Patterico's Pontifications


L.A. Times Publishes Another Deceptive Anti-Breitbart Piece

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:15 pm

The front page of the L.A. Times opinion section boasts a piece by David Klinghoffer, an intelligent design proponent who would normally earn only sniggers from L.A. Times editors. But he must have wowed them with his first paragraph:

Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions — like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, whose news and opinion website,, is read by millions. In his most recent triumph, Breitbart got a U.S. Department of Agriculture official pushed out of her job after he released a deceptively edited video clip of her supposedly endorsing racism against white people.

Klinghoffer manages to pack a lot of deception into that paragraph, primarily a) the suggestion that Breitbart deceptively edited the tape in question (he did not, but rather published what he had), b) the suggestion that he considers Shirley Sherrod’s ouster a “triumph” (he does not), and c) the notion that Breitbart, rather than the Obama administration, is primarily responsible for her firing.

The rest of Klinghoffer’s piece is a snooze. The only reason editors could possibly have green-lighted it for such a prominent spot is because the above paragraph furthers their deceptive narrative regarding Breitbart.

UPDATE: As bad as this piece is, it has nevertheless found a fan in Professor Bainbridge, who declares that he is starting to become embarrassed to be a conservative.

78 Responses to “L.A. Times Publishes Another Deceptive Anti-Breitbart Piece”

  1. Well, Patterico, I think you should just write them to thank them for their support of Intelligent Design. Their heads will explode.

    Eric Blair (ae95bc)

  2. How is Andrew Breitbart potty-mouthed, anyway? I rarely hear him curse, that I can recall. I curse way more than he does.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  3. Cue the potty-mouthed hf in 5, 4, 3, …

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  4. It doesn’t matter what he actually says. More Alinsky style labeling. Next, comments about his weight. You watch.

    Breitbart, on Dennis Miller’s radio show, calls himself a “husky male model,” just to laugh at that kind of thing.

    Eric Blair (ae95bc)

  5. Meaning by the above that Breitbart will get slimed by his detractors. It’s who they are.

    Eric Blair (ae95bc)

  6. Also not to be overlooked, the first red flag: the front page caption,

    From neocons to crazy-cons

    No question from the get-go what kind of piece it will be…

    With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism.

    Clearly Klinghoffer has been gleaning from the LAT and swallowing whole their artful presentation of conservatives. A symbiotic relationship there.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  7. A dissapointing effort from Klinghoffer, one suspected him of greater discernment than that

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  8. Again, Dana, if they are going to do that, I think that people should write to the LA TIMES, and say that you very much appreciate their efforts to mainstream Intelligent Design by showcasing one of its proponents. Seriously, they will hem and haw and vibrate like a espresso maker.

    What they are doing is what I used to do when I was a debater in high school: use only the portions of a person’s work that agree with my argument…and ignore anything that takes away from the credibility of that person.

    I mean, if they get to call Breitbart a racist, why not do pretty much what they are doing, and play a word game or two?

    This will be tough on the LA TIMES, since it has repeatedly critiqued that topic:,0,4454290.story

    I’m not trying to debate ID here, let me be clear. I am trying to say that the LA TIMES has long been anti-ID, and here they are, quoting a senior fellow from the Discovery Institute…because he is saying something here with which they agree. For now.

    And since they enjoy games, why, perhaps games should be played.

    Eric Blair (ae95bc)

  9. What I would like to know is the back story of how Breitbart got the clip that he published. The source of it may be instructive. While the clip may not have been edited, its incompleteness misrepresented what actually happened. So I’d like to know who gave Breitbart the out of context piece so we can start looking at why that someone did it that way. If someone knows this already, could you please post links?


    Jeff M (0204be)

  10. LA times suck big
    typical lefties they dont
    embarrass easy

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  11. I think that people should write to the LA TIMES, and say that you very much appreciate their efforts to mainstream Intelligent Design by showcasing one of its proponents.

    Alternatively, write to them and say that you appreciate the linkage between the Biological Creationism movement and the Economic Creationism movement … otherwise known as Progressivism.

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  12. Another example of a person trying to defend an obsolete product. Klinghoffer sees that the amount of people using his buggy whips are decreasing, and tries to slow the decline by trying to appear still relevant.

    Bad Science (009668)

  13. I’d agree with Patterico on the potty mouth thing. I’ve seen Breitbart use the f-bomb and a couple other words, but it is fairly rare. I’ve always thought potty mouthed is used to describe people who use it frequently. However, the fact that this guy calls Breitbart potty mouthed is precisely why it isn’t good to use cursing at all in public discourse. It detracts from the message and sidetracks from the good Breitbart does. Why give the enemy any weapons?

