Breitbart admits to dishonesty , shocks no one.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/the-ongoing-mistreatment-of-right-leaning-news-consumers/549335/?utm_source=atlfb

Damn, and I thought the media always told us the truth.

 

This has shocked my beliefs to their very core.

Lol who actually thinks any significant American news organization tells the truth? 

 

CNN, Fox, Breitbart, MSNBC. They're all fucking crooks. 

fakenews

Get A Grip Dude -

For those who don't want to read:

Breitbart's editor, who believed Roy Moore's accusers had "a lot of credibility", nevertheless did everything possible to destroy that credibility and paint the allegations as phony, out of what they felt was their duty to prevent Trump. They feared that if Roy Moore was brought down by allegations, then so could Trump be (since there are no shortage of allegations against Trump).

The response from other conservative outlets:

The American Conservative:

Do you understand this? Even if they believe that you were sexually assaulted at 14 by an older man, they will continue to destroy your reputation as a way of protecting that older man, because their real mission is to protect Donald Trump — and extremism in the defense of Trump is no vice. Truth, fairness, and ordinary human decency don’t matter. Only winning. 
<blockquote>
    It is useful to know that you can&rsquo;t believe a thing Breitbart says, because it&rsquo;s willing to publish fake news that serves its perceived interests. I mean, you knew this anyway, but now you&rsquo;ve had it confirmed by the editor-in-chief.</blockquote>
<div>
    &nbsp;</div>



 



National Review:




It’s one thing to test the claims of a person who publicly accuses a Senate candidate of sexual misconduct. That’s fair, and that’s something journalists should do when considering any claim of wrongdoing. It’s another thing entirely to withhold from readers the judgment that an accuser “had a lot of credibility” as part of an effort to protect an entirely different politician from the possibility of future claims.


 In other words, Breitbart facilitated the continued persecution of a credible childhood assault victim for purely political purposes. It subordinated fact-finding to its political agenda. It acted not as a journalist enterprise but as a partisan opposition research firm with a quasi-journalistic platform. It exploited the good name of its founder and the trust of its audience to try to drag a probable child abuser across an electoral finish line. It’s clear that Breitbart subscribes to the belief that to make their nationalist omelet they have to break a few abuse-victim eggs.



 


 

After reading the article, I don’t believe Breitbart was being dishonest. The only dishonesty is the perversion of what was said by The Atlantic. I did not read that article to say that Breitbart was being dishonest, but rather demanding more than just allegations to bring down people.  The AtLantic seems to grab incomplete soundbites attributed to an editor for Breitbart and with those soundbites, extrapolate a theory of dishonesty. There was no cited dishonesty alleged in the reporting. The editor, Marlow, seem to have a personal opinion, if the soundbites were even correct, however this does not equate to dishonest reporting.

it is very late and I am very tired but that was my reading of that article. 

Cookie Monster -
Get A Grip Dude -

For those who don't want to read:

Breitbart's editor, who believed Roy Moore's accusers had "a lot of credibility", nevertheless did everything possible to destroy that credibility and paint the allegations as phony, out of what they felt was their duty to prevent Trump. They feared that if Roy Moore was brought down by allegations, then so could Trump be (since there are no shortage of allegations against Trump).

The response from other conservative outlets:

The American Conservative:

Do you understand this? Even if they believe that you were sexually assaulted at 14 by an older man, they will continue to destroy your reputation as a way of protecting that older man, because their real mission is to protect Donald Trump — and extremism in the defense of Trump is no vice. Truth, fairness, and ordinary human decency don’t matter. Only winning. 
<blockquote>
    It is useful to know that you can&rsquo;t believe a thing Breitbart says, because it&rsquo;s willing to publish fake news that serves its perceived interests. I mean, you knew this anyway, but now you&rsquo;ve had it confirmed by the editor-in-chief.</blockquote>
<div>
    &nbsp;</div>



 



National Review:




It’s one thing to test the claims of a person who publicly accuses a Senate candidate of sexual misconduct. That’s fair, and that’s something journalists should do when considering any claim of wrongdoing. It’s another thing entirely to withhold from readers the judgment that an accuser “had a lot of credibility” as part of an effort to protect an entirely different politician from the possibility of future claims.


