Breitbart doesn't do himself any favors with comments like this:

If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.

They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle highly edited tapes, even if the tapes show white people affirming and clapping. It's almost as though he harbors strong feelings about race.

Jim you try to spread a lie like that again and I'll ban you outright.

"Highly edited tapes" my ass.

The two excerpts sent to Breitbart were not edited at all. They were simply excerpts, entirely and 100% accurate and true to the tape from which they wee derived. There were no edits made to those segments.

I'm sorry CY, the tool I use to chop videos into different parts calls that editing. What do you call it when you break a video or document into smaller pieces?

I guess I'll have to make this very simple.

Breitbart was provided with two separate video segments from his source.

Brietbart played both of those segments, beginning at the beginning, and ending at the end, without changing (editing/manipulating/chopping) any of the content within those segments.

Those segments were not edited a lot.

They were not edited a little.

Those excerpts were not edited in any way, shape or form.

This has been made clear by Brietbart, repeatedly.

This is your final warning. I will not tolerate you fabricating your own reality here.

OK how about this:

If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.

They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle tapes they have not touched at all, even if the tapes show white people affirming and clapping. It's almost as though he harbors strong feelings about race.

Off topic I would still appreciate hearing what verb you would use to describe the process of taking a large tape and creating an excerpt from the middle.

Jim,
You imply that Breitbart edited those tapes. I will try to speak slowly for you... Breitbart RECEIVED portions of the entire tape. Breitbart played the PORTIONS entirely as he received them. Breitbart DID NOT edit any of the footage he received.
Also...
The NAACP had the entire tape prior to Breitbart's release and still chose to throw her under the bus. The NAACP was not hoodwinked or caught off guard by this. They just did not want it to look like they are indeed racist in their ideaology. They are the ones who should be apologizing profusely.

squidgrunt,

I said Breitbart peddled edited tapes. CY objected saying the tapes weren't edited, they were merely segmented or excerpted (in a way that changed the entire point of the speech). Fine.

I changed my post to clearly state that Breitbart did not personally change the tape in one bit. I cannot edit my original post, what more do you want me to do?

Unfortunately, Barack Obama has, virtually from the beginning of his presidency, illustrated that he is a black president. Americans have no problem with a president who happens to be black (or female, Hispanic, etc.) because they expect any president to act as an American president. In other words, they expect them to act to represent the American people and to uphold historic American values and goals. They expect them to put what's good for America above their personal, political desires, and of course, far above their personal aggrandizement.

The proof of what I'm suggesting is the fact that America elected a black man, a man who, in two (amazing, that) autobiographies agonized over and focused on race, yet sold himself as post racial, as beyond racial concerns. Granted, with the political winds blowing as they were in 2008, with a hapless Republican candidate, and with the unprecedented and mercenary (as the Journolist dispatches have clearly revealed) assistance of the media, a ham sandwich would likely have been elected so long as it was a Democrat. But, and this is a significant issue, Americans elected a black man and took some justifiable pride in that simple fact.

Subsequent events have revealed a very clear and disturbing pattern of racial grievance mongering and an inability to leave race alone on the part of Obama and his appointees, including "you're all racial cowards" Attorney General Eric Holder. Let's not bother to discuss Obama's policies which would have put the approval rating of a non-black president in negative numbers by now.

Americans are more than willing to put racial concerns behind them. Barack Obama and his supporters are not and false cries of "racism" ring out. Merely opposing any Obama policy is sufficient evidence of racism for some. Martin Luther King's hope that people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character has been realized by virtually everyone but the first black president and those who support and owe their livelihoods to him and his ideals. There's irony for you.

"highly edited tapes"

Methinks the implications in this phrase are pretty clear: you are suggesting that there was heavy-duty editing and context-stripping going on which you know is bullshit as CY has repeatedly stated.

So let me re-state: there is nothing "highly edited" about two clips pulled, intact, from a longer tape, or does your video editing app have "highly edited" mode too?

ECM,

Here's what CY said about the tapes as they were run:

Breitbart claimed context is everything, but then ran the video without much in the way of context.

and

Breitbart may have over-reached and be unrepentant, but his sin was still relatively minor. He presented as much of the story as he had, and explained it the best he could based upon the information provided. Was it responsible to run that short video segment without context?

If you think the tape segments -- as originally run -- tell the same story as the entire tape, so it was just shortening the video for time then fine. I don't agree, and I don't believe CY would agree but you can of course ask him.

If I take a speech of yours and cut it so it sounds as though the point of the speech is "B" when you in fact you were saying "A", I think you would have perfect cause to say I'd edited your speech. If you disagree that's fine with me, just please don't "excerpt" anything for me.

***They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle highly edited tapes***

Leaving aside the manifestly disingenuous implications of "highly edited," of course not -- the journalism Pulitzers are for WRITTEN WORD media and still photography, not for videography. (Similarly, the Olympics does not award prizes for motor vehicle sports.)

Of course, it's not as if the Pulitzer people have never made themselves look like idiots.

"If I take a speech of yours and cut it so it sounds as though the point of the speech is "B" when you in fact you were saying "A", I think you would have perfect cause to say I'd edited your speech."

