Breitbart.com edits ANOTHER video - Congresswoman threatened after edited video posted

Breitbart.com strikes again - selectively editing yet another Democratic Congresswoman's speech before a small townhall meeting in Prospect Heights NY to make her appear hateful of the TPM. The original video was posted by the Prospect Heights Reform Web site, which was then edited by Breitbart.com and posted to their site, completely stripping away the context or full paragraphs of Rep. Yvette Clark's speech. It was then grabbed by Glen Beck's site, The Blaze, at which point Rep. Clark began receiving threats by phone.

Black Congresswoman threatened after Beck website posts edited video

An African-American Congresswoman from New York was forced to call the police on Thursday after she says an edited video posted on Glenn Beck’s website incited threats of violence against her.

“That clip that was originally on the Prospect Heights Democrats for Reform site was edited and was posted up on TheBlaze.com, and that of course is Glenn Beck’s website,” she continued. “That was edited down and what people were taking away from it was that the congresswoman was saying that all tea party members are crazy and all tea party individuals show the ugly side of the United States.”

The video posted on Beck’s website had first been edited and published by Andrew Breitbart’s Breitbart.com.

It's disgusting watching Breitbart's brand of quasi-journalism editing video's to invoke a reaction from their readers.

Yes disgusting about as disgusting as NBC editing the zimmerman tape.

and newsflash

Breitbart is dead.

reply to post by neo96

and newsflash

Breitbart is dead.

Nice stab at deflection - notice in the OP I say "Breitbart.COM" - which is a Web site, and still living up the shameful legacy of Andrew Breitbart of selectively editing videos to produce an emotional response from it's readers.

I'm curious, if the editors of Breitbart.com were so interested in what Rep. Clark had to say in this small meeting, why not post the entire video or transcript then debate what she had to say, instead of cherry-picking parts they didn't like and then parading it out to their viewers with no commentary?

When can we consider Breitbart.com as a HOAX site and just dump all stories from them into the HOAX bin???

But you can't blame them...they know their audience and they play to them....simple minds.

reply to post by neo96


I suppose it won't matter to you that NBC fired the individual responsible for that. I don't hear of any breitbart.com 'journalists' losing their job over this one.

reply to post by links234


Well Breibart is dead so how the hell can he fire anyone?

Second.

Originally posted by links234

I suppose it won't matter to you that NBC fired the individual responsible for that. I don't hear of any breitbart.com 'journalists' losing their job over this one.

Originally posted by neo96

Well Breibart is dead so how the hell can he fire anyone?

Second.

And again, Breitbart.com is a WEB SITE. Everyone in this post (except you) has specifically stated Breitbart.com as the source for this topic, and not Andrew Breitbart, the person (you do see the ".com" part, right?). If you're an example of how the neo-conservatives think, it's no wonder they can't distinguish between human beings and corporations.

Breitbart.COM can't be treated as a serious journalist organization since they continuously selectively edit their videos and try to pass them off to their readers with no acknowledgement of what's been left out. At least theblaze.com has had the decency to state that the video was edited, but I suspect that was only after catching the heat for posting it in the first place, edits and all, from Breitbart.com.

This is what the blaze stated after running their post:

It’s worth noting that the video cuts together several different statements from Clark about the Tea Party to make them appear to be one coherent whole.

Yeah, too little, too late Glenn. Next time fact check your sources before running them - better yet, stop using an obviously biased tabloid site that edits it's videos.

Originally posted by neo96


and newsflash

Breitbart is dead.

Lol. Breitbart.com is a news organization.

Funny how many of you guys dont seem to know that.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

And again, Breitbart.com is a WEB SITE

Who said it wasn't?

Everyone in this post (except you) has specifically stated Breitbart.com as the source for this topic, and not Andrew Breitbart, the person (you do see the ".com

Breibart created the site hired the people who run the site and posted content since he's dead what is the issue than doing what liberals always want to do trash the mans memory and anything they ever say because they just can't stand any thoughts other than their own.

If you're an example of how the neo-conservatives think, it's no wonder they can't distinguish between human beings and corporations

I have yet seen anyone on this site ever use the term neo conservative right because what about that one sitting in the oval office?

Can't distinguish a human and a corporation really? a human not a corporation found that content and "edited" it.

Breitbart.COM can't be treated as a serious journalist organization since they continuously selectively edit their videos and try to pass them off to their readers with no acknowledgement of what's been left out. At least theblaze.com has had the decency to state that the video was edited, but I suspect that was only after catching the heat for posting it in the first place, edits and all, from Breitbart.com.

Neither can NBC,CBS,MSNBC MOVE ON Huffington post or anyone else for that fact.

Glenn ? who the hell is glenn?

Forgot bash the evil right wingers!!!!!!!!

Zeig heil lets burn some more books!

Only in the sick, rotting mind of a partisan apologist could trotting out the wrongs of OTHER media outlets somehow excuse the wrongs of a media outlet you apparently feel an affiliation towards.

It's like saying, 'Hey, sure my kid pissed all over the neighbors dog and # in their roses, but those kids down the street do it too, so...'

Well, of course I had to go to the OP's source to listen to the "unedited" remarks and to the "deceptively edited" remarks.

The "unedited" remarks were, for the most part, fairly uninspired Democratic party issues. Dull, but I had no trouble with them. But I did notice that the "unedited" remarks didn't show her earlier statements at the event. Those were edited out by the OP's source.

The Tea Party comments were reported accurately and in context, but I don't take much offense to hearing them called "Crazy," which she did several times.

The "threats of violence" issue? The OP's source has no support for that claim. Out of the many calls ONE said "We'll show you how crazy we can be." Sorry, that's not a threat of violence.

