Andrew Breitbart sent two of his brownshirt “journalists” to Portland on Thursday, and they got what they were after: some video footage that could be used to embarrass Democratic governor candidate John Kitzhaber.
Breitbart is a right-wing agent provocateur who excels at, shall we say, creative video editing. He’s probably most notorious for the hatchet job he did in July on Shirley Sherrod, a US Department of Agriculture official in Georgia.
Breitbart posted on his website a video snippet showing Sherrod making what appeared to be racist statements during a speech to the NAACP Freedom Fund. When the full video was produced, it was obvious that the “racist” statements had been taken wildly out of context; Sherrod actually was telling a story about how she transcended her own prejudices to empathize with a poor white farmer.
After the truth came out, Breitbart apologized – but not before the “story” had been picked up by Fox News and other media outlets and Sherrod had turned in her resignation. She subsequently was offered another post by the USDA but declined to take it.
Flash forward to Thursday, when Kitzhaber was speaking at Emmanuel Temple Church in Portland. Two as-yet-unidentified people – described by Oregonian political blogger Jeff Mapes as “video activists” – showed up with cameras, and a couple of campaign volunteers asked one of the cameramen to stop. He refused, insisting it was his “First Amendment right” to record the speech. Eventually one volunteer, James Posey, got exasperated and ended up pushing the camera into the guy’s face.
The next day the video appeared on Breitbart.tv with the title: “Citizen Assaulted for Filming John Kitzhaber Event.” At the end of it, the cameraman is shown with a small cut on the bridge of his nose.
(Check out the comments below the video and you’ll see the fact that the cameraman was white and the guy who hit him was black was not lost on Breitbart’s audience.)
The video also appears on another Breitbart site under the headline: “Dems Gone Wild: Citizen Assaulted for Filming John Kitzhaber Event.” The byline on the piece – although it’s not clear whether he was one of the cameramen – is that of James O’Keefe, a 25-year-old right-wing operative who describes himself as an “investigative journalist and filmmaker.”
O’Keefe is a busy little boy. He boasts that he “produced the blockbuster undercover investigation into ACORN that revealed systemic corruption in multiple offices nationwide documenting the facilitation of child prostitution, human trafficking and tax evasion.”
O’Keefe’s work resulted in ACORN losing its public funding. However, an investigation by the California Attorney General’s Office subsequently revealed that the videos were “severely edited” to make ACORN officials look bad.
In January, O’Keefe was arrested by the FBI when he and three conservative college newspaper editors were caught inside the federal offices of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. Originally charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with intent to commit a felony, O’Keefe later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was fined, ordered to do community service and placed on three years’ probation.
A nice guy to be calling other people “thugs,” huh?
Any real journalist knows that the First Amendment doesn’t give him a blanket right to shoot video or photos whenever and wherever he pleases. For example, rules on the use of cameras and video in the courtroom vary widely across the country, depending on the jurisdiction.
(ADDENDUM: KATU-TV in Portland quotes veteran constitutional lawyer Charles Hinkle as saying the church had every right to prohibit videotaping. “The First Amendment is a restriction on what government can do. It’s not a restriction on what private parties can do,” Hinkle said. “The church and the sponsors of that program had an absolute right to prevent anyone from filming it.”)
The organizers of Thursday’s event said they had made arrangements with KOIN-TV to record it, and made it clear that nobody else would be allowed to shoot video.
Just the same, Posey (as he has admitted) exercised poor judgment by using physical force against the cameraman – and thereby giving him exactly what he came for: footage that could be turned into propaganda against Democrats.
Free advice for Democratic candidates and their handlers: If anybody shows up at an event with a video camera, ask him to show his press credentials. If he doesn’t produce them, tell him to leave. If he won’t leave, call the cops.
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Say Bruce, just for the record, Shirley Sherrod was told to resign which is really a way of saying she was fired. That was done by the Obama adminstration and it was about as irresponsible as Breitbart’s post.
And your beef is what? Isn’t dirty politics part of the socialist game long before conservatives started with it. All is fair, right? Don’t be so selfish with your nastiness.
You can beat us up all you want, we are coming for you in November. Then the tables turn and all of you are going to jail.
