Hey Media Matters, Why Isn't NY Times Racist For Pigford Report?
It's been almost one week since the New York Times wrote an exhaustive 5,000 word, front page story on the racial discrimination class-action suit known as "Pigford" that cited reporting from Breitbart News. So far, Media Matters for America has yet to respond with charges of racism, smears and shoddy journalism the way they did whenever any other outlet dared report on the same story.
When Andrew Breitbart spear-headed investigations into Pigford, he knew he was on to something when the well-funded Media Matters for America took it upon themselves to single-handedly attempt to discredit his reporting and the relevance of the story itself.
Their tactics had some impact in that they gave producers and editors an excuse to not follow-up on the story themselves as their pals at MMfA told them they should ignore it.
Senior Fellow Eric Bohlert went so far as to pen a column that appeared to serve no purpose other than to taunt Breitbart over the lack of pick-up from other media outlets. His column, Why Has Fox News Ignored Breitbart's Pigford Story?, was a clear attempt to drive a wedge between Breitbart and his colleagues at Fox News. You see, Media Matters does not exist to merely deliver information, they are a weapon used to try to divide and destroy conservatives. That's the only rationale for the column. Just look at the summation of Boehlert's thesis:
I think there's a simpler explanation as to why Pigford has been uniformly ignored by media outlets on the left, right and the center: The story's not compelling and Breitbart's reporting isn't trusted.
You see. Boehlert wants that to be the case because it serves the purpose of his organization. It's Alinsky on steroids and it's what Breitbart faced every day for the final years of his life.
When Fox News did report on the Pigford story, Boehlert and his team used their typical intimidation tactics to try to discredit the story and intimidate other journalists from taking it up.
John Stossel was slimed with this headline: Stossel Once Again Attacks Black Farmers Who Were Victims Of Discrimination By The Federal Government
Where's the Media Maters headline charging the New York Times with shoddy journalism or for attacking black farmers?
A quick search of their site for the term "Pigford" shows the last entry is an article from October, 2011 with a typically volatile and insulting headline: Fox Attacks Yet Another Effort To End Discrimination, yet, we see nothing from this week accusing the New York Times of "Attacking Another Effort to End Discrimination."
More proof that Media Matters' attacks on Breitbart's Pigford reporting weren't grounded in fact but were merely an effort to silence a man they saw to be a real danger to the institutional left.
Long live Andrew.