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
So the guy messed up at Breitbart. He should be gone. People make mistakes when they report. I don’t see how “a minnow” compared to “a whale” becomes equivalent. I would get excited if this was a major news organization or the major political party that did this.
I thought Breitbart was more citizen reporting. Amateurs that are learning the business. I expect but do not condone mistakes. Does not everyone?
For example a small neighborhood paper would not have the same journalistic standards. They would fudge the lines as they are learning the trade.
Does anyone see this as a conspiracy that ranks up their with John Edward’s affair not being reported?
Jamie could it be that Breitbart was so naive and in the tank for Trump that this guy was able to play them because Rubio would have spelled utter doom for the Democrats this cycle? Unfortunately your snippet above does not do much more to connect the dots, so I am having to just go off of this (I didn’t click the link which is probably where more details reside). It seems just as likely that Breitbart got played by a guy who shared a common enemy at the time more so than they were actually in on the act. Of course this really isn’t that big an issue to me, so I am open to being persuaded.
I’m just curious as to what you mean here. Are you saying that NR will not use the Project Veritas information, or that they are so above board that they cannot be influenced to use information that would destroy a candidate that they disapprove of? I’m just looking for what you mean exactly here.
Okay this gives me more to work on. First question: is it likely that Politico used the term “coordinated with” for effect as opposed to used the term to convey some semblance of truth in the story? Second, why go after Rubio who really didn’t pose a threat to their chosen candidate, Trump, but not go after Cruz who was the biggest competitor throughout the process? If we are going to say that Breitbart acted below the belt in this episode, would it not stand to reason that they would protect their guy from his biggest competitor? Something is starting to smell here.
Okay, after having read through the comments, there seems to be something to this story. But I am not too sure who was playing whom. Well, off to work now kids. You all play nice.
Of course there are problems. No one I think will deny that. It is too what extent. I noticed the baiting on this thread to try to make some equivalence to the major networks and wikileaks. That seems bogus to me unless one can make the equivalence of Breitbart to major newspapers and networks.
See anyone can find fault. For example there are murders in Japan. Ah!!!!! Therefore Japan is just as unsafe as America. You have problems we have problems. It is equal. No, it is not. The statistics and the crime rate are totally different. It is obvious.
This is an old debating technique. Not very good either.
I can’t figure why there is always all this angst that comes out. It is as if it is assumed that we are prejudiced and won’t accept the truth if it goes against our candidate. It is as if we think the candidate must walk on water. No one thinks that but we get “Aha, your candidate made a mistake. Therefore your candidate is bad.” Over and over again it is explained that it is a comparison between the lesser of two evils. It has been a tough choice and people are not giving up principle when they make the choice. Telling people they are is really arrogant in my opinion. That technique is not seeing its blind spots as it complains about the faults of others.
Jamie, do you have a link to the video the story is based on? If so can you link it?
This particular story is really bad for Breitbart, if true:
Given Breitbart’s treatment of Fields, I’m inclined to believe the Yahoo News report. The “Donald Trump is a force to be reckoned with.” line is decidedly pro-Trump.
But the Politico piece has three red flags aside from the fact that it’s from Politico which is about as objective as Breitbart.
Three’s especially bad. Basically that’s saying the thing they’re relying on to tell the rest of the story about collusion was not what they said it was originally.
Do I put it past Breitbart to coordinate with Black? No, of course not. Breitbart is part of the internet media click wars so anything it can do to drive red-meat traffic it will do. There’s a reason “If it bleeds it leads” is a saying – you do what you have to to get viewers, readers, etc.
But trusting Politico to accurately report anything is always a bad idea, particularly when it relies on unnamed sources.
Interesting side note: Politico ranks 109 in U.S. web traffic according to Alexa.com, Breitbart ranks 137 (for the record National Review sits at 1,082 and Ricochet at 34,894). Keep in mind the whole picture folks!
Both Breitbart and Red State have deteriorated badly in the face of this election. Our alternative media used to be a huge weapon and strength against the enemies of Liberty. No more. We need these outlets to clean their acts up if we are to move forward. If there aren’t major house cleanings at those sights by December, regardless of who wins, neither should be cited by any reasonable conservative. Its time to cut the fat.
They aren’t the only conservative sites to have done so.
Frankly I’m a little concerned when NRO is offering me a free digital subscription through a pop-up ad and Charles Cooke is openly soliciting for ideas to improve the website.
Less preaching would be a good start but they’re excluding content suggestions. For now.
I think people need to remember the outsized footprint partisan media has during a primary contest, especially for Republicans. Sure this isn’t ABC or CNN but it doesn’t have to be for it it sway a Primay election.
Could be, but Brietbart has always seemed pretty savy to me as an organization. They know what they’re doing.
At the beginning Rubio did pose a threat – he was the guy everyone thought posed a threat which is why Bush spent so much money to defeat him.
That is a fair point. Brietbart was pro-trump in the primaries. Fox had both pro and anti trump people. NRO and the Weekly Standard were very anti-trump. Partisan media was all over the place so I don’t know how much Brietbart alone could sway the election.
