Witness Protection?


Earlier today we featured the story of Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) manhandling one of Andrew Breitbart’s videographer minions after the kid in question asked Etheridge what would appear to be a pretty innocuous question about whether or not he supported President Obama. Breitbart’s folks have a pretty bad record of selective editing. But this case really looks like it speaks for itself. And Etheridge has now issued an apology.

But when I first saw this thing the first thing that I thought was, why’s the kid’s face blurred out?

If he’d been a minor maybe or the victim of some crime, maybe. But his identity as one of Breitbarts’ merry pranksters? Seems like the Breitbart MO is one that puts some obligation on people to at least be open about who they are. Or is the idea that he’s like an undercover operative whose identity/legend needs to be protected so as not to compromise future missions?

These aren’t really rhetorical questions. Genuinely curious to know what’s up with that.


Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.