FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Breitbart's Dead

   
Author Topic: Breitbart's Dead
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
And lots of people are pretty happy about it. Don't follow the link if you're not feeling particularly... ghoulish. (The comparisons to Hitler surprised me, I'll admit.)

I suspect most people here are too respectful to join in and spit on a guy who died young and left a family of five behind, but since Breitbart was rather like Hitchens in this respect, I'm not going to explicitly ask anyone to approach the topic with kid gloves. You want to say good riddance, go for it. I won't whistle it.

Anyway, I liked Breitbart. He gets a lot of crap for being a smear merchant, especially over the Sherrod thing, but I honestly don't agree with that. I think he genuinely believed that he was fighting against, as he put it, a Democratic Media Complex. And while he sometimes approached things with mischievous intent, I don't think he was a liar or a particularly hateful person.

I think I also feel some kinship because he was a very high profile conservative icon who was largely liberal on social issues.

That's about it. Feel free to share your thoughts, whatever they may be.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Sherrod's reaction is classy, and ought to be emulated.

I think he did terrible things to the American political discourse. But to be gleeful that a 43-year-old father is dead goes far beyond "ghoulish", IMO.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BBegley
Member
Member # 12638

 - posted      Profile for BBegley   Email BBegley         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sorry for his family, as the unexpected death of a man in his 40s with 4 children is a personal tragedy.

In terms of his public face, I thought him intellectually dishonest in the extreme and I think he had a negative impact on public discourse.

In response to the Washington Times piece, here are 25 people who think Obama had him killed

Finally, since he was more than willing to disparage the dead, I have no objection to people doing the same to him. In particular, the quote below about destroying lives is equally applicable to Breitbart

Here is a 2009 article from Politico 2009 Article from Politico
quote:
Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist who oversees Breitbart.com and BigHollywood.com, tapped into the anti-Kennedy vein in the hours after the senator’s death was announced, posting a series of Twitter messages in which he called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.”

"I'm more than willing to go off decorum to ensure THIS MAN is not beatified,” Breitbart wrote. “Sorry, he destroyed lives. And he knew it."


Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I think he genuinely believed in what he was doing, but that this is irrelevant to the fact that he was a smear merchant. The man was a ridiculous polarizer and serial misinformer, and the zealous head of his own extremely hostile and hateful media entity. He himself, in the way that he acted and the things that he said, left no doubt that he was an aggressively hateful individual, who would slander others at the drop of a hat. He certainly did a lot to bring our media environment ever closer to poe's law territory.

He was a greatly negative contribution to our media environment and I hope that the vacuum he leaves is either mellowed out or shunted away in his passing. We don't need it.

I'm sorry he's dead and I honestly had no idea he was so young — he probably wasn't taking care of himself, if pictures were any indication, and his twitter activity paints a picture of a frequently agitated, constantly feuding and insulting person. Had he just stressed himself to death? Heart trouble?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm glad his voice is gone, but I have no particular glee over his death, which is itself uninteresting to me.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not glad he's dead, nor will I celebrate it or approve of those who do.

But, to be blunt, I'm going to treat acclaim heaped on him for his 'heroism' with the same laughter and contempt I would have an hour or a month or a year before his death. Sorrow for the passing of another human being wouldn't get a sneer from me. Sorrow for the passing of an iconic media freedom fighter, however, won't (not saying anyone here has). He wasn't, and his career merits no extra respect for him on the basis of his death-only as a human being in general, that's it.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Sherrod's reaction is classy, and ought to be emulated.

I think he did terrible things to the American political discourse. But to be gleeful that a 43-year-old father is dead goes far beyond "ghoulish", IMO.

Yeah, plenty of people had much classier responses, like TPM and HuffPo (Don't have the link for that one offhand). I think, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of people who hated him have responded with decorum, because, well, that's what most people in our society do.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
He was a greatly negative contribution to our media environment and I hope that the vacuum he leaves is either mellowed out or shunted away in his passing. We don't need it.

I'm curious if there's anything you think our media environment does need? More civility? More objectivity? Something else? (In case it's not clear, I'm genuinely curious, this isn't some attempt to make a point via asking a question.)


quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Sorrow for the passing of another human being wouldn't get a sneer from me. Sorrow for the passing of an iconic media freedom fighter, however, won't (not saying anyone here has).

