Howard Kurtz Hypocritically Supports Huffington Post Canning Breitbart
Howard Kurtz on Sunday hypocritically supported the Huffington Post's decision to can Andrew Breitbart as one of its front page contributors.
The "Reliable Sources" host took issue with comments Breitbart made about former Obama green czar Van Jones, but ignored the immutable fact that numerous HuffPo bloggers have regularly made ad hominem attacks on prominent conservatives without being admonished or demoted (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD KURTZ: When "The Huffington Post" started putting conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart on its front page, I thought, well, now that Arianna has taken her operation to AOL, she's going to start featuring at least a few conservatives. Still, her old acquaintance, Breitbart, was responsible for that misleading Shirley Sherrod video and for giving a platform to James O'Keefe and those undercover ACORN videos in which he played a pimp.
But "The Huffington Post" has now bounced Breitbart right off the front page. This, after the liberal group Color of Change called him a liar and a race-baiter. Breitbart didn't exactly turn the other cheek. He told the conservative "Daily Caller" Web site that a founder of Color of Change, former Obama aide Van Jones, is "a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak. And a commie. And an eco-fraudster."
"The Huffington Post" said that Breitbart's remarks violate the tenets of debate and civil discourse. You think?
I'm all for people speaking their mind, but if you want to hang out in nicer neighborhoods, you can't shout quite as loud.
Hang out in nicer neighborhoods? The Huffington Post is a "nicer neighborhood" than the numerous websites Breitbart owns?
That's pretty insulting, especially as Breitbart assisted Huffington in putting her site together.
As for folks not shouting quite as loud, shouldn't that apply to all of HuffPo's front page contributors?
How about the regularly featured Bill Maher who has consistently been guilty of ad hominem attacks on folks like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann?
Other good examples of HuffPo contributors clearly in violation of the "tenets of debate and civil discourse" are Mike Malloy, Sean Penn, Bill Press, and Ed Schultz.
If Huffposters are no longer allowed to make ad hominem attacks even at other venues, shouldn't these "provocateurs" be given their walking papers as well?
The same is true for HuffPo reporter Jason Linkins who as the Right Sphere noted Thursday is regularly tweeting ad hominems. Shouldn't he be fired from his position effective immediately?
As for Kurtz, shouldn't he have asked such questions in his commentary about this matter and pointed out the hypocrisy in this decision by HuffPo rather than just supporting his friend Arianna?
Since the answer is clearly "Yes," it's preposterous for Howie to call this segment "Media Monitor" for that's clearly not what he did with this issue Sunday.
In fact, rather than exposing Huffington's hypocrisy regarding this matter, Kurtz clumsily made himself a part of it.
What a shame.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
No doubt there is hypocrisy here
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:30pm.
However Breitbarts remarks were not exactly civil. Perhaps even though he was telling the truth, Breitbart could have phrased it differently.
Typically Breitbart plays cat and mouse
Submitted by texriot on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:36pm.
Breitbart regularly comes out with the last laugh. He has his methods and yes they work to shine light on the hypocrisy.
Sure
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:40pm.
However if u are a conservative posting on a liberal site you have to use logic over reason instead of a baiting comment
Logic-Liberals
Submitted by texriot on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:51pm.
Shawn, I am with you. But logic-liberals, now that's funny. How many will get past it being Breitbart and try and reason with what he has to say instead of just going on the attack. Although, He would still be there.
Rush Limbaugh is drug addicted womanizing birther
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:36pm.
If a liberal contributer that was hired by NB said that, what do you think the NB reaction would be? As insane as liberals are, if you are a guest on their website you have to work harder to get your point across.
Limbaugh is a drug addict as
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:22pm.
Limbaugh is a drug addict as is an alcoholic forever identified as an alcoholic who never takes another drink. Every day is recovery, hence the moniker "recovering alcoholic/drug addict". Cigarette smoking is viewed differently even though addiction is involved. It is semantics and conventional thinking.
I am unaware Limbaugh is a "birther". He's had fun with it, but that is all I am aware of. I am also unaware Limbaugh is a womanizer. Maher is a womanizer. Clinton is a womanizer. Limbaugh gets married.
What Breitbart said about Jones was not rebutted because it was all true with the exception of the subjective word "freak". Additionally, Jones attacked Breitbart without direct provocation. It was "payback" by Jones. Breitbart merely responded with factual descriptors to Jones attack, which is allowable in civil as well as uncivil society.
While your point poorly correlates when it comes to factual representation, and also would likely not occur since this is a website committed to exposing Liberal media bias, I understand your point about angering the base readership. But I wouldn't hold my breath in NewsBusters no longer publishing Breitbart articles at all, especially ones not so purely composed of rhetorical slams, factual as they may be, as this topic covered.