The term of art here in the Right Wing is "Dowdification," in honor of (Pulitzer prize winning...how 'bout that!?) speaker's point-scrambler Maureen Dowd.

Cordially...

Breitbart doesn't do himself any favors with comments like this

Jimmy, you don't do yourself (or us) any favors with any of your comments. Will you be commenting on Sherrods racism at some point, or are you going to stick to reading from your script?

They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle tapes they have not touched at all

That's wonderful, but I don't think anybody was under any impression that Breibart would win a Pulitzer under any circumstances. So what the hell are you babbling on about?

It's a direct quote from Breitbart. See that's why it's in a quote box following the word this with a colon after in in my initial post.

Reading is hard.

Here's the link for the google challenged.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40117.html

Reading is hard.

It is for some people. You seem to be incapable of reading the story you are commenting on. The one about Sherrods racism. Does it bother you that this government employee is a racist bigot?

It's a direct quote from Breitbart.

"I should get a Pulitzer" is not a direct quote from Breibart.

What Breibart said is correct. If somebody broke the story of a white supremacist government employee speaking before a white racist organization, that somebody would be in the running for a Pulitzer.

“I believe that I’m held to a higher standard. If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.”

If Breitbart isn't talking about himself in this quote he sure has a funny way of phrasing things.

As for your endorsement of his racist fantasy about what would have happened if a white person had told a story about having once been a racist but then worked with blacks and finally understood that blacks are just like whites, well that's your problem. Seriously dude, it's not exactly news when someone says they once had racist thoughts but eventually grew as a person.

This quote from Ann Coulter to Hannity just now won't make you guys happy:

The whole key to this story is that Andrew Breitbart was set up. He was sent a tape that, as we now know, was massively out of context. It did look like this woman was saying something racist. When she first said it was taken out of context . . . we've heard that before from politicians telling racist jokes. This is the first time in world history it was literally taken out of context.

"It was a lovely speech. Of course the White House reacted that way -- of course you reacted the way you did. Anyone would have. I think Breitbart ought to reveal his source, because he was set up. This was a fraud. The person who sent the edited tape has to know what the full speech said, and whomever sent only that segment to Andrew Breitbart is the one who should apologize to Shirley Sherrod.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/ann-coulter-to-sean-hannity-breitbart-was-set-up/

Ann just made this whole thread one big win. Of course the fact that she and I agree about something means it's the End Times.

Wait .. you agree that whoever sent Breibart the edited video should apologize to Shirley Sherrod?

You somehow managed not to mention that up to now in your torrents of incoherent drivel.

At this point, I think we've said all that can be said about the video excerpt. I think the full video of the same speech still shows Shirley Sherrod still harbors problems with race relations.

But I'm past all that.

Focusing on the most recent, post-firing comments Sherrod has uttered, she has revealed herself to be a racist that clearly sees the world in terms of black and white, and someone who clearly has very little respect for the truth, or respect for the right of free speech.

As I mentioned on Twitter earlier today, CNN's Anderson Cooper gave Sherrod all the rope she needed, and she lynched herself violently. She is a perfect example of the kind of racist that the NAACP and the progressive movement needs to denounce.

And the kind of racist they are all too willing to accept.

Jim says: "I changed my post". The good ole "take it back" non-apology.

Let's test that.

See. He's not a filty liar that needs to repent. He's not wrong. Time's no longer linear according to him. He unsaid it.

Highly Edited = Unedited section of film

Palin/Couric interview = completely unedited with no added pauses.

Sweet. [/sarc]

I notice a couple of things here. First nobody has mentioned that the speech in question was done in March of this year, NOT 1980 AND the point of Breitbart's story explaining the vid was that the naacp members clapped and laughed about the racist's remarks made by the racist in the vid. So I guess you will have to go back and get your new talking points from your masters, Jim.

Come on, emdfl, Spencer Ackerman's been a little busy lately. Jim's obviously operating blind here.

Jim actually stole most of his talking points from David Frum.

Spencer Ackerman's been busy at the gym, trying to develop enough muscle to throw someone through a wet paper bag. (So far, no luck.)

The real story is that Ms. Sherrod and her husband received $150,000, and an organization in which she has a substantial interest received $13 million, from the USDA, as part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit, just before she was offered the job she just resigned from. I don't guess I would want the job back either, if I were a millionairess.

As best I can make out, the lawsuit was filed in the 90's, on the basis that Ronald Reagan was a racist. Clinton was so impressed with this logic that his justice department waived the statute of limitations, refused to defend the suit and moved immediately to settle. The USDA has already handed out over a billon and Vilsack is lobbying congress for billions more in "damages" to people whose sole common characteristic is their race (can you guess what it is?). This travesty has turned the USDA, never an organization with any valid reason to exist, into a simple conduit for race-based reparations. And as more and more people discover they were "damaged" back in the day, Vilsack and Holder are happy to keep the reparations coming.

So, I don't know whether Sherrod is a "racist". I'll leave that to people who think that word still has meaning. But she is most assuredly a race-hustling shakedown artist and a welfare queen on a scale Reagan never imagined. Google .

I guess I got cut off there.

Google for Sherrod together with Pigford (the class action suit name).