Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!
January 27, 2026, 07:08:00 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: THE ONLY POLITICAL FORUM OUT THERE WHOSE ADMIN AND MODS DON'T LIE.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Gee...Another Breitbart Lie

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gee...Another Breitbart Lie  (Read 350 times)
0 Members and 64 Guests are viewing this topic.
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« on: February 25, 2013, 07:07:23 pm »

They should have shut down the site when the fatass croaked.

Quote
Among the many charges thrown at Chuck Hagel, as he seeks confirmation as defense secretary, is this one: that he received funding from a group called Friends of Hamas. That explosive claim first surfaced on the conservative website breitbart.com. It got traction and spread among conservative media. Thing is there's no evidence that any such group exists, not to mention any evidence of a Hamas-Hagel connection.

 So how did this all start? Well, reporter Dan Friedman, who covers Washington for the New York Daily News, claims he is inadvertently to blame. And it all started, he says, as a farce...

 BLOCK: Let's walk this back. There were rumors swirling about Chuck Hagel getting speaking fees from controversial organizations. Then you started looking into it, right? You called a source on Capitol Hill. What happened?

 FRIEDMAN: I called a bunch of sources. One source that I called, I was trying to illustrate what I was asking about. So I was interested in did he speak to groups that would sound controversial, that would cause problems for his nomination? And I'd made up the example of Friends of Hamas. The other example I made up, I believe, is the Junior League of Hezbollah.

 BLOCK: You made this up as a joke?

 FRIEDMAN: As a - it was supposed to be hyperbole. It's a farcical, over-the-top example of a group that would sound on its face ridiculously controversial for him to have talked to.

 BLOCK: You also, I gather, followed up on that conversation with an email to the source, asking specifically, did Hagel get a $25,000 speaking fee from Friends of Hamas? You raised a very specific question, a very specific detail there. Why did you do that?

 FRIEDMAN: It was specific because I was trying to suggest to the person exactly the kind of information, except using hyperbole, the sort of thing that I wanted to see whether that existed. And I was trying to do it in a way that caught their attention.

 BLOCK: It sounds like you did catch their attention.

 FRIEDMAN: It apparently did. But, you know, the person, I never heard back from them. They didn't write back and say, wait, what is that? Is that real? And I didn't think about it until this weekend when I saw an article on slate.com, which pointed out that there was no such thing as Friends of Hamas, this group that conservative websites had been claiming that Chuck Hagel may have addressed or they had been informed by a Senate source that he had addressed.

 And I sort of went back through the timeline and realized that the original article on breitbart.com ran the day after my inquiry. I asked February 6th. The article ran February 7th. It was sort of similar in a - distorted game of telephone, in a way, to what I had asked.

BLOCK: Well, Ben Shapiro of Breitbart says that his source says that you weren't the source of this Friends of Hamas line in the first place. Do you find that credible?

 FRIEDMAN: I don't find it credible. I made this up. I didn't do it maliciously, but I made up this name. So it's hard to believe that three other people made up the same name the same day.

Oh, look! The obligatory right wing "I didn't mean it!"
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 12:09:04 pm by Howey » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

ekg
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +335/-10
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094


http://www.thevsj.com


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2013, 11:32:04 am »

typical right-wing bullshit questions that can't be answered without admitting the bullshit..

ex.

"so, when you beat you wife, did you break any of her teeth"

"no, I didn't break her.. wtf?"

...article when written...

..when asked, the senator didn't deny beating his wife of 100 days, but he says he never broke any of her teeth...



same thing Barbra West tried to do with Biden in the 08 election when she ambushed him with "With Obama being a socialist, why does he think socialism is good for America".. or whatever she said and then tried to play it off with "Oh I didn't mean that, I was just asking a question"..



Report Spam   Logged

Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them.  Balance is irrelevant to me.  It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2013, 12:10:15 pm »

Barbra West


Gawd...I'm glad that hag's gone. I still refuse to watch the news on 9.
Report Spam   Logged

uselesslegs
Noob
*

Karma: +390/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Fifth year Anniversary Level 5 Fourth year Anniversary
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2013, 01:56:56 pm »

I had an argument with someone the other day about how "goose and gander" and "tit-for-tat" aren't, and have never been, a valid reason to counter a legitimate news item, with made up bullshit.

I watched this knuckle dragger rationalize and attempt to explain why floating innuendo, conspiracy and woefully off the mark BS, as news, is perfectly acceptable...as something to contrast items that might (or do) shine a not so favorable light, with regard to ideology or politics.

You just don't make shit up, because you feel butt hurt about a fact or legitimate news item.  This isn't 3rd friggin grade.  There's plenty of real world facts about Dems (policy/agenda) that are scathing that aren't made up.

The only thing I can figure is that the innuendo, conspiracy and completely off the mark BS is preferable because 90 percent of it always plays to some stereotype, fear or bigotry.

Legitimate news...borrrrinnngggg.  Contrived bullshit? Party time!
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy