November 10, 2014

"The best I can say in defense of this comical 'correction' is that it would be challenging to amend the piece in light of the categorical collapse of the article's central assertion."

"I mean, how do you correct it? I guess you just don't? Which is pretty much what they did here."

Josh Marshall slathers on the mockery that Breitbart richly deserves.

Breitbart the website, not Breitbart the man, who sadly died, leaving his name on a website that he can no longer monitor and control.

44 comments:

rehajm said...

Other than that, the story was accurate.

Does he really want to play this game?

acm said...

I have a great deal of respect for Breitbart the man, but the sites have been cringe-worthy for a very, very long time.

David said...

In other words the story was chickenshit and so was the correction. So much chickenshit. So little time.

Mark O said...

I find this to be discrimination against homophones. There ought to be a law.

Birkel said...

They should have pulled the article and made the correction the story.

Matthew Sablan said...

That's... pretty bad for a correction.

Michael K said...

Does this mean it is open season on TPM the next time they make a dumb mistake. Let's see; how about in an hour or two ?

Michael K said...

We didn't have to wait long at all for the left to make a comical statement. Mia Love, the new black Congresswoman from Utah has "white privilege."

Love's political convictions show a strong support for values that do not necessarily represent her interests as a member in any of these oppressed groups. For example, blacks are not doing well with respect to education, economics and health outcomes, while women still trail behind in salary and significant positions of power, and conservative politics are not typically known to aid these groups in such key issues. These actualities of Mia's existence seem to be diametrically opposed to her values that are grounded in a white, male, Christian context.

No sense of awareness that the oppressed blacks are ruled by inner city Democrats !

No correction is expected. This is what they believe.

kcom said...

"Love's political convictions show a strong support for values that do not necessarily represent her interests as a member in any of these oppressed groups."

Perhaps she'a most interested in being an American and will leave the victimhood to people more suited to that lifestyle. Do they think her family came from Haiti to join a victim group or to prosper?

David Smith said...

Can't agree that the article should have been pulled. Instead, were I the King of the World or at least editor at Breitbart, the correction put at the top of the text, and a separate "mea culpa" article explaining the error and how it happened.

And, yes, watch TPM like a hawk.

EDH said...

I've come to abhor the tendency of Breitbart the website to use of auto-run video adverts.

That said, I recall reading the original, pre-corrected Breitbart article and specifically noticed that it seemed to admit upfront that it relied as its sole source the mention of the name in 1992 NYT article about Whitewater. And indeed it was a thinly sourced, unresearched error due to mistaken identity.

But I also recall the article highlighting that Obama selecting a Clintonista as its scandal-goalie at DOJ would be strange choice, and imputed it to the influence of Podesta.

Does anyone else recall that aspect of the story being removed?

RecChief said...

speaking of comical corrections, how about that innocent guy who the "Innocence Project" coerced into confessing to a murder he didn't commit? A resident of Milwaukee too. hmmm

Xmas said...

To be fair, according to howmanyofme dot com, there are statistically only 78 Loretta Lynch's in the US. How many of those could be in their 50s and practicing attorneys.

EMD said...

Breitbart has turned to shit. It's basically like Kos for the 'other' side.

RecChief said...

so a website got a story wrong. A story that admittedly thinly sourced. Then issued a correction when it discovered its error.

Meanwhile, such institutions such as the NYT and WAPO frequently make changes to stories that change the meaning of said stories. Often these changes occur without the correction being noted.

what does Josh Marshall have to say about that?

SGT Ted said...

Oh lefties whining about inaccurate political hit pieces. Whatever.

traditionalguy said...

The name Whitewater Investigation got big time PR. So what was the mistake again?

amielalune said...

I agree with rehajm...they have no business playing that game. Oh, wait, but they don't bother to correct their idiocies. So in liberalworld, that makes them superior to Breitbart.

Ann Althouse said...

"Oh lefties whining about inaccurate political hit pieces. Whatever."

You're acting like it was generic, when it was horrible in a very specific and extraordinary way.

Ipso Fatso said...

Maybe Breitbart should have said it was Loretta Lynn.

Hey Josh, how is that Soros money working out for you?

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Oh lefties whining about inaccurate political hit pieces. Whatever."

"You're acting like it was generic, when it was horrible in a very specific and extraordinary way."

How was this horrible? It was a mistake but it wasn't calling her a horrible person. Nobody would really care if she represented the Clinton's in Whitewater. Someone had to do it because Hillary broke the law.

And they put up a correction. Which is 1000 times more than TPM does when it screws shit up. Which is why the TPM article is the better of the two examples of pathetic posts. The NYT and WAPO don't even correct the story where it is posted they just mention it in section F page 12 that there was a correction to a story 6 weeks ago.

Breitbart.com is a rag. So is TPM. But if you are weighing balls in a chickenshit contest TPM would have to have some first.

Michael K said...

"I've come to abhor the tendency of Breitbart the website to use of auto-run video adverts."

They are not the only one. Another amusing thing is the number of times I get an error message on Safari "Unable to load adblock."

Sure, it must just be a slight glitch instead of a war between ads and adblockers.

Drago said...

Althouse: "You're acting like it was generic, when it was horrible in a very specific and extraordinary way."

