What was rather remarkable was Todd’s reference to Andrew Breitbart as a “conservative propagandist,” which is interesting in that it not only aims to marginalize the Internet provocateur, but is a clear effort to diminish Breitbart’s influence moving forward.
According to reference.com, “propaganda” is defined as “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.” Given what we now know about how the Shirley Sherrod scandal, this appears not only to be true, but pretty much what Breitbart has admitted himself (though his candor has been lauded by some unlikely media personalities.) But does Todd, who’s goal is to be an “objective reporter,” really want to get involved with the Cable News/Internet name calling?
Apparently so – and we will delight in covering his participation.
Isn't Todd actually doing his job? He called Breitbart exactly what he is. How is that not being an objective reporter? Oh, that's considered name-calling. Why did Colby Hall even bother writing this post? Man, my head hurts from the stupidity. Please criticize the MSM when they actually deserve it.
I wonder how Colby Hall would want Chuck to describe Breitbart? Take a shot.