Terror Trial Verdict, AC360's Palin Obsession Worsens, Another Victim of James O'Keefe's Smears, And Anderson Cooper Meets Some Bonobos

Hi guys. A lot packed into the broadcast tonight. A little something for everyone--even furries! To the bullet points we go:

• We finally have the verdict of the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried by a civilian court: guilty of only one of 285 counts. Admittedly I haven't been following this case very closely (haven't even done by Glenn Greenwald reading yet), but I don't think this should put the kibosh on trying these people in civilian courts. It's not like guy is going to walk free.
  

• Ah yes, a statement from Peter King. Color me shocked.

• Dear Bush administration, thank you so much for breaking the law and tainting our country's moral standing by torturing people. Now we get to deal with the consequences of your actions even as we try to revert back to the rule of law. Awesome. Well done.
  

• The discussion with Kirk Lippold, Jeffrey Toobin, and Peter Bergen wasn't bad. As I said, I haven't really seen what other info is out there on this subject, so it's hard to judge the segment, but nothing stood out to me as being ridiculous. Video below.
  

• Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, this show is OBSESSED with Sarah Palin. Oh, oh, she might run for president in two years. Everyone stop everything! Yeesh. Talk about wasted airtime.
  

• Anderson Cooper referring to Palin: " I mean, I'm fascinated by her." No, really? I hadn't noticed!

• Our anchor: "Have you ever seen a candidate or a potential candidate who makes their critics' heads explode in the way that Sarah Palin does?" He then continues to show me he is completely clueless on this subject. Yeah, Anderson, watching a serial liar who traffics in falsehoods become the object of the media's obsession makes my head a little explode-y. As a journalist, one would think that you would understand this feeling. Perhaps not.

• Erick Erickson--yes, sigh, he's there--brings up Bristol and "Dancing With the Stars," which leads Anderson to say: "Just in our defense, we have not discussed that on this show, though, tomorrow..." Um, yeah, you have no leg to stand on here.

• Moving on to the Bulletin, oh look, someone literally shot their TV over Bristol Palin's performance. Yeah...

• Also, the "shot"--again weirdly in the middle of the broadcast--made me die inside a little. Bristol Palin and The Situation in a badly acted PSA about teen pregnancy? No world. No.
  

• My regular readers (and Twitter followers) probably know I was particularly interested in the teachers union story. Actually, when Anderson teased it I got all nervous and had myself a little "don't f*ck this up, 360" prayer.
  

• James O'Keefe, the disgusting serial smear merchant, is at it again. This time one of his minions infiltrated a New Jersey Education Association conference, buddied up to a teacher, and got her to talk about the union, all the while taping what she said. The teacher, Alissa Ploshnick, was suspended and denied a raise. Oh, did I mention that she once saved her students' lives by literally throwing herself in front of a van? Yeah. I first read the story here and then took a day or so to look into it before tweeting out my feelings.
  

• After watching the segment twice, and after talking with the author of that blog post, I think the 360 kids did a fair job. Obviously I wish they would have been more like, "O'Keefe is teh evil!" but, uh, that was probably never going to happen. Anyway. This video by O'Keefe is being promoted by 360 guest Dana Loesch. I cannot believe they continue to have her on the show. This isn't about differing viewpoints. This is about lending credibility to someone who traffics in smears, falsehoods, and severely questionable ethics. For a show that has been deservedly earning praise lately, her bookings are completely beneath them, and quite frankly, embarrassing.
  

• The bunny suit is back! Anderson's piece about the bonobos at the Great Ape Trust in Iowa was just...wow. I mean, it's fascinating and the baby was adorable, but...I can not get past that suit! He hopped, people. He hopped. Bwah! This was way more humiliating than I even imagined.

• The carrots from Kevin (at least I hope I'm remembering his name right) was a nice touch. And please guys, never stopped the mocking.
  

• On tonight's RidicuList, Alvin Greene thinks he's going to be president because he's "the man." Oh, Alvin Greene, you're adorable. No, wait, I believe 'crazy' is the word I was looking for. Says Anderson: "We don't contest that Greene may, in fact, be the man. But president?" Ha! All in the delivery, people. All in the delivery.
  