I read the article. I was not able to discern that which was "horrible".

Could you help us out here?

Todd said...

That was pretty lame. They should have pulled the entire article and replaced it with a post on why it was pulled. That would have been the right thing to do and would have shown them to be better than most of the online (and offline) news sites. Instead they did this. I do not believe this would have happened if Bretbart were still running things.

hoonza said...

I have a great job opportunity available - it's a great place to work - check out this opening http://www"fourcornersalliancegroup"com/?a=hoonza

Skeptical Voter said...

Josh Marshall knows from lying and factual screw-ups.

Columnists who live in glass houses so to speak shouldn't be throwing stones--or, in our host's words "slathering ridicule so richly deserved".

In life what goes around comes around. (That passes for early 1970 era wisdom, but it does contain a kernel of truth.)

acm said...

I'm reminded sadly of this piece which I think actually introduced me to Breitbart

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/18/i-jerk/?page=all

Someone could've done something smart and funny wit this mix-up (which was a much more serious and less understandable one than Andrew Breitbart's). What a missed opportunity.

@Xmas why would you think that the other Loretta Lynch is in her 50s and still a practicing attorney?

RecChief said...

Just out of curiosity, how did TPM and/or Josh Marshall report Shirley Sherrod's "resignation"?

Cause I recall that every leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat claimed that Breitbart got her fired.

Which is odd in the context of White House involvement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/shirley-sherrod-white-house_n_6096672.html

n.n said...

Breibart.com is becoming indistinguishable from mainstream press, and The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. feel threatened, so they send expendable assets (e.g. Talking Points Memo) to attack their competitor? This is so NAACP. Why not send the DOJ or IRS equivalent?

Ann Althouse said...

It was horrible because they are still hanging out the original statement in the headline. The whole article is a mistake. I would withdraw the whole thing and apologize. It's an article that has absolutely no value and would never have been published in any form if the mistake were known at the outside. It's not about slanting or exaggerating or getting something wrong. It's about knowing you have nothing but deception and leaving it out there.

Beldar said...

If I didn't have 15 years' personal experience with Josh Marshall's own disingenuousness, I'd be more impressed.

Anonymous said...

This goes to show what a solid website Breitbart has become.

This correction stands out.

Whereas, corrections to these other sites are so common place, that Althouse would be wasting her time highlighting them all.

Big Mike said...

Did Josh Marshall mock ABC when "Good Morning America" misidentified the Aurora theater shooter as a Tea Party leader because the two had the same name and both lived in Aurora?

Florida Gator said...

The original post from breitbart.com was deleted and replaced! Here is the link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/09/Loretta-Lynch-A-Qualified-but-Political-Choice . The old post in Google's cache is what everyone is talking about. I made this post before about 10:45 AM CT and assumed it was in moderation, but it appears to have been eaten by Google.

m stone said...

I would have pulled it and added an explanation.

It occurred to me that maybe the intent was to hang the dirty laundry right out in front, almost like an offering. "Yup, we make boners too!) It's like shaming yourself.

If that were the case, the correction in the last para should be in the first.

Ever notice how so many awful incorrect pieces simply disappear from many lib media?

traditionalguy said...

The Professor has a good point that the Headlines are more often than not where the deception is made. And that was the uncorrected part.

Most headline readers add that info to their world view fact base and do not read the article that will say the opposite or no such thing as the headline has asserted.

A good internet hit piece today uses the false headlines method.

John Lynch said...

This can't be defended so don't try.

A site founded on the premise that media is lazy and partisan should be very careful with what they publish.

Mark Caplan said...

Maybe Breitbart was right and Obama picked the wrong Loretta Lynch.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Brings to mind a great Letterman "Top 10 Reasons Why Spinks Lost to Tyson:

"Didn't know he was fighting THAT Mike Tyson."

April Apple said...

Accuracy in media is important all of a sudden?
hmmmm.

Remember when Brian Ross(D) of ABC News named a tea party suspect in a mass shooting in Denver before actually vetting the information.

ABC-Democrats knew they had their man because - tea party!

Brian Ross and ABC news were 100% wrong. Wrong guy. 100% wrong incorrect mistaken. But that didn't matter, because they had an opportunity to smear the tea party and the pro-democrat hack media took it.

CStanley said...

The Brietbart mistake was egregious. A stupid unforced error.

What disturbs me is my own growing paranoia. I can almost imagine Obama deliberately picking this woman in order to trigger a right wing news source to jump on it in haste and embarrass itself (wasn't there something similar with the release of White House logs?)

I'm joking, and don't really believe it went down that way but it scares me a bit that this thought could even occur to me.

acm said...

Brian Ross is a partisan hack of the first order, but even he prefaced the bit about the wrong James Holmes with "we're not sure if this is the same James Holmes..."

April Apple said...

If you have to preface a news story (news story!) on national TV with "We aren't sure we have the right guy" - 'but we think so because - TEA PARTY'... then you are not fit to report the news.

I'm not excusing Brietbart here. I'm just pointing out the double standard.

socally773 said...

many comments on Brietbart site lost value; I find its where the right wing trolls go to spout. A few years back on MLK day the comment section was truly ugly.