Dear MSM: Andrew Breitbart was not a Blogger

Dear Mainstream Media: Andrew Breitbart was not a blogger. He was a political trickster, a serial frame-up artist, a con man, a fraud, a flimflam man. In the Nixon days he would have been called a “plumber.”

A blogger is an independent observer, a citizen journalist. Breitbart tinkered with video to falsify what people said and staged interviews so as to falsify peoples’ views. He generally polluted the information environment with fraud.

Andrew Breitbart was many things, and in Britain would have been in jail for libel on several occasions. But he was not a blogger.

—-
P.S. Mr. Breitbart believed in speaking ill of the dead.

37 Responses

    • Succinct and enough, well put. While I very much appreciate David Atkins approach at DigbysBlog, where he chooses to say everything by saying nothing, referencing the Roman adage, de mortuis nil nisi bonum (of the dead, [say] nothing but good), for this public figure, who caused much harm through deceit, his epitaph for posterity should note this.

      Privately, condolences to his family, sincerely given. Publicly, state dispassionately, but honestly and briefly, the churn he left in his wake.

  1. Thank you for having the courage to say this out loud. You will surely get a lot of flack for speaking ill of the recently deceased, but it is the truth.

  2. Thanks for the comments. As always, you speak the truth.

  3. According to wikipedia: “A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log) is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries (“posts”) typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.”

    Andrew Breitbart was a blogger due to a mere fact that he posted comments in a blog format. You may not agree with his politics, which is fair and square, but disputing the obvious seems counterproductive.

      • Wikipedia accurately defines how the term is generally used and understood. My sense is that your definition reflects more wishful thinking than reality. It would, indeed, be a great world if only thoughtful “independent observers” wrote blogs.

        • I don’t think one needs the manipulated disinformation of Wikipedia to know that Breitbart was likely an offshoot of the Tavistock Institute’s well-funded dynasty of mass manipulation. Check the quality of your sources, do not collect $200, and do not pass Go.

        • its why progressives dont do well as a whole… we quibble amongst ourselves over semantic bs…. sorry eugene… lol

    • 1) wiki is your educational tool … really?

      2) A website full of lies is not, by definition a “personal journal”

      Webster’s Dictionary: Personal Journal
      a : a record of current transactions;
      b : an account of day-to-day events

      Therefore, even by wiki’s definition Breitbart was NOT a blogger because his website was full of lies – not a personal journal

      You may agree with Breitbart’s politics and you may have enjoyed reading all his lies — but he was NOT a blogger, he was a liar.

      • “You may agree with Breitbart’s politics and you may have enjoyed reading all his lies ”

        Implying that eugene agreed with Breitbarts views is uncalled for considering there is nothing in his comments to suggest such a thing.

        Also his definition of the word blog is correct.

  4. This is incidental but I can’t help pointing out that libel is a civil tort here in the UK, not a criminal offence. Libel can get you into all sorts of trouble but it won’t (directly) land you in jail.

    • Not incidental really goes to credibility. Libel is a civil offense mostly in the United States as well, punishable by fines not jail time. But the author of this post could be criminally convicted in Colorado as their libel has criminal laws associated with them including laws against: “tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead.” Ooops!

  5. No reason to hide the truth about Breitbart. I think he should have been put before a Judge and Jury on editing the Sherrod tape. Any slightest negative comment on him over at Huffington Post gets censored. Breitbart’s death does not trump freedom of speech, but it’s happening, and in some places unfortunately, he’s being crucified. But the truth should never be censored if it’s respectful. Because he’s dead doesn’t mean there will be a lack of others to take up his mantle, unfortunately. He was full of “hate” and there is no shortage of that. His legacy will be carried on, but of course it’s all about the “warrior” now,and so history gets rewritten or at least attempted.

  6. He should be remembered for what he stood for in life. Just because someone dies, he doesn’t become a saint.

  7. Best succinct and accurate description since Christoher Hitchens’ assessment of Jerry Falwell after his departure from this “mortal coil.”

  8. He will become a vile verb like, “they Breitbarted that organization.” Much like “swift-boating” has come to mean the spreading of lies and deceitful behavior, so too will Mr. Breitbart go down in history along side other greats, like Benedict Arnold, and other cuddly favorites…

  9. “A blogger is an independent observer, a citizen journalist.”

    Uh, no. Not necessarily. That type of blogging is just a fraction of what’s out there. What you should have said is, “An independent observer, a citizen journalist, may express him- or herself through blogging.”

