Andrew Breitbart has been called a lot of things in the past year. His supporters and admirers call him a hero, and a modern day Paul Revere. His detractors call him a Nazi, a racist, etc.
One thing we can all call him now is --- victorious.
Because thanks to Breitbart's relentless efforts to prove that the Congressmen who claimed they were called the "n" word by Tea Partiers back on March 20 were lying, the New York Times has finally admitted --- four and a half months after the fact --- that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support their allegations.
Andrew Breitbart, at Big Journalism:
Buried at the bottom of a story published the other day, the New York Times printed a curious little correction:
The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.
- The Times is admitting that there is absolutely no evidence that any epithets were shouted at the Congressman by any member of the Tea Party.
- This correction demonstrates we have finally proven our point to the nation’s most eminent and influential liberal media organ: that Rep. Andre Carson lied when he told the AP that members of the Tea Party hurled the “N-word” 15 times during the March 20 health-care rally that took place at the U.S. Capitol.
That’s great, as far as it goes – a thorough vindication of the Tea Party — but it doesn’t go far enough.
- It’s not enough for the Times to make a correction having let that calumny sit out there unrebuked for weeks and months and then, way after the fact, issue a correction.
- It’s not enough because the Times continues to imply that something racially charged might happened on the steps of the Capitol, when we have shown conclusively, via multiple videos of the moment in question, that nothing of the sort occurred.
(Read it all)
You're damned right it doesn't go far enough, Andrew.
The Times, and every one of the "news" outlets that reported this lie as "fact," owes the Tea Party an apology, and a wholesale retraction.
Will it get one from all of them? No. But we can make our voices known to the "big dogs" of the "media" industry.
Let's start with HuffPost --- the #1 most-read blog in the world, and a top-ten U.S. "news" site --- which has engaged in a "journalistic jihad" against the Tea Party, based on false charges of racism
As a reminder, here are HuffPost's self-professed nonpartisan journalistic standards (for full documentation, see Section A here):
“What we're doing is two things. We do news. I don't believe news is left wing or right wing. And then we do the group blog, which is going to be a dialogue from all viewpoints.”
- May 6, 2005
“The editorial stance of the Huffington Post is to debunk the right-left way of thinking, which has become completely obsolete."
- November 14, 2007
“[T]oo many reporters have forgotten that the highest calling of journalists is to ferret out the truth, consequences be damned.”
- July 29, 2008
"[At HuffPost] there are guidelines that have to be followed -- and they include a prohibition on conspiracy theories or inflammatory claims..."
- February 1, 2010
Despite these high-sounding claims, here are but a few examples of HuffPost's inflammatory, libelous headlines about the Tea Party, which HuffPost knew --- or had good reason to know --- were false:
"MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALLED 'NI**ER,' 'FA**OT,' SPAT ON BY TEA PARTY PROTESTERS" (3/20/10)The Reality: There is no proof whatsoever that any of these things ever happened. Zero.
Why HuffPost knew, or should have known the story was false/misleading: In legitimate "newspapers," basic journalistic ethics demand that if one is going to smear an individual or group with a charge as incendiary as having used the "n" word, that the reporter provide one iota, one shred, one kernel of tangible proof. Not so at HuffPost. One of its Washington "reporters," Sam Stein, made the following statements in this story, as if they were fact: "Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protesters shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams."
As it turns out, the only physical evidence in existence shows that these incidents never occurred. Since then, the accusers have steadfastly refused to comment further, or to be interviewed by media figures who will hold them to account. HuffPost has yet to issue a retraction.
This false headline incited a torrent of hate-filled user comments --- including open calls for violence --- against the Tea Party, which HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish.
See complete documentation of this incident here.
More: 3/24/10: HuffPost triples-down on false smears against Tea Party; user hate-fest erupts (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")
"THE TEA PARTY'S ANTI-IMMIGRATION AGENDA" (3/7/10)The reality: First, this "story" is actually an opinion piece,which HuffPost featured in its "news" section, and disguised to appear as a "news" story. Second, it was written by an anti-Tea Party activist, and consisted of a continuous smear. It alleged that because one attendee at one Tea Party event was caught on video making an inflammatory statement, the entire Tea Party movement is "racist" and "anti-immigrant." Further, it turns out that the video was produced by the article writer --- and we have no idea whether it was even real, given the fact that radical leftists have made it a point of infiltrating Tea Party events to make inflammatory claims on video, etc.
Why HuffPost knew, or should have known the story was false/misleading: There was not one scintilla of proof that the one person who made this inflammatory claim is in any way representative of the Tea Party movement. And there is not one iota of proof, or even indication, that the Tea Party has a "racist" or "anti-immigrant" agenda.
This false headline incited a torrent of hate-filled user comments against the Tea Party, which HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish.
See complete documentation of this incident here.
All the above was the basis for three special reports by HUFF-WATCH, which expose even more of HuffPost's vicious lies and outright hypocrisy:
HuffPost vs the Tea Party: Which one really incites and tolerates hate speech & calls for violence?
Documents the fact that HuffPost is far guiltier of the things it accuses the Tea Party of being, doing and tolerating. The conclusion features a fascinating insight by a forensic psychiatrist into the mental gymnastics that are required to accuse another of being "racist," without evidence --- or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Pop Quiz: Tea Party or Huffington Post?
Documents specific instances in which acts that one might automatically think were perpetrated by the Tea Party, were actually perpetrated by HuffPost
Is HuffPost racist? By its own standards, it would appear so
According to Gallup, 75% of America is white, and 77% of the Tea Party is white. Yet according to our research, 0% of HuffPost's top executives, editors and reporters are people of color. Uh, who are the "racists," again?
Do you want to help motivate HuffPost to issue a retraction of all its false, incendiary allegations against the Tea Party?
HuffPost and Ms. Huffington have become even more brazen lately in making false and misleading public statements. They get away with this because no one with any influence is holding them to account. Will you?
If you think HuffPost should issue a retraction of its false smears of racism against the Tea Party, you can make your voice known to HuffPost management (politely, please), here:
Chief Executive Officer
Editor in Chief
Vice President - Media Relations
560 Broadway, Suite 308
New York, NY 10012
Fax: (646) 557-0803
ABC "This Week"
For some reason, the producers of ABC's "This Week" regularly invite Ms. Huffington onto their program, where her hate-filled misrepresentations and propaganda go almost entirely without challenge. Here are two instances, however, in which HUFF-WATCH exposed her outrageous behavior related to the show:
7/17/10: Beyond chutzpah: Arianna Huffington objects to PolitiFact claiming she tells "half-truths"
"Half-truths" should the least of HuffPost's worries, given its long history of publishing demonstrably false and egregiously misleading headlines relating to important public affairs.
1/31/10: Beyond hypocrisy: Arianna Huffington accuses Fox of "inciting" hate
Anyone who knows anything about what HuffPost incites and tolerates knows that for it to call out anyone else of inciting hatred is an absolute joke.
To ask the producers of "This Week" (politely please) if they are ever going to hold Ms. Huffington to account for how HuffPost publishes false and egregiously misleading allegations against the Tea Party, go here.