CNN's Loesch Mounts Dishonest Defense Of Breitbart's Chop Shop Editing

Blog ››› ››› JEREMY HOLDEN

CNN's Dana Loesch is trying to pretend away the deceptive editing practices at the center of the Andrew Breitbart campaign to "go after the teachers."

Yesterday, officials at the University of Missouri-St. Louis concluded that the videos Breitbart's site Big Government used to smear two of the university's labor studies lecturers were "highly distorted through splicing and editing."

Loesch rejected their findings on her radio show today:

This story, it began with a whistleblower who got some video of some of the things that were being said in his class, sent it out to a bunch of people, and progressives freaked out. And because they went up on the Breitbart sites, of course they immediately said Andrew Breitbart has some sort of magical editing, video editing, equipment, which, I -- if it's out there, please show me where I can purchase stock, because it's just magical. Now you can get people into scenes and you can manipulate them so that say things that they can try to deny later. There is absolutely nothing that has been put out there that is out of context.

This is demonstrably false.

Here is how Team Breitbart presents remarks made by one of the lecturers, Don Giljum:

GILJUM: Because I think if you look at labor's history over the years, you'll find that, you know, we've had a very violent history with violent protests-- [CUT]

GILJUM: ...in certain instances, strategically played out, and for certain purposes, that industrial sabotage doesn't have its place. I think it certainly does. But as far as -- You know, and I can't really honestly say that I've never wished, or have never been in a position, where I have haven't wished real harm on somebody or inflicted any pain and suffering on some people--

STUDENT: We're all human.

GILJUM: --who didn't ask for it, but, you know, it certainly has its place.

Here are Giljum's actual comments rejecting violence - the context Breitbart's contributors excised through "magical editing" is in bold:

GILJUM: I tend to agree with you, because I think if you look at labor's history over the years, you'll find that, you know, we've had a very violent history with violent protests and reaction to suppression. OK? But as time has changed, the tactics have changed, or the need for those have changed. OK?

Now, you know, that's not to say that in certain instances, strategically played out and for certain purposes, that industrial sabotage doesn't have its place. I think it certainly does. But as far as -- You know, and I can't really honestly say that I've never wished, or have never been in a position where I have haven't wished real harm on somebody or inflicted any pain and suffering on some people--

STUDENT: We're all human.

GILJUM: --who didn't ask for it, but, you know, it certainly has its place. It certainly makes you feel a hell of a lot better sometimes, but beyond that I'm not sure as a tactic today, the type of violence or reaction to the violence we had back then would be called for here, and I think it would do more harm than good.

Loesch is either being willfully dishonest, or she has no idea what it means to take something out of context.

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.