To Breitbart: Credit Where It's Due?
In a Sept. 7 piece, Slate's Dave Weigel wrote that conservatives had set the agenda for the coverage of the Democrat convention on Tuesday and Wednesday, Sept. 4 and 5, through "trolling" (otherwise known as reporting). This was most obvious when right of center information outlet's began to report that the Democrats had eliminated both God and Jerusalem from their platform.
The Slate piece rightfully notes that Jeff Dunetz was a source for breaking the news. But Weigel got the site wrong in its attribution. Slate notes that Dunetz posted his story at his YidWithALid blog [sic] blog -- which is certainly true even though it is actually called YidWithLid blog, no "A" -- and failed to note that Dunetz published the story at Breitbart's Big Government first.
Regardless of the mis-attribution (as well as that of the Weekly Standard), Slate is right that conservatives were first to notice the omission and few would have predicted such a blatant example of voting fraud on national television to correct the "oversight."
And in all this, Jeff Dunetz and Big Government were the only ones to have noted that the news first came from a tweet made by the Republican Jewish Coalition.
It was also revealed on Breitbart's Big Peace that not one Democrat saw anything wrong with the removal of God and Jerusalem from the Democrat platform during the months-long process of the document's writing. In fact, the removal was initiated early in the process and months went by without a word raised questioning the removal.
Even Politico noted that President Obama had seen and approved of the Party platform containing the exclusions of God and Jerusalem before the issue became a big sticking point embarrassing Democrats.
Finally, Breitbart's Ben Shapiro also revealed that the full pro-Israel 2008 platform language was not restored and will not be restored to the platform despite all the fuss.
Worse, the fact that the Democrat Party's delegates had booed the reinsertion into the platform of God and Jerusalem was severely under-covered by the Old Media.
In the final assessment, the Old Media failed to give this important story, one that thoroughly defines the modern Democrat Party, the full attention it deserves. New media filled the gap--and got more derision than credit.