How the 24/7 News cycle Destroyed Journalism

It was NOT Andrew Breitbart who appeared on the ACORN videos. It was James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, who by the way is not a producer. Facts do get in the way!

And they were not fabrications, they were real. Real enough to make ACORN cry uncle.

Actually Maddow recently had a nice video about Fox news and them taking videos like that (Acorn) and pimping them as "news" without actually checking there sources, or apologizing for being incompetent boobs...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024865.php

It's funny CPB while chastizing me on my facts you completely disregarded and ignored others to suggest why ACORN is no longer around.

I was wrong it was not Breitbart in the videos but he was the "mastermind" behind the entire operation.

But you go right ahead and defend the man. I know where you stand.

ACORN didn't cry uncle because they were in the wrong. They folded because they went bankrupt defending their name against the likes of Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Fox News who continues to trump up phony charges against them because they were bitter that Obama won the election.

I do find it interesting that out of this entire blog the only thing you focus on is my one mistake. I messed up and I apologize for that.

You completely skip over the fact that these great men destroyed the life a woman just to prove she was a racist, which she isn't.

Here's a question to everyone else: How in the world does she lose her job over all this and none of these other individuals have lost their jobs? Wonderful times we are living in today. Lie about everything, apologize for nothing, keep your job. What a wonderful example we are setting for a children. We shouldn't even have to worry about them paying off the debt we need to worry about the morals we are teaching them.

Stated objective; Bring corrupt ACORN down. Objective met. Job well done!

So you have no problem with individuals going after groups of people solely based on how they voted and who they supported in an election? Noted.

Where is your proof that ACORN was corrupt. Remember just because Fox News, talking heads, and right leaning blogs says that it is true doesn't mean that it is.

Actually you know what don't answer those questions. I know you are trying to steer the conversation that everyone single one of these individuals got caught race baiting and ruined a woman's life and none of them are going to apologize for it.

It does say something about you that the overwhelming majority of the blog was about a news corporation (corrupt maybe?) wanting so hard to prove that black people are racist that they ran with a story they didn't even check before the ran with it but you only want to focus on ACORN.

It says a lot about you that Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, and Newt Gingrich continue to show our children that the best way to get ahead in life is to lie, lie, and lie some more. Then when they get caught for lieing not only point the finger at someone else for their mistake but find a way to make themselves a victim. Yet all you want to do is focus on ACORN.

What did ACORN do to you? Oh yeah they helped elect Barack Hussein Obama president and put the Democratic Party in the majority of both houses. No wonder you are so bitter when ACORN is mentioned. But to actually excuse the actions of these men is quite a jump.

Stated objective; Bring corrupt ACORN down. Objective met. Job well done!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 4:41 PM

By the way what does this statement even mean? Was it your stated objective? You started your own conversation in the middle. It was no one's stated objective to bring down a corrupt ACORN. It was Bretibart's and Fox News' stated objective to bring down ACORN because they supported a Democrat and not a Republican.

I think she was fired because of the problems USDA has had with racism in the past. They thought they had another racist on their hand but what they had was what I guess you'd call a reformed racist and they were afraid that she would stir up a pot at USDA that had been kept fairly quiet. I saw something about this on O'Reilly last week and he admitted they should have checked out the video and the sources before airing it.

However, everything I've found shows the first thing they reported on was the fact that she was fired for the video itself and even the NAACP condemned her when they owned the full video. FOX didn't even air the video until she had already been fired and when someone is fired for a video that makes it appear that there are racist comments being made by a government official in charge of administering public funds then that is news. FOX's big mistake was assuming the video was legitimate and that's also the USDA's mistake.

I don't know whether the White House ordered her to be fired but I'm 110% certain that they ordered the USDA to rehire her after the full video came out.

The video does raise an disturbing question though and that is, what had she witnessed in the NAACP to motivate her to convey that particular message to the NAACP. She obviously has experience with the NAACP and she must have witnessed a strong racist element inside the NAACP that needed to be addressed or else she would have had no reason to try telling them that they need to get past race. I always thought the NAACP was about equality amongst all and the "Colored People" part of their name was just a carryover from a time long ago but never actually limited to colored people only.

