“I am public enemy No. 1 or 2 to the Democratic Party, the progressive movement and the Obama administration based upon the successes my journalism has had,” Breitbart said in a telephone interview late Thursday morning as he headed to the airport for what he said was a long-planned, three-day vacation…

“The desire here is to make it about me and not the Democratic establishment and the NAACP vs. the tea party,” Breitbart said, defending the footage he posted as “a self-contained newsworthy video that established the media standard of pointing out that the NAACP countenanced racism in its own award dinner setting. That was the point. That was the point. And the video proves it.”

He offered no apology to Sherrod but said that she has not been held accountable for the racial overtones of what she said…

“The media is misportraying me — deceptively editing this story to make it appear that the video that I put out there, I edited — it’s false, and that’s malicious,” Breitbart said. “They’re also saying that I kept out the exculpatory stuff. The exculpatory narrative is not only in the tail end of the excerpt, but it’s reasserted in my text description.”

***
But when asked by CNN Chief National Correspondent John King what she would say to Breitbart, Sherrod did not dance around the question.

“I’d tell him he’s a liar. He knew exactly what effect that would have on not only – he knew what effect that would have on the conservative, racist people he’s dealing with. That’s why I started getting the hate mail. And that’s why I started getting the hate calls. He got the effect he was looking for,” Sherrod said on John King, USA.

And is Sherrod willing to forgive Breitbart?

“[H]e would really need to come and sit down with me and look me in the eye so that we could see if we can find a place,” Sherrod said. “I’m not saying I won’t forgive him, but we would need to see if we can find a place where that can happen.”

***
Both the Sherrod matter and the Journolist revelations have one thing in common that the ideologues from both sides remain blissfully and determinedly unaware; the controversies are excellent examples of epistemic closure on both sides…

Creating realities based on false authenticity; possessing a worldview that squeezes facts through an ideological or hyper-partisan prism, generates an inability to objectively perceive events in a rational and logical manner. Perhaps more importantly, it prevents both sides from talking to each other as each is in possession of a separate reality that neither recognizes as the truth.