    Jeff M (0204be)

  14. So he’s saying that Breitbart is qualified to be Vice President?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. *somebody* spliced misleading text into the clip and there’s no question it was deceptive inasmuch as many peoples were deceived and it was cut *just so* by somebody

    the rest of the piece you’re right it didn’t go anywhere at all

    but Mr. Andrew’s mean-spirited gonzo attack dog style invites this sort of critique I think and you will hear this again and again… he should have taken care to be scrupulously honest and now he’ll have to discover how to be effective as a media figure what is less than reputable

    he squandered a lot of hard-won albeit sometimes begrudging respect with this stunt I think… and that’s just the objective truth of the matter… he damaged the brand. Simple as that.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  16. The only reason editors could possibly have green-lighted it for such a prominent spot is because the above paragraph furthers their deceptive narrative regarding Breitbart.

    I respectfully disagree. The other reason to feature it is as part of promoting the genre of intra-Right attacks on Bretitbart, Beck and Limbaugh. It’s an adjunct to the “GOP is the party of Limbaugh” story Rahm & Co. have been promoting since Obama took office. And it’s the primary thing Dems intend to say to try to stop indies repulsed by the Dems from voting GOP.

    Karl (12dcea)

  17. HF, your intellectual dishonesty has ruined your reputation.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  18. Klinghoffer should relax. Maybe take a cruise.

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  19. I wonder why people are still blaming Breitbart? Why isn’t he the paragon of objective, accurate journalism? He has done so much to foster that image, why do people ignore it? LOL. Sometimes you guys amaze me with your partisan blinders. If he was a liberal, doing the same exact thing, but to Republicans, and conservative organizations, you guys would be calling for his head, and demanding legal action. But since he’s “on your side” you just dismiss all the crap he has done, and apologize for him. Whatever. It is absolutely ridiculous, and obvious to any objective observer. Breitbart is a scumbag out to do damage any way he can, right or wrong, true or not. What a hero. Sheesh.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  20. Goddammit hooten
    why you ruin perfectly good
    day by showing up?

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  21. [bows]

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  22. hooten like angry
    chancre on syphilitic whore
    all hands on deck now!

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  23. Neocons ruin
    conservatives’ chance to win
    by not being one

    Republicans split
    into three different groups
    that don’t get along

    How can it congeal
    into a winning party
    before November

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  24. No Kevin, that was uncalled for, Klinghoffer who was nearly blown up by the Unabomber, almost 20 years ago, was mistaken, but unlike say the mean
    pikachu, he’s quite sincere about it

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  25. hooten concerned cry
    the crocodile tears while
    his backyard burning

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  26. Chris Hooten, your use of “neocon” in your comment illustrates that you have no clue what a “neocon” is, other than that the left-wing chorus you admire uses it as invective.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. Lest I be judged
    a dreaded trolling jerk-off
    I shant post anymore

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  28. If he was a liberal,

    Allow me to snicker. That’s because if Breitbart were of the left — and there are a ton of big-mouth folks of liberal persuasion (Hi, Al Sharpton! Hi, Jesse Jackson! Hi, Obama/Henry Gates Jr! Hi, Michael Moore! Hi, Jimmy Carter! Hi, MSNBC!) — you’d be giving him back rubs and neck massages.

    Mark (411533)

  29. Was the article
    more deceptive than Breitbart
    was with videos?

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  30. “neocon” now kept
    in back pocket of all lib
    tutus when panicked

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  31. Indeed, ColonelHaiku, not least by Hooten who keeps repeating how dishonest Breitbart is, but can’t quote anything dishonest that Breitbart actually wrote.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. That’s where you are wrong, Mark. I have scruples. He is a hack who just manufactures misleading video gotcha moments. This is very easy to do, but very hard to do and keep your credibility. It doesn’t matter who he does it in the name of, it is wrong, and he is a dick for doing it.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  33. Isn’t there something in law that truth is an affirmative defense?

    The difference between AB and those similar to him on the Left, is that AB’s accusations and discoveries are supported by truth and fact, unlike what we see at HuffPo, Daily Kos, and others.

    But then,
    “Facts to a Leftist is as Kryptonite to Superman” – Larry Elder.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  34. Supported by distortion and lies, you mean.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  35. Was the article more deceptive than Breitbart

    Uh, yes. In the words of Pat:

    a) the suggestion that Breitbart deceptively edited the tape in question (he did not, but rather published what he had),

    b) the suggestion that he considers Shirley Sherrod’s ouster a “triumph” (he does not)

    c) the notion that Breitbart, rather than the Obama administration, is primarily responsible for her firing.