"However, everything I've found shows the first thing they reported on was the fact that she was fired for the video itself and even the NAACP condemned her when they owned the full video. FOX didn't even air the video until she had already been fired"

Actually that is a fallacy. While Fox News had not run the video their website, foxnews.com had not only posted the video but had several stories up about it. Bill O'Reilly called for her to resign right about the time she resigned.

I don't know if you purposely pulled that statement from Chris Wallace on his Sunday show, but Fox News is fully guilty of running a cropped out taken out of context video with no explanation and no investigation into it. That is the problem with the 24/7 news cycle. They could have held back until a full video was releases or chose not to trust the source of the original video but they didn't and they are just as guilty as everyone else.

"he video does raise an disturbing question though and that is, what had she witnessed in the NAACP to motivate her to convey that particular message to the NAACP. She obviously has experience with the NAACP and she must have witnessed a strong racist element inside the NAACP that needed to be addressed or else she would have had no reason to try telling them that they need to get past race. I always thought the NAACP was about equality amongst all and the "Colored People" part of their name was just a carryover from a time long ago but never actually limited to colored people only."

To steal a line from CPB you aren't really basing your opinion on reality. She raised the point and told the story because she had been able to overcome racism based on racism. Solely deciding that the reason she told the story is because there is a racist element in the NAACP and then to condemn them based solely on that reason is pretty irresponsible.

Mike,

Why would she even think to mention to this crowd that they shouldn't discriminate based on race? This is the NAACP, if they're as equal as they say then this is the last place ANYONE would ever think to share the suggestion that they need to see past race. I'm sure she has seen people in the NAACP who are making the same mistake she made when she held her racist beliefs and there's obviously enough of it going on that she felt she should take the chance at an NAACP event to try and change hearts and minds from where she was, with a personal story of her own. If not, then people would be outraged that she'd even suggest to "the NAACP" that they need to move past race.

If someone asked about an appropriate place to convince black people to not be racist against whites, I don't see too many responses being the NAACP. Black Panthers, sure but I didn't expect this from the NAACP.

"Bill O'Reilly called for her to resign right about the time she resigned.

And by "right about the time" you mean "about an hour after" she resigned by saying "Well, that is simply unacceptable and Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance." Exactly how many seconds did he spend on it btw? For someone putting "so much effort" into pushing this story to try and get her fired, I'd think he would have spent a lot more than a few seconds on it. Face it, Bill O'Reilly had nothing to do with her being fired because she lost her job BEFORE he went on the air. You repeatedly throw blame in the same direction hoping you'll hit something and that is irresponsible.

When I get some free time, I'm going to have to see just which networks have aired something without getting context or getting completely false information to the detriment of an individual. You seem to be so disgusted with a news organization posting a story before the facts have been verified. I'm sure I can find plenty of examples.

I am sure you can find many examples McCook, I am not disagreeing with you on that at all. That is why the title of my blog is How the 24/7 news cycle destroyed journalism. That is why I included the story about how the news cable channels so butchered the Tiger Woods story they at one point had it at near death hours after he had left the hospital. But I was focused on this one because of how blatant it was.

I guess my chagrin here is that you are spending so much time and effort defending a cable news channel for doing what they did and taking lines directly from that cable news channel. In your first post that was taken directly from Chris Wallace on Sunday.

So your response to calling out an organization about racism based on your own opinion is to restate that trumped up charge with no corrections or even a clarification? That makes no sense. She was using the example to show that she had overcome using racism because of racism she had seen. Is she suddenly not allowed to do that at the NAACP? If anything I think the NAACP is one of the most perfect places to tell that story.

I know in your world if an organization says they are one thing then that counts for everything and there is really no point in trying to better themselves but this is reality where every now and then we all need to be reminded about why we are in an organization to begin with.