 In other words, Breitbart facilitated the continued persecution of a credible childhood assault victim for purely political purposes. It subordinated fact-finding to its political agenda. It acted not as a journalist enterprise but as a partisan opposition research firm with a quasi-journalistic platform. It exploited the good name of its founder and the trust of its audience to try to drag a probable child abuser across an electoral finish line. It’s clear that Breitbart subscribes to the belief that to make their nationalist omelet they have to break a few abuse-victim eggs.



 


 

After reading the article, I don’t believe Breitbart was being dishonest. The only dishonesty is the perversion of what was said by The Atlantic. I did not read that article to say that Breitbart was being dishonest, but rather demanding more than just allegations to bring down people.  The AtLantic seems to grab incomplete soundbites attributed to an editor for Breitbart and with those soundbites, extrapolate a theory of dishonesty. There was no cited dishonesty alleged in the reporting. The editor, Marlow, seem to have a personal opinion, if the soundbites were even correct, however this does not equate to dishonest reporting.

it is very late and I am very tired but that was my reading of that article. 

Well he did say this. He isn't wrong though. 

If pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and their less-successful imitators truly abhorred dishonest journalism, or cared to expose those who mislead the rank-and-file conservatives they claim to care about for lucre,  they would’ve treated an admission by the most highly trafficked conservative web site that their coverage is dishonest as a major piece of scandalous news. The same goes for websites like The Daily Caller and The Federalist, which ought to inform their readers about corrupt right-wing elites—as best I can tell, none of those sites found this story worthy of much coverage, let alone saw it as a hugely damning indictment that everyone on the right ought to know about.

"

Brent hart the best there will ever be

the best there was

the best wrestler!

the excellent of extra cushion

wait so ppl think breitbart is any more honest than cnn or the like?

 

breitbart is the fakest of news there is, at least cnn and fox feed you the fake under the guise of real news, breitbart just post any dumb hacky schlock that pusshes whatever narrative they are on to at the moment... i mean i jsutu checked their homepage and the main headline is "Zmirak: NeverTrump National Review Licked ‘the Mud Off of George W. Bush’s Boots’ While He Allowed Iraq’s Christians to Be Ethnically Cleansed" i mean there is a grain of truth in the story but LOL

 

 

FlyingKnee_bar - 

wait so ppl think breitbart is any more honest than cnn or the like?

 

breitbart is the fakest of news there is, at least cnn and fox feed you the fake under the guise of real news, breitbart just post any dumb hacky schlock that pusshes whatever narrative they are on to at the moment... i mean i jsutu checked their homepage and the main headline is "Zmirak: NeverTrump National Review Licked ‘the Mud Off of George W. Bush’s Boots’ While He Allowed Iraq’s Christians to Be Ethnically Cleansed" i mean there is a grain of truth in the story but LOL

 

 


There's a lot more than a grain of truth there. Neocons, Hawks, and so called Christians like Dubya, Graham, and McCain has practically wiped Christianity out in the Middle East and they were desperately hoping Hillary would be elected to finish the job.

Sandy Pantz - 
FlyingKnee_bar - 

wait so ppl think breitbart is any more honest than cnn or the like?

 

breitbart is the fakest of news there is, at least cnn and fox feed you the fake under the guise of real news, breitbart just post any dumb hacky schlock that pusshes whatever narrative they are on to at the moment... i mean i jsutu checked their homepage and the main headline is "Zmirak: NeverTrump National Review Licked ‘the Mud Off of George W. Bush’s Boots’ While He Allowed Iraq’s Christians to Be Ethnically Cleansed" i mean there is a grain of truth in the story but LOL

 

 


There's a lot more than a grain of truth there. Neocons, Hawks, and so called Christians like Dubya, Graham, and McCain has practically wiped Christianity out in the Middle East and they were desperately hoping Hillary would be elected to finish the job.


Your libertarian values always shine through with such brilliance. It hurts the eyes. Let me tell you.

Guessing this thread won't get many responses. But but cnn

Fake news about fake news!

Josh - Guessing this thread won't get many responses. But but cnn

Not a but but but as all outlets do this my question to you is have any of the others admitted to dishonesty? We've heard them say people have made errors in judgement and just about everything else but I can't recall a time ever hearing any outlet claim they were in the very least or most dishonest.

