Showing posts with label big journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big journalism. Show all posts

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Big Journalism Trying to Muddy the Waters With Anonymous Attacks

Big Journalism, the website "edited" by Dana Loesch, is in full-blown crisis mode after Loesch has been criticized by people across the political spectrum for her disgraceful comments about desecrating corpses. But what's especially interesting about their panic mode is that they've been using the anonymous name "P.J. Salvatore" for their attacks. Apparently, they're afraid of anyone knowing who actually wrote the pieces. Here's the description of the anonymous "P.J." moniker on the site:


Big Journalism had no less than four anonymous articles on their site today about the urinating incident, trying to excuse Dana Loesch for her comment that she would "drop trou" and pee on corpses too. Here are a few of the headlines:




The most recent article by "P.J." was pretty clearly written by Mary Chastain. How do I know this? Because she writes in a teenager style, with bizarre expressions of "Seriously!" in the middle of the post. She's also obsessed with "Fast and Furious," and just happens to use that as her example when she incorrectly claimed that 4 articles = 90 articles (she claimed that Media Matters had written the "same amount" about the recent scandal as Fast and Furious).

In the past, there have been pretty obvious examples of articles written by "P.J." that were Loesch referring to herself in the third person. All of which raises the question, if the writers at Dana Loesch's site are so sure of their writings, why are they afraid to put their names on it? Why, it's almost as if they want to make sure they have plausible deniability.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Major Typo! Big Journalism Accidently Says Something TRUE!

Breitbart's Big Journalism forgot to proof-read today, and accidently said something factually accurate:

Faced with a groundbreaking investigation by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer that reveals corrupt self-dealing on both sides of the aisle in Congress, the mainstream media had two options:
  1. Criticize both sides in proportion to their involvement.
  2. Defend both sides, in order to protect Democrats in power.
Yesterday, Politico chose #1. Today, Huffington Post has joined it, defending the Republican speaker it routinely derides, in order to protect the former Democrat speaker that many of its contributors hope to reinstate.

Why yes, Huffington Post, just like Politico and Media Matters, did decide to criticize "both sides in proportion to their involvement." Which is what you should do. And which is why those outlets are taken seriously, unlike Big Journalism.

Friday, May 13, 2011

The Case Against Bogus "Correction"

Big Journalism is demanding that the Post-Dispatch issue a correction for their most report about the despicable Dana Loesch/Andrew Breitbart smear campaign against UMSL and UMKC. Here is the paragraph Big Journalism takes issue with:
This isn't the first controversy created by Breitbart's heavy editing of videos. In another recent incident, a U.S. Agriculture Department employee was fired over what appeared to be a racist remark made in a speech. It was later revealed that the edited video left out a part of her speech that explained her comment as being part of a lesson on racial healing.
Big Journalism falsely claims that Breitbart actually did include the "redemptive tale" of Sherrod in his full video, because he included the following quote:
Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.
They conveniently left out the next two sentences of Breitbart's post:
But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
So, again, Breitbart is trying to frame this as Sherrod actually being racist. In fact, he referred to her actions as racist multiple times in his initial post and in his interviews on the subject, including one with Dana Loesch. Furthermore, Breitbart's claim that he captured the "redemptive tale" simply by including a snippet of her referring the farmer to "one of his own kind" is completely false. In fact, Breitbart left out the crucial portion of the redemptive tale where Sherrod describes the great lengths she went to in order to help save the white farmers farm:
SHERROD: So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer, then they lift the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there.

So we met at the lawyer's office on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, I can't believe you said that. I said: It's obvious to me that he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, I'll do whatever you say -- whatever you think -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money. You know, so he said -- the lawyer said he would work on it.

And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think so to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this.
The white farmer in question later told CNN that Sherrod had saved his farm.

Dana Loesch and the Big sites caught caught in a despicable, dishonest smear campaign, and now they're doing everything they can to try to distract and change the subject. Don't let them do it.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Loesch Tries to Smear Planned Parenthood, Fails Miserably

Note to Big Journalism: Fact-checking is much easier if you have basic linguistic competence.

