Two Fish, One Barrel: Deconstructing Andrew Sullivan’s ‘The Breitbart Standard,’ Demolishing Conor Friedersdorf’s ‘The Right’s Lesser Media’
by Andrew BreitbartTo which I respond to my unofficial biographer Conor Friedersdorf’s Daily Beast criticism of your’s truly and bigger fish Andrew Sullivan’s two-thumbs-up to it:
Andrew Sullivan (left) and Conor Friedersdorf
In the piece you link to and affirm in the Daily Beast, “The Right’s Lesser Press,” Conor Friedersdorf refuses to interview me as he continues to be my unofficial biographer. (I’m VERY reachable, Conor.) He writes opinion pieces on me purporting to be journalism. He doesn’t quote or cite me, he simply assumes and pushes the point of view he thinks I have and makes an argument based on these alleged positions. It’s sloppy and you, of all people, should know better.
Breitbart.com is MOSTLY a news aggregator. It carries the Associated Press, Reuters, even, Agence France Presse, from those dreaded croissant eaters!!!
It even carries the New York Times on its front page — a benefit that even Big Government and Big Hollywood don’t receive.
Big Hollywood is what it is: a counter-voice to the virtually monolithic Hollywood left. How dare I grant a platform, and a means for the defense of those in Hollywood who would dare go against the strident and intolerant Hollywood left.
Big Government, too, is providing an outlet for voices and ideas that are not proportionally represented in the traditional and mostly biased mainstream media.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
54 Comments
fighting the good fight, he is…
Mr Breitbart has, in the course of two short years revamped and rejuvenated the corridors of communication. It is now the Left that is on the defensive, and issuing their predictable ad hominem attacks on the lad. He seems to be handling it quite well, as his latest pursuits (BigGovernment) undoubtedly show.
Not too bad for a former pizza delivery man, eh?
Keep on being awesome. The way of the left isn't to present facts as a counter-argument, it's to try and shoot the messenger.
Boy, I read the links. You really have their panties in a bunch. Keep it up!
Andrew: You are admired by so many Americans! The goofballs that wrote about you are totally jealous! Keep up the good work. Much love from a member of the vast right wing conspiracy in Texas.
Keep up the great work. Truth matters very little to Liberals. We need sites like Breibart to balance the garbage and act as the advesary to Gov't the press is supposed to be.
Andrew – you, along with talk radio, are essentially the only voice "we" have.
Granted, Fox News definitely has conservative tendencies – - but you have given us a voice and a forum online, something to compete with the myriad choices given the left.
Thank you, Andrew. You have made a ginormous (it's a technical term) positive impact on this country.
Mr. Breitbart,
Keep up the heat – Many of us had no where else to be heard in hollyweird. Also, you report "real" news – unheard of in the yellow journalism media these days. You are not in step with those a** kissers or their inane agendas. Refreshing . Thank you. I I wish you nothing but more success as you school these so called journalists.
Mr Breitbart you have drawn such ire only because you are effective. If all your efforts were only read or heard by the lunatic fringe then the need to attack you would not exist. There is an old quote somewhere that relates you can judge a man by his enemies and by that standard you are way ahead. Keep up the good work. The attacks will continue but remember who is doing the attacking.
The bottom of the progressive barrel is getting shiny in the search for credible and integrity-minded journalists. Better luck next time, funny boys.
Connor… Sully…. What is that smell?
Wait, I recognize it now: FEAR.
Andrew Breitbart is not only a very nice and approachable guy, he's also easily reachable for a major media player and has no desire to avoid your tough questions. Call him and I guarantee you'll talk to him.
Heck, for a while there his Blackberry used to call *me* — I think I still have the message in my voice mail of Andrew driving around L.A. with guest not knowing his speed dial connected to my phone and could hear him talking about a trip to San Diego.
I'll address the elephant in the room: "Who's Conor Friedersdorf?"
So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o Conor… Sully…. What is that smell?
Wait, I recognize it now: FEAR.
Andrew Breitbart is not only a very nice and approachable guy, he's also easily reachable for a major media player and has no desire to avoid your tough questions. Call him and I guarantee you'll talk to him.
Heck, for a while there his Blackberry used to call *me* — I think that stopped because he got an iPhone.
First, innuendo: Breitbart on Fox News & Hannity, as if that somehow invalidates Brietbart. Then suggest that Fox News does what Mr. Brietbart shows theTimes doing…cherry picking the news idealogocically. Interesting to ask, "What specifically did Fox not cover?" The answer would be, "I dont know I don't listen to Fox News, but I believe it's biased". On the one hand, we have John McCain's affair, the ignoring of Tea Parties, Van Jones, the Corruption of Acorn, the abuse of the NEA. On the other hand, we have indignation based upon assumed equivalence.