Oh, no, I totally did that. Sneer away. [Smile]
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Alright. How do you look at the Sherrod...reporting? (I use the term for the sake of argument, when to me it was an absolutely textbook smear campaign, and thus deceitful by definition)...and not have your opinion of him as a decent, honest media warrior tarnished?

See, I don't normally approve of this style of discussion, but it seems to me that he was so sleazy and so transparently willing to be spiteful and dishonest (Sherrod is, again, a signature example) that it defaults to you to explain why he shouldnt be reviled, rather than others for why he should. The latter case has been so thorougly made over the past five years or so.

'Mischievous'? Methinks that axe is ground down to a nub. To me one of the differences between struggler for a better world and awful smear artist would be record of integrity as straightforward, honest rhetoric and discussion. Yeah, Hitchens had no doubt a recorded willness to be negative, hostile, really aggressive and contemptuous. But having read many thousands of his words now and listened to many hours of his debates, I can't (biased, admittedly) credit him for dishonesty.

With Breitbart, such an examination takes a minute or two before finding things that take some serious explanation.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I'm glad his voice is gone, but I have no particular glee over his death, which is itself uninteresting to me.

Yep.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
(First, in response to your edited last paragraph: I wholeheartedly agree that Hitchens was a giant compared to Breitbart.)

To the point, though: I think I've trod the Sherrod ground here before.

I'm going to hit a few points briefly to give you an idea of where I'm coming from without creating a massive discussion (yeah, good luck with that, Dan).

1: In keeping with my general approach of don't impute lies and nefarious motivations to people without compelling evidence, I assume Breitbart was correct when he stated that the shorter clip was the only thing his source gave him at the time.

2: In context, Breitbart was waging media war with the NAACP, and one of his main (stated at the time, even!) reasons for posting the video was not just Sherrod's statements, but the uproarious support the crowd of NAACP members gave her when she talked about how she initially treated the white farmer. They didn't know the punchline. They were hearing the story for the first time.

3: He characterized Sherrod's position as one tainted with "the prism of race and class distinctions." Even with the full video, frankly I agree with his characterization. The moral of the story, as I saw it in the full speech, was that racial distinctions are less important than class distinctions (so a poor white guy does deserve help after all, because he's still a poor guy).

4: Most of the accusations of smears and so on came from people who basically themselves felt duped because they jumped the gun and leapt to vilify a woman based on an obvious excerpt from a speech. Seemed to me at the time (and still does in retrospect) that they were in large part overcompensating for their hasty reactions, and blaming their bad judgment on Breitbart. Yawn.

I think that about covers it, in the drive-by version at any rate.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
1: In keeping with my general approach of don't impute lies and nefarious motivations to people without compelling evidence, I assume Breitbart was correct when he stated that the shorter clip was the only thing his source gave him at the time.
Did he cleave to this 'benefit of the doubt' philosophy in his reporting, Dan?

quote:
3: He characterized Sherrod's position as one tainted with "the prism of race and class distinctions." Even with the full video, frankly I agree with his characterization. The moral of the story, as I saw it in the full speech, was that racial distinctions are less important than class distinctions (so a poor white guy does deserve help after all, because he's still a poor guy).
Are you suggesting the moral of Breitbart's (deceptive and/or poorly researched) story was to highlight class distinctions?

quote:
4: Most of the accusations of smears and so on came from people who basically themselves felt duped because they jumped the gun and leapt to vilify a woman based on an obvious excerpt from a speech. Seemed to me at the time (and still does in retrospect) that they were in large part overcompensating for their hasty reactions, and blaming their bad judgment on Breitbart. Yawn.
Suppose for the sake of argument you're right: it was a mistake that occurred without spite or malice on Breitbart's part. How on Earth do words like hasty, bad judgment, villification, apply to them (and they do), but not to Breitbart himself?

Surely then at best, by your own words, he was a 'journalist' who was willing-eager, even-to vilify based on hasty bad judgment. If the label applies to them, it applies to him, unless he is going to claim that was all part of his plan-and be able to substantiate it-from the beginning.*

Given that, if he's a journalist, he cannot be hasty with poor judgment and be called honest. Not in this fashion. He had a chance, if he were interested, in getting the truth. He didn't. Shocker!