The point with Bill O'Reilly is that when he made his demand that she resigned it was not actually out that she had in fact resign. Considering that not his entire show is live there is no telling if that segment was recorded live or pre-recorded. The bottom line that you seem to be missing is not that he called for her to resign after she had already resigned but that he called for her to resign based on a purposely cut video that was meant to show her in a racist light and he fell for it without researching it. When he was called on that, instead of apologizing for his mistake he instead decried the criticism by talking about his ratings.

There is no need for me to hope to hit something. These clowns make it easy for us that actually expect the people on news channels to report truth and act based on research not opinion. He failed epically on this one and all he can do is talk about his ratings.

Mike,

What did they do? They reported a story about a video that was not seen in its entirety before it was aired. Hmm, can't imagine that's ever happened with anyone else before but when FOX does it you think they have some conspiracy going on. It's the extremist part of your rant that I disagree with and that is your paranoid delusion of an all out push by FOX news to get her fired. That's like saying that Rachel Maddow and every news organization that reported "racist quotes" attributed to Rush Limbaugh (which were proven to be completely false, not just taken out of context but blatant lies) was trying to prevent him from being able to take ownership in the Rams.

I also tire of you trying to say O'Reilly hasn't apologized because he has. I remember about a half a dozen times throughout his show how he kept hitting the point that they needed to do more and they should have been more responsible even after he apologized to her. Like you said, blogs and the 24/7 news cycle and nobody checks the facts well here are some for you:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/07/bill-oreilly-apologizes-to-s...

"...he fell for it without researching it."

So did the NAACP, so did the people who fired her. The fact is that she was fired BEFORE most people even heard about this story and Bill O'Reilly had nothing to do with the fact that she was fired because whether he asked for her resignation or not, those in charge of making that decision already fired her and they didn't need to hear Bill O'Reilly tell them they shoud in order for them to come to that conclusion.

My posts are not taken from anything without referencing them as I did with O'Reilly. Btw, I was on the lake on Sunday and far removed from thinking about this.

If it's the extremist part of my rant that you disagree with then why do you continue to start your posts with your snide little comments about no one else ever doing it. I have stated before that I agree with you that this is not the first time and it will certainly not be the last time that it has happened.

Could you refresh me when Rachel Maddow has attributed a racist statement to Rush Limbaugh that he actually never said? Could you also refresh me when this falsely attributed statement ruined Limbaugh's career? Last time I checked he was still on the radio pretty much every day.

I continue agreeing with you that 24/7 news channels continually screw up stories so you give me a link of stories they have messed up as if I only think one channel one time has done it.

McCook, for the last time I posted originally in my blog and now twice in conversations with you that the 24/7 news cycle destroyed journalism. What are you no understanding on this point?

"The fact is that the Obama administration fired or forced Shirley Sherrod to quit before her name had ever been mentioned on Fox News Channel."

Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday, July 25th

"FOX didn't even air the video until she had already been fired."

McCook1 on this site Monday, July 26th

Is it exact, no. Is it close, yes. I guess my biggest concern here is your almost ad nauseum protection of Fox News on this case. They are just as fault as everyone else. They could have waited on the story, just like everyone else could have. They made the choice to run the clip without first researching it and to this day they have made no formal apologies about it. They won't, either. I guess it's also strange to me how willing you are to go to bat for a news cable channel while simultaneously slamming other cable news channels for the same thing you think Fox News should be left alone for.

"The fact is that she was fired BEFORE most people even heard about this story and Bill O'Reilly had nothing to do with the fact that she was fired because whether he asked for her resignation or not, those in charge of making that decision already fired her and they didn't need to hear Bill O'Reilly tell them they shoud in order for them to come to that conclusion."

Okay, seriously, McCook, you know better than this. It doesn't matter whether he called for her resignation before or after she had already been forced out. The fact remains he called for her to resign based on an edited video that was put together to show her in a racist light. The fact that you are defending Fox News and Bill O'Reilly so hard while condemning the White House, the NAACP, and the USDA for the exact thing you believe Fox News and Bill O'Reilly should not, as journalists, be held accountable for is really quite astounding.

