Last week, the conservative movement lost a legend. Journalist Andrew Breitbart — who constructed one of the most influential media dynasties — died at the young age of 43.
Breitbart was a man who kept liberals on their toes. His effective use of new media techniques defined him as a media leader, and his journalistic style was nothing short of revolutionary.
Breitbart was the conservative response to leftist strategist Saul Alinsky. His relentless (and confrontational) pursuit of corruption made him one of the most despised journalists in the field. In other words, he was incredibly successful at his job.
As he famously once said, “I’m committed to the destruction of the old media guard, and it’s a very good business model.”
I will never forget hearing him speak at the Young America’s Foundation West Coast Leadership Conference just over two years ago. Breitbart had just taken down the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) after two young investigative journalists entrusted him with groundbreaking footage. Their hidden-camera exposé showed ACORN staffers offering advice on taxes and prostitution to actors posing as a prostitute and pimp.
As a result, public pressure led Congress to block previously-approved funds from going to ACORN and stopped future payments, and ACORN summarily dissolved (likely into other corrupt substitutes).
The most intriguing part of this entire scandal was the way in which Breitbart released the footage. With the release of the first clip, reporters apparently pressured him to release all the tapes immediately. But Breitbart rejected their appeals; instead, he played the clips sporadically to generate anxiety on the part of the mainstream media. Breitbart was a man who held the liberal establishment in the palm of his hand and made them sweat.
And how can we forget the infamous Weiner scandal? One of Breitbart’s websites, BigGovernment.com, caused a stir when it posted lewd photos of U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, a “firebrand” liberal congressman from New York. As a direct result, this corrupt representative wisely decided to resign from his position and late night television received weeks’ worth of comedic substance.
Breitbart provided Americans with breaking news in a way that was witty, entertaining and influential. He used unconventional methods to ensure that his news reached out to all demographics, and he was a master at stealing the spotlight.
A champion of youth activism and conservative causes, Breitbart was an inspiration to aspiring journalists across the nation. He held all politicians and public servants accountable, regardless of political affiliation, and constantly endured harsh criticism from the establishment. Breitbart always pushed for the truth and had a knack for uncovering breaking news.
Breitbart.com will continue to serve the public as a source of political justice and truth, a beacon of honesty and a warning for those who choose to misrepresent the public. While the liberal media might have briefly sighed with relief at the news of Breitbart’s passing, it undoubtedly is afraid that a new “Breitbart” will come upon the scene.
Americans will never forget the humor, integrity and genius of Breitbart. Shortly before his passing, he noted: “I do what I do because the mainstream media chooses not to do it. The game of the left controlling the narrative … is ending.”
May his prophetic words come true.
Andrew Breitbart looked at evil in America straight in the eye and worked to expose it.
I couldn’t help but laugh at what this young pup could accomplish, even without the thousands of journalists and reporters of the formerly great television, radio and print media.
Rumors have it that an official ‘mourning’ and ‘hand wringing’ conference over Ann Coulter’s appearance on Cal Poly’s campus is in the works. The ‘rudeness’ and ‘disrespect’ came from a couple of nasty students. Listen for yourself!
http://soundcloud.com/mbise/ann-coulter-at-cal-poly
Conservatives don’t have to sit and take it anymore… Congratulations Brendan… and nice tribute!
Roger Freberg
I asked you on the other article as well Roger, but I would like to know what you found “nasty” about those students.
Sean Hannity will have a special on Andrew Breitbart and his new website tonight, March 7th at 6 and 9 pm on his Fox News Channel show. They plan to show tapes of Obama’s earlier years with the extreme radicals also.
Mr. McCool:
It seems like the president has been outed as a Harvard law student in 1991. This footage was aired in its entirety in 2008. In fairness to Hannity and Breitbart, it did run on PBS, so it is no surprise that they didn’t see it.
Mr. Pringle:
Have you been hanging out with your liberal opposite number or something? You seem to have picked up his annoying habit of using words with specific meanings inappropriately. Andrew Breitbart is not a “legend”: unlike Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan, or what you have turned Ronald Reagan into over the course of time … he actually existed. He didn’t establish a “dynasty”, unlike the Mings or the Murdochs. He was never a journalist, nor did he claim to be one (they have standards, I am told). If he was the conservative response to Saul Alinsky, conservatives are slower on the uptake than even I imagined, since Mr. Alinsky died in 1972. “Misrepresent the public”? Seriously? Do you actually read what you write?
As far as being a “beacon of justice and truth”, we haven’t forgotten the Shirley Sherrod business, either. It was hardly his finest hour, and showed that he was willing to distort the truth to defame and discredit his political enemies.
I won’t miss him, but since I am a liberal, rather than a conservative, I don’t think of my political opponents as evil, only misguided; so I won’t send him off the same way he sent off Ted Kennedy. All I can say is that he is doubtless finding the afterlife rather warm.