    Mark (411533)

  36. No, Chris Hooten, it is you who keep distorting and lying.

    With respect to Breitbart, you do so by continuing insinuating that Breitbart wrote something other than what he actually wrote. And you continue the fraud by refusing to confront what he actually wrote.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  37. Why hasn’t anything he has done turned out to be true? ACORN – not true Sherrod – not true. Now I know you don’t agree with this, but the rest of the objective world has moved on… Everyone accused has been found innocent, except for Breitbart. He was guilty, guilty, guilty of misleading through deceptive video editing and deceptive “framing” by removing context. There is no reason for any serious person to even listen to that twit anymore.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  38. Chris Hooten, you can’t actually quote anything that wasn’t true.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. The editor of did the editing, and posted the video on youtube. I wonder who he did that for?

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  40. I don’t need to quote anything.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  41. Chris Hooten, yes you do need to quote something – because you’ve been repeatedly called on your vague allegations but you’ve never substantiated anything.

    You can’t quote any statement of Breitbart about Sherrod that was not true. And that’s why you refuse to do it while misrepresenting what he wrote.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. Mark. I have scruples

    No, what you actually have — or what really influences the way you think and respond — can be traced to flat-out leftist biases.

    I’m willing to admit that I have rightwing ones, so let’s go from there and stop putting up false facades of neutrality and objectivity.

    Mark (411533)

  43. Someone with “scruples” would not claim that Breitbart was dishonest without being able to actually quote the entire Breitbart post that first accompanied the Sherrod video.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. He said she was a usda worker, and that the video was proof of her being “racist” That was the first thing he posted, before the garbage about the NAACP. Neither are true.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  45. Chris Hooten, you are lying. That’s not what he wrote.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  46. Someone with “scruples” would have long given up on the phony Breitbart, and his deceptive journalism.

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  47. Chris Hooten, you are proving what I’ve been saying all along.

    That you have never read what Breitbart wrote.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  48. That’s the reality, Chris Hooten.

    You have absolutely no clue what Breitbart wrote. But you call him dishonest regardless.

    That’s not the actions of an honest person.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. If she was drawing a paycheck from the Dept. of Agriculture, she was a “usda worker”; you do know what “usda” stands for, don’t you?

    If Chrissie actually quoted anything, it would only confirm that he’s working from Left-wing talking points.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  50. I have scruples.

    No, you don’t. After all, you just said you weren’t posting anymore and yet, here you are again.

    Damn the bad luck and lying trolls.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  51. The bottom line is that the actual initial post that Andrew Breitbart wrote about the Sherrod video does not state what Chris Hooten thinks it stated.

    And that’s because Hooten never read it, and has no intention of doing so, because it would undermine his dishonesty misrepresentations of Breitbart.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  52. ________________________________

    Someone with “scruples”

    Someone with scruples would never have made the ridiculous, absurd, laughable claim that the modern Microsoft-Word-doc format of the letters used by CBS News (and Dan Rather) to smear George Bush several years ago was not true or not relevant.

    Again, you’re like an alcoholic who needs to go through a 12-step recovery program. You can being your journey to health by first admitting “Yes, I am a leftwinger.”

    Mark (411533)

  53. #52 Mark:

    … would never have made the ridiculous, absurd, laughable claim …

    Wha? Did Crissy say that? Really?

    I remember discussing the forgery with a slightly older vet (and Bronze Star recipient) before it was available for examination, but after it had been read on the air…and our shared conclusion was that no pilot, let alone a fighter jock, had written it. Hell, not even a self respecting NCO would have written that crap.

    But time, and Journolist, have proven just how low the socialists will go.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  54. Note that this is at least the fourth thread where I’ve dared Chris Hooten to actually quote the initial Breitbart piece and compare his ridiculous claims to it.

    At no time has Hooten ever had the courage to do so.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. hooten how can we
    miss you when you refuse to
    slither away, man?

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  56. Such dancing round points;
    how did he get away from
    his hooten-nanny ?

    Alasdair (205079)

  57. Notice how it is a coward an aggressively avoids answering simple direct questions? If it cared so much about scruples, it would not have had to ask what Rangel’s problems were. It would be able to demonstrate the same levels of breathless outrage over thinkregress, Ackerman, Klein, mediamatterz, JournoList, crissy, olbergasm, MadCow, and the rest of the perfidy foisted on us by the leftist media.

    JD (fc59fb)

  58. I went back and reread the first blog by jack*ss. There is a reason why people are calling him a liar.

    Chris Hooten (f1f654)

  59. If someone can’t see that the sky is blue, no matter how many times you point it out to them, they will still think the sky is not blue. This despite the color of the sky.

