CNN hosts, who would scream bloody murder at the thought they should be subject to “checks and balances,” seem to want “checks and balances” applied to bloggers

One of the things that the (supposedly) professional journalists hate the most about the internet is that they have lost their “gatekeeping” function. Prior to Al Gore inventing the internet, to get something published, you had to submit it to an editor or publisher for review, and it would only be published if he liked it or thought it had value for his publication (an editor) or would make money for the publisher. From Sister Toldjah:

CNN hosts: In light of Sherrod story, legal steps/”checks and balances” system needed for bloggers

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on July 24, 2010 at 11:48 am

Alana Goodman from Newsbusters files this disturbing report:

Should there be a “gatekeeper” regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that’s what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the “mixed blessing of the internet,” and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

Much more at the link. But Sister Toldjah had one absolutely killer observation:

Isn’t it interesting how they are talking about the alleged “hatefulness” of “anonymous bloggers” yet the blogger in question that has caused CNN to fire on all cylinders is NOT anonymous? I’m guessing this point has probably escaped them.

Well, there was a part of the Newsbusters story Sis didn’t quote, but it seems to me that it has a lot of importance:

“There are so many great things that the internet does and has to offer, but at the same time, Kyra, as you know, there is this dark side,” Roberts said. “Imagine what would have happened if we hadn’t taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said.”

Now, if there was no internet, Andrew Breitbart’s story might not have gotten checked, but it also wouldn’t have been published in the first place; the mostly liberal mainsteam media wouldn’t have been the least bit interested in a story which hurt Obama Administration personnel. But if there was no internet, and no independent blogs like Powerline or Little Green Footballs, CBS News use of forged documents in its attempt to harm President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign would have gone unchallenged; it was Charles Johnson of LGF and John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson and Paul Mirengoff of Powerline who were able to spot the forgery on the video image of the documents used, not the documents themselves, something that nobody at CBS seemed to be able to do with the paper in their hands. While the Thornberg Commission conservatively claimed that it was a “myopic zeal” to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story, it was, in fact, a shameless political attempt to aid John Kerry and hurt George Bush in 2004, and episode producer Mary Mapes, who was eventually fired for her conduct, actually called the Kerry campaign to try to coordinate the story with them. The Thornberg Commission called Miss Mapes’ action a “clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of political bias.

Ya think? :)

The JournoList revelations have served one useful purpose: they have helped to (further) document the liberal bias of most of our professional media. The CNN anchors might be lamenting that there were no controls which allowed Mr Breitbart’s erroneous story to go public, but the controls which would have restrained a non-anonymous blogger like Mr Breitbart and kept the Shirley Sherrod story unpublished would also have prevented blogs like Powerline from exposing CBS’ News biased and inaccurate story.

9 Comments

  1. Maybe it would be a good thing to put CNN under the same scrututiny they want for blobs. Wonder how the story line would sound then?

  2. Dana, I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to Andrew Breightbart. His primary focus was never limited to exposing Shirley Sherrod to criticism for her openly expressed racism come self-realization and possible redemption. For Breitbart, Sherrod’s speech was only a means for exposing the NAACP’s racism in response to their dishonest racist assault on the TEA Party.

    Breightbart’s focus was on exposing the hypocrisy of the NAACP audience for clapping their approval for Sherrod’s racist expressions. If anyone read his comments which accompanied the two excerpts he posted, his point was clearly made.

    Yet, in the Administration’s rush to judgment, and in the NAACP’s haste to denounce Sherrod, neither one apparently took the time to either read Breitbart’s comments or to view the entire video which was in the NAACP’s possession.

    Breitbart has been falsely accused of “heavily editing” the excerpts he posted, but that’s not true either. He posted the full unedited excerpts in his possession. Although he can rightly be criticized for posting excerpts without having the entire video in his possession.

    But, that’s no excuse for the NAACP’s denunciation of Sherrod, they had the full tape but rushed to an attack without apparently looking at it, or apparently warning the Obama White House and the Department of Agriculture to take a deep breath and count to 10 before violating Sherrod’s rights.