*"Ok, here's how I'm going to stick it to those dirty liberals: see, I've got this clip that paints this nice black lady Democrat as a nasty racist. It doesn't, actually, but that's why this is so brilliant! See, those dirty liberals, they'll think she said what it very much looks like I'll make it look like she said, and I'll prove how dumb they are! Bwahahhaaha!"

Did he do that, Dan? Anything like that? Now I know you've got this thing where man, far left liberals sure are awful and we need to talk about it. But setting aside how common a problem that is, Breitbart ain't your guy. He was a sleazy, scummy journalist and you cheapen yourself by admiring him. I really do mean that with regret, because I think you're a savvier person than that-you should drop him. Even though he's dead, it's not too late!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I posted what I thought was a rather measured Breitbart response on Facebook

(I can't say I'm sad that Breitbart is dead, but I'm also not thrilled.

I think he was a destructive force for our democracy, but I'm not going to celebrate the death of a devoted father and husband - he was still a human being. People out there saying "so long" and "good riddance" should relocate their scorn and find their humanity. There are more constructive ways to be angry.)

and got the following response from one of my Conservative friends:

quote:
I take offense to the "destructive force to democracy" thing. I don't think that raising questions and presenting another side does that, in fact quite the opposite. Have you ever listened to anything he said? Cause he is about tolerance and not hate. Just cause he questioned the left does not mean he is horrible. If Rachel maddow died I would never say that she was destructive and things like that. His message will live on mainly because the left is all about hate as typified by his death. The things people have said are terrible.

I may disagree with pundits and commentators on the left and hate what they say as Americans so I respect their first amendment rights. I appreciate the fact that you're not joining in on that, but show some decorum and don't rip the man on the day he died.

His message of tolerance will live on. Ironic cause the left is viewed as tolerant, but all they spew is hate--just cause he questioned OWS people called him a homo, a racist, a biggot, a nazi, a freak, and so much more. That doesn't sound tolerant to me. I am sick of it, so stop. His message of tolerance and exposing the left will live on, thousands more me included will take it up

Not sure what to do with that. Usually I have a list of evidence in my back pocket to deal with stuff like this, but Breitbart isn't someone I've ever really paid a lot of attention to. I know enough to know he wasn't my cup of tea, but not enough to have cataloged all his faults. He never really struck me as a particularly tolerant individual though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
1: In keeping with my general approach of don't impute lies and nefarious motivations to people without compelling evidence, I assume Breitbart was correct when he stated that the shorter clip was the only thing his source gave him at the time.
Did he cleave to this 'benefit of the doubt' philosophy in his reporting, Dan?
Heh!

Nope. But then, few do. Imputing hidden agendas to political opposition is a mainstay of both the left and the right. What can I say? Bad approaches to arguing, criticism, and epistemology in general are pretty common. If I "dumped" everyone guilty of bad epistemology, I wouldn't have many people left to talk to/about.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
3: He characterized Sherrod's position as one tainted with "the prism of race and class distinctions." Even with the full video, frankly I agree with his characterization. The moral of the story, as I saw it in the full speech, was that racial distinctions are less important than class distinctions (so a poor white guy does deserve help after all, because he's still a poor guy).
Are you suggesting the moral of Breitbart's (deceptive and/or poorly researched) story was to highlight class distinctions?
I'm just quoting what he said when he first posted the Sherrod video, man. So yeah, I think that it was one of the things he was commenting on.

Conservatives constantly criticize the left for engaging in "class warfare" rhetoric. Why is this so shocking to you?

But I agree this was secondary. His critique of the NAACP as a whole had primacy, as I recall.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
4: Most of the accusations of smears and so on came from people who basically themselves felt duped because they jumped the gun and leapt to vilify a woman based on an obvious excerpt from a speech. Seemed to me at the time (and still does in retrospect) that they were in large part overcompensating for their hasty reactions, and blaming their bad judgment on Breitbart. Yawn.
Suppose for the sake of argument you're right: it was a mistake that occurred without spite or malice on Breitbart's part. How on Earth do words like hasty, bad judgment, villification, apply to them (and they do), but not to Breitbart himself?

Surely then at best, by your own words, he was a 'journalist' who was willing-eager, even-to vilify based on hasty bad judgment. If the label applies to them, it applies to him, unless he is going to claim that was all part of his plan-and be able to substantiate it-from the beginning.*

Given that, if he's a journalist, he cannot be hasty with poor judgment and be called honest. Not in this fashion. He had a chance, if he were interested, in getting the truth. He didn't. Shocker!

