In my last post about the Democrat’s new inflatable sex doll, Sandra Fluke, I referred to the mainstream media as the “Walter Duranty Press”. Many who know of the history of the liberal “paper of record”, the New York Times and its connection with Stalin’s serial apologist, Walter Duranty. Duranty is quite the piece of work, committing true crimes against humanity in his failure to report accurately on the famines in the Ukraine, the Northern Caucasus, the Volga Region, Kazakhstan,the South Urals, and Western Siberia. Duranty continued to toe the Soviet line and report to the rest of the world that everything was just going swimmingly as millions starved to death in what was called the Holodomor or as it is translated, the “hungry mass-death”.
Duranty was a liar, an ideologue and a communist sympathizer. Those aren’t requirements to work at the Times but it apparently helps if your objective is a Pulitzer Prize. Jayson Blair, anyone?
I’ve been thinking about Duranty and the mainstream (liberal) press in light of the recent and tragic death of a conservative cage fighter, Andrew Breitbart. The chief accusation the political left, including members of the leftist media is that Breitbart was a liar and a propagandist – who, to complete the trifecta -was also a racist. Those who knew him know that none of that was true. Breitbart was a lot of things – bombastic, confrontational and unabashedly conservative but there is no evidence that he was anything that the left claims.
Strangely enough, these are the same “crimes” that the liberals suppose conservatives and their favorite target, FOX News, commit with on a daily basis. After considering the irony of charges like this coming from sites like Media Matters for America and Alternet, two “news” sources that have both been proven liars and who love selective editing, I asked myself this: who watches the watchers? If these outlets are so intent on protecting Obama, who will hold him to account after they did a Duranty in the 2008 election and ignoring evidence of Obama’s radicalism and spinning him as a “moderate”?
Then there was Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart may have passed away too early to personally complete his mission but his spirit lives on.
Bretibart is here.
The delayed vetting of Barack H. Obama, the vetting that the Walter Duranty Press wouldn’t do in 2007/2008, begins now. From Breitbart’s Big Government:
Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.
Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.
Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.
From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.
We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.
Read it all as if your life and your freedom depended on it – because it well may.
The Rio Norte Line 
Hope you post it here….
Click on the link to Big Government in the post, it will take you to the article…
3 word explanation: 180 degree rule.
Shirley Sherrod was Breitbart’s Tawana Brawley, an regrettable failure of judgment against which all his other accomplishments and and acts will be measured. And that is a shame, as the more I read about Breitbart, the more I realize that his death is a loss for all of us.
I guess no degree of apology is acceptable for a conservative. Breitbart did not fire her, the Obama administration did without investigation. Breitbart did note that he went to press with an edited video, one that was edited before he got it, he also posted the full video in context – even then it showed the NAACP members approval of treating white farmers different to black…
From the Daily Beast:
Another case of a conservative not quite getting the concept of ‘apology’, in which one makes a statement of regret in acknowledgement of a error. Breitbart cannot even bring himself to use Ms. Sherrod’s name, instead referring to ‘this person’.
The gist I get is that Breitbart was talking about the “person” who sent him the edited video.
I hit ‘send’ too early.
But you make a good point, Utah, Obama jumped the gun in firing the woman, as he had not heard the whole story. He acted in a similar manner before his ‘beer summit’.
One can make the case that Breitbart’s methods, even when questionable, elicit reactions that reveal character flaws in the target.
William Buckley played a prank once, releasing fake transcripts that suggested that Kennedy and his advisors had contemplated nuking Vietnam., Dean Rusk, a Kennedy advisor, actually said it was possible that he had voiced that opinion.