This is what it has come to. In this “news” column from the AP on the Tea Party rally in Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nev., yesterday, the AP puts the burden of proof on Andrew Breitbart to prove that no one yelled the N-word at the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington last Sunday:
“Conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart disputed accounts that tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets at black members of Congress amid the health care debate, although he didn’t provide any evidence.” – AP, 12/27/10
Let’s first put aside the absence of basic logic dwelling within the idea that one can prove that something did not get said.
And, let’s also set aside, for a moment, the assault on Americans’ basic sense of fairness that is inherent in the “guilty until proven innocent” stance the AP is taking.
Let’s start with the AP’s clear surrender of any kind of impartiality when reporting about Breitbart and the Tea Party movement. Political writer Michael R. Blood, who filed this report, needs to be taken off the Tea Party beat immediately. If he can’t report a simple, straightforward fact like Breitbart disputing the accounts of racial epithets without the nonsensical caveat of “although he didn’t provide any evidence,” then how can he be trusted to fairly report on other activities from the increasingly influential political movement he is covering?
It seems to me, that perhaps Mr. Blood needs to provide evidence that he’s not biased. How’s that, Mr. Blood?
Now, on to the assault on basic fairness: Is the AP now on record that the Tea Party activists who protest at these gatherings are ipso facto guilty of racism if someone accuses them of racism? Is that all it takes? Have there been any calls from the AP for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to prove that the protestors that day shouted the N-word? Just yesterday, the AP referred to Ft. Hood terrorist Malik Nadal Hasan as a “suspect.” Apparently, Hasan is afforded the right to be innocent until proven guilty, but tea party protestors are not.
And, finally, the AP’s assault on basic logic:
There are multiple videos of the CBC’s march down the middle of the tea party protest last Sunday. You can see on the videos that many people are holding flip cameras in their hands. These days, just about anyone with a cell phone has the capability of capturing events on video. And yet, here we are, one week later, and not one person has produced a video showing anyone saying the N-word. Not one.
Isn’t it obvious that for someone to fan the flames of racial politics as members of the CBC did last week, the burden of proof should be on them? And, isn’t it a lot easier to prove that someone did use the N-word versus proving someone did not?
In fact, for Breitbart to meet the AP’s standard, he would have to provide hours and hours of video from every angle of the protest to prove that the N-word was not used. And even then, nut jobs at left-wing “watchdog” groups will claim that the tapes he provided were “heavily edited.”
In light of the AP’s latest assault on fairness, logic and journalistic norms. And, with full confidence that the vast majority of tea party protesters do not fit the racist, redneck stereotype that members of the media and the Democratic Party would like Americans to think that they do —
— Breitbart has now raised the stakes on his challenge to the CBC.
He is now offering a “ransom” of $100,000 to be donated to the United Negro College Fund for anyone who can provide evidence that racial epithets were, in fact used toward the CBC that day on the mall.
Now, I wonder if Blood or the rest of the writers at the AP will demand evidence from the CBC for the accusations they have made? Or, at the very least will they answer this question: How does an editor let an article like this get published?