*"Ok, here's how I'm going to stick it to those dirty liberals: see, I've got this clip that paints this nice black lady Democrat as a nasty racist. It doesn't, actually, but that's why this is so brilliant! See, those dirty liberals, they'll think she said what it very much looks like I'll make it look like she said, and I'll prove how dumb they are! Bwahahhaaha!"

Did he do that, Dan? Anything like that?

Again, in his very first statement he was indicting the audience of NAACP members as much as he was Sherrod. Furthermore, once again, having watched the entire video, I really don't agree that Sherrod isn't racist. I think she's less racist than she is classist, and that's what her speech was supposed to be about. But that's not the same thing at all. And it doesn't excuse the audience from responding so positively to her telling them about her previous racism!

The "hasty" people I'm referring to aren't the media, really. I expect media to report on things when they have info, especially if the info they have seems to tell a story they want to tell.

The people I was saying jumped the gun and then wanted someone to blame are more the Administration and the NAACP, both of which were very quick to condemn her and force her resignation.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Now I know you've got this thing where man, far left liberals sure are awful and we need to talk about it.

Man, they sure are. Glad we're on the same page here, at least. [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
But setting aside how common a problem that is, Breitbart ain't your guy. He was a sleazy, scummy journalist and you cheapen yourself by admiring him. I really do mean that with regret, because I think you're a savvier person than that-you should drop him. Even though he's dead, it's not too late!

This is interesting. I didn't really see Breitbart as much of a journalist. I think he was an attack dog who worried at the heel of leftist media outlets and leftist policy organizations. The scandals he broke had more to do with that goal than actual news stories.

I saw him sort of as a conservative Jon Stewart: Occasionally he'd actually break some sort of news story, but most of his time and resources were devoted to criticizing mainstream media outlets.

Again, does that make him a hero or something? No. But I don't think he was as much a sleazeball as you see him as, Rakeesh.

But hey, man, you know I love arguing about this sort of thing. I hope you also know I'll listen to your next response honestly.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I posted what I thought was a rather measured Breitbart response on Facebook

(I can't say I'm sad that Breitbart is dead, but I'm also not thrilled.

I think he was a destructive force for our democracy, but I'm not going to celebrate the death of a devoted father and husband - he was still a human being. People out there saying "so long" and "good riddance" should relocate their scorn and find their humanity. There are more constructive ways to be angry.)

and got the following response from one of my Conservative friends:

quote:
I take offense to the "destructive force to democracy" thing. I don't think that raising questions and presenting another side does that, in fact quite the opposite. Have you ever listened to anything he said? Cause he is about tolerance and not hate. Just cause he questioned the left does not mean he is horrible. If Rachel maddow died I would never say that she was destructive and things like that. His message will live on mainly because the left is all about hate as typified by his death. The things people have said are terrible.

I may disagree with pundits and commentators on the left and hate what they say as Americans so I respect their first amendment rights. I appreciate the fact that you're not joining in on that, but show some decorum and don't rip the man on the day he died.

His message of tolerance will live on. Ironic cause the left is viewed as tolerant, but all they spew is hate--just cause he questioned OWS people called him a homo, a racist, a biggot, a nazi, a freak, and so much more. That doesn't sound tolerant to me. I am sick of it, so stop. His message of tolerance and exposing the left will live on, thousands more me included will take it up

Not sure what to do with that. Usually I have a list of evidence in my back pocket to deal with stuff like this, but Breitbart isn't someone I've ever really paid a lot of attention to. I know enough to know he wasn't my cup of tea, but not enough to have cataloged all his faults. He never really struck me as a particularly tolerant individual though.
Honestly, Lyr, I think your best defense is going to be pointing out that Breitbart himself did not believe in according someone special decorum simply because they'd died, as evidenced by his comments when Ted Kennedy passed away.

So, whether he agreed with you or not, he wouldn't have minded you criticizing him on his death-day.

That meets the criticism on its own terms and avoids the need for you to research a guy who bores you. [Smile]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, what can you say? When saying anything, with any truth value, up to and including outright lying is now apparently *always* caught under the umbrella of "presenting another side," there are apparently no villains left at all. Except for the ones you don't agree with-- they are liars.