I think it is much more likely that the people who were going to vote Trump read Brietbart, than that people read Brietbart and decided to vote Trump.
Speaking of ABC and CNN (and NBC) they did more in giving Trump free media to help Trump win than any smallish website.
It has been noted my more than one media analyst that Matt Drudge drives narratives on the right. It’s not just the footprint of the website but the web that reaches out from the center. Drudge and Breitbart push a particular story, candidate, issue whatever – this filters out to talk radio and eventually Fox News all the while reaching more and more of the partisans that vote in primary elections. We’re not just talking about a general here where the vast majority of voters are uninformed or only watch the big media outlets. We’re talking about dedicated partisans and activists – for them Brietbart is not a smallish website, but the source of a large portion of their news.
Actually Breitbart isn’t a smallish site regardless – it’s top 1000 in web traffic worldwide and that’s amazing.
Top 200 right? That really is amazing.
Top 200 US, it’s like 740 or so worldwide.
Still impressive.
Ok, I am going to have to concede your general point that Brietbart can influence things more than I thought. I guess I am realizing that it could be that I live in something of a bubble. I rarely visit Drudge anymore and haven’t really visited the Brietbart sites since Brietbart died.
It did not strike me that Brietbart was the large news source for people. I guess I was wrong about that.
This is, as I see it, the central part of the problem. We have shifted from a country where everyone shared the same news sources even if they read different opinion sources. We all used to get our news from ABC but some read National Review and some The New Republic – we had different ideas but the same facts. Most of this is the fault of the media whose decided shift leftwards in the 60s made conservatives trust it less and less. Now we have a divided polity who can’t even agree on what reality is anymore, a Republic can’t function that way.
@herbertemeyer wrote something about this a few months ago. It was pretty great analysis.
It is – Bannon & Co. may not be respectable but they do understand how to win the media game. Drudge Report is similarly up.
According to Alexa, in contrast to Breitbart, NRO and Ricochet have cratered in interest.
NRO has dropped from 4273 to 5,085 worldwide in the last three months.. Page views and time on-site have increased and bounce rate (the percentage of people who leave after looking at one page) is up too.
Ricochet, which has always been smaller than NRO, has declined from 79,696 to 121,245 worldwide in the last three months – it was at 60,000 in January. Bounce rate is down, which is good, but time on site and page views per visitor are down too.
The Trump Wars have been terrible for NRO and Ricochet.
Lest you think this is solely because of the stance on Trump, unofficial or official, the Federalist and the Free Beacon and Heat Street have increased their traffic and they’re all what I’d term anti-Trump.
Exactly. But do you really expect different behavior?
Check your facts or at least look for the other side. This was Breitbart’s reponse, though it was to a different article, it is I believe the same topic.
I think I believe their side of this story. The MSM has not been known for its honesty. And, it doesn’t seem that the facts warrant such outrage.
Brietbart response was linked in the article I posted. I read it. I also read the reports from their source of Brietbart editors giving direction as to timing and to make sure it was filmed properly. I also read the reports that they turned down covering the same actions at Trump rallies. I found those reports credulous.
Here’s the “conspiracy” I’m worried about: “Schumer, national Dems reject calls to spend money targeting Rubio.”
What do you think those two have planned for 2017?
Trump is Bad.
Breitbart supports Trump.
Breitbart is therefore Bad. Everything else is just details.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/breitbart-liberal-activist-230255#ixzz4OAFgi9c5
Okay that explains Bush but not Trump. Rubio was never really a threat to Trump but he was competing for DC GOP money/support which threatened Bush.
Provocateur organizations like Democracy Partners thrive on publicity. Stories they create – it’s always better if somebody else covers it, but if need be they’ll capture their own video.
Sure, they tipped Breitbart – and other media players – that they would be running stunts at campaign events because they want their activities covered by media left and right.
Provocateur journalists left and right need enemies to write about for red meat for their own readers: “Look at what these [CoC]s are doing! You should be really upset about this!”
Democracy Partners knew that Breitbart would slant it in a particular way; they can use negative stories about them in hostile media as red meat for their own supporters. Breitbart in turn gets sexy coverage of an enemy event. Red meat for their own readers.
Black did a stunt disrupting a Rubio rally and the Rubio team roughed him up. Breitbart covered it. Politico framed it as Breitbart colluding with Democracy partners; but the video came from the Bush camp, not from Democracy Partners or from Breitbart. Is that coordination, or just the way a segment of the news biz works?
In The President’s Analyst there’s a scene where Godfrey Cambridge playing an FBI (or CIA?) agent has a conversation with a KGB agent; each side has a training village and each agent has been to both of them and they are reminiscing about their time in the other side’s facility.
It’s just business to them.
I find it interesting that the #Never crowd is the cannon fodder for the Breitbart Destruction campaign by the Progressives. Always good to see where they direct fire, it indicates where the threats to them are being effective.