SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Fox News Journalistic Integrity Goodness

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 3, 2011

Fox News Journalistic Integrity Goodness

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

I'm not sure how many readers are going to be interested in this, but I've been dragged into a pissing match between right-wing pseudojournalist Andrew Breitbart and various lackeys and critics thereof. A couple days ago, Breitbart clipped an exchange in which Norah O'Donnell asked Jay Carney about Democratic objections to the debt ceiling deal. Commentary quoted a portion of the clip to make it appear as though O'Donnell was describing those objections as her own.

I wrote about Commentary's misleading item. The Huffington Post stole aggregated the item, adding the twist that Breitbart had doctored the clip, for which it's since apologized.

Follow all that? Okay, meanwhile, various right-wing bloggers have hurled invective at me, and the Fox News story seems to finger me as the culprit for the Huffpo's inaccurate version:

The Huffington Post took their information from The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, who claimed that the clip did not include a portion of the video where O’Donnell led into the quote by saying that Democrats were upset about the debt, not the reporter herself.

A careful examination of the clip reveals that it was not doctored at all by Breitbart, but that the beginning of O’Donnell’s quote was shrouded by ambient noise.

In fact, I did not claim Breitbart doctored the clip. Here is what I wrote:

Andrew Breitbart has clipped an exchange from today's press at conference at the White House. In the exchange, reporter Norah O'Donnell press Jay Carney by asking, "Democrats are saying, 'You gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing." Commentary has picked up the story, giving it the headline, "CBS's O'Donnell to Carney: We got nothing."

For any readers who don't read block quotes -- I assume this includes whoever writes stories for Fox News -- I specifically wrote that Breitbart clipped the entire exchange, and Commentary misleadingly edited the quote. Let me repeat: I did not accuse Breitbart of doctoring the quote. I accurately described Breitbart as clipping the entire question.

I'd huff and puff about how Fox News should be apologizing for leveling a false accusation in a story about false accusations but... eh, what's the point.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 11 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

11 comments

Unless you are as King Canute and can command the tides, why indeed bother, Jonathan?

- liberalref

August 3, 2011 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the confusion arose from your use of the word 'clipped,' which reads differently than you evidently intended, at least to some, including myself: I misread your post the way Huffpo evidently did, assuming it implied that O'Donnell's preamble had been 'clipped.'

- Curran1

August 3, 2011 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, no . . . piss away! There might be a temptation to go easy on (or avoid repeated confrontation with) people like Andrew Breitbart or Jennifer Rubin. This (any idea of restraint or self-censorship) should be avoided. On both comedy and moral grounds.

- mtinora@me.com

August 3, 2011 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People who live in glass houses. I wonder how many people over at Fox are prepared to stand up and claim that the inquiry brought against News of the World in Great Britain is nothing more than an effort to silence the press.

- Doug12

August 3, 2011 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Curran. I read it that way also. To me, "clipped" means "cut" or "shortened." Moreover, you did not "specifically" write that Breitbart clipped the "entire" exchange. You did not use the word "entire" at all, although here you put it in italics as if you did. Dhurtado

- NR143296

August 3, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How does the word "clipped" brook confusion when Chait then includes the full, unabridged quotation after it "In the exchange, reporter Norah O'Donnell press Jay Carney by asking, "Democrats are saying, 'You gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing."? Chait attributes that quotation to the Breitbart clip. Nothing in Chait's original item levels an accusation at Breitbart, instead he takes aim at Commentary and Podhoretz.

- subterran

August 3, 2011 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One accusation of Fox news of distorting facts is a teapot in a tempest.

- Nusholtz

August 3, 2011 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Subterran- Chait does not attribute the "full, unabridged quotation" to Breitbart. Here's what Chait says: "Andrew Breitbart has clipped an exchange from today's press at conference at the White House. In the exchange, reporter Norah O'Donnell press Jay Carney by asking, 'Democrats are saying, "You gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing." ' " Chait says Breitbart "clipped" the exchange. Then, in a separate sentence, Chait quotes the entire exchange. He then says that Commentary "picked up" the story, and he takes Commentary to task for "lopping off" the part about "Democrats are saying." What is the purpose of the sentence about Breitbart if it is not to imply that Breitbart was complicit in the "lopping" (or "clipping," if you will) of the "Democrats are saying" portion of the quote? Dhurtado

- NR143296

August 4, 2011 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, Dhurtado, but Jon's paragraph reads properly. He identifies brietbart as having clipped an exchange, then details the exchange that was clipped in the next sentence. Through implicit assumption that Jon is taking Brietbart to task, the first two sentences can be misconstrued; but any such implicit assumption is the fault of the reader and does not impart guilt to the author. You can't blame Jon because someone misread what he wrote.

- GSpinks

August 4, 2011 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oops, I mentioned Dhurtado but I was responding to "NR143296"

- GSpinks

August 4, 2011 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

GSpinks- NR143296 and Dhurtado are the same. In any event, "clip" means to "cut or trim something" or to "cut something out." So the first sentence in Chait's block quote can be read as, "Andrew Breitbart has [cut something out of] an exchange from today's press at conference at the White House." The fact that Chait then quotes the entire exchange does not negate the statement that Breitbart had cut something out of it. At minimum, that is a reasoable reading of the passage. And it's difficult to imagine that Chait did not intend that reading. Otherwise, the sentence about Breitbart is superfluous. Dhurtado

- NR143296

August 4, 2011 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close