This "other side" business bothers me. I can tell when I'm being lied to. I don't let anyone lie to me if I can help it. I don't let democrats lie to me, and I don't let Republicans lie to me. To me, really, that's it. The fact that I don't agree with an opinion is one thing entirely. The idea that I should countenance a *lie* because I don't agree with the person saying it, and so am biased, is strange. I think I would be more likely to accept that I'm being lied to by someone I trust- I can assume perhaps that there is some purpose for good, or some purpose I would agree with, behind the lie. A lie from someone I don't agree with? That seems different.

I mean, like, I agree with most of Obama's foreign policy. Thing is he has lied about a few things. Well, I guess I understand why, but I know I'm being lied to. And those are two different things: whether you forgive a lie or have some amount of sympathy, you can still often tell when someone is lying. Cant we just be honest? Can't we all just be interested in the truth? Just hold your hand up and say, "no, really, I don't believe you."

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Lyrhawn: What others said, Breitbart had no problem with haranguing other people when they died. Also, how about pointing out that Breitbart intentionally doctored video so as to mislead viewers into believing an employee of the federal government was racist against white farmers, which lead to her being fired.

He didn't just ask questions, he tried to create questions and doubt that needed not exist, just so that the government would be inhibited.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Equivalence arguments as a response to Breitbart's strategy and attack-dog distortions aren't really going to go far, but they are telling.

quote:
Nope. But then, few do. Imputing hidden agendas to political opposition is a mainstay of both the left and the right. What can I say? Bad approaches to arguing, criticism, and epistemology in general are pretty common. If I "dumped" everyone guilty of bad epistemology, I wouldn't have many people left to talk to/about.
Whereas if you dumped those of Breitbart's angry, distorting, rumor-mongering and scare-mongering caliber, you would only be out Breitbart alongside a few other just as easily unmissed slanderers.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Sam, I know one of your favorite things in the world is to accuse people of making false equivalence arguments, but even a cursory reading of the actual context of what I said shows that's not really what I was doing. I was not drawing any sort of broad equivalence of tactics in general to defend Breitbart. It was a very, very specific claim. Shall we analyze it?

The only place where I drew attention to any form of equivalence was when I mentioned that I don't like to assume people are lying and hiding secret motives without really compelling evidence. And then I said that this is something both the right and the left do. You absolutely are a sharp enough guy to have noticed this.

Is this a false equivalence? I dunno, I think that you and most Hatrackers are fairly reasonable folks, as far as lefties go. And yet this is phenomena is, explicitly, no exaggeration, a thing you and lots of other people are doing in this very thread! You have zero evidence he was lying when he said he got the clip already edited. I understand that you don't believe him! And that's fine! You don't have to believe him.

But if assigning motives to other people is truly sufficient reason, by itself, to "drop someone" (which is what I was saying in the bit you quoted) then clearly we can't be friends anymore. [Frown]

No worries though. I said it was a mainstay on both sides, because it freaking is. Very, very few people on either side are willing to simply take what the other side says at face value and address it on its own terms. Do you want me to find all the times various people (including you) refuse to do this? I don't have to go far... only as far as the Homophobe thread, really.

Again, I think it's a lousy tactic for arguing or discussing, but it's hardly a dealbreaker. Heck, I'm 99% sure you fundamentally disagree with me that it is even a bad tactic! I think you do it knowingly, intentionally, because you think it's important.

Anyway, I'm perfectly open to being convinced Breitbart really was a sleazy slanderer. But trying to convince me that the fact that he often assumed his opponents were intentionally disingenuous lying sleazeballs proves he himself was a sleazeball isn't cutting it.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No worries though. I said it was a mainstay on both sides, because it freaking is. Very, very few people on either side are willing to simply take what the other side says at face value and address it on its own terms. Do you want me to find all the times various people (including you) refuse to do this? I don't have to go far... only as far as the Homophobe thread, really.
This is true. But when it comes to the two parties, right now? Just because both sides do it is not evidence that they both do so to the same general extent. You're welcome to challenge this by finding a democratic liberal attack dog who is as widely revered (even before his death, after which he apparently became Captain America) and respected by so many on the left. Obviously this sort of thing can't be measured precisely, so I'll settle for even someone in the ballpark.

(As for comparing him to Stewart-really, man? While I grant freely he's no journalist, and will seize frequent issues and worry the right, more often, with them, how does he compare at all in hostility and aggressiveness? Love to see, for example, where he gloried in someone's death openly.)