    Shirley Sherrod was railroaded out of her job well before FOX NEWS ever broadcast the first viewing of Breitbart’s excerpts. Why did Obama’s Administration act so quickly?

    Sherrod says they told her the White House feared she would be a topic on the Glenn Beck TV show that evening. Well, they forced her to resign and Beck never mentioned her name that night. The next night he defended Sherrod as having been mistreated and called for her to be treated fairly.

    I’m saying that Breitbart should be treated fairly too, he’s not above criticism, but that criticism should be focused on what he did or didn’t do. Not on what someone imagines he might have done, or on outright misrepresentations of the actual record.

  3. Dana, I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to Andrew Breightbart. His primary focus was never limited to exposing Shirley Sherrod to criticism for her openly expressed racism come self-realization and possible redemption. For Breitbart, Sherrod’s speech was only a means for exposing the NAACP’s racism in response to their dishonest racist assault on the TEA Party.

    Breightbart’s focus was on exposing the hypocrisy of the NAACP audience for clapping their approval for Sherrod’s racist expressions. If anyone read his comments which accompanied the two excerpts he posted, his point was clearly made.

    That’s teh backpeddling revision of why the lie was created.

    It is also false as well.

    So, let’s review the Breitbart gang’s allegations:

    When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
    The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
    The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
    They weren’t cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
    As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.

    First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.

    Then they misrepresented Sherrod’s story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn’t have the full video. Strike two.

    Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they’re lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.

    Reopelight is a lying weasel. But we already knew that.

  4. ropelight: “Shirley Sherrod was railroaded out of her job well before FOX NEWS ever broadcast the first viewing of Breitbart’s excerpts. “

    Another ropelight lie! Where is your citation?

    Here is the truth!

  5. PB: Stop it with the deceitful Soros-funded ultra-leftist Media Mutters links. None of them can be trusted because Media Mutters lies.

    Given that you are a documented liar, you’re not in a position to criticise.

    And, as it turns out, you’re a cliche.

  6. Seek the truth and it will set you free, maybe not from your self-deceptions but at least from obvious frauds of the sort passed around by brazenly dishonest partisan hacks.

    Hint, truth can’t be found at Media Matters, they peddle propaganda, exclusively and repititiously, and only fools and blind pigs are so ignorant of the facts as to line up and swallow Soros’ swill.

    Perry and Phoney are so far from any tangential relationship to reality neither one can be trusted to think for themselves, or see beyond the limited reach of their preconceived misperceptions.

    They’re sisters under the skin, and they parrot the party line, ad nauseum.

  7. Ropelight writes:
    “Shirley Sherrod was railroaded out of her job well before FOX NEWS ever broadcast the first viewing of Breitbart’s excerpts. Why did Obama’s Administration act so quickly?”

    Perry responds:

    “ropelight: “Shirley Sherrod was railroaded out of her job well before FOX NEWS ever broadcast the first viewing of Breitbart’s excerpts. “

    Another ropelight lie! Where is your citation?

    Here is the truth! ”

    And produces a link to showing evidence of Internet references.

    Broadcast, Perry. She resigned in the afternoon apparently:

    CNN) – Shirley Sherrod, a former USDA employee who resigned after a controversial video surfaced, told CNN Tuesday that members of the Obama administration “harassed” her and demanded she resign her post immediately. …In an interview with CNN, Sherrod said she repeatedly fielded calls on Monday during a long car ride, during which officials insisted that she pull over to the side of the road and quit her post.

    “They asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia yesterday,” Sherrod told CNN. “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign…and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.” …

    Sherrod said the final call came from Cheryl Cook, an undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture. Sherrod said White House officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was “going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.”

  8. Perry — you and Howard Dean ought to get together.

    Bret Baire went through the ACTUAL timeline of the Sherrod affair last evening. Take note.

    But, just like Howard Dean, you’ll keep ignoring the FACTS and keep spouting what you’d LIKE the facts to be.

Comments are closed.