• The show wasn't bad. If we get an intervention going for the Palin problem, it might soon even be great!
  

A $200 Million Falsehood And The Media's Obsession With Sarah Palin Ratchets Up A Notch

Hi everyone. So, the election. That happened, huh? Oh, it burns, people. It burns. I watched, I cursed, I got depressed. I threw mental darts at pundits. But it's over and now time to move forward (if I blogged an MSNBC show, I suppose we would be 'leaning').

Anyway. Buck up, kids. If the beginning of tonight's 360 was any indication, the road we're on might not be all bad. Ok, yes, we are in for a bucket-load of stupidity from the Republicans, but if someone is actually going to be out there holding them (and everyone else) accountable, maybe we'll get by. Not that the Democrats don't also imbody much suckage. They just don't seem to be as much--what's the word? Oh yes, crazy. I mean, seriously Kentucky?

Time to warm up those bullet points! We're going to start strong and then kind of peter out. You have been warned.

• Have you heard? Apparently POTUS is going on the most expensive trip to Asia evah! He's bringing everyone who voted for a Democrat and all their sheets will be made of gold! You know how the right-wing latches onto unverified information, and then they all repeat each other, and then suddenly it's Out There? Well, here we are. Suddenly, Obama's trip is going to cost $200 million a day--a number which appears to be pulled entirely out of thin air.
  

• This in of itself is not at all surprising. What's mildly surprising is that the perpetuaters of the falsehood are getting called out. The 360 kids are like, "oh hells no!" Not only do they bring us the facts of the situation, thus showing the $200 million number to be ridiculous, they also show us who's been pushing the meme (Beck, Limbaugh, Bachmann, etc.). They are now montaging fools! For the win, baby.

• Anderson Cooper on Michele Bachmann: "Now, you would think if a member of Congress was going to use this figure as a fact, she would want to be pretty darn sure it was accurate, right?" Oh Silver Fox, you're adorable. First segment is below:
  

• Question: Was Andy Card always such a douche? I guess anyone looks reasonable when they're standing next to Cheney. I had him pegged as a better guy than what we saw tonight. No, he wasn't a Powell in that administration, but I did think he was Powell-ish. Guess not.

• First Card complains that our anchor is making too big of deal out of the situation (though apparently had no problem putting his face on TV to give his opinion). Then when Anderson tries to explain that he's bringing it up because "Michele Bachmann used up our airtime last night, rather than answering questions about Medicare, to talk about this," Card replies with: "It's not your airtime, Anderson. It's not your airtime." Um, excuse me, your initials may also be 'AC,' but I assure you, this show belongs to the Silver Fox.

• And then he calls Anderson irresponsible. Because being chief of staff in an administration that lied us into war is the height of responsibility.

• Our anchor then throws down some more clippage action, which includes a sound bite from Mitch McConnell. Says Card: "Well, first of all, the quote from Mitch McConnell was a little bit old, wasn't really contemporaneous to what happened on Tuesday." Then there's some discussion. Once things wind down, totally off-handedly, Anderson's all, "By the way the sound bite from McConnell was from this morning at the Heritage Foundation." Burn! It's all in the delivery, people. Card just got shanked and Anderson pulled the knife out before he even realized what hit him.
  

• All this starts at about the six minute mark in the video below:

6 minutes

• More montage action! This time we get to watch all those many Republicans talk about how they're going to get in there and cut spending. Oh, but they're not going to tell us what specific spending they would cut. That would be hard work! I love talking points, don't you? Taxes bad! American flag good!
  

• I also like how Anderson is calling Carville 'James', but Mr. Jerkypants is 'Mr. Card.' They are not friends, people.

• Card: "I think it's much too early to be talking about specific program cuts that are only designed to inflame the debate, rather than be constructive and really bringing discipline to the government." Well, that makes a lot of sense that doesn't.
  

• Once called on this, Card tries to deflect onto the Democrats, wondering what their specific cuts would be. Anderson's face pretty much says, WTF?

