intended to aid black farmers who were losing their land at a fast rate.

The video, which did not include Sherrod’s remarks in full, made it appear that she did not help the white farmer as much as she could have, through counseling and other assistance, to save his failing farm. Sherrod became an instant lighting rod — painted as a racist African American bureaucrat. The incident served as an example of Breitbart’s ability to polarize.

Try again. You're fake news, bro. Now I can dismiss everything you say from here to eternity.

First of all, you should never take someone's claim that they had an anonymous source at face value.
But even if we presume that they're not lying about this, it was still up to them to vet what they received before they promoted it as true.
Andrew Breitbart put his name behind it.
When Fox news noticed this on his website and noticed it getting a lot of views, they assumed that some vetting must have been done by somebody working for Breitbart. So they quickly piggybacked on Breitbart.
Fox news will not make that mistake again and neither should any of us.
Real journalism is hard. It takes a big team of people. it takes patience and multiple phone calls to different interested parties.
We should only give a presumption of truth to things that come from big institutions that actually correct themselves, such as CNN and Fox news.  These little fly-by-night websites should never be thought of as anything but exaggerating parrots at best, but more often straight up hucksters.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If you were more self aware, you'd feel embarrassed by that last post.

---

If you were more self aware, you'd feel embarrassed by that last post.

one of the first steps of being self-aware is realizing that not everyone thinks like you and not everyone would react or feel the same way to the same things.

All any of us can do here is explain what happened and tell how it made us feel. None of us can expect anyone else to feel the same way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We should only give a presumption of truth to things that come from big institutions that actually correct themselves, such as CNN and Fox news.  

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you were more self aware, you'd feel embarrassed by that last post.

one of the first steps of being self-aware is realizing that not everyone thinks like you and not everyone would react or feel the same way to the same things.

All any of us can do here is explain what happened and tell how it made us feel. None of us can expect anyone else to feel the same way.

Is it? Knowing people think differently starts in grade school. You don't become self-aware until you start understanding your own motives. We are all guided by base presumptions we have about the world, but I don't think you're honest with yourself about your world view, which limits your ability to challenge your confirmation bias. Don't worry, we all have this problem. You just don't admit it. I think you would if you could, but you're just not self-aware enough to consider it. 

Do you realize that you ultimately ended up arguing in favor of my position regarding CNN video. Keep in mind, I conceded the video by Breitbart did not represent Sherrod fairly... that it took her out of context. I said it wasn't dissimilar to what happened at CNN, to which you defended CNN. In addition to being patently incorrect in your summation of the Breitbart video, I can use your own words to refute this. 

It was still up to them to vet what they received before they promoted it as true.
CNN put their name behind it.
Real journalism is hard. It takes a big team of people. it takes patience and multiple phone calls to different interested parties.

A viral video does not absolve a media company from doing it's diligence. The fact that one video was viral (and fit a narrative) is only mildly different from receiving a video that was not viral (and fit a narrative). Both companies released a video that fit a narrative that supported their world view. CNN did not vet their story. However, because you aren't honest with your biases, you absolve the one and condemn the other. CNN is arguably worse. There were still defenses of the story a full week after they knew it was taken out of context. Here's an excerpt from an Atlantic article: 

By Saturday, the story had become so hot, and the appetite for it so deep, that some news outlets felt compelled to do some actual reporting. This was when the weekend began to take a long, bad turn for respected news outlets and righteous celebrities. Journalists began to discover that the viral video was not, in fact, the Zapruder film of 2019, and that there were other videos—lots and lots of them—that showed the event from multiple perspectives and that explained more clearly what had happened. At first the journalists and their editors tried to patch the revelations onto the existing story, in hopes that the whole thing would somehow hold together. CNN, apparently by now aware that the event had taken place within a complicating larger picture, tried to use the new information to support its own biased interpretation, sorrowfully reporting that early in the afternoon the boys had clashed with “four African American young men preaching about the Bible and oppression.”

But the wild, uncontrollable internet kept pumping videos into the ether that allowed people to see for themselves what had happened.

