Shirley Sherrod, or, Standing Up to the Right Wing Sleaze Factory

Breitbart's intent was to expose the NAACP and he inadvertantly killed two birds with one stone by also exposing the MSM.

Fox just followed the lead of the Obama administration and the NAACP and reported the rascist angle of S. Sherrods forced resignation.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really, now that is a fact, "science is required", and the CRU e-mails show that the data is corrupted, manipulated, incomplete, and just plain cherry picked, and that isn't science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You see, here is the thing. There is nothing racist about this story. This story is all about or should be about Brietbart's manipulation and misrepresentation of information....soemthing not uncommon with Brietbart.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where is your condemnation for myriad of other bloggers that do this kind of thing day in and day out?

And I assume your refferring to the Acorn case? You remember, the one where the videos showed that Acorn folks were willing to abet criminals; couple that with the many voter fraud issues and you have the truth wrt Congress defunding Acorn.

Further, if was all doctored up nonsense surely Obama would have more control of his knee jerk this time around.

 

The only exposure here was of Breitbart's even now startling lack of even basic honesty - his editing job was not possibly accidental.

And the willingness of Fox, much of the MSM, and you guys, to accept and justify anything, absolutely anything, from "conservative" political spokesmen. Is nothing beneath you? No behavior, no lies, no thefts, no slander, no vandalism and damage, no slimy conspiracies and twisted little schemes, simply unacceptable ?

But as both of these circumstances are familiar to anyone paying attention for more than a couple of months, maybe "exposure" is not the right word.

The lack of integrity the usual suspects displayed here is very old news, after all.
For example:

Yeah, that one. The one where the videos were similarly edited, and the presentation on Fox similarly dishonest, and you guys showed a similar disregard for anything resembling accuracy and fact.

And ACORN was destroyed by a barrage of lies, from a known liar with a known agenda, and this liar is still a common source of material for Fox and similar tabloid outlets. You guys have no self respect, or what is your problem?

 

READ: Blame anybody but Obama.

LOL, and the 'usual suspects' only exist on the right...well come to think of it, is there anybody left of you?

 

If that is your position then how does it feel to have voted for a dolt that would fall for something like this, twice?

And you wonder why people have a problem.

 

Which should give you pause: There is no counterpart of Breitbart, of Fox, of an entire wing of media influences with no allegiance to fact or honesty or information, on any "other side".

I didn't vote for you, or the rest of your wingnut shitpile.

And you guys have fallen for this for good - it isn't just twice: this is your life.

 

From the fringe left perspective, I can see how you would feel that way.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say "I got nothing"?

'You guys'? I didn't vote for a dolt that acts like a teenager re-acting to rumors everytime Brietbart releases an edited video.

 

It's called the "reality based community", by W's media pros and the core rightwing political intellectuals.

You are apparently not one of the insiders, that generate your political views for you.

No: you believe them for yourself - the Acorn con was not the first one you suckered for, and it won't be the last.

 

You commenting on reality presents quite the conundrum.

The only ones suckered are those touting the left wing echo chamber.

Have a good day Ice.

 

The rest of the world simply replies, reasoning from a common store of facts, in agreement or disagreement.

You guys are stuck having to reframe your entire worldview. What does the world look like once you realize that the Acorn videos were lies and deceptions, just like this Sherrod video? That Fox promoted them anyway, and that the rest of the media followed along? That real damage was done to actual political entities, including Obama's political support, thereby - and that the lesson was painful: the media cannot be trusted to handle this kind of issue with integrity, factual accuracy and investigation don't necessarily matter, when dealing with the corporate media power center armed with these kinds of issues?

That's going to be hard work for you to find out.

 

You don't have to look hard to find it.

A couple of pesky details for you to contemplate:

1) The Acorn organization was not about and never engaged in manipulation of the media to further their point. It was about, a few individuals giving some information to people fraudlently representing themselves to be engaged in illegal activity.

