Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
O’Keefe Uncovers Breitbart Election Conspiracy
Evidently uncovering illegal Clinton Campaign electioneering isn’t the only thing Project Veritas new series of videos has uncovered:
A liberal activist and organizer coordinated with reporters from the conservative news site Breitbart during the primaries to cover his disruptions of events for candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio.
Aaron Black, an associate with Democracy Partners and a former Occupy Wall Street organizer, worked with the pro-Trump site Breitbart, tipping it off about his stunts, exchanging raw video and coordinating coverage, according to a source with direct knowledge of the situation.
Black has resurfaced recently as one of the people featured in undercover video from the Project Veritas group. In the video, he claims to work for the Democratic National Committee. Though he does not appear on their payroll, his bio at Democracy Partners credits him with “working closely with the Democratic National Committee” during the 2012 election cycle. Black in the video says he helped organize protests in Chicago that led to Trump’s cancellation of a rally there in March.
So as we all wait breathlessly for the next expose on Podesta’s emails revealing a liberal media conspiracy, let us not forget that the fine folks over at Breitbart “News” engage in the same underhanded hypocrisy that the rest of the media does.
Published in General
An interesting accusation, timely as well.
Shocking! to find deceit and hypocracy, in or out of politics and the media.
Those are underlying themes throughout the history of humanity: nothing new under the sun.
If you zoom out far enough, this isn’t news, but that’s true of basically all stories. If you meant to suggest that all media outlets are the same then I’d disagree. National Review, for instance, has pretty consistently avoided support for this sort of thing and seems likely to do so into the future. Some people really are scummier than others despite us all being sinners.
It’s great fun!
Because manipulation of the major media outlets=manipulation of Breitbart?
Jamie, this is really vague. What are you saying Brietbart did wrong?
Did they pay or ask this guy to do things?
Or did the guy send his stuff to them or alert them to his plan?
One is called collusion, the other is regular reporting.
Which is it?
Sorry to be unclear. I did not intend to suggest all media are the same, but to highlight that all media are populated by humans, none of whom are immune from deceit and hypocracy.
You are correct some people are scummier than others.
If you ask yourself “would I be this skeptical if the teams were reversed” and the answer is “no” then you can safely classify yourself as “a hack”.
Either answer the question or you are inventing an issue. Did Brietbart pay for or direct the action or report on it? I asked you nicely and you either do not know or refuse to answer.
I don’t accept your premises as the only form of collusion between the press and political campaigns. When the reporter sent Podesta stories to review prior to publication collusion?
They consciously promoted progressive efforts to attack the party and chose to protect him by altering the news that they reported. It’s true that it’s not terribly surprising, but I feel that this sort of story is useful for reminding people about the differences between news sources like Breitbart or Reason that place activism at the center of their identity and news sources that are primarily interested in conveying the truth as they understand it. Jonah writes a lot about this stuff, and I feel like this is a good story to illustrate that sort of difference.
So you refuse to answer a simple question on what Brietbart did that you consider wrong. To make an accusation that they did wrong and then refuse to explain it means you have no case.
And BTW, the Robot Rubio video was handed to Brietbart by the Jeb Bush campaign.
Read the politico piece.
What I think they did wrong is right there.Of course we all know if this had been Clinton and the press you would be all over it as high treason.Can you tell me what they ‘altered’ ?
I accept that all news organizations are promoting their viewpoint. That has been true forever, The unbiased reporter was a fiction from the movies.
What is being alleged here is some form of malfeasance and while every is nodding and hating , no one can seem to spell it out.
Maybe you can answer a simple question. What did Brietbart do that was wrong in your opinion?
Note:
Gentlemen, this can be discussed without baiting one another, making unwarranted assumptions about the other's opinions, or using a supercilious tone.Since you cannot answer a simple question, I will assume you got nothing.Thanks for the scoop. This “collusion” was obviously so significant that no one really. cared. It’s Breitbart.
How interesting that we can speculate on the significance of this, but don’t really care about the source of racist messages to the likes of David French.
One has evidence in the form of testimony, the other has speculation based on hopes and wishes.
This is how I know you didn’t even bother to read the linked article before commenting:
Well, of course, that “testimony” comes from such a credible source. Speaking of hopes and wishes.
And again . .. . Breitbart? I’m shocked!
I’ll stand my Rubio fandom with anyone here, BTW.
I had read it and also Breitbarts response.
Not even a glimmer of a smoking gun. “Coordinated’ is a real vague word. Brietbart claims the guy sent them stuff and tipped them off to what he was going to do. Sounds pretty day to day news stuff to me.
If you can show me where Brietbart instigated the activity, you have something. I expect them to cover this and not ignore it.
Should they have ignored it?
Still nothing there for me.
Next time.
Yes, never let behavior you would find abhorrent from liberals undermine your faith in Trump.
It’s always excuses with you.
From later in the article, here they are working with a liberal activist to attack a former employee:
From even later in the article:
Just keep spinning, just keep spinning.
Thank goodness the first Editor’s Note: came at Comment #15. As an aficionado and collector of Editor’s Notes I hate having to scroll through 250 comments trying to find an Editor’s Note.
So I feel Mr. Lockett probably has very few chances of standing with the majority; I say we cut him some slack–everyone should have that feeling now & then!
In the reporting on the wikileaks revelations, they omitted the name of one of the few figures who would be familiar, and thus interesting, to Breitbart readers.
Sure. It’s just a matter of degree.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily wrong; there’s a place for activism. It’s just helpful to be reminded that Breitbart is that sort of an organization. This provides a useful data point rather than being revolutionary, but that’s not nothing.
I’d have thought that a better example than “liberals” would be “the establishment”, but I’m not sure if TKC was particularly excited about Cochran. I don’t know if the similar collusion of liberals with the Akin and Bevin primary efforts were bothersome to all that many Ricochetti, but it seems worth noting the pattern.
I blame Jeb Bush for all the evil in the world. Most of it at least.
Does that include destroying Florida’s state wide Democrat party? I think that was an unalloyed good. It has been great for Florida too. In Florida state politics the Democrats went from a total lock on the state government to a group of Keystone cops. That was due almost completely to Jeb Bush.
I know your comment was at least a bit tongue in cheek and I never supported Jeb in the primaries and I was sad that he decided to run but we should remember that Jeb has done a lot of good.
Where in any shape or form was there a response to the questions? What am I missing? Does this pass for a conversation? It seems to take the notion that the other person is asking in bad faith. I thought we were not suppose to do that.
Does it really hurt to just throw up a few lines in response?