Get A Grip Dude -

For those who don't want to read:

Breitbart's editor, who believed Roy Moore's accusers had "a lot of credibility", nevertheless did everything possible to destroy that credibility and paint the allegations as phony, out of what they felt was their duty to prevent Trump. They feared that if Roy Moore was brought down by allegations, then so could Trump be (since there are no shortage of allegations against Trump).

The response from other conservative outlets:

The American Conservative:

Do you understand this? Even if they believe that you were sexually assaulted at 14 by an older man, they will continue to destroy your reputation as a way of protecting that older man, because their real mission is to protect Donald Trump — and extremism in the defense of Trump is no vice. Truth, fairness, and ordinary human decency don’t matter. Only winning. 
<blockquote>
    It is useful to know that you can&rsquo;t believe a thing Breitbart says, because it&rsquo;s willing to publish fake news that serves its perceived interests. I mean, you knew this anyway, but now you&rsquo;ve had it confirmed by the editor-in-chief.</blockquote>
<div>
    &nbsp;</div>



 



National Review:




It’s one thing to test the claims of a person who publicly accuses a Senate candidate of sexual misconduct. That’s fair, and that’s something journalists should do when considering any claim of wrongdoing. It’s another thing entirely to withhold from readers the judgment that an accuser “had a lot of credibility” as part of an effort to protect an entirely different politician from the possibility of future claims.


 In other words, Breitbart facilitated the continued persecution of a credible childhood assault victim for purely political purposes. It subordinated fact-finding to its political agenda. It acted not as a journalist enterprise but as a partisan opposition research firm with a quasi-journalistic platform. It exploited the good name of its founder and the trust of its audience to try to drag a probable child abuser across an electoral finish line. It’s clear that Breitbart subscribes to the belief that to make their nationalist omelet they have to break a few abuse-victim eggs.



 


 

Get A Life Dude

Breitbart has no ethics? Consider me shocked!

It’s always funny to watch people show up and gloat when it’s a new outlet on the other side admitting fault, but they are strangely missing when the same thing happens to an outlet on their side. 

That’s the issue now. People are too tribal and partisan. And I think that’s by design to deflect away from how corrupt Washington is, left or right. 

Pick any breaking story, and visit fox, cnn, Breitbart, motherjones etc. they all spin the same story. Leave out facts, add “facts” etc

In other news CNN doubles down on their dishonesty in reporting the news lol.

This isnt need at all by the way. I avoid Breitbart like the plague.

Sandy Pantz -
FlyingKnee_bar - 

wait so ppl think breitbart is any more honest than cnn or the like?

 

breitbart is the fakest of news there is, at least cnn and fox feed you the fake under the guise of real news, breitbart just post any dumb hacky schlock that pusshes whatever narrative they are on to at the moment... i mean i jsutu checked their homepage and the main headline is "Zmirak: NeverTrump National Review Licked ‘the Mud Off of George W. Bush’s Boots’ While He Allowed Iraq’s Christians to Be Ethnically Cleansed" i mean there is a grain of truth in the story but LOL

 

 


There's a lot more than a grain of truth there. Neocons, Hawks, and so called Christians like Dubya, Graham, and McCain has practically wiped Christianity out in the Middle East and they were desperately hoping Hillary would be elected to finish the job.

it doesnt even matter its a news site doing a news story about a news story! so technically it isnt even new bc its jsut a story about some other story.

pulsar - 
Sandy Pantz - 
FlyingKnee_bar - 

wait so ppl think breitbart is any more honest than cnn or the like?

 

breitbart is the fakest of news there is, at least cnn and fox feed you the fake under the guise of real news, breitbart just post any dumb hacky schlock that pusshes whatever narrative they are on to at the moment... i mean i jsutu checked their homepage and the main headline is "Zmirak: NeverTrump National Review Licked ‘the Mud Off of George W. Bush’s Boots’ While He Allowed Iraq’s Christians to Be Ethnically Cleansed" i mean there is a grain of truth in the story but LOL

 

 


There's a lot more than a grain of truth there. Neocons, Hawks, and so called Christians like Dubya, Graham, and McCain has practically wiped Christianity out in the Middle East and they were desperately hoping Hillary would be elected to finish the job.


Your libertarian values always shine through with such brilliance. It hurts the eyes. Let me tell you.


A. Who said I was a libertarian?

B. What is "not libertarian" about what I said?