My point Strat
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:31pm.
........if you are a guest on a website that does not support your views, you have to expect the rink to be tilted to the left
I am sure NB readership would not be happy if Matt hired Randi Rhodes Or Stephanie Miiler to be a contributor on NB especially if they used baiting comments.
Maybe the pressure to get rid of them might not be as mush as HP to Breitbart, but I can see many posters threatening to leave if we had Liberal contributors here.
Thanks for proving the original point
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:59pm.
In other words, Huffnpuff really doesn't have any problem with ad homs, they have a problem with Republican ad homs, making their reason for firing Breitbart a joke and a lie. Frankly, he should sue them, lol. That would be hilarious.
If Sheen can raise hell and get his job back
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:47pm.
by suing Breitbart can certainly do the same and better. Unless our media rather be loyal and just to a drug addict versus a conservative (hmmm).
Stratman to Shawn: "...I
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:56pm.
Sometimes it's best to stop while you are ahead.
Then you went ahead and brought the mental midget Randi Rhodes into the discussion. No comparison to Breitbart's abilities, including holding one's liquor. It's highly unlikely Rhodes would be asked to contribute because of the NewsBusters reason for existence:
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
In August of 2005, with the assistance of Matthew Sheffield of Dialog New Media, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.
Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of broadcast and cable news recordings dating back to 1987, NewsBusters plays a leading role in blog media criticism as a clearinghouse for evidence of liberal media bias. It combines this formidable archive and its compilers inside the MRC with the contributions of already-established netizen watchdogs.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/about-newsbusters-org#ixzz1HqKy0w5s
If Rhodes or Miller wanted to participate under this set of conditions, then NB's might very well publicize their commentary. It would not be the first time NB's has published or complimented a Liberal stating unadulterated facts.
Acually Strat sir
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:31pm.
Stratman to Shawn: "...I understand your point about angering the base readership."
I never denied this. I said that my point is that if you are a guest on website that has a different opinion, you have to work much harder and be prepared to take more flak.
On your second point. Fair enough. I know what NBs mission statement is but I figure since we have sometimes have articles on here that do not involve the media and some that strictly deal with the stupidity of the democrats.
However since you can't just accept my hyperbole as just a silly comparison. I am sure people here do not make silly similes all the time, but I will retract the word Newsbusters and replace it with a site like RedState.com or Hotair.com. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Thank you Strat for pointing out my mistake, I hope I can learn from this and it will make me a stronger person in the future.
I would love to see some lib
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:00am.
I would love to see some lib hacks come on here, it would be fun sport. But, I doubt if any would ruin their street cred to come on here.
Shawn
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:58am.
Think about what kind of website you are talking about.
NB states that they are combating liberal bias. It's in their mission statement.
Huff and Puff on the other hand (even though it's liberal and everyone knows it) do not claim to be liberal they claim to be "The Internet Newspaper: News, Blogs, Video, Community."
It's also been said to be one of the most influential political websites. They are supposed to be NEUTRAL. But looking at their Front Page I don't see anything that states "we are liberal hacks" (OK that was funny)
We Are The 53%
There are
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:44pm.
indeed many ways that Breitbart could have phrased many of the things he's said. However, with the sanctioned and encouraged attacks on conservatives, with no corresponding vitriol towards liberals, many of us on the right enjoy reading and hearing such phraseology.
I can only speak for myself. I would love to see more conservatives "verbally" punch liberals in the mouth. I'm sick of trying to take the high road. There is never going to come a day in America where the majority of news outlets give any credence to conservative ideas.
I know we'll only get muddy and the pig will enjoy it, but let's jump into the sty!
That was my line all through the 90's, Tugboat...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:56pm.
I couldn't turn on the radio without encountering nonstop lib bashing with no or very little counterattack. Liberals seemed inclined to simply roll over and allow themselves to be mercilessly hammered. I was just so damn tired of the "high road". But after witnessing some of the "low road" attacks on Bush, I decided it was a zero sum game. And that's still my opinion.
Jer
Agreed, Jer, but with further comment ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:25pm.
I believe there is no honor in starting out with nastiness, regardless of the subject matter; however, to fail to fight fire with fire is a loser's game.
If you take a pound of crap in the way of insults today, your tormenters will be back tomorrow with a bag full.
The situation literally becomes one of 'the more you take, the more they will heap upon you'.
Better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees.
MD
In the 90's the liberal
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:05am.
In the 90's the liberal establishment was fully entrenched and believed that conservative radio was merely a distraction similar to "praise Jesus" programs. Then they started making a dent and then a hole and now a crater. Now they know the masses have the truth and they are scared.
They are a dying breed.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:39pm.