My point, in case you still can't see it, is not to say that it's ok for companies to do this, but that it happens. There are inherent biases in news outlets. They will be sued, and they will try to avoid making that mistake again. Breitbart has a narrative that is CLEARLY right, but to disregard all news from there is done for political convenience, not intellectual integrity. When you pretend it's the later, you show a lack of self-awareness. 

As an aside, when you get the facts wrong of a case and refuse to concede, it shows a lack of self-awareness. How hard is to say you misspoke?

---

one of the first steps of being self-aware is realizing that not everyone thinks like you and not everyone would react or feel the same way to the same things.

All any of us can do here is explain what happened and tell how it made us feel. None of us can expect anyone else to feel the same way.

Is it? Knowing people think differently starts in grade school. You don't become self-aware until you start understanding your own motives. We are all guided by base presumptions we have about the world, but I don't think you're honest with yourself about your world view, which limits your ability to challenge your confirmation bias. Don't worry, we all have this problem. You just don't admit it. I think you would if you could, but you're just not self-aware enough to consider it. 

Do you realize that you ultimately ended up arguing in favor of my position regarding CNN video. Keep in mind, I conceded the video by Breitbart did not represent Sherrod fairly... that it took her out of context. I said it wasn't dissimilar to what happened at CNN, to which you defended CNN. In addition to being patently incorrect in your summation of the Breitbart video, I can use your own words to refute this. 

It was still up to them to vet what they received before they promoted it as true.
CNN put their name behind it.
Real journalism is hard. It takes a big team of people. it takes patience and multiple phone calls to different interested parties.

A viral video does not absolve a media company from doing it's diligence. The fact that one video was viral (and fit a narrative) is only mildly different from receiving a video that was not viral (and fit a narrative). Both companies released a video that fit a narrative that supported their world view. CNN did not vet their story. However, because you aren't honest with your biases, you absolve the one and condemn the other. CNN is arguably worse. There were still defenses of the story a full week after they knew it was taken out of context. Here's an excerpt from an Atlantic article: 

By Saturday, the story had become so hot, and the appetite for it so deep, that some news outlets felt compelled to do some actual reporting. This was when the weekend began to take a long, bad turn for respected news outlets and righteous celebrities. Journalists began to discover that the viral video was not, in fact, the Zapruder film of 2019, and that there were other videos—lots and lots of them—that showed the event from multiple perspectives and that explained more clearly what had happened. At first the journalists and their editors tried to patch the revelations onto the existing story, in hopes that the whole thing would somehow hold together. CNN, apparently by now aware that the event had taken place within a complicating larger picture, tried to use the new information to support its own biased interpretation, sorrowfully reporting that early in the afternoon the boys had clashed with “four African American young men preaching about the Bible and oppression.”

But the wild, uncontrollable internet kept pumping videos into the ether that allowed people to see for themselves what had happened.

My point, in case you still can't see it, is not to say that it's ok for companies to do this, but that it happens. There are inherent biases in news outlets. They will be sued, and they will try to avoid making that mistake again. Breitbart has a narrative that is CLEARLY right, but to disregard all news from there is done for political convenience, not intellectual integrity. When you pretend it's the later, you show a lack of self-awareness. 

As an aside, when you get the facts wrong of a case and refuse to concede, it shows a lack of self-awareness. How hard is to say you misspoke?

Most of the outrage was over the native American's allegation that some of the students did a  "build the wall" chant against him. He himself posted on Twitter that this is what he heard. A CNN reporter actually happened to be on scene but could not confirm or deny that that was heard. she was not close enough. Even though we now have video of the event for multiple angles beginning to end, the audio quality is not quite good enough to rule out that at least some of the students did say this to him.

The Shirley Sherrod story ends on a note of "Breitbart got this completely and maliciously wrong." The Lincoln memorial story ends with something like, "this was a very difficult situation with at least three different groups of angry people, and CNN regrets being so sure of something that was ultimately ambiguous"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is it? Knowing people think differently starts in grade school. You don't become self-aware until you start understanding your own motives. We are all guided by base presumptions we have about the world, but I don't think you're honest with yourself about your world view, which limits your ability to challenge your confirmation bias. Don't worry, we all have this problem. You just don't admit it. I think you would if you could, but you're just not self-aware enough to consider it. 