Everyone, EVERYONE, was wrong in this case. The NAACP, the White House, and the USDA have tried to make their amends with Mrs. Sherrod. The others that PUSHED this as a national story refuse to take any blame for it and subsequentlly will not only not apologize to her for their mistakes but are too busy blaming everyone else for their mistake.

"My posts are not taken from anything without referencing them as I did with O'Reilly. Btw, I was on the lake on Sunday and far removed from thinking about this."

It doesn't really matter when you heard these quotes. You didn't have to be watching tv or listening to the radio when the quotes were made. I didn't become aware of them myself until Monday, so to attempt to get out of at least hearing at all because you were on the boat on Sunday is something you know better to do.

"The fact is that she was fired BEFORE most people even heard about this story..."

McCook1 on Monday July 26

The fact is that the Obama administration fired or forced Shirley Sherrod to quit before her name had ever been mentioned on Fox News Channel."

Chris Wallace on Sunday July 25

These two quotes are even closer together than your original quote and too take a direct line from Howard Dean on that show when Chris Wallace tried that line with him:

"I don't think it matters whether it was before or after. The fact is you played it. You didn't do your job,"

Howard Dean on Sunday, July 25 appearing with Chris Wallace.

Dean goes on to point out that for over two years there has been a running theme on Fox News about black racism. It started with their attempts to discredit ACORN on very faulty and ulimately wrong information. It continues with the New Black Panthers debacle, which, again, Fox News not only got wrong, they overhyped and tried their hardest to link to Obama, and now the Sherrod case. In the end there is a running theme on Fox News about proving their are racist black people out there. We all know there is but the efforts Fox News will go at to prove no matter who it damages is a slap in the face to real journalism.

I guess in the end it surprises me that you would spend so much energy protecting an organization that was flat out wrong on a story and refuses to take any responsibility for their actions. In the end it doesn't matter when you run a false story, what matters is your intent on running the false story.

Those boys over at Fox News just continue to dig their holes just a little deeper. Now Brit Hume has got in on the act. He thinks that Mrs. Sherrod got off easy.

"As victims of unfair media treatment go, Shirley Sherrod got off easy."

Oh you are just too kind to that unfortunate woman Mr. Hume.

Then you had to go and outright lie about your own network:

"Shirley Sherrod was not mentioned on FOX News Channel or on foxnews.com either until after the Obama administration had forced her out."

The foxnews.com statement is in fact and absolute lie. The video was on the website long before she resigned. And even though there is no evidence to suggest that the Obama administration did indeed force her out, it doesn't stop Hume from going ahead and stating as fact that it did happen.

Keep digging guys keep digging.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502756....

More fun examples above!

Mike,

Rachel Maddow falsely attributed a racist statement to Rush Limbaugh on June 3, 2009. I know you won't take my word for it so here is the link.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/10/14/flashback-msnbc-s-rachel-ma...

I didn't know that a career had to be ruined for bad journalism to garner equal contempt for other media organizations. However, it's not an accurate comparison because FOX was not responsible for her being fired due to the fact that there was very little on this story at FOX before she was fired. Do you then believe that MSNBC was running a campaign to prevent Rush from gaining an ownership interest in the Rams? I don't but under your reasoning, their refusal to verify facts must be part of a greater conspiracy. That's why I will defend FOX against conspiracy charges that they were trying to get Shirley Sherrod fired and I'll defend MSNBC against conspiracy charges that they wanted to use their network to prevent Rush from having an ownership interest in the Rams. They both screwed up but I'm not so paranoid that I think they had some sinister plan to take someone down.

It does matter that he didn't call for her resignation until after she resigned because it means that his statements could not have had any influence on the decision for her to be fired as you have tried to claim earlier. However, O'Reilly apologized and admitted he didn't do his homework like he should have. What more do you want from him?