Dana Loesch tweeted the following earlier today:

That tweet went to a mind-bogglingly dumb blog post at Big Journalism demanding a retraction from Media Matters latest debunking of a b.s. right-wing talking point. The wingnuts were claiming that the president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards was lying when she said that Planned Parenthood provided access to mammograms because they called a few Planned Parenthood clinics that said they couldn't do mammograms at the facilities. In response, Media Matters wrote this:
FACT: Planned Parenthood Provides Access To Mammograms By Referring Patients To Locations That Perform The Service

Planned Parenthood Website: "A Staff Member At Your Local Planned Parenthood Health Center Can Discuss Breast Cancer, Breast Exams, And Breast Health With You And Help You Find The Services You Need."
To which Big Journalism brilliantly responded:
Providing "access" to mammograms is not the same as giving them.
Well, this would sure be a witty point by Big Journalism if Cecil Richards had claimed that Planned Parenthood gives mammograms. But her actual quote was:
If this bill would ever become law, millions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services...to basic family planning, mammograms..."
So her quote was that the provide access to mammograms, and they do provide access to mammograms, and Big Journalism's idiotic response is "but access to mammograms isn't the same a giving mammograms so she's lying." Truly astounding.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Hilarious! Loesch Sends Big Journalism Readers to Troll Student Newspaper

Talk about being thin-skinned! The Washington University student newspaper StudLife had an article on Friday asking for opinions on CNN hiring Dana Loesch as an election analyst. The article included quotes from members of the Young Americans for Liberty, the College Republicans, a media professor, and yours truly. Yet Loesch apparently was offended by the article and put a link up on her site Big Journalism to complain about the student newspaper "considering the merits of silencing Dana Loesch:"

Naturally, many of her followers put up angry comments on the site without even reading the article. Pretty hilarious.

While I'm at it, since StudLife (understandably) only included part of my comments after they asked me to weigh in, I thought I'd post them all here:
Hiring Dana Loesch as an election analyst severely damages the credibility of CNN as a news organization, not because of the fact that she's extremely conservative, but rather because she is a proponent of the Andrew Breitbart approach to journalism which is fundamentally dishonest when it comes to the gathering and presentation of information.

Andrew Breitbart was disgraced last year after he released a blog post and video claiming Shirley Sherrod was "racist" that resulted in Sherrod being fired. It was later found out that the video was highly edited and completely changed the context of Sherrod's comments, which were actually meant to illustrate that race does not matter. Dana Loesch was one of the leading people in the country pushing Andrew Breitbart's false claims to the media, and continues to defend him to this day. You can listen to an interview of Loesch and Breitbart the day after the story broke suggesting that Sherrod was racist here.

A bit closer to home, Loesch was completely dishonest about the Bristol Palin controversy at Wash U. As you can see at the 2:58 mark of this video from the past weekend, she claimed that Wash U paid Van Jones $20,000 to speak at the school. Actually, Van Jones usually speaks for $20,000, but agreed to speak at Wash U for only $5,000. Green Action applied for a small amount more for a panel, but they were turned down. She also tweeted and blogged about actress Kate Walsh, absurdly implying that Walsh's retweet at the request of a student was "organizing a rally" against Bristol Palin, which set off an array of false stories in the media that suggested that Walsh had something to do with Bristol Palin being disinvited.

There's much more I can talk about if you're interested, from Loesch's unending support of James O'Keefe and his cronies even after he was convicted of entering a congressional office under false premises and even after they were caught planning to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter, to the inflamed rhetoric of the St. Louis tea party where Loesch says "I love the smell of fire when it's burning tyranny" while her friends set fire to a photo of Congressman Russ Carnahan, to her conspiracy theories about President Obama ordering "thugs" to beat up tea party members in St. Louis, to her attacks on local school teachers based on misinformation, and much much more.

