But I have a question for Andrew Breitbart. If control of the American media is what matters most, if it is the main factor in deciding presidential elections, and controlling the media narrative through some means other than argument is the key to conservative success in the future, how do you explain 1980, 1984, and 2008? How is it that Ronald Reagan won the presidency and positively cruised to re-election, even though Rush Limbaugh was working for the Kansas City Royals at the time, cable news didn't exist, there was no Drudge Report or blogosphere, and all three news networks took their cues from the front page of The New York Times?We must disagree w/ the last clause above. Friedersdorf understands Breitbart's crap well enough, but his grasp of politics in the days before he was born or weaned is a little shaky.
And then in 2008, when conservative media was reaching more people and making more money than ever before, the radio waves filled with Rush Limbaugh imitators, right-wing books topping the bestseller lists, Fox News the most popular cable news network in America, Red State up and running at full tilt... how is it that Barack Obama won? It's almost as if the success of conservative media outlets and ideological entertainment isn't the basic driver of American politics. And that, as it's presented in Chapter One, the core worldview of Andrew Breitbart is easily refuted, bombastically phrased nonsense.Take that Andy, you big stupid jerk.
Entire item.
8 comments:
I'm not sure he gets it now, either.
The NYT, The Washington Poop, etc...they're all in it now for the power of money.
And that's why Obama won.
Shorter: If Obama was a white Republican, Breitbart's minions would have no problem with his policies.
~
Security Editor Shouts:
Hey, how'd the guy w/ the "~" ("Ed?" Yeah, right.) get in here?
They had no problem when Bush was playing the role. That's why casting is so important to successful films.
Young Conor will eventually be shocked when he discovers that ideology is bull & power is all that matters to whoever his heroes are.
Don't listen to that guy, Ed.
He's a horse of a different color.
~
Friedersdorf may get Breitbart (though this claim is undermined by wondering why anyone thinks a one-chapter excerpt from a book by the latter deserves a two-chapter-length review) but, as is so often the case with him, his unbearable urge to be Fair™ to Both Sides™ shows he doesn't get a whole lot else.
For example:
What I find strange is that lots of people on the right - almost the entire staff of National Review and all of Reason, for example - passionately believe that engaging in reasoned argument is a crucial aspect of opposing progressivism. In other words, that reasoned debate does matter.
He actually typed that.
And it gets worse, right away:
But these magazines are basically friendly to Breitbart, and never seem to object when he operates as if the contrary is true.
Try to imagine the naivety it takes to say those things with a straight face. It's a miracle he's still walking around. Maybe his parents pay to have him tailed by bodyguards.
Bonus Breitbart:
"I'm serious!" he screamed. "Go to hell! You're trying to divide America!"
(source | via)
Sloth Editor:
Yet that side was happy as pigs in shit about BB telling people where to go.
We'll admit to glossing (or our eyes glazing) over CF's "everybody does it" bit (Thinking this is something built in to reactionary/glibertarian typing software: Even if the GOP's presidential nominee is caught w/ a half-eaten kitten hanging from his bloody mouth, & some faint-hearted condemnations must be issued, it is always necessary to be fair & balanced.) because BB fascinates us w/ his policy-free bitching/projection about the evil viciousness of The Left (& the provoking, too) & the Friedersdorf bits we posted did a better job than we're prepared to do breaking Breitbart down.
And it burns us to link/quote the little bastard, as he was mean to all at Fire Megan McArdle.
However, we are a bigger editor than that, & will not let childishness on his part keep us from admitting he's right when he agrees w/ us.
Yep, that Conor is a touchy one all right. Wonder if it's a consequence of being squish for a job, and a Serious one, at that. The pressure build-up must be something.
Post a Comment