I blame the USDA because they are the ones who actually fired her without doing their homework. The NAACP released their statement condemning her before the USDA made their decision. Therefore, the NAACP statement would have had more to do with her firing than Bill O'Reilly did. Even she is blaming the NAACP. I have stated that I don't know for sure that the White House was involved in her firing. Shirley Sherrod says they were but that is based on a conversation she had with somebody who was firing her and sometimes when you're in a difficult position like that, people try to pass the blame for what they have to do without realizing it. I've only said that the White House was definitely involved in offering her job back to her because of the statement made by Vilsack saying that even if the video was unfounded that it would not allow her to do her job and the next day he makes a complete 180 after they find out the video was false. That was definitely the White House who made him do that but I never condemned the White House.

Imagine if FOX had the full video, you would be a lot more upset than you are now but they didn't. They should have done more work to find it but they didn't know what the context was. The NAACP had the video in their possession with unobstructed access to it. That means they above everyone should have been the last to condemn her. They were the ones who could access the context of the speech easier than everyone else involved.

You were claiming that I was pulling quotes from Chris Wallace which was false and I pointed out the fact that I didn't even see the show so that does matter. I didn't even know Chris Wallace commented on this until you pointed it out. If I had seen the show or his quotes after his show than I still would have referenced it.

The whole point is that you can say FOX didn't do their job by airing it before they checked everything out but you can't say they were responsible for her being fired.

As far as pointing out racism in America . Where was all this outrage when CNN was airing it's program "Black in America"? That was all about racism which we all know is out there. They constantly go after the Tea Parties as being racist with a lot less than an edited video. It has to go both ways. Otherwise, you're justifying one side while condemning the other.

The other unbelievable thing about all of this is that CNN has been trying to portray their outrage about someone being taken out of context and exploited in public. So, who does Larry King ask to comment about the Sherrod story? Michael Moore! I mean this is the guy who literally makes his living on taking people out of context while intentionally and maliciously editing videos.

Wait you comparing whether or not MSNBC reported all the facts in Rush Limbaugh possibly buying the Rams to Fox News demanding that a woman who was completely taken out of context? Really?

I never said Fox News was responsible. The fault lies at the USDA and the Obama White House for pushing her out at the behest of conservatives based on a purposely cropped video.

What I am holding Fox News responsible for is that since their inception they have continually run the line "We Report, You Decide" yet that is hardly what they do. They take a story and whether or not the story is truthful if it will somehow embarrass someone (particularily Democrats) they will run with it.

Even you can't deny that their coverage of the Bush White House compared to the Obama White House is completely different. They are continually looking to dig dirt up on Obama. There is no story there about the New Black Panthers yet they continue to push it everyday because it gives them the chance to attack Obama. There was no story with ACORN yet they continued to push it (to the point that ACORN had to shut down) because it gave them the opportunity to attack Obama.

The 24/7 news channels have destroyed journalism in this country and Fox News whether you will ever admit to or not is at the forefront of reporting news stories without researching them.

As for the Chris Wallace thing if you want to continue to push that you didn't get the quotes from him that's fine. I believe I have proven that you did. It's not a big deal if you did I just don't know why you would want to deny it.

"They constantly go after the Tea Parties as being racist with a lot less than an edited video."

That's just a silly claim and you know that. First they do not go after the TEA Parties, they go after elements within the TEA Party. To deny that there is racism within the TEA Party is, well it's not really surprising. I think you remember when there was the incident before the Health Care vote where two black senators and a gay senator were spit on. It was well documented. Even Republicans said they had seen it until they recanted after stiff pressure from the Republican leadership. Fox News completely avoided the story. Now why would they refuse to report on black men being spit on by white people with little video yet they had no problem reporting on a black woman showing racism towards a white man from a purposely cropped video? Can you answer that?

I agree you do have to go both ways, but Fox News has been trying to do it for over two years based on falsehoods and lieing. They have tried at leas three times, ACORN, the New Black Panthers, and Mrs. Sherrod. They absolutely lied about what was going on with ACORN, they based bad information on the Sherrod case, and even though the New Black Panthers have racist overtones, Fox News was not satisfied with that they wanted to extend it all the way to the White House and bombed out on that one as well.