Best wishes,
Mole
Mole,
The Shirley Sherrod business needs to be set straight.
In 2010 Senators Andre Carson and John Lewis claimed that at a Tea Party rally outside the capital, members of the crowd spit on them and hurled racial slurs at them including the n-word. It was widely reported over mainstream media outlets as something that actually happened. As a result, the NAACP publicly came down on the Tea Party and labeled them as racists.
The problem is, that was a lie on behalf of the two senators. Breitbart proved this using several different video cameras showing that it never happened. He also offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove those things happened.
Then Andrew gets a hold of a video of an NAACP banquet. In this video, a speaker explains that thoughts of racial discrimination cross her mind and THE AUDIENCE LAUGHS AND APPLAUDS. This is the entire point of the video. That the NAACP would publicly brand the Tea Party as racists based on a lie while members of their own organization behave this way is absurd. No media outlet would do their job and point this out. The fact that the speaker was named Shirley Sherrod is irrelevant. She wasn’t the target. And in his original posting of the video, Breitbart explained that she redeemed herself in the end. Miss Sherrod was impulsively fired by the White House, and that is on them, not Andrew.
Mike:
First off, Andre Carson and John Lewis are members of the House of representatives, not the Senate. Neither of them claimed to be spit upon .. that charge was made by another House member, Emanuel Cleaver, who was spat upon by a single protester, who was witnessed doing so by Capitol police and arrested. He was released when the Congressman declined to press charges. I watched the videos of the incident with the two Congressmen you mentioned, and I couldn’t hear any racial slur. This doesn’t surprise me much, since the microphones recording the event were as far as thirty feet away from the Congressmen, and surrounded by protesters shouting “Kill the bill!” at the top of their lungs. While this doesn’t collaborate their story, it hardly constitutes proof that they were lying … the only way one could prove that would be if they were carrying microphones themselves, and they were not.
These events took place on the 20th of March, 2010. Well afterwards, on the 14th of July, the NAACP released this statement:
“NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches.”
You will notice that it doesn’t condemn the Tea Party as a whole, as you directly implied. The use of racial slurs in the cited instance may be in dispute, but the use of offensive signage was much less a matter of debate, wouldn’t you agree? To assert that the Tea Party as a whole is racist (and by implication everyone who participated in Tea Party activities), is not only deeply offensive but also ridiculous. However, to assert that there are no racists in the Tea Party is equally absurd and offensive, although not to the same people.
The Sherrod video was released on July 20th. He didn’t “explain” anything, but put in the line “Context is everything”, apparently too obscure to keep Faux News from running the edited tape 24/7.
So, in future, I suggest that you do a bit more research into what you are attempting to straighten me out about … and going to a single apologist website really doesn’t count as “research”.
Best wishes,
Mole
Mole,
C’mon now. The NAACP condemnation came “well afterwards” because their annual convention convenes…annually. You can’t say with a straight face that since they use the words “elements”, that they are not targeting the Tea Party as a whole. Of course they are. They are using those words to condition people to associate “Tea Party” with “racism” and discredit the movement in its entirety. I am looking forward to this year’s convention issuing a resolution that condemns the racist, anti-Semitic, murdering and rapist elements of the Occupy movement as well.
We all know it’s technically impossible to prove a negative. Is it possible that the Congressman received hateful, racist slurs? Yeah, it’s possible. But all the resources available that could prove guilt on the Tea Party indicated nothing. And to Andrew Breitbart, it infuriated him that the mainstream media ran with Carson’s and Lewis’s claims with no challenge. The response from his was to fight back.
The point remains. The NAACP made an orchestrated effort to paint the Tea Party as a racist organization. Breitbart responded by pointing out that people in glass houses should not throw stones. The audience responded positively when Sherrod shared her racist thoughts with them. It’s unimportant what Sherrod said afterwards. Shirley Sherrod was not the target, and Andrew made no lies about what happened. Hell, even Chris Matthews got that.
Also, I’ll actual using Media Matters as my source here. The same Media Matters that is the arch-nemesis of Mr. Breitbart.
“In his initial post on Sherrod, Breitbart did not say “eventually, her basic humanity informs her to help the white farmer,” as he now claims. Rather he said: “Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from ‘one of his own kind’. She refers him to a white lawyer.” He then labeled Sherrod’s story “racist.” From Breitbart’s July 19, 2010, blog post:
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance. [emphasis added]”
You can see an archive of the original post, with its entire accompanying blog post here:
http://www.webcitation.org/5rbhsjhzR
It’s too bad the story spun out of control and she lost her job for a moment. That’s unfortunate. The blame for that can be placed on the White House for prematurely firing her.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Best wishes,
Mole