I think they mean “ABC.” This isn’t just any political interest group, though is should be scandalous for any political interest group to attempt to influence media in a partisan manner, much less crow about it in a public forum (and for any media entity to listen). No, this particular political interest group cites none other than George Soros as a large financier.
It demonstrates a blatant disrespect for what media exists to do all the while ironically demanding that media be objective. These are the people who demand the Fairness Doctrine but yet when ABC announced that Andrew Breitbart, along with Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch, would feature in their election analysis and be amongst the only conservatives invited to participate with a network, progressives demonstrated their definition of “fairness” in that they pushed to get Breitbart dropped from the evening’s activities.
Progressives would be upset if Sarah Palin attempted to influence media coverage, if Mitt Romney attempted the same, but they feel a special sense of entitlement applies to them that enables them to break these standards that they arbitrarily apply to everyone else.
The two people on the panel, Matt Lockshin with the Soros-funded Credo Mobile and Dani McClain from the Van Jones group Color of Change publicized their panel above on Twitter.
So we have one Van Jones lackey and one Soros lackey who were essentially paid to inject partisanship in the media and they hosted a panel on how to replicate the incident at Roots10. George Soros just isn’t a fan of the way in which our republic operates. For Van Jones, this was personal. He wanted payback for Breitbart’s role in demolishing ACORN, which occurred one week after the Big sites helped force Jones’s resignation.
Their “Victory!” is the liberal “mission accomplished” as the Breitbart incident blew up into such a massive news story that it gave more attention to Breitbart when the goal of those seeking to squelch free speech and bipartisanship was to give him less attention. I also don’t think it was a successful bid as his employee, Loesch, was still present:
That’s the problem with the left and their strategy: you can’t hit an object that has no target.
Also, the panel blows apart the long-promoted reason for Breitbart’s removal: that he and ABC couldn’t agree on the level of his participation, thus his removal. Color of Change and Soros’s Credo clearly believe that they influenced ABC to remove Breitbart, which also means that they are calling ABC’s reason for Breitbart’s departure a lie. Media shouldn’t be receptive to pressure special interest groups. Color of Change showed their true colors: they make ABC out to look like they falsified their reason for removing a conservative voice from objective election coverage.
The panel title and the “victory” Credo and Color of Change is an illusion. They didn’t succeed in getting Andrew Breitbart removed from ABC because they managed to convince the populace that the network shouldn’t present voices from both sides; they were the proverbial squeaky wheel, implementing Alinsky’s tactic #1:
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
It’s a convoluted application because the “enemy” (that would be us. Regular Americans who the President and the left likes to call “enemies” along with racists and Nazis) doesn’t believe this; they’re applying this to the media.
Color of Change nor Credo had numbers on their side; they managed to successfully use social networks to create a social astroturfed facade to suggest such. They organized petitions, they used email addresses (two Big Journalism contributors were shocked to find that the organizations were sending them unsolicited emails nagging them to sign their anti-Breitbart petition). They have no interest in seeding the masses – as much as that would make for a wonderful goal, there simply aren’t enough people in the country who believe in the platform of Color of Change or Credo – they’re only concerned with manipulating social networks and the media just enough to make it look as though the country is more divided than it actually is. An interesting book, Beyond A House Divided by Carl Anderson examines the inconsistencies with polling data and shows how America actually swings to the right more than ever suspected. Also:
Poll: Only 2/3 of 2008 Obama Backers Plan to Vote Democrat – Political Hotsheet – CBS News
54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan
57% of Likely Voters Describe Democratic Congressional Agenda As Extreme
56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress
CNN poll: 56 percent oppose stimulus program
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
90% Recognize Media Helped Obama Win
This is just a smidgen of what’s out there in terms of polling data that demonstrate why far left, socialist groups like Color of Change or Soros-backed Credo must rely on manipulation and misrepresentation achieve their goals.
Their “victory” is that they kept a dissenting view from exchanging ideas on air. This is their ace card – not to mention blatantly obvious fundraising gimmick.
This is why the title of the panel is laughable. Their ideas have already been defeated on a level playing field. Aside from two years’ worth of polling data which shows a tanking approval for all policies far-left, November 2 was a resounding “NO” from the American public. “NO” on big spending. “NO” on unaccountable government. “NO” on policies which will bankrupt America. How are you going to get people to give you money after the biggest political sodomization in thirty years? Claim that you took someone off a network.
If anything, the panel and the braggadocios way in which it was presented on Twitter is an expected method for the left to cheer themselves up in the wake of reality. It was also a sloppy way for them to show their cards and openly admit that they see no conflict in political interest groups funded by people who publicly dislike America attempting to influence the narrative of our republic.
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.