Hear that SEIU enforcers? ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL
Thank you for writing this piece – I was shocked and disappointed to see the related hatchet-job posted on YouTube, with all ability to rate or comment disabled. In other words, an apparent right to post the one-sided hatchet job, with no ability for objective opinion or balanced perspective. With any intelligence the piece speaks for itself – i.e. clearly a setup and by a hack.
On Wednesday while hosting a private event for Kitzhaber (Dudley was invited but did not respond) we received a few RSVPs from people not invited – one of them from a phone number later identified as a Republican group, who acted oddly and suggested it was his right to attend, despite not being a member or invited.
I am a life-long Republican who thinks and votes critically and that used to mean something to me, people like Breitbart and his ilk have unfortunately soiled the brand and the experience. Grow up, retain some integrity, and lead with vigorous, intelligent debate.
Good…I hope he does the same for Defazio. November: “Ready or not, here we come!” http://www.rightnetwork.com/links/980191199?sms_ss=facebook
The last best hope:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6weDMH-SCOE&feature=player_embedded
First Amendment – no big deal. The church can control what takes place on its property.
The big issue here is how does this church keep its tax exempt status when it sponsors a political program. And I would think it’s political speech when you have a declared candidate of a major political party speaking at an openly public event within a few weeks of the election.
Face recognition, name recognition is enhanced regardless of the program’s content thus promoting the candidacy of the speaker.
Just a thought.
I’m with you, critic. Let’s end the tax exempt status for churches with political agendas. Let the Catholic Church pay taxes on the property it owns. It’s priests and bishops advocate for candidates from the pulpit. Let the churches that support the Christian Coalition lose their status for supporting openly an organisation that publishes voter guides te churces openly distribute. Let the synogogues that advocate for candidates that support Israel and their chosen foreign policy choices contribute to the tax roles.
If churches insist on mixing religion and politics they should not have a tax exempt status. If they want to exercise all of the rights granted by the constitution, they should live up to the duties and responsibilities that the legal system demands all of the rest of us must live by. Look around–exempted property abounds–non-productive–a burden for everyone.
It’s interesting, and instructive, to see how many of our right-wing responders are condoning or applauding Breitbart’s sleazy, deceptive tactics. The belief that any means are justified to advance the sacred cause is the hallmark of the fanatic.
critic: I’m with you — and that also goes for those Christian fundamentalist churches whose pastors get up in the pulpit and tell the congregation that JEEEEzus wants ’em to vote Republican.
rotorman wrote: “Shirley Sherrod was told to resign which is really a way of saying she was fired. That was done by the Obama adminstration and it was about as irresponsible as Breitbart’s post.”
Sentient observers have long known Breitbart to be a liar, irresponsible, etc., and he’s pretty consistent in that. I think, ultimately, this makes the Obama administration MORE irresponsible than Breitbart. Ditto for anyone else taking action based on Breitbart’s word.
“Shirley Sherrod was told to resign which is really a way of saying she was fired. That was done by the Obama adminstration and it was about as irresponsible as Breitbart’s post.”
The Obama administration (like too many Democrats) lets itself be intimidated and pushed around by the right wing, and certainly deserves blame for firing Sherrod before the whole truth was known.
That said, Breitbart’s smear was despicable and unconscionable.
“The Obama administration (like too many Democrats) lets itself be intimidated….”
Point of order. I don’t think the right wing pushed very hard here. The chronolgy of this has been well established and Obama took action with Ms. Sherrod BEFORE Fox News and the “intimidators” in the media picked up the story and aired it. I don’t think anyone from the right had a chance to call for her head…Obama’s premptive action beat them to it.
Come to think of it, I guess you’re right afterall, HBM.
Critic: Exactly — the right has the administration so buffaloed it reacted BEFORE it was even attacked. What with all the accusations floating around that Obama is “hostile to white culture” and has a “Kenyan” mentality (Newt Gingrich) they were terrified of being linked to anything that smacked of reverse-racism.
Any way you slice it, though, what Breitbart did was despicable — despite the campaign to deflect criticism toward the administration.
ENOUGH!!!
‘All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.’
George Orwell
“The big issue here is how does this church keep its tax exempt status when it sponsors a political program.”
Point of clarification: It was the Urban League of Portland that sponsored the event, not the church, and I guess technically that was kosher. Apparently Dudley was also invited but “couldn’t make it.” He’s very reluctant to get on the same podium with Kitzhaber, for some unfathomable reason.