What I find really strange is that CNN seems to recognize that Breitbart and O'Keefe are toxic, and they rarely if ever have them on as guests. But by hiring Breitbart's top lieutenant Loesch (editor of his site Big Journalism), they seem to be suggesting that they're more interested in the appearance of credibility than actual credibility, because hiring Loesch is endorsing the exact same dishonest approach to journalism only without the baggage of O'Keefe and Breitbart's names. There are plenty of honest people out there who can effectively communicate a conservative message, so I see no reason why CNN should hire a person with Loesch's track record of pushing blatant misinformation.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Loesch Employs Misogynist Ben Wetmore

Not that long ago, James O'Keefe and his gang of fools were thoroughly disgraced when they were busted trying to execute a plan to "sexually seduce" CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau. They had planned to isolate Boudreau on a boat where O'Keefe would try to "seduce" her as part of what they claimed was a joke. CNN described the plan as follows:
James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.
The original CNN report went on to say that they had obtained a 13 page document detailing their plan, which stated that O'Keefe would start the video as follows:
My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

Please sit back and enjoy the show.
Everyone with a functioning brain was shocked and offended at O'Keefe's behavior. The Breitbart gang, however, argued that O'Keefe "hadn't approved" the plan that had been sent out, and that "of course he wouldn't have actually gone through with that;" at least, not before making modifications. I don't think anyone actually believes that, but let's just say that you did. That still wouldn't get the author of the 13-page plan, Ben Wetmore, off the hook. He proposed the despicable plan, and assessments of his character don't hinge on whether O'Keefe would have approved of it or not. Wetmore infused the document with misogynistic language like, "This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine."

So, with that in mind, someone please explain to me why self-proclaimed "conservative feminist" Dana Loesch is giving Ben Wetmore work on Big Journalism, the site she edits?


Wouldn't a "conservative feminist" not want to reward someone who sexualized a female CNN reporter and planned to place her in a (real or mock) sexually humiliating situation? Shouldn't Wetmore be banned from writing self-righteous rants about the ethics of journalism? Of course, Loesch also blamed a woman for having her head stomped on by a Rand Paul supporter, so maybe this shouldn't be surprising.

Also worth noting, the St. Louis Tea Party's John Burns was also included on the initial planning emails for the plan to harass Bourdreau. Sadly, no one in the St. Louis media (with the exception of Chad Garrison) has asked Burns about his role in the incident. But Loesch is also giving Burns work on her site as well, as evidenced by his mind-blowingly dumb post claiming that the media was "racially profiling" Jared Lee Loughner.

"Editing" Big Journalism

So how's Dana Loesch doing in her role as "editor" of Breitbart's Big Journalism site? Apparently, not very well:
Yesterday at Breitbart's BigJournalism, Jeff Dunetz served up yet another badly premised, nigh unreadable piece on the many outrageous evils of the "progressive media," which on its own is hardly worth mentioning. But there was one passage in Dunetz's sloppy harangue that indicates the high level of unseriousness we're dealing with here:
Israel is a favorite target of the progressive mainstream media. For example the New York Times,Washington Post and LA Times are famous for their anti-Israel bias. To mix things up a bit, they can blame the Jews too. Progressive media are famous for their attacks on Jews also. MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan, for example, is a Holocaust revisionist who opposed did not support the Kagan nomination because it would put too many Jews on the Supreme Court (he also complained that there were too many Jews in the Senate).
Media Matters goes on to point out that Buchanen worked for three Republican presidents, ran for President as a Republican, and founded The American Conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the editor's job to make sure that nonsensical garbage like this doesn't get posted? I mean, I know that the Breitbart sites primarily trade on nonsensical garbage, but even brainwashed tea partiers would know that the claim about Buchanen is false.

h/t Eric Boehlert

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Loesch And Hoft Mislead on Poll

I wrote earlier that Dana Loesch claimed on her radio show that Ed Martin had 51% of the vote in Missouri's Third Congressional District. She based her claim on a report from Jim Hoft, aka Gateway Pundit. I wrote at the time that it was pretty hilarious that they were citing a Republican polling firm that claimed that Matt Blunt was "popular" when other, neutral polling firms had found his approval/disapproval ratings to be 37/57. However, it looks like I seriously overestimated Hoft and Loesch because, as it turns out, their numbers were complete nonsense.