I agree it is unbelievable that CNN would bring on Michael Moore to discuss this, just as unbelievable as it was for MSNBC to bring on Pat Buchanan to discuss racial topics or Fox News to bring on Ann Coulter to talk about foreign policy, but they do it all the time and this is what the 24/7 news cycle has done to journalism.

Could you be a little clearer on that conservative blogger on a conservative website link? All that was in this article was the blogger calling Rachel Maddow a liar but never gives the actual Limbaugh quote that supposedly racist.

But I understand you have to protect your racist, sexist, homophobic Rush Limbaugh even if it means posting a website link that actually doesn't prove anything.

But let me go back to the one quote that was mentioned on the website that was actually something Limbaugh actually said:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I didn't know why he retracted it and I still don't. I'm not retracting it. Nobody's refuted it. She would bring a form of racism and bigotry to the court.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/10/14/flashback-msnbc-s-rachel-ma...

Where was his proof. He had just called an eventual Supreme Court nominee racist simply because she was Latino. Thanks for helping me prove my point though McCook.

Mike,

"Wait you comparing whether or not MSNBC reported all the facts in Rush Limbaugh possibly buying the Rams to Fox News demanding that a woman who was completely taken out of context? Really?"

Rush Limbaugh was not simply taken out of context, he was the victim of flat out lies. He never said what was quoted by Maddow on MSNBC so actually the breach of responsible journalism is worse because not only did they not verify a quote, they completely made it up. At what point did you decide if it's someone you don't like that the offense is not as egregious. The consequences could have gone a number of ways. If he had lost his career, you don't seem like you'd be as upset about it. Even when the act of MSNBC making up quotes is worse than FOX not researching a video for context. You wanna talk about intent but FOX didn't know what else was on that video but Maddow knew the quote was false.

"All that was in this article was the blogger calling Rachel Maddow a liar but never gives the actual Limbaugh quote that supposedly racist."

It's right there in big bold quotes at the top of the page and at the bottom just below the Limbaugh quote you find racist but in case you found it too hard to find, here is the quote by her from that page:

"When you get called racist by the guy who says the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr. should get the Medal of Honor, consider yourself honored. Also, nauseated."

What in your cited quote of Limbaugh says he came to that conclusion because she was Latino? I didn't see anything in it about him calling her racist because she is Latino.

You need to face the fact that you have so polarized yourself that you are now programmed to get upset when someone doesn't condemn the people you don't like or in this case when they point out that people you don't like have been the victims of malicious press. You brush it off in your mind as "not being the same" or "not as bad" because it was against someone you don't like. It's an easy hole to fall into.

I've said before a while back that FOX is a conservative station while others like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN lean left and MSNBC is a liberal station. There are only two unbiased news organizations I rely and they are C-span and C-span 2. So no, I won't deny that Bush was treated more favorably than Obama on FOX. Just like, for example, how Obama is treated more favorably on CNN than what Bush received from them while he was in office.

Those two Black Panthers should have been prosecuted. I don't care who was responsible for dropping the case, it was wrong to drop it. When people show up in uniform, with clubs and stalk the entry of a polling place positioned like guards for hours then that is voter intimidation. I haven't heard of anyone else doing this so I think it was just that local chapter that decided to do it but those two should be prosecuted because if we can allow that in America then we have gone backwards several decades.

I haven't followed the ACORN thing too close. The last I heard was about the ACORN lady showing a guy how to run a prostitution business. It was a setup like the undercover NBC setups are but I didn't see anything malevolent about it.

Sorry, not how to run a businees but how he could get benefits for his prostitutes.

So they called law enforcement? As long as we're calling for verifying facts, how did they prove that? Did they release their phone records with the date and time of the call?

just curious since I never followed the ACORN thing too closely.

"I haven't followed the ACORN thing too close. The last I heard was about the ACORN lady showing a guy how to run a prostitution business. It was a setup like the undercover NBC setups are but I didn't see anything malevolent about it."