• Card: "Tell me what cuts you are recommending, Anderson, and I will give you a reaction to it." Yes, tell us, Anderson, why have you not reduced the deficit yet?!

• Our anchor can't even deal with that stupidity, so he just laughs it off and turns to Carville, but Card would apparently very much like to know how the Silver Fox is going to get us out of the hole. Next he is going to find out how Blitzer would fix immigration reform!

• Anderson: "Well, actually, I'm just a reporter. I'm supposed to ask questions. I'm not like a pundit who takes positions and tries to shove them down viewers' throats. James?" Oh, snap! The best part is the end when he just totally turns from Card to go to Carville. DISmissed! The Silver Fox is so done with your fuckery. Segment below:

• Okay, this is the part where we come close to shark jumpage. Buckle up for the summary. See, Marc Lamont Hill took a picture of a sign in front of this church run by James David Manning. The sign was very anti-Obama and all kinds of offensive. He then sends the picture to Ann Coulter because apparently they have some sort of jokey relationship when it comes to this wackjob pastor (I don't even want to know, people). Coulter, jokester that she is, retweets the tweet, adding, "that's my church!" And finally, Sarah Palin favorites the whole thing. According to our anchor, a stir was caused! Now the former half-term governor's 'favorites' are wiped clean. Conspiracy! Or not. I love me the Twitter, but even I think this is a little much.
  

• Thing is, we don't know if she's supporting the pastor, thought the joke was funny, or simply hit the wrong button on her blackberry (Twitter can be tricky, yo!). So basically, what we have is a segment with Marc speculating his ass off, while Anderson keeps painfully reining him in. (For the record, Palin says she didn't favorite the tweet.)

• As they ponder what was going on in the mind of the favoriter, I wonder what was going on in the mind of whoever decided to spend this long on this story. They even brought in a dude from Politico. Oy.
  

• We also have John King give us a hypothetical match-up of Palin versus Obama. Because that's not a complete waste of time! Good lord.

• I think this is where I get off the bus. The show wasn't bad. Started out really strong, then fell into some ridiculousness. Maybe the Palin Twitter thing will grow more legs, but right now there's not much there. Anderson did a pretty solid job throughout when it comes to calling out. That'll do it.

More Immigration Coverage, Charlie Rangel's Bad Day, Sherrod Smearing Continues, Anderson Cooper Makes A Laughable Statement, & Snooki

Hi everyone. I have no videos for you tonight. Sorry. But you still have the bullet points. And while some may be more indepth than others, they all contain awesomeness. Let's do this thang:

• We begin with an absence of the sense-assaulting "breaking news" graphic/sound effect. Sweet.

• Anderson Cooper's opening commentary focused on Washington's chronic failure to address the overall issue of immigration, and incorporated clips going back to Reagan. The 360 kids have been going Daily Show-style on us pretty often lately. I fully encouraged this!

• Gary Tuchman joined us live to talk about the protests occurring in Arizona, aimed at both the new law and Joe Arpaio. Today the sheriff had his deputies do a crime sweep, and some of the individuals arrested were asked if they were illegal immigrants. Gary tells us that despite that provision in the law being struck down, this is legal because Arpaio is from a county with a federal-county relationship and this apparently makes him king. Okay, I believe the word our correspondent used was "deputized," but you get the picture. Team Gary actually went out on the sweep and talked to a guy who was arrested, but it's noted he was not asked about his legal status. Gary talked to Arpaio as well. I'm thinking you guys are pretty versed in his views.

• Our intrepid correspondent tried to tell us more, but it was not to be. Hey Gary, would you like a loud horn to go with your live shot? Enjoy! I admit, as soon as I heard that I burst out laughing because I knew that somewhere close, Gary's producer's head had just exploded. Poor Ish Estrada cannot seem to shake the live shot ruining sound effects, no matter where in the country he happens to be. He battled a bell in the Gulf for weeks, escaped to Arizona, and then there's a horn. What are the odds? Well, I was amused anyway. I also liked how Anderson was all, yeah, we can't hear you, so never mind.
  