Hoft cited a poll by American Viewpoint to make this claim:
Republican Ed Martin pulled ahead of Russ Carnahan in Missouri according to sources. Ed Martin receives 51% of the vote according to a new internal poll.
However, the Missouri Record released the actual poll numbers from the American Viewpoint poll, and it turns out that Carnahan is leading 48%-42% according to this Republican polling firm! This is from a firm that will present as optimistic picture as possible, and it found that Carnahan was leading by 6%! In other words, this is not newsworthy at all, especially considering as I stated previously that this is the same firm that has been skewed towards Republicans by over 20% in the past. However, since Dana Loesch is the new editor of Big Journalism, I'm sure she'll want to make sure to correct her false statement as soon as possible, as well as the multitude of other false statements she's made. And considering that her husband's business received $5,000 from the Ed Martin campaign, she naturally will be held to higher standards of honesty.

Finally, you might ask why Martin is leaking a document that basically lays out his strategy for the next couple weeks. I did, and what someone told me is that he's basically begging 527s and independent groups to help him out. How very typical of Martin.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Gina Loudon...Busted

To review, Michael Joseph Gross wrote a scathing story for Vanity Fair about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. In that story, Gross mentioned Sarah Palin handing off her son Trig prior to a speech in Independence, Missouri. However, as St. Louis tea party leader Gina Loudon (who was involved in the event in Independence) correctly noted, the child was not actually Trig but rather Loudon's adopted son Samuel Loudon. Gross noted that he made a mistake, and it should have been a very minor case of mistaken identity, since the identity of the child had nothing to do with the rest of the story. However, Loudon pushed it further, accusing Gross of being deliberately dishonest, by telling the Post-Dispatch that she had told Gross at the event that the child was actually Samuel Loudon and that Gross had ignored her. Here is how Gross responded to that charge:
Let me state this as unequivocally as possible: Loudon’s accounts have no basis in reality. I do not mean simply that the facts are wrong—I mean that the episode did not occur. I have never met Gina Loudon. I have never spoken to Gina Loudon in person or by phone. I have never exchanged e-mail or snail mail with Gina Loudon. I did not even know Gina Loudon’s name until it began cropping up in connection with the accounts quoted above. Furthermore, I could not have spoken to her in Independence, because I was not allowed backstage on the floor of the arena, where Loudon was; that was a restricted space, and, as far as I am aware, all reporters were barred from the area. (I was sitting several rows up, in a place where I was able to observe what was happening both in front of and behind the curtain.)

It could be that Loudon spoke to another reporter that day, and that this is a case of mistaken identity. The other possibility is that Loudon has simply made everything up, inventing and publicizing a complete fabrication for her own purposes. It is either the one thing or the other.
Today, Gina Loudon wrote another response where she continued to accuse Gross of lying, and she said on Twitter that she had "proof." In fact, she presented proof that she is being completely dishonest.

Loudon starts her attack on Gross at Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism by focusing in on this quote from Gross:
I could not have spoken to her in Independence, because I was not allowed backstage on the floor of the arena, where Loudon was; that was a restricted space, and, as far as I am aware, all reporters were barred from the area...

(I was sitting several rows up, in a place where I was able to observe what was happening both in front of and behind the curtain.)
Loudon then highlighted the word "backstage" in this passage from Gross's original article:
Backstage in the arena, a little girl in Mary Janes pushes her brother in a baby carriage, stopping a few yards shy of a heavy, 100-foot-long black curtain...
Now anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language would understand that the phrase "Backstage in the arena" is not referring to the reporter, but rather to the the subject of the sentence: "a little girl in Mary Janes." Yet Loudon seems to think that the sentence counts as evidence that Gross implied he was backstage. as you can see in this quote from her:
Okay then, how was it that Mr. Gross was, in his words, “backstage at the Arena” writing about an incident that he later retracted,
So that bit from Loudon was obviously nonsense, but she did attempt to provide "evidence" that disproved Gross's statements. Her evidence consisted in a statement from "the organizers" of the event that Gross could not have been sitting in a place where he could observe both the stage and behind the stage. Here is the quote from the organizers:
From a logistical standpoint, if an individual was able to report about activities going on behind the curtain they could not have done so from solely sitting in the audience but would have had to knowingly gone behind the curtain and into the backstage area.
However, by doing a little research on the internet, I can now prove that the organizers' statement is false. First of all, take a look at the seating chart for the Independence Events Center, where the event was held:

From the seating chart, it might look like sections 119 and 102 would have views behind the stage. However, for this event, the stage was actually located more towards the center of the arena, which we can see thanks to photos from Preserving American Liberty, the event organizers:

If you click the photo for a zoomed in view, you can see the section numbers 115 and 116 in the red circles. Furthermore, you can see plenty of people who are sitting in the sections to the side of the stage:

Now, we can't see the next section number, but we know that it should be 117 from the seating chart. And we know that the people near that area should be able to see behind the stage, provided that there's no visual barrier between the backstage and the audience. And, thanks (again) to a picture from Preserving American Liberty titled Kris Kobach and Sarah and Todd Palin backstage , we can see that there is, in fact, no visual barrier between the backstage and the seating (notice also the section 117 marker in the background):

Now it is obvious from these photos that it would have been possible to sit in the audience where you can both see the stage and see backstage. Therefore, the following quote presented by Loudon from "the event organizers" is patently false:
From a logistical standpoint, if an individual was able to report about activities going on behind the curtain they could not have done so from solely sitting in the audience but would have had to knowingly gone behind the curtain and into the backstage area.
Furthermore, if you read the passage in question from Gross, the language is all referring to events that could be observed from a distance, and in fact he makes explicit reference to being able to see the split in the stage:
Backstage in the arena, a little girl in Mary Janes pushes her brother in a baby carriage, stopping a few yards shy of a heavy, 100-foot-long black curtain. The curtain splits the arena in two, shielding the children from an audience of 4,000 people clapping their hands in time to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” The music accompanies a video “Salute to Military Heroes” that plays above the stage where, in a few moments, the children’s mother will appear.

When the girl, Piper Palin, turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008. Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away; and Todd hands Sarah her speech and walks her to the stage. He pokes the air with one finger. She mimes the gesture, whips around, strides on four-inch heels to stage center, and turns it on.
Gina Loudon's latest piece for Big Journalism is blatantly dishonest. It falsely claims that Gross could not have seen the stage from the audience, which is clearly not true based on photos of the event provided by Preserving American Liberty. It is Gina Loudon and Preserving American Liberty who owe an apology to Michael Joseph Gross for falsely accusing him of lying.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Gina Loudon Says She "Could Have Speculated" Reporter Was Gay Because He Has Psychological Profile of Person Who Attacks Children-Updated

Earlier in the year, Gina Loudon compared gay marriage to people marrying animals. She later compared people who wanted to build an Islamic Community Center in New York City to nazis. Amazingly, her bigotry managed to reach a new low in this past week, as she claimed on the Stage Right Show that she could have "speculated" that Vanity Fair reporter Michael Joseph Gross was gay because he has a "psychological profile" of someone who "attacks children." Here's the video:



Transcript of the relevant section:
Larry O'Connor: Just for the record it's not a secret...Michael Joseph Gross is actually an out-of-the-closet gay man, so I don't think he has any children that I'm aware of...

Loudon: Oh! See and that...I mean I'm sorry I did not know that Larry, I honestly didn't, and I could have speculated as much just by several little pieces I had picked up in looking at the sort of psychological profile of someone who behaves like this...attacks someone's children. And then you just don't even want to consider the whole hidden-on-the-deck-next-door-thing.
The "hidden-the-deck-next-door-thing" is referring to the fact that Gross visited a reporter who had rented a house next door to the Palin's mansion.

Outright, unhidden, unapologetic bigotry. And yet the St. Louis tea party chooses to have Loudon as one of their leaders. What does that say about them?

Update: Palingates has a nice take on Gross's reply.