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Bin laden's death he did.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
He is not an right wing Stewart, Jon is honest and courteous and always willing to let the other side defend themselves on his show and openly with no hidden agenda.

Conservatives defend Andrew b. Under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Because under us constitution lying is speech, and protected. Much of modern political conservatism would collapse if lying was not allowed like in Canada.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
No worries though. I said it was a mainstay on both sides, because it freaking is. Very, very few people on either side are willing to simply take what the other side says at face value and address it on its own terms. Do you want me to find all the times various people (including you) refuse to do this? I don't have to go far... only as far as the Homophobe thread, really.
This is true. But when it comes to the two parties, right now? Just because both sides do it is not evidence that they both do so to the same general extent. You're welcome to challenge this by finding a democratic liberal attack dog who is as widely revered (even before his death, after which he apparently became Captain America) and respected by so many on the left. Obviously this sort of thing can't be measured precisely, so I'll settle for even someone in the ballpark.
So, again, the only equivalence I am drawing is in the very specific arena of "assuming the opposition is lying about their motives for X piece of their agenda."

You don't need to be an attack dog to do this.

Any time someone on the left characterizes the right as only caring about the rich, or claims they are racists or homophobes, they are doing this. Any time someone on the right claims that the left is pushing wealth redistribution because it lets them buy the votes of the poor, or that they are implementing bad economic policies because they want our country to fail, they are doing this.

I picked really egregious examples, but there are many, many more. This attitude stems from the fact that most people who believe something think that the truth is easy to understand, and that they understand it. Therefore, anyone who is reasonably intelligent and well informed who disagrees must not be telling the truth. They must disagree for X ulterior reason.

The reality, I think, is that truth is actually extremely elusive, and it's quite easy for two (or ten!) intelligent, well-informed people to have wildly different opinions. But then if you fail to convince someone that means your argument may not be as strong and persuasive as you thought. That hurts, so it's much easier to just assume that they understood your argument but it's in their interest to support the opposing side.

Anyway, setting aside my tangent, I'll just reiterate again that I'm not specifically saying I think there are just as many or just as vicious attack dogs on the left (there may be, I'm not really trying very hard to think of 'em right now, because it's not my point).

I'm just saying that the particular tactic Breitbart and I differ on, that of imparting motives to your intellectual enemies, is one that the vast majority of the country also disagrees with me on. So it's not a compelling reason to disavow any appreciation for Breitbart. There may be others, but this ain't it.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
(As for comparing him to Stewart-really, man? While I grant freely he's no journalist, and will seize frequent issues and worry the right, more often, with them, how does he compare at all in hostility and aggressiveness? Love to see, for example, where he gloried in someone's death openly.)

This is fair. Although I think that hostility comes in many forms, and sneering contempt isn't really that much better than frothing contempt, Stewart definitely doesn't get quite as worked up over it as Breitbart did.

But Stewart has some hot button issues, usually relating to the media (Fox in particular). Do you agree on that? Whether he ranted about it or not, his contempt for fox is, I think, pretty well known.

And in fairness to Breitbart, he was not an all-purpose right-wing attack dog either. He almost never attacked people on policy issues, or even made his opinion on most policy known. Was he pro-life? Pro-gay marriage? Pro-war? Anti-taxation? Without looking it up, how many answers to those questions do you know? I only know a couple, and I've seen quite a few interviews with the guy. Even if he came down on the conservative side in every issue, the fact is that the issues were not actually what interested him.

He, like Stewart, had a serious axe to grind against the media. His hot button issues were things like how the tea party was covered vs. left-wing protests, and how scandals against left-wing figures were covered, and so on.

But yeah, again, I'll absolutely grant you that he was much more fiery than Stewart. I'm not necessarily sure that's a bad thing, given what his goals were, but it bears consideration.

There are probably better people to compare him to. He apparently once said he was like a conservative Abbie Hoffman, which... depresses me, a little. Shrug.

I don't have a punchy ending to this post.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Much of modern political conservatism would collapse if lying was not allowed like in Canada.

Yeah, if only the government could arrest people it claims are lying, then America would be a much better place!

Edit: And you wonder why you have a reputation for being in favor of totalitarianism?

[ March 02, 2012, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Comparing Stewart to Breitbart is like trying to compare Hitler to Obama.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Blayne, that's really, really insulting.