• Al Sharpton and Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce debated the Arizona law...and I tuned out. Look, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know these issues very well, so a debate between two sides is pointless to me unless someone's going to at least attempt to hold the sides accountable. Anderson was there in the beginning and then...not so much. How am I supposed to know what information they said was actually true? (This bullet point will become ironic once you read further down.)
  

• Though most Mexican-Americans are against Arizona's law, you can always find a few people going against the grain on any subject. Meet Jesse Hernandez, a contrarian found by Dan Simon. I can sympathize with his economic concerns, but the crime stuff just seems like fear-mongering. While illegal immigration is up, crime is down.
  

• It's Thursday! Sorry Charlie Rangel, it looks like it's not going to be a good one for you after all. He's been charged with 13 counts of ethics violations. Whoa, that's not only corrupt, but also numerically unlucky. We live in the land of innocent until proven guilty, but yeah, you're not going to find me defending him.

• For no other real reason than hilarity, I give you the infamous photo of Charlie Rangel sleeping on the beach (Brigitte Stelzer/Splash News):

• Jeffrey Toobin and Gloria Borger discussed the topic. Anderson: "Gloria, I mean, if this had been a Republican, Democrats would be, you know, going ballistic." And later: "It is a double standard, though. I mean, again, if this is a Republican, Nancy Pelosi would not say let the chips fall where they may." Um...duh? Breaking news: politicians are hypocrites. (You all thought I was going to bitch about fake balance there, didn't you?)

• Gloria: "...the irony here is, Anderson, that [Democrats] have done a lot of stuff on banning gifts and trying to get rid of the so-called Congressional earmarks and trying to get rid of Congressional junkets, but [Rangel] is now the poster child for this next election for the Republicans." This is what sucks. The Democrats have actually tried to keep their word and clean up Congress, but that context doesn't fit into a nice news soundbyte. Props to Gloria for at least giving it a mention.
  

• Gloria on Rangel: "The higher they are, the more entitled they get." Pretty much.

• Shirley Sherrod is suing Andrew Breitbart. Can I get a woo hoo?
  

• Tonight Anderson Cooper did something, well, weird: he apologized for letting something slip by in an interview. I'm just going to block quote the whole thing out below and discuss it from there (emphasis mine):

I interviewed Shirley Sherrod last Thursday. And in the course of that interview, I failed to do something that I should have. I believe in admitting my mistakes. I looked at the interview again today, and Ms. Sherrod said during that interview that she thought Mr. Breitbart was a racist. She said, quote, "I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery." She went on to say she believed his opposition to President Obama was based on racism. Now, (INAUDIBLE) free to believe whatever she wants, but I didn't challenge her that night and I should have.

I don't want anyone on my show to get away with saying things which cannot be supported by facts. I should have challenged her on what facts she believes supports that accusation. That's my job, and I didn't do it very well in that interview, and I'm sorry about it. If I get a chance to talk to her again, I will.

• Where to begin? Yes, Anderson is right. He should have challenged her that night. Though I did not specifically identify it as a lapse on his part on this blog, I did note that I cringed when Sherrod called Breitbart a racist, mostly because I knew we would end up exactly where we are now.
  

• All that being said, WTF? This show ran the edited Sherrod clip last Monday night, which in my opinion is a far greater lapse in journalism than simply failing to follow up during an interview, and yet to my knowledge Anderson has not only not apologized for it, he's never even acknowledged it occurred. To be fair, what he apologized for tonight was solely his fault and he might not have even been involved in running that clip, but it happened during his show--a show that contains his name.

• Perhaps an even greater WTF goes to that sentence I emphasized. I'm sorry, but this is simply a laughable statement. Anderson continuously lets people get away with things that cannot be supported by facts, or at least deserve a good challenge (as in this case). I mean, documenting these things is kinda part of what I do here. It happens all the time. Just this past Monday, Anderson failed to challenge Erick Erickson when he called Media Matters "nothing but a left-wing hit job." How is that okay to let go, but what Sherrod said is not?

• I've been watching Anderson for about five years and cannot recall any other time where he has apologized after-the-fact for not challenging a guest. Look, he's human. I realize he's not always going to be on his A-game and stuff is going to get by. It's unfair to expect him to be perfect. But while I do generally think media apologies such as this one should be encouraged and applauded, I can't help be concerned about why this is coming about now, with this story. Though Mark Halparin is probably one of the last people I would normally be endorsing, in this recent piece he seems to have stumbled into a big bucket of truth. Nailed it:

The Sherrod story is a reminder — much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media. In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny. Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention. Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.

• This isn't brain surgery. Conservatives all over the interwebs have been talking about what Sherrod said during that interview about Breitbart. Not only that, all of the Sherrod-related issues that are further covered in this segment are stories being pushed by the right. Anderson even admits this, noting the issues are bubbling up on conservative blogs. I'm not saying I'm against fact-checking or debunking (I love those things!), but by asking "how high?" every time the right says jump, 360 is actively enabling people who only wish to smear and take down their opponents. They are allowing themselves to be pawns in a dirty political game. They're supposed to be better than that.

• Would they have really determined the Black Panthers story to be worthy of coverage if it wasn't a hot topic in conservative media? I'm not saying liberals never push stories for their own agendas, but this is getting ridiculous and hurting their credibility. I suspect that whether consciously or unconsciously, 360 has fallen in that trap of overcompensating out of fear of appearing liberally biased. As I asked before, why, out of dozens and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of statements gone by, did Anderson think this was the one that required an apology? It is becoming increasingly hard to view their political coverage as credible, and I'm someone who never thought they had a partisan bias.

• Also, when Anderson says he doesn't want anyone on his show to get away with saying things that cannot be supported by facts, does that include himself? Because last week, as I noted extensively, he continuously stated that the left has engaged in the same type of behavior as Breitbart, but did not support those statements with a single fact. The irony is astounding.

• There was also a segment with Ed Overton regarding the new building meme that we all overreacted to the BP oil spill. Time jumped on the bandwagon today, wondering if Rush Limbaugh might be right. I thought Mother Jones handled it pretty well.

• Unless you live in a cave, you probably heard that Obama was on The View today. You also probably heard that he was asked about Snooki. Yes, her. There she is again. I cannot avoid this person! Anyway. Obama claimed he didn't know who she was, but oh, scandal! He actually made a joke about her at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Oh my God, flip flopper! Has Michele Bachmann called for impeachment over this yet? To make it worse, Anderson decides to give us some Snooki facts because...I don't know, perhaps he knows I've been hard on him and he wants to make me cry. Tom Foreman claims to be Snooki ignorant and I believe him. I love you, Tom.

• Most of the show was okay. I think I've pretty much said my piece regarding the apology. That'll do it.

• This bullet point contains the Season 5 trailer to Dexter. Now that is what I call must see TV (warning: spoilery).

More Fallout From The Shirley Sherrod Firing With Annoying Fake Balance And Some Kowtowing To The Right Wing

Hi everyone. The Shirley Sherrod story continues, and apparently, it's apology day! Tom Vilsack was like, "you know how I totally kicked you to the curb after I watched a video from a known right wing liar and didn't even bother to investigate? My bad! Would you like another job?" Ms. Sherrod is still considering. As for our friends at 360...oy. Before I jump into those lovely bullet points, I feel the need to make this point clear: I like Anderson Cooper. Really! For the most part I think he's a good journalist and seemingly a good person. I really do like him. I say this because, well, what follows might sting a bit. Or, more accurately, it would possibly sting a bit if he read this blog or had any idea of my existence. Details! Anyway. My regular readers know I absolutely loathe fake balance, and tonight the Silver Fox did some perpetrating. I tried to be fair:

• I might be a little slow on the uptake here, but, uh, is Anderson Cooper a commentator now? I guess I thought his consistent harping on BP was specific to that story, as the company's lack of transparency falls under the "keeping 'em honest" mission of the show. Yet here we are with a political story and our anchor is kicking off the broadcast with a very clear commentary. He's kinda sliding it in under the radar, huh? A sneak commentator! I don't really have a problem with it, but, you know, non partisan commentary worked so well for Campbell Brown.