Do you realize that you ultimately ended up arguing in favor of my position regarding CNN video. Keep in mind, I conceded the video by Breitbart did not represent Sherrod fairly... that it took her out of context. I said it wasn't dissimilar to what happened at CNN, to which you defended CNN. In addition to being patently incorrect in your summation of the Breitbart video, I can use your own words to refute this. 


A viral video does not absolve a media company from doing it's diligence. The fact that one video was viral (and fit a narrative) is only mildly different from receiving a video that was not viral (and fit a narrative). Both companies released a video that fit a narrative that supported their world view. CNN did not vet their story. However, because you aren't honest with your biases, you absolve the one and condemn the other. CNN is arguably worse. There were still defenses of the story a full week after they knew it was taken out of context. Here's an excerpt from an Atlantic article: 


My point, in case you still can't see it, is not to say that it's ok for companies to do this, but that it happens. There are inherent biases in news outlets. They will be sued, and they will try to avoid making that mistake again. Breitbart has a narrative that is CLEARLY right, but to disregard all news from there is done for political convenience, not intellectual integrity. When you pretend it's the later, you show a lack of self-awareness. 

As an aside, when you get the facts wrong of a case and refuse to concede, it shows a lack of self-awareness. How hard is to say you misspoke?

Most of the outrage was over the native American's allegation that some of the students did a  "build the wall" chant against him. He himself posted on Twitter that this is what he heard. A CNN reporter actually happened to be on scene but could not confirm or deny that that was heard. she was not close enough. Even though we now have video of the event for multiple angles beginning to end, the audio quality is not quite good enough to rule out that at least some of the students did say this to him.

The Shirley Sherrod story ends on a note of "Breitbart got this completely and maliciously wrong." The Lincoln memorial story ends with something like, "this was a very difficult situation with at least three different groups of angry people, and CNN regrets being so sure of something that was ultimately ambiguous"

Except for the fact it was demonstrated that the guy targeted the kids and initiated the whole confrontation.  Not to mention the general way the guy was completely discredited.  But u keep carrying that water Mikey!

---

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

---

After watching Adam Schiff drone on with the same old talking points on 'This Week', it is becoming increasingly apparent that the dems are pushing Schiff and Nadler out front to do the political dirty work while they distance themselves from the inevitable train wreck. Nadler was, and is, a legislative nobody. Schiff is a little smarter and I wonder how he roped himself into this dead end witch hunt. Then again, it really is all about getting the votes to keep a paycheck.

---

After watching Adam Schiff drone on with the same old talking points on 'This Week', it is becoming increasingly apparent that the dems are pushing Schiff and Nadler out front to do the political dirty work while they distance themselves from the inevitable train wreck. Nadler was, and is, a legislative nobody. Schiff is a little smarter and I wonder how he roped himself into this dead end witch hunt. Then again, it really is all about getting the votes to keep a paycheck.

Aren't they just doing the work the Republicans assigned to Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan during the Obama years?

Of course Schiff and Nadler come across as a lot more intelligent than Jordan, who clearly suffered head injuries while wrestling. Trey Gowdy was assigned the role of the "smart" one and at least had interesting hair.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

After watching Adam Schiff drone on with the same old talking points on 'This Week', it is becoming increasingly apparent that the dems are pushing Schiff and Nadler out front to do the political dirty work while they distance themselves from the inevitable train wreck. Nadler was, and is, a legislative nobody. Schiff is a little smarter and I wonder how he roped himself into this dead end witch hunt. Then again, it really is all about getting the votes to keep a paycheck.

Aren't they just doing the work the Republicans assigned to Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan during the Obama years?

Of course Schiff and Nadler come across as a lot more intelligent than Jordan, who clearly suffered head injuries while wrestling. Trey Gowdy was assigned the role of the "smart" one and at least had interesting hair.

You lost everyone when you used the words Schiff Newman and intelligent in the same sentence. You really need to raise the expectation bar for yourself.

---

Aren't they just doing the work the Republicans assigned to Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan during the Obama years?

