Anyone else following this? Its amazing how many people in the chain dropped the ball on this one. We shouldn't be surprised Fox doesn't fact check anything, but the USDA and the Obama Administration, as well as the NAACP all fucked up pretty royally. What a mess.

Wait...Breitbart manipulated info? I'm so...so...shocked!

The NAACP and Obama administration should be ashamed.

An analysis of this was posted on the BBC this morning, and I find the fact that the administration would fire her without so much as a request for explanation speaks volumes... about how out of their depth this administration is on a lot of levels. While I often complain about how many former members of the Clinton (not to mention Bush) team ended up in key positions in the administration, this is one case where a *smidgin* of experience dealing with the right wing conspiracy sleazeballs, or with anything resembling real world personnel issues, might have helped...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10722121

I hope folks learn (especially Obama) to never believe anything that is shown on FoX news ever again, after this. Will also save you a few brain cells.

I wonder if she'll bring a libel suit against the blog and Fox, and more importantly - would she even have a chance of winning?

Wait...Breitbart manipulated info? I'm so...so...shocked!

The NAACP and Obama administration should be ashamed.

This pretty much. They ALL should have known better period and they look pretty dumb for believing it.

I wonder if she'll bring a libel suit against the blog and Fox, and more importantly - would she even have a chance of winning?
She's reportedly considering a suit against Breitbart.

Fox may have not of fact checked but doing some reasearch people would realize that Fox reported on her after she was fired.

Fox may have not of fact checked but doing some reasearch people would realize that Fox reported on her after she was fired.

And doing some real research would show that you are 100% incorrect.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/21/race-and-resignation-24-hours-of-shirley-sherrod/

*edit* Ok you are correct technically, they reported on her after she was fired. But also and the only part relevant is they reported on her before she was fired.

Case in point, with regard to rightwing conspiracy-land, straight out of the horse's mouth:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a plan for what the Republicans should do if they win control of the House of Representatives: Spend all their time investigating the Obama administration.

"Oh, I think that's all we should do," Bachmann told the Three Fingers of Politics website. "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on. And it's very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership, because the American people's patience is about this big. So we have to make sure that we do what the people want us to do."

From http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/bachmann-all-we-should-do-is-issue-subpoenas-if-gop-wins-house-audio.php , via: http://www.threefingersofpolitics.com/?p=1129 , quoted from a speech she made today to the GOP Youth Convention...

With nuts like this circling the White House, you'd think that due diligence in the case of spurious charges (and that goes for the NAACP as well) would be the *minimum* order of the day...

Regards,
Nydia

Latching onto this as "news" is nearly as bad as Lindsay-Lohan-watch earlier this week.

Attention = reward.

Prior to the truth coming out the hard right was cheering on her firing and condemning anyone who had ever been in the same room with her...that makes it worth discussing. The news "sources" in question need to be talked about...Breitbart needs to be discussed for what he is, because too many people are still taking him seriously. The political reach of some of these individuals makes this far more than on par with the Lohan stuff. Which I didn't even know what happened until this morning :D.

The people listening to FNC and Breitbart aren't going to stop believing this stuff, no matter how factually dis-proven those sources are. They're still sending me "Obama's a Kenyan Muslim" forwards from 2008 almost daily. They want these things to be true too badly to listen to reason (and that isn't limited to the Right).

Meanwhile, every time we utter Breitbart's name, in any context, he's getting what he wants.

Yeah, I'm sure he has this page bookmarked to see if we're talking about him. He probably gets a dollar any time Kanyli writes his name.

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

New to the Internets, are we?

A website visited by 10 people at most a day doesn't really matter. And frankly I was under the impression we were allowed to talk about whatever we wanted with or without Sanchek's seal of approval here.

I really can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse or honestly don't understand how these people become famous and then remain relevant. Either way, it's sad.

Breitbart and others like him are celebrated heroes in right wing circles, even before you get to the birther level. What's your suggestion San, hide our heads in the sand and ignore Breitbart, and just let the hard right continue to do as they choose? Or should we point out, and keep pointing out, the stupid things Breitbart does?

Supposedly the NAACP had the video the entire time, which begs the question of what exactly is going on behind the scenes.

(And if anyone is keeping track, that's three more dollars for him.)

Nothing will ever change much until we start smashing the liar's mouths in with hammers. You know, all those hammers sitting idle because of unemployment. The massive pool of money that finances the paranoid right is beyond the scope of well-meaning, honest people of any persuasion to combat without forming a massive political action group solely for the sake of shouting them down with money (which has not and seems unlikely to happen) or unleashing the great beast of public unrest on them.

Marx may be getting a last laugh in a few decades.

Breitbart and others like him are celebrated heroes in right wing circles, even before you get to the birther level. What's your suggestion San, hide our heads in the sand and ignore Breitbart, and just let the hard right continue to do as they choose? Or should we point out, and keep pointing out, the stupid things Breitbart does?

Playing the game of arguing Right vs. Left only further entrenches/polarizes both sides and empowers the pundits that "represent" them. There was actually just recently some new research on that phenomenon (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874) (which isn't news to any of us hanging around these forums for awhile). The worst thing you can possibly do is dance to the tune they've picked.

Considering it another way, if discrediting these people with fact and logic were effective, then explain Palin. How did that moron just upset the primary election in my state with a simple endorsement, after having been factually, financially, and ethically embarrassed for years now? No such thing as bad publicity.

The most powerful thing you can do to these attention-seeking, polarizing pundits is to ignore them. Do your part to remove them from the discourse and make them irrelevant.

Supposedly the NAACP had the video the entire time, which begs the question of what exactly is going on behind the scenes.

It was a 20 year old video from one of their own events. It makes sense that they'd have it archived somewhere, but not be immediately familiar with it.

It was a 20 year old video from one of their own events. It makes sense that they'd have it archived somewhere, but not be immediately familiar with it.
*ding ding ding* We have a winner.

Marx may be getting a last laugh in a few decades.

Harsh! But I fear you're right :(