• Credit where credit is due, I applaud 360 for taking on Andrew Breibart, but...they left out a bunch of stuff. As I noted yesterday, the man has a history with this crap (hello! ACORN?); so much so in fact, that Shepherd Smith of Fox News did not run the edited video (something 360 did do Monday night). Smith even rightly blames his own network; whereas Anderson doesn't even mention Fox New during his commentary.

• Instead, our anchor says this: "Cable news is part of the problem. There's no doubt about that. The left and the right have their own anchors who only report on the stories that suit their slant. That's their right." Ah, yes. Because MSNBC and Fox News are two sides of the same coin, right? Never mind that the latter is basically an arm of the conservative movement that is fed by people like Breitbart, and the former has someone like Joe Scarborough on all morning (not to mention all the other things wrong with his lazy generalization). Yes, they're exactly the same.

• Anderson on Breitbart: "Now, I don't know him. I have never met him." I have no idea why he would say this. Whether or not he's met him is completely irrelevant. But if he's trying to say he's not familiar with him or didn't know much about him before this story, that's a problem. Anyone who covers politics should be familiar with Breitbart's tactics. Period. Anything else is journalistic negligence.
  

• More from our anchor: "Andrew Breitbart is a conservative, but of course there are liberals who are just as narrowed-minded and who are also refuse to admit when they are wrong." Stop. With. The. Fake. Balance. New Rule for journalists: No more lazy-ass generalizations just to keep your middle-of-the-road cred. You make a statement like this, you have to man up and support it with concrete examples. This is ridiculous. I don't know many people who would argue that there aren't individuals on the left who spin and deceive, and refuse to admit when they are wrong. But show me where on the left that there is the equivalent of the right wing smear machine. Where?! Smears/falsehoods come up from the blogs, get pushed by right wing radio, are picked up by Fox News, and are then trumpeted by conservative politicians, some of who want to be president! Show me that same mechanism on the left, give me a left-wing example of a death panel-like rumor. Otherwise, you're no better than the partisans. (Anderson's commentary is below.)

• Once again, Shirley Sherrod returned, an interview dubbed an EXCLUSIVE by the chyron. Interesting, given that the woman has been everywhere for the past two days. The 360 kids would argue that the label is warranted because it's her first interview after Vilsack apologized. Yeah, it's a stretch.
  

• Sherrod maintains that she believes the White House was involved in her firing, but she does not insist on an apology from Obama. I think he should give one anyway. Buck stops at the top.
  

• Anderson on Breitbart: "What do you think his motivation was?" Seriously? To be fair, he's only trying to get Sherrod's response. Still, I can't help thinking he's just really not getting this whole right wing smear merchant thing.

• After his smearing of Sherrod was discovered, Breitbart switched tactics, claiming that the point of the video was to reveal the racist reactions of the audience at the NAACP event. Yeah. Right. As Sherrod gave her speech, there was some muted laughter and head nodding, which has been likened to what you might see in church while someone testifies. We're joined by audience members Olivia Pearson, Mary Coley (ph), Hal Pressley, the Reverend Rudolph Porter, and Yvonne Lott to further clear things up. They explain they knew where she was coming from and therefore knew where the speech was going.

• Anderson: "What this guy Breitbart is now saying is that, when the speech started, you in the audience, didn't know that she had changed her way of thinking, and that you were agreeing with her when she was talking about sending a white couple to a white attorney, to somebody of -- quote, unquote -- 'their own kind.'" This is a completely false premise. As pointed out by National Review Online (of all places!), before Sherrod launched into her story, she said this:

"When I made that commitment [to stay in the South], I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. But you know God will show you things, and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people."

• The audience knew exactly where she was coming from and where she was going.

• Randi Kaye's piece, anatomy of a smear campaign wasn't bad. But you still need to watch this segment from Rachel Maddow for full context. Because as we know, context is everything. (Randi's piece below.)
  

• Skipping ahead now to Anderson saying this: "The Shirley Sherrod incident is just the latest controversy about race and race relations for the Obama administration. A lot of conservative bloggers are pointing to another story, a story of the Justice Department and charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party." Conservative bloggers are talking about it? I guess that's the threshold by which you choose to cover things now, huh? You don't look like you're kowtowing to the right at all.

