From iGeek
(Redirected from Category:Breitbart)
Jump to: navigation, search
Breitbart News.svg
File:Breitbart News.svg

Breitbart news is the CNN, or MSNBC of the right -- if CNN/MSNBC were websites that did more news and less opinion. (Far more a News site than HuffPo). Breitbart was founded by Andrew Breitbart (Jew) to rebut the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel agenda in the mainstream media, which it does well, and it was staffed with an over-representation of Jewish folks. They get painted as a far right site, and they are open about their conservative slant, but their whole purpose is to debunk the regular left leaning slant in most of the rest of the media.


5 items

  • Steve Bannon -
    If you believe the left, Steve Bannon is a homophobic, racist, anti-semite, xenophobe. Or an accomplished naval officer, with two Masters Degrees, an investment banking background, an unapologetic pro-Israel and pro-liberty CEO of (if you believe the facts). I have found no evidence of the former, though there's certainly more complexity and some things to not love about his political positions. So there's the caricature I usually hear on the likes of NPR or in most of the media... but then places like The Boston Globe did a shockingly fair piece on him. I have never gotten an answer why a racist, anti-semite would have been the editor for Breitbart: founded by Andrew (a Jew) to rebut the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel agenda in the mainstream media. Or why many Jews on staff would defend such an imagined bigot. But when it comes to hating right wingers, things don't need to make sense for the left.
  • Milo Yiannopoulos -
    Milo Yiannopoulos is a flamboyant gay conservative tech-journalist, entrepreneur, public speaker (whose Dad is Jewish), with a penchant for Black partners. The left calls him a racist, homophobic anti-semite hate-monger, based on his pet causes and perpetual attacks against: political correctness, fascist-feminism, and Social Justice Warriors attacks on him, free speech, and anyone that doesn't agree with them.
  • Alt-right -
    While many people don’t know what the term Alt-Right really means, if they’re getting their cues from the mainstream media, they think it's a formal group or caucus that's the Nazi/Racist wing of the Republican party. Though I'm not sure how they can tell that for the normal Republicans, since that's how they're presented as well. But the term "Alt-right" is highly overloaded, and means different things depending on who was saying it and the context and time it was said.
  • 2019.02.18 Laura Logan - CBS's Foreign Correspondent (Laura Logan) admitted that she might be committing political suicide by admitting the political truth (something frowned on at CBS), that the media is widely far-left leaning and under-represents the other side of stories. According to her, you have to actively seek out Breitbart or FoxNews to get a balance and understand both sides of a topic. This is no shock to conservatives or the informed -- the left will now seek to get her fired for telling that obvious truth.
  • 2018.10.03 Breitbart Blacklisted by Wikipedia - You don't have to like Breitbart, to admit that it's a news source that's broken some pretty good scoops, and done some serious investigative journalism. They of course have an obvious bias, but so do all the others. Banning Breitbart as a trusted news source, without being able to site examples of why or what standard they broke that others they tolerate hasn't as well, is pure leftist politics. It's like Joseph Stalin purging figures of people he didn't like from Soviet history. At least while still allowing partisan sources such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, NYT, WaPo and HuffPo. Pick a standard, and ban everyone based on that. But you don't get to have arbitrary standards. So the fact that the latter is blanket allowed, and the former is not, is not a reflection on Breitbart's bias but on Wikipedia's.


I would tell anyone to not trust ANY website or news source. Always question, or leave room for doubt. Breitbart is no exception to the rule. But what I like about them is they break news that the other left wing sites suppress, they backup their material more (because they are being held to a higher standard for being right wing), they are open about their biases unlike CNN, NYT or WaPo that likes to pretend they're not biased (while obviously failing). That being said, they have made mistakes -- and corrected them. Most of the hand waiving about errors turns out to pretty pedantic shit, once you look into it. (Where they were materially correct).

The biggest gotcha the left has, is that they said they weren't going to allow a platform for the alt-right, long before the alt-right was established into what it later coalesced into. Ah ha! Gotcha. That's like saying that CNN was completely behind Antifa, BLM, SPLC or Jussie Smollett, before they were exposed as hate groups. It might not show great judgement as they should have known what they would devolve into -- but it's a tad unfair to misrepresent it based on what they knew at the time.


📚 References