And Acorn was the focus of conservative media (Fox News & Clear Channel) for submitting fraudulent voter registration applications. There is no evidence that Acorn knowingly participated in the fraud. But it appears that Acorn was the victim of frauds perpertrated by those they employed to get the voter registration forms. That is why they were never prosecuted for same.

Again, this has nothing to do with falsely manipulating information for public consumption. So your whole notion of equlivance is nonsense...chaff meant to distract attention to the fact that the right wing is churning out falsehoods every hour of every day to deceive American voters.

If you have evidence of the left doctoring information for public consumption similar to Fox News, Breitbart, limbaugh, levin, beck, et al please show it.

Another illogical arguement, the truth of an allegation is not in any way related to the pain inflicted on the victim. The Obama administrations response represents a hypersensitivity to the right wing propaganda machine which is totally understandable.

Just take a look at how successful the Republican misinformation machine has been this past year (e.g. locking in notions of a death panel, etc)

Conservative media viewers are the most misinformed as have been proven.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=43209

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

 

the CRU emails show nothing of the such. actual scientists and people who were involved have explained perfectly what those emails detailed.

 

And the people involved, "the scientist" are in full CYA mode, they were caught red handed.

The GISS data which is used through out the Global Warming Orthodoxy as canon;

American Thinker: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
Jan 22, 2010 ... And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, ... NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the cherry-picked stations' data, ...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html - 43k

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe...........​

........Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling..............​

......It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI)...........​

........For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers..............​

........................Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history. ​

Yes, pj, yes, tell me the data isn't corrupted, the data hasn't been cherry picked, the data hasn't been manipulated, and that massaged data isn't used across the board as canon by the believers of the Church of Global Warming Orthodoxy.

 

what left wing echo chamber there is barely any left wing media(unless of course you use the definition of left wing you and buffalo and other righties use which is disagree with me)

 

So? as if your disagreement has any value?

pj, you have demonstraighted a stance so far to the left, that even Pravada and Izvestia by your definition would be right wing.

 

Nonsense. They were absolved of any wrongdoing. You just cannot admit you were wrong.

Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud

 

No, actually it is they, who cannot admit they were caught red handed, and as far as the finding, it was their own peer who covered up for them, there was no independent panel, just the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia

Lets see now, some interesting facts about the white wash;

About the Independent Institute: The Independent Institute
The Independent Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, scholarly research and educational organization that sponsors in-depth studies of critical social ...

http://www.independent.org/aboutus/ -

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6967

As Patrick Michaels points out, the investigations were not exactly as “independent” as they have been labeled:

Further:

Michaels also points out that the institutions performing two earlier investigations—the University of East Anglia itself, and Penn State University into its employee Michael Mann—stood to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for global warming research had any wrong-doing been found.

The investigative panel did not review the vast majority of the emails. (“The Botched Examination of the Back-Up Server“)
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/

largely unanswered:

1) Hide data requested by outsiders.
Phil Jones to Mike Mann:

Phil Jones to Gavin Schmidt (Climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies):

2) Delete emails and lie about their back conversations on rewriting the IPCC report.
Phil Jones to Mike Mann:

And:


Although the Russell panel’s finding reports “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law],” Fred Pearce of the Guardian points out:

3) Manipulate (or “enhance”) data to support findings such as the “Hockey Stick” graph made famous in Al Gore’s movie, among other outlets. Phil Jones, explaining that switching over from the use of “proxy data”—tree-ring samples—used to derive temperatures for earlier periods, to “real temperatures” for the more recent years, “hides” the decline in temperatures that the tree-ring data shows in more recent years—and, voilá, produces the continually upward-rising (“hockey stick”) temperature graph:

Despite its other gaps, the Russell investigation did agree that use of this “trick” was improper, and:

 

There is mainstream media. There is a large contingent that is "conservative" and a smaller amount that is "leftist" but they both agree on many important issues, like which stories are important! And which not to cover.

And then there is alternative media. Who actually make an effort to report things that get away, or from a different angle that neither side of the mainstream thinks is appropriate.