It is this inablity to ignore specific fact and base opinion on assumption and emotion that defines the left.
Mr. Breitbart,
I've responded at length to your post here: http://theamericanscene.com/2009/10/06/responding...
I am particularly surprised that you imagine that I am criticizing you out of pique at the success of the ACORN and NEA stories — in fact, I have repeatedly written pieces for publication that laud the ACORN stories and criticize the NEA for engaging in inappropriate behavior.
It is also grating that you claim I do not quote you in any of the pieces I've written. In fact, if you go to the pieces, you'll see that I've quoted you at length in all but one of the pieces I've written.
Finally, I think if you review your e-mail records you'll see that I did, in fact, request an interview prior to publishing the major story I did that mentioned you.
Should I ever write about you in the future, I will certainly e-mail you beforehand, or contact you any other way you'd like.
And if you are game for it, the Daily Beast seems willing to host a back and forth about our varying takes on journalism left, right, and center. I am game if you are.
Best,
Conor Friedersdorf
AlistZ,
You ask, "What specifically did Fox not cover?"
One answer is the grassroots opposition to immigration reform during the Bush Administration's second term. Mickey Kaus posted at the time about the weird silence emanating from the network. Another answer is the abuses of national security laws that have now presumably gone on under two administrations. The libertarian blogger Julian Sanchez does a pretty fair job showing the quality of Fox News reporting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAlcPH9KcxM&fe...
To be fair, all TV news is awful because all networks employ pretty talking heads who can read teleprompters well rather than talented reporters. Such is life.
Breitbart's domains/subdomains are pulling in millions of unique visitors… the site that you are on–even with financing and support from the world's top publishing bigshots–struggles to barely pull in half that number.
Please explain the benefit of having the tiny blog with a minimal audience you work for host the "back and forth" rather than having this discussion right now on the website Andrew made into a top web destination that reaches far more people.
Are you serious? Fox certainly covered the resistance to immigration reform issue, stem to stern. I recall many discussion/debates between people like Tom Tancredo and various immigration proponents. And to what "abuses of national security laws" do you refer? Posting a link to some overly-edited YouTube clip really doesn't cut it.
Given your reply, I'm starting to wonder why Andrew took the time to reply to someone of your insignificance.
Breitbart's domains/subdomains are pulling in millions of unique visitors… the site that you are on–even with financing and support from the world's top publishing bigshots–struggles to barely pull in half that number.
Without resorting to the stereotypical haughty and ridiculous assertions of bias or that your bosses are only concerned with "real journalism," please explain the benefit of having the tiny blog with a minimal audience you work for host the "back and forth" rather than having this discussion right now on the website Andrew made into a top web destination that reaches far more people.
Breitbart's domains/subdomains are pulling in millions of unique visitors… the site that you are on–even with financing and support from the world's top publishing bigshots–struggles to barely pull in half that number.
Without resorting to the stereotypical haughty and ridiculous J-school assertions of bias or that your bosses are only concerned with "real journalism," please explain the benefit of having the tiny blog with a minimal audience you work for host the "back and forth" rather than having this discussion right now on the website Andrew made into a top web destination that reaches far more people.
Right on, brotha. Tell that no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed mutha…
Scott,
Andrew and I have both written for The Daily Beast, and its editors seemed interested in hosting a debate. It would probably send there traffic here. So I think it would be good for everyone. But I'm perfectly willing to debate in any fair form where my remarks aren't edited.
Dolemite,
When the YouTube clip is a fellow at CATO who specializes in covering national security law, and provides a substantive, point by point take down of the inaccuracies in the coverage, it seems pretty relevant.
No, it's a one-sided, well-edited piece of propaganda (à la Michael Moore). If that id your best evidence to damn Fox News you really need to get back to the drawing board. And not even a word in response concerning your inaccurate immigration example?
"send there traffic here" !?! Hope you have a really good editor The Daily Beast.
)
Dolemite,
If this were relevant to Mr. Breitbart's critique, or my rebuttal, I'd sift through old blog posts to find various folks on the right complaining about how during the run-up to one vote on the McCain Bush bill, Fox's news desk ignored the issue, despite widespread discontent among the grassroots, but it's utterly peripheral to this comment thread. If you're really curious dig through Mickey Kaus' archives yourself, as I am certain I read it there, among other places.
AS A MOM – SHOUT OUT VIDEOS
My system has the ability to add video responses to comments. No Signing up required! I would like to start a Mom Shout Out Video collection. If you are a mom and you are pissed off please visit this post
http://mywhitehouse.org/2009/10/06/as-a-mom-shout...
Since the daily beast is soooo busy (cough & gag ) looks like BH has its new resident troll named conor. Maybe if we don't treat him as bad as the lefty sites treat people like us. He will learn something here ….. (cough & gag)
Conor, I need not dig through anything other than my own memory. I witnessed dozens of give and takes on Fox regarding the conservative opposition to immigration reform proposals. But your response is typical of the left – don't believe your lying eyes (and ears).
If you continue to assert that the NY Times is unbiased, or even less biased than Fox, we'll just have to continue to disagree, vehemently. The Times has become an opinion paper that pushes the leftist agendas of its ownership, its reporters and its editorial board. Maybe you could "dig through" and tell us the political affiliations and donation records of those employed by the Times?
To you I'm sure that people like Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are "conservatives". Trust me, they are not.
I appreciate the give and take taking place here…. I also wanted to highlight an idea that would lend considerable power to conservative ideas and the undermining of liberal "big government" ideas.
I love BigHollywood.com and Biggovernment.com.
Please consider creating a special section in Biggovernment.com authored entirely by two groups of people, who all support free enterprise and small government principles.
1. Foreign born immigrants who have become naturalized citizens in United States, who have lived in socialized countries and can comment with authority. (Esp. if their parents risked all to escape such countries)
2. Foreign nationals of other countries, who are living in socialized societies, or have lived in such societies and have an 'inside view' of the pitfalls. ( and can get their 'copy' out of the country under a pseudonym).
Let these people, who have the moral authority and who have directly experienced the ideas we are facing deal with the twists and turns of politics. How powerful would people from 20-40 different countries be in their observational skills?
Or, is there such a website now that I am not aware of….?
You're hinting a tiny website would love to piggyback on Breitbart's fame… final answer?
"…its editors seemed interested in hosting a debate."
You're hinting a tiny website would love to piggyback on Breitbart's fame… final answer?
Ick, surprised that hack David Frum hasn't chimed in yet.
hmmm – a mom named Jason? very curious.
maybe it's the "mom" from Futurama
"To be fair, all TV news is awful because all networks employ pretty talking heads who can read teleprompters well rather than talented reporters."
I've never understood this criticism. Someone has to write what they say. Being nothing but pretty faces hurts them whenever there's a back-and-forth, or whenever they make extemporaneous comments. Why should we expect spontaneous TV to be intelligent, anyway. I guess that's covered by the "such is life" statement. But as for the teleprompters, they can be fed by real reporters. So there.
"I'd sift through old blog posts to find various folks on the right complaining about how during the run-up to one vote on the McCain Bush bill, Fox's news desk ignored the issue, despite widespread discontent among the grassroots"
What would that prove? Folks on the right complain about everything. If Fox spent 12 hours a day ripping into things rightists hate, it still wouldn't be enough. They'd pick out some little controversy, the birth certificate for instance, or the Federal Reserve System, complaining of a dearth of hard news.
"Call me homophobic if you want – seriously, I don't care – but Sullivan and other gay pundits are profoundly dysfunctional human beings."
I can't at all agree with your assertion, and have found many homos over the course of history to have been wise. But in Sullivan's case, I think his sexuality is a problem. He has, at least back when I read him circa 2001, solid conservative instincts. But his obsession with the gay marriage issue, and his concomittant distrust of religion, has driven him mad, from my point of view.
Are you sure that's Andrew Sullivan? Looks like Vladimir Lenin to me.
Conor Friedersdorf is a slug, he looks like a illegal to me, I bet he has a fake green card.
any plans to answer conner's rather well-written answer to your accusations?
ACORN FUNDING TO BE RESTORED ON OCTOBER 30!
Not only will full funding resume on 10/30/09 but ACORN IS CURRENTLY RECEIVING GRANT MONEY INTENDED FOR FIRE SAFETY IN LOUISIANA.
Rep. Bachmann Exposes Federal ACORN Refunding…
http://usataxpayer.org/usataxpayer.asp?Show=acorn...
Corruption in Congress…
http://usataxpayer.org/page.asp?Get=corruptcongre...
Hucbald, I don't really care what any of these people think either…I seriously do believe that most liberal voter/posters do tend to be effeminate, and violently opposed to any line of thinking contrary to their own. I know this is a bit off topic, but I think there are plenty of us out here that are in complete disbelief that there seem to be so many Anti-American liberals out there! It's crazy to me that these groups, who have been given all of this leeway and freedom to express their views, which are soo contrary to any ideal this country was founded on, continue to become more emboldened in their Anti-American speech! Do they not want to face the very simple fact that the foundations to which they are opposed are the ones that continue to allow them to spit in the face of everyone who fought, and died for our freedoms? cont…..
cont from above…My theory is they were either picked on at school, abused at home, or made to feel bad about themselves in church…..If you just think of the types of people that make up the liberal voting block, it makes perfect sense! My message to them is that most of us were picked-on, or abused in some sort of way, but acting the exact opposite, and identifying only with everyone else is not the way to stop future abuse! Acting this way, and constantly whining will only increase the resentment, increase future abuse, and therefore defeating the purpose of your " Anti " way of life to begin with! <—This applies to many groups that all vote the same way! I feel sorry for most of these people…They don't seem to realize that things had already changed, people had become much more tolerant, and things were constantly improving….Now, due to their desperation and lack of patience, you've successfully undone a lot of the progress of the past century! Congratulations!
Keep in mind though…None of that is a reason to alienate someone..Especially considering it could very well have been abuse by someone related to religion that caused him to feel that way to begin with!
We have to mend these fences with people that are seperated only by an issue or two! There is always a reason for someone to have developed distrust and obsession…We don't live in their shoes, so we should not insult them, as we have not lived in their shoes…I think there is a big misconception out there already that most staunch conservatives are intolerant or racist or some other evil word, when in fact, I've found most of us to be very tolerant and accepting of everyone, despite their lifestyle….we just may not agree on certain topics that heavily influence one particular group. I find the left to be much more intolerant and racist these days, as well as being quick to disrespect rather than being willing to agree to disagree.
What a couple of girly men.
Andrew, dont let a couple of beta-males take you off your game. Sullivan is so beta-male that I think he has "spice-girlpower". What a couple of wus'
Andrew, love ya!
Some good news on the Big Hollywood front…
I attended the u2 concert last night in Dallas.
Bono thanked President Bush for the help in Africa he gave…
Bono said something to the extent of
"I want to thank former President Bush for saving the lives of millions of Africans."
Just wanted to let you know Andrew!
What was more surprising is that he got a good loud applause when he said that…
Breitbart plays it down the middle on serious news but leans right on commentary and entertainment news. All the blogs on brietbart.com are conservative, for example. Unlike talk radio, FoxNews, and Drudge, Breitbart just gives you the news as reported by wire services, newspapers, and broadcasters. I think the right has gone too far into propaganda in order to counter the liberal bias in most mainstream news; Breitbart is a refreshingly principled conservative. We need more like him, and not just to balance liberal bias, but to give the right more of a sense of integrity. http://www.newsprism.com
Again, again and again I've asked why do these hatemongers have to look like they do? Is this necessary to write untruths, biased articles and lies? I've tried to explain it in a variety of ways, but I have come to the conclusion that this is genetic. They have this "nasty" gene passed on by their parents, grandparents..etc….some of whose parents were part of that 1960's counter culture..remember "Sex, Drugs and Rock &Roll"?
If you have fans then you must be doing something right.
"destroyed" is a good word also…
Keep up the good work Andrew. You have given people like me, a conservative in a very liberal state, a place to vent frustration, fear of where the country is headed and hand-holding with other like minded citizens. Your site is unique, informative and a much needed respite from the liberals who currently lurk in just about every nook and cranny of the lame stream media waiting to pounce upon a conservative view with re-written history packaged in anger. You, sir, are such a credit to the industry that the lefties simply can not deal with it.
Just watched Andrew on CSPAN Washington Journal. Nothing new here folks. Just the same ol' wingnut crap. Andy got visibly irritated anytime someone called in with a differing view point. Went straight to the attack rather than articulating his point. Billy O would be proud. Ridiculing the "liberal media complex" for their "biases" and then engaging in the same behavior… That's original!
Crap "journalisim" on both sides makes for good profits I suppose.
I just watched you on c-span2 and You did a great job. I am glad that somebody out there still speaks for my values. Fox does a great job reporting on the Acorn story and I am one that believes that the should be torn down brick by brick. Somebody that can fraudulently swing an election in our country has no right to exist. It is and assult on all of our freedoms. Keep up the good work.
Conor has to cherry-pick to compare the right unfavorably with the left. I think journalistic standards of National Review, Commentary, or City Journal compare quite well with those of The New Yorker or The New Republic.
Brietbart is the man!! I love listening to him..and his appearance on CSPAN was awesome. He didnt take any crap form the lefties who tried to sneak in for example on the repub line! I firmly believe the leftists and libs in the country are in some cases more dangerous then the terrorists. And that is pretty scary in my opinion.