    Chris Hooten (f1f654)

  60. JD? Want to rephrase comment #58? Humor abounds.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  61. Yeah, why don’t you pull a “Breitbart” on it, JD?

    Chris Hooten (f1f654)

  62. Such a troll. Go sleep it off, would you, please?

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  63. You quite clearly did not read anything, at least not for comprehension. The mistake in the original text has been corrected. Outside of that, you still assert he lied. Care to prove that? Care to answer any of the questions addressed to you?

    JD (3dc31c)

  64. hooten exercised
    he keep going on like this
    need exorcism

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  65. Hooten is a troll and there is no use trying to engage him as he is programed with DNC talking points. He is best ignored unless you used to like boxing with those pop-up dolls when you were a kid.

    If so, be my guest.

    He is a hack who just manufactures misleading video gotcha moments

    So Ms Sherrod was his employee ?

    Happyfeet, I’m sorry to say I skipped over your comment. You are becoming a troll.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  66. “Potty-mouthed?” I don’t think so. Klinghoffer is also deceptive as Pat noted in other Breitbart descriptions—I think the left’s next big campaign is to frighten the GOP into believing Andrew is not kosher.

    And Klinghoffer really is a sort of fossil if he thinks NRO is the vanguard of conservatism. Klinghoffer is well-meaning, like the Rockefeller GOP types whom Iowahawk parody. I’ll take “Just One Minute” for my daily dose in insanity. And it sounds like Klinghoffer’s inner journey went south at some point.

    Even NRO has stand-up guys like Jonah and Andy McCarthy who are actually as strong-minded on Islam as any conservatives or Republicans. Would Klinghoffer call McCarthy “crazy-con” for saying in his recent book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Threaten America that the Demonrat left and the Islamic terrorists are in a curious parallel mode?

    I think that Journolist and other media cabals are ignored by purists like Klinghoffer because, like Gerson and Kathleen Parker at the WaPo and David Brooks at the NYT, the underpinnings for conservative philosophy are not supported by opportunists—and that’s what Klinghoffer is.

    daveinboca (d0db99)

  67. Ah yes, conservatives eating their own. That is what Democrats always count on.

    Terrye (3d4bc9)

  68. Comment by Terrye — 8/2/2010 @ 3:51 am

    You’re going to learn the same thing that I’ve learned over the years: Conservatives cannot operate without eating their own. Or do we need to relearn the experience of GW Bush’s first term to see the perils of forced unity?

    As far as Mr. Klinghoffer goes, I just have this to say: Who pays your bills, Mr. Klinghoffer? Betcha it’s the same sort of folks paying Andrew Breitbart’s bills right now (or are you so naive as to believe Breitbart is making a profit on his websites right now?). Mr. Klinghoffer might want to be…a little more measured in his criticism of Mr. Breitbart.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  69. I find it interesting that both sides in the “intelligent design” debate do not seem to know what they are talking about. By definition an omnipotent G0d would be able to create a universe at any point in its “natural” development whether 5 seconds, minutes, days, years, centuries, millenia, or eons ago. In fact, you (the reader) cannot prove that the universe was created with you looking at this comment, since all your memories could have been created with you. Similarly, by definition G0d would be able to create the “laws of nature” so that they would work perfectly. As a result there can never be any “proof” one way or the other. The only way that we could talk about “evidence” of creation would be if G0d deliberately introduced flaws into the creation so that it became obvious that the world was manufactured (or we find the URL sticker attached to the Earth). And, as Philip Jose Farmer pointed out in one of his science fiction novels, we would be unable to prove that it was not manufactured by an alien species.

    Sabba Hillel (dd522e)

  70. As I say, I have too much respect for Klinghoffer to really question his motives, now NR with Ponnuru
    and Lowry and sometimes even Krauthammer has been too much of a victorian gent in the current struggle, in Wolfe’s felicitous phrase, always
    expecting reciprocity or even common decency from the left

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  71. crissyhootie is a dishonest coward. That is all.

    JD (28c9d7)

  72. I don’t need to quote anything

    Pretty much sums up Chrissy’s entire MO here. Post lies and attempt to slime, then when called on to produce evidence of claims, suddenly clam up or try to misdirect. EPIC FAIL.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  73. hooten darn tootin
    if he lyin, he dyin
    careful that screen door!

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  74. Mr/Ms Hooten seems to be a practitioner of seagull commenting: he swoops in, makes a lot of noise, swallows whatever foul stuff can be found, craps all over everything, and flies away.

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  75. Unfortunately it is mostly foul stuff that is here…

    Chris Hooten (556347)

  76. Hooten, then quit depositing it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. hooten taste for
    excremental deposits
    legendary stuff

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  78. What a douchenozzle.

    JD (cf3b04)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0946 secs.