Yes and it's pretty obvious from the video that the "ACORN lady" was filling the guy with bs. She later said she knew that the guy wasn't serious and decided to have some fun with him. But I know that part of the story isn't really all that important.

Bush treated more favorably? No he was treated like a saint. Anyone who dared criticize Bush was lambasted and called a traitor on Fox.

At least on MSNBC they do speak out against Obama when they believe he has made a misstep, like Maddow and Olbermann both did after Obama's speech on the oil spill.

It appears as the quote was fabricated but was not questioned until much later after it was made up. MSNBC did give a retraction which is more than Fox News could ever do. I was wrong and I apologize. For whatever reason in today's society those six words are next to impossible to say for some people.

The fact remains is that 24/7 lead to the dismantling of honest journalism and you can look to Fox News for really the start of that. The fact that when they are called out on a mistake instead of issuing a correction they tout their ratings.

The end of the argument does not change. The 24/7 news cycle has destroyed journalism.

While we are on the subject of the 24/7 news cycle why has there been so little coverage of all three cable channels of the tugboat hitting the abandoned well and spewing a new oil slick in southern Louisiana or the oil spill in Lake Michigan? Those seem pretty important.

Actually on this same topic, I just finished The most Dangerous Man in America.(I'm guessing some of you aren't familiar with the "IMDB's" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319726/ ) Wow, how ballzy the newspapers used to be! Not to mention how terrible Nixon really was.

Now, my question is why aren't people talk about this more in school? Direct evidence of the government lying for over a 20 year period? WTF!? I had vaguely heard of this before watching the movie, but people who actually lived through it still thinking that War is the answer the government knows whats best? I repeat WTF?

Now, based on the false presumptions of entering the current war why weren't/aren't newspapers drawing parallels between this and the current conflict? Is it lack of knowledge by the general public that keeps questions like this at bay?

I have never done this before but felt compelled. It is simple really, Breitbart was wrong perhaps he should receive a phone call asking him to resign, surely he is not a credible journalist and when a person lacks the ablity to see their own motives for what they are and are then incabable of righting their wrongs then we really have no use for their socalled investigative "talents" They need to hang it up! When others jump on the wrong bandwagon and learn they were wrong just wrong then clean up your mess, yes you Mr. Bill O'Reilly!! Why are men like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Newt Gingrich (3 men that all they have going for them is that there are others out there that like the hatred that you preach) even viewed as individuals with a mind of their own, you guys know that the minute you just report the truth, you will loose followers because it won't be as heated and divisive as your current platforms are. Our country is in trouble and it is not about republic or democrat ideologies it is about people who would rather make up stuff then get their facts straight! I wish all of you that moment of clarity when you wake up and realize that you were just lucky to land a show and that is the truth! If you did not have a tv show noone would pay a **** bit attention to the likes of you guys!

"Our country is in trouble and it is not about republic or democrat ideologies"

Very nice lifeisgood. I've never understood why it's perfectly fine to call democratic people democrats but not republican people republics.

Damu the reason this subject is rarely taught is because it is still recent history and in a standard school year it's very tough to get to the Nixon years.

The main reason that I have heard why journalists and cable channels were apprehensive about drawing the direct parallels between Vietnam and Iraq is because they were too busy being yes men for the White House. You must remember how that liberal rag the New York Times did not run a single story in opposition to the Iraq War.

Even once some journalists began to see the light they were still reluctant because they really did not want to admit that they had dropped the ball from the get go.

Michael I want to give you the benefit of the doubt perhaps you were still asleep when you responded to my comment. It boils down to this for me in relationship to the topic which started all of this and that is did Breitbart play only a portion of the video leaving out the entire speech of Shirley Sherod and in doing so did he or did he not violate a code of ethics that true journalists should follow? Let's take political affiliation out of this for just a moment if you can. Hey if you want to call yourself a repbulic by all means do so... "A republic has a head of state called a president and a parliament that is selected by the people." I guess this time it backfired for you as I am sure you are aware however you slice the dice the President that is President Obama to you Sir was elected by the people whether you like it or not. Don't forget to answer my question on Breibart ok?