The OP just seems wrong in claiming that the tape was deceptively edited and it caused threats of violence. There may be more evidence somewhere else, but it hasn't been presented in this thread.

I see a different 'agenda' with this story.

I understand the "edited" version does seem to highlight and emphasize the "quotes", and is probably in bad taste.

But the Congresswoman did say something right out of the box on video#1 in the first few seconds.
You need to study all three unedited videos and compare to the "edited" video.

Her opening statements are what may have instilled specific ideas into the minds of the audience.
(most likely planned as such)

Everything after that may have been construed to be based on her opening statements ?

But then again, perhaps there is another hidden issue and target agenda.

During her remarks to Prospect Heights Democrats for Reform the congresswoman had pointed to an incident where members of the tea party allegedly hurled racial epithets at two African-American congressmen, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). Clarke said she had dismissed many members of the tea party as “crazy” before they successfully elected 39 members to the House of Representatives.

I find this Highly Suspicious and curious:

Kargbo said there were a “range of calls” after the video was posted. While some were very respectful, one was “threatening in nature.”

“Something to the effect — I don’t have the exact words — of, ‘She thinks we’re crazy, that b-word has not seen nothing yet,’” she recalled.

Normal people would think that they would have a clear statement about the Alleged threatening phone call (single call or multiple ?) of this magnitude !! ... but the "spokeswoman" doesn't seem to "remember"

And, it's not like the Congresswoman didn't know there was a microphone and camera there either



Perhaps this "incident" is a sour grapes retaliation attempt stemming from this:

Former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod sued Breitbart last year after another one of his websites published a selectively edited clip that led to her firing.

from the Shirley Sherrod link:

Conservative activist and blogger Andrew Breitbart's weekend in Washington at the Conservative Political Action Conference was interrupted when he was served with a lawsuit filed by the subject of one of his infamous videos, the New York Times reports. Shirley Sherrod, the ex-Agriculture Department employee whose career was upended in a media firestorm when Breitbart released a selectively edited video of her in July, filed the lawsuit Friday in Washington. The video purported to show Sherrod, who is black, admitting to an NAACP audience that she had discriminated against a white farmer because of his race.

Sherrod abruptly resigned under pressure from the White House, but Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack later offered her an unspecified job at the department when a more complete version of the video surfaced, showing that Sherrod used the anecdote to illustrate how she recognized and overcame her own prejudices. The White House ultimately apologized to Sherrod, who declined to go back to work at USDA. In the lawsuit, Sherrod claims "the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."

Breitbart said in a statement on his Big Government Web site that he "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights."

UPDATE: In an interview Monday with Slate's David Weigel, Breitbart said the timing of the lawsuit suggests it is politically motivated.

Hmmm.

It IS election season after all.

Click here for more information.

Another problem.

During her remarks to Prospect Heights Democrats for Reform the congresswoman had pointed to an incident where members of the tea party allegedly hurled racial epithets at two African-American congressmen, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). Clarke said she had dismissed many members of the tea party as “crazy” before they successfully elected 39 members to the House of Representatives.

I seem to recall those people who hurled the racial epithets were proven to be planted shills for ultra liberal left wing dingers that were there to discredit the Tea Party.

I am looking for proof of that, if it's true. I may be confusing that incident with a different one.

Does anyone know about that ?

There's been less deception coming from the likes of Michael Cohen who is auto hoax binned on ATS.

I'm willing to admit there might be something I'm missing here. Could someone point out to me the deceptiveness which is so essential? If her remarks were accurately quoted with reasonable context then there wouldn't be much argument. But in order to get it down to a three minute clip you have to throw some stuff away. Would you show me where the thrown away material contradicts what she is shown as saying?

reply to post by charles1952

I'm willing to admit there might be something I'm missing here. Could someone point out to me the deceptiveness which is so essential? If her remarks were accurately quoted with reasonable context then there wouldn't be much argument. But in order to get it down to a three minute clip you have to throw some stuff away. Would you show me where the thrown away material contradicts what she is shown as saying?

Exactly as NBC did with the Zimmerman police call? Just edit down the call to a three-minute clip by throwing some stuff away, what's the harm, right? It was the parts they left out that changes the nature of her speech.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Dear Blackmarketeer,

We might be having a misunderstanding. ANY clip of a speech is going to be edited. They have to throw parts away. Nobody would listen to another hour of Obama or Santorum. I can't see any harm in ethical editing. This isn't anything like the Williams case.

Your position seems to be that the editing changed the meaning of her speech or made her look like she was saying something she wasn't. Again, I watched all three parts of what your source said was the unedited video. She talked about the crazy Tea Partiers for the first bit, then went into some fairly boring political stuff.

I'm just asking someone to show me how they "did her wrong."

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

It's disgusting watching Breitbart's brand of quasi-journalism editing video's to invoke a reaction from their readers.

Why is that? Congressman and woman are well aware of the MSM coverup regarding truth in America, yet have no problem going along with it. Washington uses the MSM to flat out lie to us, for whatever political gain is on their agenda, from race riots to wars to false flag terrorism scenarios.

Yet, here you are blaming someone who giving it back? Very telling this crap happens every day from all the MSM outlets you frequent, and we don't hear a peep from you. Then this guy gives some of it back and you're up in arms about it?

You're either extremely ignorant to the corrupt MSM machine, or a paid shill.

Has anyone confirmed the alleged "threatening" phone call yet ?

It seems to me that the police would have at least confirmed something by now.

After all, this is a U.S. Congresswoman.

Unless of course, the phone call itself is fabricated.

Perhaps just a desperate far-reaching reaction to getting caught in one's own bear trap.