• As for Joe's piece, talk about context being everything. Good lord. Joe doesn't mention that the Bush administration's Justice Department decided not to pursue criminal charges. Nor does he mention that no actual intimidated voters have come forward. Media Matters actually has a whole big researched list of why this is all crap, though I can't confirm all the info myself.

• Joe via voice over: "In a statement to CNN, the New Black Panther Party denied voter intimidation and said it did not condone the acts of the member with the night stick. That may be hard to believe for some people, given the threatening behavior, as captured in this January 2009 'National Geographic' documentary on the New Black Panthers." We're then played a clip of idiots yelling about "crackers" and killing babies. So okay, I get it, we're supposed to be afraid of these yahoos. Anyone care to tell me how large their group is? Crimes they've committed? Political power they have? Can anyone do better than just showing a video clip of some asshole being a racist? As per our theme of the night: context.

• The real story, of course, is racism in the Justice Department...if that were actually the case. And look, maybe this story will pan out. But right now? There doesn't seem to be much there there. And the fact that 360 is going indepth on this instead of, say, that financial overhaul that just passed (um, important?), only makes them look like a ping pong ball that's going to land in whatever direction screams the loudest. (Joe's piece is below.)
  

Joe Johns

• Like I said, we're going indepth on this so far non story, and we're joined by David Gergen; John Ridley, founding editor of TheMinorityThing.com; and David Frum by phone.

• Frum: "I think Andrew Breitbart really was called out here. He hasn't seemed to have done any due diligence before posting this clip that did so much damage to a woman's reputation and her career." Due diligence? Give me a break. Damaging her reputation and career was the point. We've been here before.

• Anderson: "David Gergen, though, I mean, David Frum raised a point that, you know, conservatives circle the wagons. Liberals do that, as well. I don't want to make this just bashing conservatives." You know Silver Fox, it's a good thing you're so cute. Because sometimes I kinda want to strangle you. With love, people! With love.

• Anderson: "I just think, John, more people would believe what people say if somebody, whether they're on the left or the hard left or the hard right, would just every now and then say, 'You know what? I was wrong about that, and I was seeing it through a limited lens...'" Oh, honey. He can't be this naive. I mean, it's a nice thought and everything, but it really underestimates some of the viciousness that's out there. I don't think our anchor is fully grasping the whole Breitbart angle.

• Anderson: "Even the reaction to this story, liberals use it as a way to bludgeon conservatives for what they did without looking into the mirror for things they have done in the past, as well." Care to enlighten us?!

• Okay, people. This is where I get off. There was some Gulf news, but I saw Carville and was just like, oh hell no, I can't take anymore.

• Parts of the show were alright, but obviously overall I was none too pleased--especially with Anderson clinging to his "pox on both houses" stance. Though CNN is the network with the view from nowhere, it's clear that what we heard tonight were Anderson's personal beliefs. Annoying, though not exactly surprising or new to us. But something new I did pick up on was a hint of arrogance in relation to the interwebs. Or maybe it's naivety. Yes, the Internet is a cesspool. It's also increasing becoming the place where news is being both pushed and made. It's one thing to shun his own blog and Twitter, but a journalist should be familiar with the online political scene and all the players. That's not the vibe I got from him tonight.
  

• The show also lacked a really big connecting of the dots when it comes to racism and all the scandals as of late. It's funny, I actually made a note that I wanted to talk about this, and then I watched this segment from Rachel Maddow, which covers it better than I could ever dream. An excellent job and a must watch.

• This bullet point contains my exasperation.
  

Shirley Sherrod Smeared And Unjustly Fired

Hi everyone. Well! It's been a very interesting day or so, hasn't it? So. Much. Fail. Just about the only person to come out of this looking good is the one who is now unemployed. For the cave-dwellers, a sum-up: Last March, Shirley Sherrod, the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, spoke at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. On Monday, this video clip was posted to ring-wing smear-merchant Andrew Breitbart's blog. The clip implies that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer by not offering him the full help she was capable of giving--simply due to his race.

