12 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ Jen Kuznicki - Conor Friedersdorf, Ca... · 0 replies · -2 points

I too congratulate Ms. Kuznicki on Mark Levin's endorsement. (Were it not for my lifelong appreciation of Wayne Gretzky's hockey skills I'd consider calling him The Great One too). In my experience, attacking me is often good for a Mark Levin link, and I've decided to embrace this service I can provide for bloggers trying to make it in a rough and tumble Internet. Here is some ammunition for a future post: I live near the coast in Blue America, where I work as a journalist.

Pro tip: Levin particularly likes it when you make fun of someone's name. He has taken to calling me "Friedersdork" so that's out. And Conor doesn't really rhyme with much. But as a third grader I did hear "You're a con-man" a lot, and I think that retains potential for Mark Levin bait. Don't say I never helped build your traffic!

11 years ago @ Big Journalism - How to Blog at the ... · 0 replies · -5 points

I personally spoke with one of the police officers he called.

11 years ago @ Big Journalism - How to Blog at the ... · 1 reply · 0 points


Eating grits is always a good idea – on that we can agree. Especially if it's followed by red beans and rice at lunch and okra gumbo at dinner.

11 years ago @ Big Journalism - How to Blog at the ... · 2 replies · -3 points

Here is what National Review's Jonah Goldberg wrote about Andrew Breitbart's behavior toward Shirley Sherrod:

"I think she’s owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart. I generally think Andrew is on the side of the angels and a great champion of the cause. He says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, Would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I’d like to think he wouldn’t have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable."

11 years ago @ Big Journalism - The McCarthyists of · 4 replies · -4 points


You may think I've assessed Big Journalism incorrectly – fair enough – but surely you discriminate based on outlet in our own reading. When you're in line at the checkout counter, and you see a headline on the National Enquirer, you probably don't take the time to research it.

In the past, I've discovered egregiously misleading material on the Web sites that Andrew Breitbart sponsors, pointed it out to Mr. Breitbart, and been surprised that he refused to correct the record. Dan Riehl, the author of this post, has written untrue things about me on numerous occasions. He has also hurled the most scurrilous kinds of insults at me and others. Can I ask you something? If you'd alerted the publisher of a Web site to an significant inaccuracy, and he refused to remedy it – and if afterward that same Web site started publishing attacks on your character, some of them including factual inaccuracies – would you trust other content on that Web site? Or would you tend to look elsewhere when a very complicated story comes out, and you don't have the time to do in depth research into it yourself?

Lee, you won't see many people acknowledge it publicly, but there are a whole lot of right-leaning journalists who don't trust anything that appears on these sites. Ask around. You'll see that I'm right. They'll tell you that the Shirley Sherrod story seemed like clear video evidence of something... and it turned out to be just the opposite. They'd say, after that, why should we trust any video Breitbart publishes? Who knows if it too has been taken out of context. I agree that one shouldn't dismiss this story just because Breitbart is involved. I haven't done so. I'll be watching the debate about Dan Foster's piece at National Review. I'll read coverage of this elsewhere too. And if you want your work to be taken seriously on this matter, I suggest that you persuade an editor at a more trusted outlet that you've got a good story. Places like The Wall Street Journal, The Claremont Review Of Books, The Weekly Standard, Real Clear Politics – these and other outlets aren't ideologically hostile to the Pigford story. But they do have a higher bar for what they publish than Andrew Breitbart. So long as you're doing honest journalism, I wish you the best of luck, regardless of how your stories come out. And I think if you are honest with yourself, you'd see that in my position, you'd react to this matter exactly as I am.

11 years ago @ Big Journalism - How to Blog at the ... · 3 replies · -7 points


I highlighted that National Review story precisely because I haven't had time to report the details of this story myself, and I'd like to see the matter hashed out among writers I trust. In my ideal world, Dan Foster and Adam Serwer would have a great debate about Pigford, and from it I could figure out what everyone agrees about, what is at issue, and what is just not true. Now that Dan's piece is online perhaps that is going to happen.

It must be frustrating for you as a writer to have the shadow of Andrew Breitbart hanging over this story, especially since his feud and lawsuit with Shirley Sherrod gives him a personal stake in the outcome. If I'd encountered your work previously, I might feel differently, but experience has taught me to mistrust stories posted on this site. I know there are good people who write here. It's just impossible to tell without spending a lot of time doing research. I'd be happy to explain why at length if you'd like to give me a call sometime. You could also Google my name and Juan Carlos Vera. Suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with you.