Living in denial. Guys like Kurtz seem to think that no one else has access to information unless we hear it from him. Nowadays, when I hear something get some play on the dinosaur media It is usually something that I read about a week earlier online. Kurtz only makes himself look the fool as if he thinks no one can double check his story.
well it is HuffPo
Submitted by muckdog on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:42pm.
I previously had the Huffington Post iPhone app on, well, my iPhone. It's now deleted.
First, I thought the whole selling to AOL was a bit shady. More power to Arianna, but the site makes money on eyeballs and advertising. I don't think most of the writers there were compensated, were they? Yet, somebody made money on their efforts. Where is the "spread the wealth" ideal there?
Anyway, HuffPo seems to mostly be another media outlet for the left. More power to them, but I don't have to read it!
Kurtz, like the other huffpo
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:51pm.
Kurtz, like the other huffpo bloggers is nothing more than a useful idiot minnion. These idiots were told to blog for nothing while huffpo rakes in big coin at their expense. They willingly accept serfdom much like the barackians who live for nothing more than to serve as a human toilet for obama.
Kurtz, of course, thinks he
Submitted by d1carter on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:09pm.
Kurtz, of course, thinks he is the gate keeper for the "nicer neighborhoods"....as he writes for the Daily Beast...LOL
How did Breitbart ever get on
Submitted by Thoreau on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:38pm.
How did Breitbart ever get on huffpo? That's baffling in itself.
HuffPo has published guest blogs by conservatives
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:48pm.
for years, albeit generally not the more flamethrower variety of conservative like Breitbart. Apparently, he is an acquaintance of Arianna and was invited by her to be a semi-regular blogger.
Jer
Apparently Brietbart & Arriana run in the same Hollywood circles
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:58pm.
....I read somewhere that they decided to do this at a cocktail party.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Civility does not mean one
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:46pm.
Civility does not mean one cannot call a spade a spade, but to refrain form lies, spilling of secrets, and improper grammer in public, particularly on a member of a currently protected class.
There were two words Breitbart used which were uncivil. The first word is "freak". Civil society loathes the word, even in the appropriate circumstance, because they fear it used in proper context on themselves. It's use is the equivalent of animal waste on your dress shoes while appearing on the Bill Maher show. Everyone can smell it on everyone elses shoes but no one mentions it lest they not be invited back. The second word is "commie". In civil society, contractions are frowned upon as lazy commoner speech. The correct word is "communist", and is appropriate in reference to Jones though not appreciated by other fellow travelers of this newly protected class. Refer back to "freak" for a fuller explanation.
So, with the exception of the highly subjective and hoy polloi-reserved word "freak", Breitbart's description of Jones was well within civil boundaries, one which Howie Kurtz, or any one else it appears, failed to rebut.
Kurtz should remove himself for his ad hominem incivility towards Brietbart. Howie's civility does not exclude him from being a jerk in this case.
(half-sarcasm/off)
Why coverage by Kurtz?
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:19pm.
Breitbart is hired as page 1 coloumnist for HP. Van Jones group , Color of Change complains. Breitbart is removed by HP from front page. He strikes back. He is fired. Kurtz agrees that he should be fired. So why did Kurtz cover this story and agree with the decision? I have several ideas. One is a call from his friends at both groups asked him to do it.
Misstated facts and mangled chronology, Jerry Mack...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:43pm.
Breitbart was hired by HuffPo and had already posted a couple of page one articles. Color of Change complained, but HuffPo stood by Breitbart. Breitbart then in an interview with the Daily Caller called Van Jones a "commie punk" and "a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak." Color of Change called for his dismissal. HuffPo did not fire Breitbart, and he is still welcome to post articles at HuffPo, but it did demote him from his former front-page status.
Jer
Wow, this is just bad Howard
Submitted by WarEagle01 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:16pm.
Kurtz sometimes does a good job of criticizing the media, but he really stepped in it here. First, he completely misrepresents the Shirley Sherrod story. Breitbart was trying to demonstrate the positive reaction of the NAACP crowd at the even when Sherrod talked about discriminating against the white farmer. And to not even bring up Truther Vanjones' man ad hominems on PufHo? Howard, you seriously need to attend J-school or do something to get better at your job. Because you really suck at it.
What puzzles me about all this is why Andrew Breitbart...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:25pm.
...would get hooked up with Huff & Puke to begin with.
It's not as if he was an unknown quantity trying to gain exposure and make a name for himself.
Why put himself in a situation where he could get sandbagged?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Too bad for Kurtz Breitbart's "misleading Shirley Sherrod video"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:21am.
turned out to be just of the tip of the dirty iceberg known as Pigfordgate.
Howard who?
Submitted by buddyc on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:20pm.
Howard who?