The U.S. conservative media -- a model of professionalism

Barack Obama has nominated Loretta Lynch to become the next U.S. Attorney General.

Right-wing "news" site Breitbart.com reported that Lynch gave the Clintons legal representation during the Whitewhater non-scandal.

And she did! This is Loretta Lynch:



The only problem is, this is the Loretta Lynch Obama nominated:



So Lynch must have stayed in the tanning booth for a long time! Or, it might be possible for two people to have the same name? Nah, I'm sticking with the tanning booth theory.

At least Breitbart corrected their mistake:



Wait a minute, what the hell? The correction is that your headline is factually wrong, but you just leave the damn headline the same and put (corrected) after it?!

Even better -- once the shitstorm got too windy, Breitbart just took the story down. Because you know, news organizations that disappear their mistakes like Mafia informants are totally trustworthy.

Even even better -- other conservative websites picked up the story. And they didn't correct it, or take it down:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/loretta-lynch-represented-clintons-during-whitewater/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obamas-ag-nominee-loretta-lynch-defended-clintons-during-whitewater-ok-not-ok/question-4580177/

Because if you're crazy, you really do get to have your own facts.

oh sweet lord..........

Cass wrote:oh sweet lord..........

Yep! And seeing as how they repeat the crap they read on sites like WND on the floor of Congress ... the hearings could be quite entertaining

You haven't learned the tactic yet?  They plant a lie...it may or may not be retracted.

But then pundits like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh get to say, "it has been reported that [insert unfounded lie]", and it is not incumbent upon them to report on the retraction.  Essentially, they have told the truth...it was reported.  The problem is compounded by the fact that with the Internet, there are so many more, less responsible media outlets around to serve as the original bogus sources (how do you think Rancher Cliven Bundy got his bullshit out?).

Do you wonder why I question headlines that appear on this website all the time?  There are more ways to cheat at journalism than at cards.

Lol! Good find. They retracted the article.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/breitbart-removes-loretta-lynch-whitewater-article

This is what happens when you pursue agendas from a political perspective instead of one founded in the issue... and not knowing who you're talking about contributes greatly; let's not understate that point.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Lol!  Good find.  They retracted the article.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/breitbart-removes-loretta-lynch-whitewater-article

This is what happens when you pursue agendas from a political perspective instead of one founded in the issue... and not knowing who you're talking about contributes greatly; let's not understate that point.

They didn't really retract it, though. A retraction would be at the URL the original story was at and read something like, "Breitbart incorrectly reported earlier today that Loretta Lynch, President Obama's nominee for Attorney General, worked for the Clintons during the Whitewater scandal."

You can't just take the story down -- you have to acknowledge your screw-up.

Republicans stand for nothing, and live only to confuse.  After this past election, do you have one thing in mind that Republicans have offered as a platform?

Of course not.  Their whole theme was simply anti-Obama.  That is why Republicans do not want to clarify; they are in it for the game, not for policy results.

Republicans are in it for the rich, and tax breaks.  If that isn't on the table, they will just fuck around and play with your head.