Jon Stewart is Jewish, so it's especially despicable that you would compare him to Hitler.

Plus Breitbart's only superficially like Obama, they actually disagree in some key areas.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
I can get how one could convince themselves that breitbart wasn't a serial distorter. Its a little silly to try to excuse BG's lies and distortions in things like the Sherrod case, but I can understand how one gets there. But convincing yourself that breitbart wasn't hateful? The guy obsessively insulted and slandered people constantly. His twitter feed was a constant barrage of feuding, belittling, and treating people like garbage. The notion that he wasn't a particularly hateful person is just amazing.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Blayne, that's really, really insulting.

Jon Stewart is Jewish, so it's especially despicable that you would compare him to Hitler.

Plus Breitbart's only superficially like Obama, they actually disagree in some key areas.

Lol.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Sam, I know one of your favorite things in the world is to accuse people of making false equivalence arguments, but even a cursory reading of the actual context of what I said shows that's not really what I was doing. I was not drawing any sort of broad equivalence of tactics in general to defend Breitbart. It was a very, very specific claim.

It is broader than I suspect you intended. Saying that he's essentially a jon stewart of the right, or that we essentially have to judge him within the context of each side having agenda-guessing as a mainstay anyway, these are all what I'm talking about. When you analyze it, there is no presence as corrosive as Breitbart as prevalent on the left. People tried to say the same of Coulter and Malkin back when they were wave-makers. Or of Beck. Nor, if there were, would it matter a whit to whether or not what they were doing was ultimately a bad thing.

quote:
Anyway, I'm perfectly open to being convinced Breitbart really was a sleazy slanderer. But trying to convince me that the fact that he often assumed his opponents were intentionally disingenuous lying sleazeballs proves he himself was a sleazeball isn't cutting it.
Am I doing that?

[ March 02, 2012, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Anyway, I'm perfectly open to being convinced Breitbart really was a sleazy slanderer. But trying to convince me that the fact that he often assumed his opponents were intentionally disingenuous lying sleazeballs proves he himself was a sleazeball isn't cutting it.
Am I doing that?
You were!

You have this tendency to snag something I say and then strip it of context and try to argue with something it wasn't saying. So, let's recap.

Here's where I drew the "equivalence." Rakeesh was looking at 4 reasons why I don't buy into the idea that the Sherrod situation is demonstrative of Breitbart's evilness. So, these 4 reasons weren't even general defenses of the man, they were particular to the Sherrod incident. And he took one of those reasons in particular, quoted it, and responded. Let's take a look, I'll roll the clip.

quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
1: In keeping with my general approach of don't impute lies and nefarious motivations to people without compelling evidence, I assume Breitbart was correct when he stated that the shorter clip was the only thing his source gave him at the time.
Did he cleave to this 'benefit of the doubt' philosophy in his reporting, Dan?
Heh!

Nope. But then, few do. Imputing hidden agendas to political opposition is a mainstay of both the left and the right. What can I say? Bad approaches to arguing, criticism, and epistemology in general are pretty common. If I "dumped" everyone guilty of bad epistemology, I wouldn't have many people left to talk to/about.

See? I was specifically saying that I don't like to assume Breitbart is lying when he says he got the clip pre-edited. Rakeesh tried to be tricksy and point out that Breitbart does not practice the same restraint I do. But almost nobody does! So what? It's a non-sequitur from my original point. And my observation that very few people do this isn't remotely a core defense of Breitbart or anything, it was simply a rebuttal of Rakeesh's comment.

Cue Samp Rimary!

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Equivalence arguments as a response to Breitbart's strategy and attack-dog distortions aren't really going to go far, but they are telling.

quote:
Nope. But then, few do. Imputing hidden agendas to political opposition is a mainstay of both the left and the right. What can I say? Bad approaches to arguing, criticism, and epistemology in general are pretty common. If I "dumped" everyone guilty of bad epistemology, I wouldn't have many people left to talk to/about.
Whereas if you dumped those of Breitbart's angry, distorting, rumor-mongering and scare-mongering caliber, you would only be out Breitbart alongside a few other just as easily unmissed slanderers.
Here you take just the rebuttal of Rakeesh's very specific comment (that Breitbart assumed his opponents were sleazy liars, and therefore I should not like him because I personally don't like assuming my opponents are sleazy liars), then you strip it of context, and respond as though it was a core defense of the man, and a false equivalence to boot. No dice!

