UPDATE: To his credit, Mr. Roeper printed a gracious correction today. — 4/19/11

Famous film critic Richard Roeper tee’d off on Andrew Breitbart in his Sun-Times column today. Here’s the passage:

Here’s ultraconservative activist Andrew Breitbart at a Tea Party rally in Wisconsin last Saturday, with a message for pro-union forces that had shown up:

“The Tea Party has been the most peaceful, law-abiding . . . group in the history of American protest. . . . You have no right to lecture us on civility. You have no right to lecture us on language. . . . Go to hell! No, serious. Go to hell! Go to hell! You’ve been so rude, you’re trying to divide America. . . .”

Right. And telling people to go to hell because you disagree with their politics isn’t divisive at all. That’s an instant classic of hypocrisy and a breathtaking lack of self-awareness right there.

Then again, this is the same Andrew Breitbart who went on Twitter in the hours after Ted Kennedy’s death to call Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick,” so he’s well-qualified to tell others they can’t lecture him about civility.

Roeper walked into two Breitbart traps in less than 200 words. Can you identify what they are?

The first one is that Breitbart didn’t tell the union protesters to “go to hell” because he disagreed with their politics, but because he considered their tactics reprehensible. Breitbart explained this in the column he posted following the rally. Simply take a look at the full context of the speech.

Here are some examples of the incivility Breitbart may have had in mind:

Note the attempt to drown out the rally with vuvuzelas and the WalkerHitler sign. (more…)

Over the next ten days, I will present to you America’s top ten journalists that are most biased to the left. On this list you will find denizens of the Old Media that just can’t seem to help themselves from delivering the news with a leftward tilt, journalists for whom balance means to condemn all Republicans and conservatives, folks that never met a righty they could like much less agree with or even report upon fairly.

This list will be peopled by journos that, in true Kealian fashion, simply can’t understand those Republicans and/or conservatives. After all, these journalists never met anyone that would support a conservative so they just don’t understand how conservatives could ever stand for truth. These are folks that just don’t “get” that there is any other side to a story but that of their own ideologically leftward political bent.

\This list will be restricted to working journalists (or one who just retired in one case), so biased old hacks like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, or Walter Duranty will be excluded even as we take their leftism for granted. Also you will not find those whose career is but a cartoon of journalism. People such as Keith Olbermann, John Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd, or Chris Matthews do not belong on a journalist list, even one highlighting left-wing bias. Such people are simply too silly or admittedly partisan even for a list such as this.

The biggest problem is arriving at just ten. There are dozens of worthy nominees, we all know. Singling out so small a number from such a large field presented a challenge, for sure. (more…)

Sixth in a series.  Find parts one, two, three, four and five here.  .

Not since the Salem witchcraft trials has there been a worse disgrace in the annals of Massachusetts jurisprudence:  the railroading of an innocent Malden family during the legally sanctioned insanity known as the Fells Acres child-abuse case.  Probably the apogee of the mass hysteria that gripped the U.S. beginning about 1995, the Amirault case continues to resonate – in part thanks to Martha Coakley’s inexplicable disinterest in seeing that justice was done.

You can read up on the case here and here.   Be sure to steel yourself.  And then ask yourself: how could any rational human being have possibly believed the charges were true?

And this: Why did Martha Coakley not lift a finger to free an obviously innocent man?  As Ann Coulter noted just after the primary last month, she’s “too immoral for Teddy Kennedy’s seat,” which is really saying something: (more…)

The special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday for the open Senate seat once held by Teddy Kennedy is the hottest political story of the day. The race is so close that no one is sure who will win but signs are starting to point to a Republican Scott Brown’s victory. And it doesn’t help when Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Lion, doesn’t even know Coakley’s first name.

Cue the Associated Press with a Saturday puff piece on Democrat Martha Coakley that tries to sell her as an “historic candidate” perhaps in order to help push her over the top just before the polls open on Tuesday.

Written by Steve LeBlanc, the AP headlined its piece, “Coakley Hopes for Historic Win in Kennedy Seat Bid.”  The subtitle explains why her candidacy is “historic.” It reads: “Coakley aims to hold off GOP surge for Kennedy seat, become 1st woman elected senator in Mass.”

What puffery. The days when it was noteworthy that a woman was elected to high office are long past. For decades we’ve had women elected in just about every position in politics from the city and state level all the way to the highest offices. In fact, the only two jobs that have yet to see a female elected to them are president and vice president, though we have had credible candidates for both. For all else, women have long since shattered the glass ceiling. So, how “historic” could it be that we might have yet another elected female Senator? Aren’t there several female senators now serving? Of course there are – 16 of them, in fact. (more…)