You missed my point lifeisgood and that is my fault I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't chastizing your for calling the parties Republic and Democrat. I like that idea.

To answer your Breitbart question, yes he absolutely broke a code of ethics by purposely only releasing the portion of the video that he knew would paint her as a racist.

"I guess this time it backfired for you as I am sure you are aware however you slice the dice the President that is President Obama to you Sir was elected by the people whether you like it or not."

I don't really understand this last quote at all. Is it directed at me? I have no problem with President Obama being president. Nothing backfired on me. I voted for Obama and I am proud of my vote and I still believe he is doing a fine job considering what he's up against.

I really don't understand the tone of your comment towards me. I thought your point of calling Republicans republic just as calling Democratics democrat was an excellent point so I don't really understand why you are asking me to take politics out of it if I can.

You know what Michael I truly want to apologize to you! I took my frustration out on you because I misunderstood your response. I should have conducted myself much better than that. I just get upset when it seems some of the conservative men on tv nowadays seem to be there just to stir things up and take things out of context and then never own up to their wrongdoings. Don't get me wrong I love men and have no problem with conservative views or liberal views as I am not a big believer in the party system. I am just disappointed in the direction our world is going. The art of communication has been lost, manners are a thing of the past and we have become a reality tv-junkie nation and I include all of the political shows on right now the liberal as well as the conservative. Again please accept my apology for my sarcastic tone. There was no need for any of that. Just having a crazy day and certainly that is not your problem! :) Have a great night!

Apology accepted lifeisgood. These things happen, especially on blogs and boards. The sad thing is that we really can not get a feeling for what mood the person is from a comment. Had we been face to face when I made the original comment all of this could have been avoided.

But it's all good, you are obviously a passionate person and one that does not lean to one side or the other and I greatly applaud you for that. We need more of you on this site.

I agree with you 100% on the political party statement. For a long time the two national party system worked. But it is high time to go back to the system that Jefferson wanted, with a twist. He wanted no political parties at all. I do not think that is actually possible. I would love to see many different national parties like you see in Germany. I am a Democrat but I completely disagree with many Democrats that are on the conservative end. Just as liberal Republicans are being pushed out of their own party by the conservative end.

At this point in time we are just way to divided as a country to just have two national parties. I think they should be dissolved (or broken up).

But again I do accept your apology and I would like to issue my own apology to you as well for not being clear enough originally and then attacking the way I did when the misunderstanding took place.

You are a great example to this board lifeisgood of how, when someone is wrong or mistaken, to take ownership and to apologize for the mix up. There are too many on this board (and I am try not to do it) that even when proven wrong will not back down from their claim. More need to take your example to heart.

I know this is going to shock everyone but Fox News has been caught lying again, this time on amnesty for illegal aliens. On this particular story they pimp up a DHS report that "supposedly shows" the White House supports amnesty and will go around Congress to get it done.

They bring on Robert Gibbs who states clearly that this is not the case that not only does the White House not support amnesty (as McCain once did before it became a liablity to his re-election chanches) but any action taken will be through Congress.

Straightened out, correct? I mean it is pretty clear what Gibbs said. Apparently not clear enough for Fox as they continued to state that the DHS memo said the White House supports amnesty and going around Congress to get it done.

Just on slight problem with that. The particular DHS memo does not actually say that. It actually says that amnesty would not be good politically and that it would be very expensive to accomplish.

Hmm, you think a little research (ie actually reading the memo past the first few lines) would have ended this story right in its tracks, but not on Fox News.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007300013

In the ongoing debacle that is Fox News griping at whatever Obama does, no matter what it is, even if they support it Fox News is trying to make headlines out of troops not being at the borer of the southern United States on August 1st as he had said they would.

Unfortunately, once again, the facts are not letting Fox News from slanting the story for their viewers. What Obama actually said was that the deployments would start on the first not that the troops would be there on the first.

Oh well.