If the main thrust of your comment about equivalence was not pertaining to the line of mine you quoted, then perhaps you shouldn't have quoted it. For example, now that you've said so, I see you're taking my comment about Stewart as a false equivalence. That's interesting! I can see why you'd think that, and I'll come back later and address whether I think you're right or not.

But this is a new development you've added. Your original assertion was specific (or it appeared to be), and it was wrong.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Matt Taibbi posted:
But I guess no homage is complete without a celebration of the whole man, and the whole man in this case was not just a guy who once said, “It’s all about a good laugh,” but also someone who liked to publish peoples’ personal information on the internet, hack into private web sites, tell lies in an attempt to get his enemies fired, and incite readers to threats against his targets and their families, including death threats. I left all of that stuff out of my obit, but now, thanks to you readers, that’s all in there as well, leaving, for posterity, a much more complete picture of the man.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301#ixzz1o12r71kH


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the main thrust of your comment about equivalence was not pertaining to the line of mine you quoted, then perhaps you shouldn't have quoted it.
Responses to quotes come after the quote. The comment on equivalence is before the quote. The part I quoted was to make a different comment, which promptly follows and is self-contained.

quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Anyway, I'm perfectly open to being convinced Breitbart really was a sleazy slanderer. But trying to convince me that the fact that he often assumed his opponents were intentionally disingenuous lying sleazeballs proves he himself was a sleazeball isn't cutting it.
Am I doing that?
You were!
You're not showing a point where I'm using the logic

1. breitbart often assumed his opponents were intentionally disingenuous lying sleazeballs, ergo
2. this proves he is a sleazeball

I'm not doing that. It's far from anything I've said.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
If the main thrust of your comment about equivalence was not pertaining to the line of mine you quoted, then perhaps you shouldn't have quoted it.
Responses to quotes come after the quote. The comment on equivalence is before the quote. The part I quoted was to make a different comment, which promptly follows and is self-contained.
Good point!

Both of your comments seemed related to me, so I misinterpreted. [Smile]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's a different question, then: why on Earth would you give the benefit of the doubt-assume integrity and fairness until given a reason not to-to man who almost by default didn't do so to his own huge list of enemies? Doesn't that striking example of full-blooded bias really really strongly point to the question, "Huh...maybe I shouldn't trust the rabid attack dog when he tells me that cat was coming right for him."

Unless, and this goes back frankly to the way these discussions often go, there's a part of you that wants to believe in his attacks, that hears a, being very charitable here, deeply sloppy reporting on Sherrod and thinks not, "Well this guy is a schmuck-I dont think he's lying, but I can't trust him to tell the straight story," but instead thinks, "It's not so important how slipshod his reporting was-lookit how relevant his points were!"

Well, no in fact! If I lie to you and say, "Hey, Dan, it's 3:10am EST as I type this, and hey, them Jews, amirite?!" it's perfectly safe to say, "Ok, Jeff was right about what time it is, but otherwise he's a frothing nutbag!" I'm not a good guy who makes points worth listening to because I got something easy right-too much classism mixed in with racism in our country, whew! Didn't know that!

Of course, it's an additional irony that such a partisan for the right as Breitbart would lecture on the perils of classism and racism. Reminds me distinctly of Beck telling us what Dr. King was really all about.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't CARE is that clip is all his "sources" gave him. He claimed to be a journalist, so his RESPONSIBILITY was to make sure that what he was reporting is the truth, or as close to it as he can get.


He didn't. On a regular basis.


I am glad that his voice, such as it was, is out of public discourse at this point. But I am sorry it took his death to achieve that.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, because whatever he was to the world, to those kids he was daddy.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BBegley
Member
Member # 12638

 - posted      Profile for BBegley   Email BBegley         Edit/Delete Post 
Coates at the Atlantic says it with more class or elegance than I'm capable of mustering, and since he's always worth reading anyway, here's the link:

Coates on Breitbart

Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Well put, Bbegley. Several of Breitbart's claims about his motives and actions simply strain credulity individually, and are at best individually flat-out examples of truly awfully bad reporting.

Taken together? As much as one might think it's really important to remind us that liberals are bad, too, well...an agenda is necessary to take Breitbart at face value on the whole affair.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2