Of course Schiff and Nadler come across as a lot more intelligent than Jordan, who clearly suffered head injuries while wrestling. Trey Gowdy was assigned the role of the "smart" one and at least had interesting hair.

You lost everyone when you used the words Schiff Newman and intelligent in the same sentence. You really need to raise the expectation bar for yourself.

John Boehner called Jim Jordan a bonehead.  You don't have to be very intelligent to outpace Jim Jordan.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You lost everyone when you used the words Schiff Newman and intelligent in the same sentence. You really need to raise the expectation bar for yourself.

John Boehner called Jim Jordan a bonehead.  You don't have to be very intelligent to outpace Jim Jordan.

Example?

---

John Boehner called Jim Jordan a bonehead.  You don't have to be very intelligent to outpace Jim Jordan.

Example?

Well, I went digging and couldn't find the exact quote.  I probably misremembered it
Anyhow, the interview Boehner gave to Politico does paint Jordan as a dim bulb.
Jordan didn't understand his role as a member of a House Majority.
If you're going to gun for the speaker, you'd better not miss.  If you miss, you'd better stand behind the speaker when he needs you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Schiff is a little smarter and I wonder how he roped himself into this dead end witch hunt. 

He's the Representative for Hollywood. He could literally drop-kick puppies into the ocean and still get re-elected.

---

Tic toc, tic toc

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-us...p-campaign

---

Tic toc, tic toc

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-us...p-campaign

You Trumpettes are so easily played. We've been hearing tough talk from Trump and his minions for three years, yet no action and no proof. The Republicans controlled all committees for two years yet no proof and no action. Whatever it takes to keep stringing you along and distract you until the elections. Don't worry - Sean, Tucker and Laura will keep you sufficiently fired up and hopeful - right up until nothing happens.

Be careful what you wish for. What if the FISA warrants are found to be valid? What new dog whistle will Donald use? 

Trumpettes are so gullible! I love how Donald sends mean tweets regarding the current FBI Director. The guy Donald picked as director! To replace the other guy he picked as Director and then fired - about the "Russia thing".

Having a new lap dog AG doesn't mean what you think it means.

You just can't make this stuff up.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Tic toc, tic toc

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-us...p-campaign

You Trumpettes are so easily played. We've been hearing tough talk from Trump and his minions for three years, yet no action and no proof. The Republicans controlled all committees for two years yet no proof and no action. Whatever it takes to keep stringing you along and distract you until the elections. Don't worry - Sean, Tucker and Laura will keep you sufficiently fired up and hopeful - right up until nothing happens.

Be careful what you wish for. What if the FISA warrants are found to be valid? What new dog whistle will Donald use? 

Trumpettes are so gullible! I love how Donald sends mean tweets regarding the current FBI Director. The guy Donald picked as director! To replace the other guy he picked as Director and then fired - about the "Russia thing".

Having a new lap dog AG doesn't mean what you think it means.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Barr has been AG for 3 years? New sheriff in town.

Sorry, but some of your role models are going to prison.

---

You Trumpettes are so easily played. We've been hearing tough talk from Trump and his minions for three years, yet no action and no proof. The Republicans controlled all committees for two years yet no proof and no action. Whatever it takes to keep stringing you along and distract you until the elections. Don't worry - Sean, Tucker and Laura will keep you sufficiently fired up and hopeful - right up until nothing happens.

Be careful what you wish for. What if the FISA warrants are found to be valid? What new dog whistle will Donald use? 

Trumpettes are so gullible! I love how Donald sends mean tweets regarding the current FBI Director. The guy Donald picked as director! To replace the other guy he picked as Director and then fired - about the "Russia thing".

Having a new lap dog AG doesn't mean what you think it means.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Barr has been AG for 3 years? New sheriff in town.

Sorry, but some of your role models are going to prison.

Wake me up when something actually happens.

Donald talks a good game - but it's all talk. See North Korea. See Lock Her Up! See Clinton Foundation. See Uranium One. See a lot of things.

Obviously Barr was hired to spin and lie for Donald, and he certainly seems up to the task. And he'll do what he can. I doubt it will go very far. But it gets the troops fired up. It's just another phony issue to take into the 2020 campaign. Donald is always playing the victim.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.