RT's sincere apology to corpse-urinating fan Dana Loesch

Photo by Chris Loesch
Here’s something funny to think about: Conservative blowhard Andrew Breitbart’s website Big Journalism is neither big nor a good example of journalism.

Alright, alright. We’re sorry. We lied. It really isn’t all that funny, actually. To be fair, it is more sad than anything, really. Speaking of lying, however, this offers us a spectacular segue to respond to allegations by way of Breitbart’s Big Journalsm that were, you guessed it, terribly inaccurate.

And kind of dumb.

Last week, RT published an article outing conservative commentator, CNN contributor and Breitbart-buddy Dana Loesch for saying that, given the chance, she would also urinate on the corpses of dead Afghans. Never mind the fact that most of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Republican and Democrats alike have condemned the recently surfaced video of US Marines micturating upon slain Afghans. Loesch is absolutely warranted the opportunity to have her own opinion (yes, even if that opinion is that urinating on the dead is “cool”). What comes as a concern to us, however, was that Loesch and her cohorts have resorted to smearing RT with falsities after our article pointed the world to the fact that she would love to urinate all over the dead.

After RT published our article last week (that includes audio of Loesch saying, specifically, “I’d drop trou and do it too,” and “I want a million ‘cool points’ for these guys [the Marines]”), the “journalist” got a wee bit hurt. We suppose it didn’t make her feel any better that other media outlets quickly destroyed her. Our own The Alyona Show program even dedicated a solid seven minutes to the pundit for her not-so-pacifistic pee passion.

In the aftermath, Big Journalism, the site started by Breitbart but managed by Loesch (who is prominently named the editor in chief on the website’s flag), published a response.

P.J. Salvatore, a reporter for Big Journalism, attacks RT’s Alyona Minkosvski for saying on-air: “Dana thinks that troops are fighting to keep us safe.”

Salvatore objects, however, saying: “How would RT know? I asked Loesch in an email this afternoon prior to writing this piece. They didn’t speak with her. At all.”

Au contraire, Sal. Au contraire.

RT did, in fact, speak with Loesch. Within minutes of publishing our article about her, she fired back via Twitter, which in turn prompted a back-and-forth between both parties that extended into the afternoon. We know this is the Internet and all, but we would consider this a bit of communication, wouldn’t you?

Next says Salvatore, “They literally made up a quote and attributed it to her.” Yes, Ms. Minkovski did state, “Dana thinks that troops are fighting to keep us safe.” Did she say, “Dana says that troops are fighting to keep us safe”? Not at all. Did we broadcast an assumption based on Loesch’s insistence that the urinating was called for since “this is a war” waged against an organization that “murdered over 3,000 Americans”? Indeed, and for that we are sorry. It could be supposed that in a monologue from Minkovski delivered with editorial input such as “I think” and “What I call it,” it could be hard for Big Journalism to pick up that the rant was indeed an opinion piece, and we must apologize. On behalf of RT, we wholeheartedly offer our apologies to Loesch. I guess you could say we thought that since she insists pissing on corpses is fine (if the victims are perhaps possibly somehow maybe aligned to a group of insurgents responsible for a massive tragedy), we figured she thought the US military is fighting to keep us safe. Our bad.

But Big Journalism! Come on! You’re not even trying here.

“RT smeared Loesch on Twitter before turning around and asking her repeatedly for an interview. Loesch says she simply deleted their emails,” writes Salvatore.

So wait, we did reach out to Loesch? Not only did we converse over Twitter but we actually tried more than one method of communication to offer her the opportunity to explain?

Oof.

It seems as if Salvatore’s perpetrated attempt at a put-down is brimming with ballsy, biased tirades not backed up with truth. Does it really offer us anything? Absolutely: further proof that Big Journalism isn’t all that big. Or journalism.

Breitbart calls himself "a Reagan conservative" and seemingly attacks anyone progressive or remotely away from the right with every article on his site. Yet, at the same time, prominently features Loesch as an editor in chief, who all the while is paid for her commentary on liberal-leaning CNN. This sort of leads us to ask the question, “Is Big Journalism that confused about their obvious bias and where to take it, or are they just as guilty as the mainstream media of canoodling with corporations?

We can’t help but think Big Journalism and the mainstream media has more than one thing in common thanks to their attempt at an attack on RT: you are both working overtime for the sake of dumping lies on America.

In Big Journalism’s attempted attack on RT, they try to take us down by linking to their own past articles in which they tried just the same (and failed horribly). And here’s another link they post in their article. How do they attack us on this one? Saying we are “media partners” with the Huffington Post. Not only is that another lie, but is that really something you want to go after us for? Last we checked, Big Boss Breitbart helped launch the website with the help of Arianna Huffington herself.

So where does that leave us? Dana Loesch is still a jerk that would love to pee on the dead. And RT? We bring you the truth.

And for the record, we don’t want to pee on anybody. Even Loesch, Salvatore and Breitbart.