The larger question is why a publicly-funded entity like WGBH is charging individuals for information, especially when that information gives greater context to the President's 1991 remarks? WGBH refused to give Breitbart.com the video and didn't even respond to the request for the footage -- but they'll reply to Buzzfeed and license them portions of the video? Isn't that preferential?
---------------------------------
Embrace edited out in Ben Smith version, key statements blurred in PBS version could constitute "a damning argument against the mainstream media for having excluded it." (MediaIte) Chilling moment, Harvard professor on tape saying "we hid this during the election."3/8/12, "'We hid this during the election': Latest Breitbart tapes debut," American Thinker, Thomas Lifson
"The first of the posthumous Breitbart tapes debuted last night on Hannity, and today on Breitbart.com. You can tell the left is concerned by the fact that:
1. Journ-O-lister Ben Smith, now running Buzzfeed, pre-empted the debut by licensing the same tape from WGBH TV in Boston, and running it, minus a couple of shots, and then rushed to dismiss its significance.
2. There has been a rush to conclude that this is much ado about nothing, despite the fact that many more tapes are in prospect....
There is also a shocking tape of a lecture by prominent black Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree, in which he boasted of covering up the tape in the 2008 election. "We hid this during the election," he said. It is unclear exactly who is included in "we" in this case. Could one Barack Obama be part of that group?
In fact, the footage had appeared in a PBS Frontline documentary, making no impact whatsoever upon the national conversation, a fact which the program's underwriters ought to ponder."...
- [Ed. note: MediaIte article below says PBS version dubbed over critical portions of Obama's words in which he was endorsing Bell].
(continuing): "Breibart promised before his death to finally vet Obama. What the mainstream media will never admit is that the public persona of Obama they have collaborated in producing is a mere facade. We live in uneasy times, leading to skepticism about whether we are being told the truth. Certainly the public overwhelmingly distrusts the media.
The agenda inherited from Andrew is to reconstruct an image of Obama that makes sense to people better than the image of a basketball-loving guy with a great smile and sense of humor. The fact is that Obama has spent his adult life marinating in the sewage of race hatred and class envy spewed by the left, relentlessly."...
==================
3/7/12, "PBS Editors: Frontline Ran President Obama College Video In 2008," MediaIte, Frances Martel
"In the subsequent hours since the footage exclusively aired on Hannity was released– without which it was difficult to make any assessment on the contrast between that footage and the PBS footage– Breitbart.com’s Dana Loesch notes, via Charles Johnson, that the PBS footage available “showed footage of the protest but dubbed over critical portions of Obama’s speech in which he endorsed Bell. A selectively edited clip released by Buzzfeed yesterday included the relevant audio but cut out the footage of Obama embracing Bell.” With the footage from last night now in the public eye, it is clear that the hug is missing from the original form of the video PBS released last night, which shifts the debate from whether the footage was out there or not to whether the clearly missing footage from the original is sufficient to make a damning argument against the mainstream media for having excluded it– particularly given the comments of Professor Ogletree that he had deliberately hidden the footage in 2008 during a conference shortly after President Obama won the election."
3/8/12, "Rush (Limbaugh): Breitbart's Mission To Vet The Media 'Essential'," Breitbart.com
.
No comments:
Post a Comment