Weiner-gate is ‘funny’ but Andrew Breitbart gets undeserved credibility for shoddy allegation
If there is an accusation, are we supposed to consider the source? Or is the thought of an accusation just enough if the accusation is funny?
We have an established congressman, good track record, serious on topics but doesn’t take himself too seriously. And he is accused of something unorthodox — tasteless, yes, but not illegal.
And then we have the accuser — a proven liar and deceitful person with an agenda, especially against people whose views are similar to the congressman. The accuser has been flat-out caught — everybody can objectively see the accuser has a negative track record.
Yet … we have a story where the allegation is getting tons of attention, even if there is no proof that the congressman did what he was accused of doing, and the accuser gets credibility he doesn’t deserve.
And for the record, yes, we are talking Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Andrew Breitbart.
Breitbart’s story is pretty weak, protecting another conservative blogger over a photo that the alleged recipient says she never received. One could imagine that this thought process would work on an elementary school playground, but we are supposed to be smarter than 10-year-olds.
The folks at CNN proved that 6-year-olds might give them a run for their money after the cable news channel gave Breitbart carte blanche to air unprovable allegations, as Breitbart amazingly went beyond the allegation and was not directly refuted on-air. Kudos to Jeffrey Toobin for chastising CNN for giving Breitbart such unfettered on-air time.
Did the Congressman do what he allegedly did? This doesn’t seem to be the most important question, and that is a shame.
Breitbart has gotten off relatively scot-free that it is embarrassing that Jon Stewart, a personal friend of Weiner’s long before either became famous, hasn’t mentioned Breitbart or his reputation once in the week-long coverage of the allegation.
Stewart has been torn over covering the incident, yet has spent a lot of time talking about the subject. But never mentions the dark tornado type clouds hanging over the accuser.
Breitbart might be right this time and Weiner may have done this. But there should be cynicism against Breitbart, and the MSM won’t open the cabinet door to get out a dose.
Yes, Rep. Weiner hasn’t been helping his case by giving vague answers as to the contents of the photo. But there is a sufficient explanation: the photo may have been hacked as well as the Twitter account. Why should an innocent person subject themselves to that disclosure of humiliation.
The better question is why the MSM is so freaked out over this story (other than the humorous Weiner references) and won’t ask Sen. Vitter (R-LA) about his prostitution visits or Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) about his torrid affair/financial allegations.
What Ensign and Vitter has been accused of and/or admitted is far worse on the grand scale than any accusation against Weiner.
The MSM gives instant credibility to right-wing sources with proven mendacity track records: Matt Drudge, Andrew Breitbart, the guy who dressed up like a pimp (James O’Keefe). And when outlets such as CNN, which claims it is right down the middle, give them credibility, their arguments ring hollow.
And all they need to do is do what 10-year-olds on the playground do and what journalists used to do: consider the source.