John on February 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm
This seems like all the ingredients for a bomb and, to some extent, that’s true. It’s also really good TV:
Cenk’s intro was pretty loaded, but I think he ultimately deserves some credit for having Andrew on and giving him something of a chance to defend himself on these matters.
Having followed all of these stories closely, I know that all of what Andrew said was accurate. He’s right about the Sherrod story and the N-word claims and the spitting. What’s happened is that the left has generated such a mythology around events like these that no evidence to the contrary is allowed to weigh in any longer. The conventional wisdom is settled.
Frankly, this happens a lot. We saw the same thing when VS published the “wise Latina” remarks by now-Justice Sotomayor. The media created a narrative around the facts which claimed she’d only been talking about cases involving race and gender. In fact, anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension could see this wasn’t true. She was talking about the definition of wisdom and how diversity on the bench would affect “the law and society”, which is about as broad as you can get. That was the context in which she said her racial background would be an advantage, i.e. that she would be more wise than a white guy. But the facts, the actual words of the speech, didn’t matter. The left generated a narrative around the facts and to this day lots of people who’ve never read Sotomayor’s speech are convinced they know what it says.
Again, it’s exactly the same with Andrew’s post about Shirley Sherrod. Cenk and many others know what Andrew did to the point that they’ll discount the actual words in his post in favor of their settled interpretation of what it means (one which just happens to benefit their side).
This is why having a media composed of liberals still matters. Anything coming from our side of the aisle is a) suspect and b) framed in a more convenient way for the left. Meanwhile, anything coming from the left (such as the attacks on Sarah Palin after Tucson) are a) immediately embraced and disseminated and b) framed as neutral questions despite being extremely partisan in nature.
This is war and thought we’ve made great strides in the last 10 years, we’re still fighting an uphill battle.
Update: I really gave Cenk way too much credit. Turns out that quote he pulled was completely out of context in a very intentional and scuzzy way:
“My problem is that it was about the compliance of the radical gay agenda. My problem is that it’s coercion,” he says, as if his reporting on Weiner, Sherrod, ACORN and others was not driven by any agenda or motive, nor meant to do harm, politically or personally. “I’m not the National Enquirer. I don’t engage in that type of journalism. It is meant to inflict a maximum amount of damage. It is an act of political and emotional terror.”
Breitbart was specifically saying that is what he doesn’t do and Cenk edits the quote to make it an admission of guilt? He owes Andrew an apology. Seriously, someone doing the research for Cenk needs to find a new job.
Category: Uncategorized |