    I’ve been blogging for years, and it only very rarely has anything to do with politics. I’m a writer. Thousands of writers and authors are also bloggers. Forgive me for being picky, but I’m tired of “blogger” being hijacked by political writers.

  10. I hadn’t realised he was responsible for;

    “On his websites, including Big Government, Big Hollywood and Big Journalism, Breitbart did stretch the boundaries of the truth, and never more so than when, in 2010, he circulated misleadingly edited footage of a speech given by Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod. The video, which appeared on BigGovernment.com, inaccurately portrayed her remarks as racist. She was forced to resign, but later received an apology from the Secretary of Agriculture and was offered a new position.”

    His death is being lamented on pro Israeli Zionist websites,

    link to fieryspiritedzionist.blogspot.com

    who, it would appear, are not too concerned about truth and morality, only whether someone is loud mouthed, rich and pro Israeli of course.

    • That blurb about Breitbart was in one so-called Zionist website. That hardly means that Zionists supported him. He was adopted by Jewish parents and then left our faith. I am a Zionist and think that Breitbart was a human piece of crap. If I could urinate on his remains, I would. When I heard this morning that the son of a bitch, was dead, it made feel that justice had been served.

  11. Hell is a little more full today. He was a despicable human being who did very little good in this world, as far as I can see. There really isn’t anything more to say.

  12. Breitbart wasn’t a blogger like Teddy Kennedy wasn’t a drunk.

    • Ted Kennedy may have been an imbiber of spirits, but Breitbart was a loathsome pornographer of lies and deceit.

      Kennedy will long be remembered and revered than Breitbart’s mattress stain of legacy as a bully of the weak and purveyor of hate.

  13. 1. The definition you use for blogging is restrictive and solipsistic. There are, for example, photoblogs that are nothing but interesting photos, not journalism. The wikipedia definition is accurate.

    2. While wikipedia, like Juan Cole, occasionally makes errors, it is reliable in nearly every case I’ve examined where I know the correct information or confirmed it by independent means. Like Juan Cole, wikipedia is a great resource.

    3. Andrew Breitbart was a ugly and malicious person. He was, on occasion, also a blogger. An ugly and malicious blogger, but a blogger no less. I am a driver, and just because there are terrible drivers of unreliable vehicles on the road, that doesn’t make them or me any less drivers.

  14. I don’t think your argument that Breitbart was not a blogger succeeds, but your criticism is on the mark, and helps, a bit, to offset this sort of obitspeak from the New York Times today: “Mr. Breitbart earned a reputation for being playful but also selective with the facts…” It’s as though they’re trying to offer support for right wing complaints about the moral relativism of liberal media.

  15. Andrew was a Right Wing Blogger Juan they lie all the time. Andrew was not a left wing blogger if someone shows me I am wrong I admit it granted after much arguing and being presented with facts.
    Mistakes happen nobody is perfect but Andrew lied intentionally. There is a reason why Left wing blogs have more people reading them people can quote us to their friends and not worry to much about their friends correcting them and making a fool out of them.
    The Right wing blogs don’t get it why they don’t have many readers sure Obama surrenders and fires his own people before investigating himself or even asking his own person their side of the story when Andrew lies that is a sign of their power.
    Sure the Media picked up Andrew’s lies and didn’t fact check them agian another sign of power.
    But we got the common people because since Bush we told the truth about the economy, the wars etc and we were right about this.
    Despite Andrew, the Media and even Obama and the GOP the majority of the American people want Social Security more than they want war.
    They want government to create jobs and help homeowners. They want the rich to be taxed more.
    That shows our power.
    I have not seen any recent polls but I bet we don’t want a war with Iran. My neighbor watches Fox news all the time he is a white male 70 years old and he hates the banks and hates the idea of war with Iran.
    He watches Fox and yells allot this gives me hope for America.

  16. Christopher Hitchens was essentially vile but was at least smart, widely read, well educated and fun to listen to. Brietbart was ignorant, uneducated, uncouth and dumb as a post.

  17. suggested edit….

    Dear Mainstream Media: Andrew Breitbart was not just a blogger. He was also a political trickster, a serial frame-up artist, a con man, a fraud, a flimflam man. In the Nixon days he would have been called a “plumber.”

    ps

    the longtime human failure spent the last day of his life attacking, arguing and insulting people on twitter……a fitting epitaph

    link to twitter.com

  18. “a fitting epitaph”

    Even more fitting would be no epitaph. I don’t celebrate the death of any man, but there are plenty who I see no reason to memorialize. Andrew Breitbart lived his life in a way that is best ignored and forgotten.

Comments are closed.