Many became incensed by my suggestion that a desperate-for-vindication Andrew Breitbart had engaged in a subtle form of blackmail to get what he wanted. Today, Breitbart
himself has more or less confirmed that idea, except he's leaving out the subtlety:
When asked by anchor Erica Hill if he has more information to release about Weiner, Breitbart replied, "I have no intention to release any more information. I think that we're heading down the proper path."
The clear message: If we do not head down what Breitbart considers the proper path, other photos will come out. Do we call this "an implied threat" or just "a threat"? The latter, methinks.
Breitbart may hold back data, but others will release it. The New York Post
reporter who misrepresented himself to get close to Gennette Cordova -- and then mischaracterized what she said -- exemplifies the new breed of journalism.
Back to Breitbart:
"And the next day, for three days - Saturday, Sunday and Monday, it was excruciating - the plan that he concocted and he's going to have to take responsibility for, and the organized left and the media framed me as the person who was the hacker.
So Anthony Weiner concocted a "plan" to have the "organized left" frame Breitbart...? And we thought Alex Jones
was a conspiracy theorist! You think Andy's gonna bring George Soros into this?
(Side note: It has been ages
since anyone accused yours truly of being in the pay of Evil Soros. Very disappointing.)
That said, nobody said that Breitbart did any hacking.
"They also falsely accused me of releasing the name of the girl in Seattle. They said that I savaged her. But we chose not to give her name.
Did anyone make that accusation against Breitbart? (I haven't read every story, so I'm honestly not sure.) Was it not Breitbart's sources who ultimately made the name of Gennette Cordova well-known?
Breitbart goes on to say that the Tweeted pic, in and of itself, did not prompt him to publish his story. Rather, he was spurred into action because
He took down all of his photos. The girl in Seattle took down her Facebook page. She took down her - this was all Friday evening.
Breitbart is here implying that Gennette participated in a cover-up. This statement may not qualify as "savaging" Gennette, but it is certainly unwarranted.
"I think we were vindicated at first after a three-day frenzy of trying to attack my journalism,"
His journalism was attacked first and foremost because Breitbart's own tweets
indicated that he did not trust his sources, and that he had run the story without vetting the people who provided it. He did not even know the name of the person who fed him the information. Breitbart should own up to his own
Twitter record, because that record was the basis of the attacks. Weiner's confession can't change the fact that Breitbart printed first and vetted later. Sloppy journalism is not justified by the final outcome. A bad driver who reaches his destination is still a bad driver.
Breitbart's implied threat goes a long ways toward vindicating my previous post. But don't expect Andrew Breitbart to ride high for long. He's more vulnerable now than ever before, although he doesn't know it. Hubris begets sloppiness
. In the immortal (and deliciously appropriate) words of Han Solo: "Don't get cocky."On a completely unrelated note:
Austan Ghouls-bee is gone, baby, gone! O, frabjous day!