Once the post hit the interwebs, into the right-wing echo chamber the story went, soon finding a home at Fox News. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack subsequently freaked, the NAACP threw Sherrod under the bus, and the rest of the media piled on. In the end, a woman was fired and branded a racist. But a funny thing had apparently happened on the way to Breitbart's blog: Sherrod's comments had been taken completely out of context. Today we learned that not only was she talking about an incident that happened over two decades ago, her story was really about overcoming racial prejudices, and that farmer she supposedly wronged (but really helped) is one of her biggest supporters. All of this can now be verified by the full unedited video.

Shirley Sherrod did absolutely nothing wrong and should be reinstated immediately. She lost her job due to the viciousness of one man (Breitbart) and the cowardice of another (Vilsack). Throw in some extra cowardice by the NAACP and a poor performance by the media, and we're left with one big bucket of shame. Even our friends at 360 are touched by the fail. Last night during the News and Business Bulletin, they gave us a headline version of the story. The edited clip was included; Sherrod's side of the story was not. In tonight's broadcast, Anderson Cooper notes that they did call her last night and we are played a message she left in response.

One can only assume this response came after air time. Under normal circumstances, I would not fault them (or anyone) for going ahead without Sherrod's side. But this video originated with a man who has a history of distortion and promotion of edited tapes. They should have known to be extra skeptical, and this dear readers, is where the fail hits me, because I should have called them on it last night. I don't usually bother with the headlines--my regular readers know I don't blog them. During 360 was the first time I heard of the story, and like most, I believed the edited video without question. If I knew where it came from I wouldn't have, and I would have cautioned you to do the same. An all-around fail. So...bullet points?

• Of note in the Sherrod interview was that she believes the White House was involved in her firing, while Vilsack claims he acted alone. Hm. She also believes that this was payback for the NAACP resolution against the Tea Party, and I tend to agree. The interview is below:

• After break, Roger Spooner, the farmer helped by Sherrod is brought into the conversation. I have to say, this segment is sort of a train-wreck, but in a much more light hearted way than say, Roland Martin vs. Mark Williams. First of all, we have a soon to be 88-year-old man (I know because he told us!) who clearly doesn't have the memory he perhaps once did. Put that on top of a satellite delay and poor Anderson's coughing, and you've got yourself a fun time. Watch below:
  

• On the "get" front, 360 did well with this story, as we're next joined by NAACP head Ben Jealous (I'm thanking the baby Jesus we only had to endure Breitbart clips and not the man himself). I gotta pause right here to say one thing: snookered? That's your word choice? Anyway. Of note is Anderson asking Jealous if he called Sherrod to get her side of the story, which results in a big long answer that never actually addresses that specific question. Uh huh. Interview below:

• They wrap up this story with a panel that's rocked by David Gergen, Boyce Watkins, and Joe Johns. It's not a bad panel, but it feels like a cop-out. The right-wing smear machine is an entire angle of this story that they simply failed to significantly cover, and it's an integral part to what happened. Whether it be 360's middle of the road orthodoxy, ignorance, or maybe even cowardice, it certainly doesn't make them look good. And it's why Rachel Maddow did a better broadcast tonight than they did.

• There was a snippet of Gulf news tonight as well, which included rumors of Tony Hayward's ouster. Douglas Brinkley discussed.

• The 360 kids may have been sans Breitbart, but they apparently weren't going to go home for the night with their "crazy" quota unmet. I give you, Michele Bachmann! Anderson did pretty good here until the end when he just totally lets her get away with saying we're tax slaves. Sigh.

• The show was okay. I think my commentary pretty much speaks for itself. They booked the major players and everything, but if I had to recommend only one hour of cable news to watch on this story, it'd be Maddow and not them.

• This bullet point contains a behind-the-scenes video of 360's time in Haiti, produced by production assistant Vladimir Duthiers. Besides Vlad, appearances include our anchor (sporting glasses!), Neil Hallsworth, Charlie Moore (Charlie!--heh), Phil Littleton, Gary Tuchman, producer Justine Redman, producer Tim Crockett, cameraman Jerry Simonson, Ivan Watson (sunburned!) and Sean Penn (smoking--boo!).