I watched in amazement, as did all of you, the video in which some d-list Kos diarist attempted “gotcha” journalism by asking Breitbart whether or not he has a coke/prostitute/gay/beats baby harp seals/etc. habit. A hysterical Clayton began by demanding Breitbart tell him the name of his employee who was arrested for allegedly harassing a Muslim woman whose name Clayton didn’t know. Calling Mr. Pulitzer!
How did Clayton arrive at such a sensational story and line of questioning? The progressive journolister way: without any due diligence at reporting whatsoever! Clayton assumed that the drunken blogger, John Gilmore, arrested in downtown Minneapolis was affiliated with Breitbart simply because Gilmore said Breitbart’s name.
[youtube 15SEXyOU8iI nolink]
This, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you the first documented Pavlovian response to the word BREITBART. Progressives simply have to hear the name and they launch into a rabid response in which they assume Andrew Breitbart is connected with whatever is transpiring before them.
Notice that Clayton didn’t seek out a police response or the police report, since he cared so terribly much about this story and the victim, that Muslim woman whose name he couldn’t remember, the woman he cared so much about. BREITBART! (Her name is Elisabeth Geschiere.)
No, it was conservatives who predictably did the yeoman’s work of reporting the facts of the matter. They discovered that it was a blogger who didn’t even know Breitbart, much less work for him (as was said last week, the Big editors were otherwise engaged and unable to be in Minneapolis last weekend). They discovered that Gilmore is a nut with fun little record to accompany his name and that he was arrested for harassment. That alone is a story but NO. The left heard BREITBART and pinned the entire thing on Breitbart and as of such, find themselves in the difficult position of having to apologize for yet another completely baseless accusation.