Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I often envy the people who are not hooked up to the firehose of Political Gossip that the internet has become, because they hear a story like this and their first (and only) response is . . .
. . . “Who?”
I wish we could all be a little more like that.
Yep.
It’s funny, I remember discovering Breitbart.com. I wasn’t a loyal reader, but I found things I could read, and contemplate.
I also remember a time when things I read there were unpalatable to my senses. I recall this was after Andrew Breitbart passed, but I did not associate my departure with Bannon, and it was well before this current era of Trump.
Sadly, it seems Bannon is acting like a rejected, untameable shrew.
Be gone with him and his drama. Let us repair this nation.
From the Wall Street Journal:
I never really understood why I or anyone was suppose to care about Steve Bannon or what he says. I still don’t.
Steve Bannon cares. He may be running for president. He may ask for your vote…or money.
Good luck with that, eh?
Good for him. Still not sure why I should care.
I think a lot of Ricochet members (and Ricochet-friendly pundits) are wearing very rosy-tinted glasses when it comes to the state of the Breitbart News Network before Andrew Breitbart’s death.
It was not anywhere on track to become a viable serious journalism outlet. Rather, it was already a trashy, tabloid-like outlet which published small amounts of original “news” of very questionable origin combined with a great deal of mudslinging.
The reason Breitbart could so quickly become the cesspool it is today is because the groundwork had already been laid since before Andrew’s death. It’s not like there was some big staff shake-up after he died – most of the culprits who turned the site into what it is today had been brought onboard during Andrew’s time. All it took was a slight tweak to turn it from a populist tabloid with mainstream conservative leanings to a populist tabloid with paleoconservative leanings.
Andrew Breitbart himself was certainly a very warm and generous man, but the site he created was the perfect breeding ground for what it has now become.
They should fire Bannon and replace him with Kevin Williamson or Ben Shapiro.
Rush Limbaugh agrees with us … https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/01/04/day-4-2018-americas-anchorman-returns-to-kick-off-the-year/
I really haven’t read Breitbart since around the time of John Nolte and it’s old “Big” format. (Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, etc.). But I also have a good deal of respect for Ben Shapiro, who worked for Bannon for at least a couple of years. Since I don’t read it, I’m always impressed when attacks on the site’s content contain references to actual articles. On that count, I’m almost always disappointed with the lack of specifics.
Fortunately, on the issue of Moore, David French (as quoted in the O/P), provides us with his version of specifics relative to Breitbart:
I suppose that we’re not really supposed to question some of French’s word choices here because . . . . . well, Moore and teenagers. But, fortunately, there’ve been a couple of threads here that have explored some of his terminology, as used in other articles. And I do wonder how long the list is of journalistic enterprises that have “subordinated fact-finding” to a “political agenda.” I could start with the list, but have a word limit to consider.
This is the era I connected with Breitbart.com
Thanks for the throwback.
Well, I beg to differ. There was a noticeable change after Andrew’s death on the site when it became apparent that Bannon and the editorial team made the decision to promote Trump above all other primary candidates and become Trump’s propaganda arm. I don’t recall the trashiness and at times poorly written (almost juvenile) articles prior to this. They were actually several articles that were well done investigative pieces. The comments section was another matter. Andrew made it point not to edit some of the outrageous comments from those on the Left because he wanted the world to see how unhinged they were. Unfortunately, after Bannon, most of the outrageous racist and anti-Semitic comments were being made by those embracing the new editorial bias. And no, this is not to say in the least that Trump supporters are or were by and large racist or anti-Semitic, so those of you who want to jump to that conclusion can relax and take a deep breath, but to deny that racist and anti-Semitic comments surfaced from avid Breitbart.com fans would be dishonest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt5-MzM3kTY
I read Breitbart pretty avidly in the months before Andrew’s death, and for quite a while afterwards, and this is not how I recall the site. Big Hollywood was my particular favorite, and while yes it did have a fair amount of gossip and sensationalism, it also had a charming and funny side. That rapidly diminished in the following 2 years, to the point where I never once visited the site after about 2012.
Nolte was a gem there.
There are two grumpy old men in American politics, Steve Bannon, and Bernie Sanders. Populists both, one on the Left and one on the Right. One sings the International Hymn, the other as Tom Meyer put it preaches Blood and Soil Tory-ism. The only platform either of them deserve is a pot bellied stove next to the cracker barrel in the general store, in some obscure snowed in town in Vermont.
Their fringe supporters met in Charlottesville, both sides dressed for battle, armed with everything but reason.
Nolte came back a few months ago. I was hoping that the rest of the site would head back to what it had been, but so far no dice.
Glued to them like a barnacle.
Barnacle Bannon.
I think 80% or more of the citizen class doesn’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about political gossip. Which makes Washington’s and the news media’s obsession with it look all the more ridiculous. Our news outlets are nothing but political versions of Soap Opera Digest.
I wish Ricochet could be different.
See, I didn’t remember names, but Big Hollywood and John Nolte connected with me. I may have even discovered Ricochet from some circuitous BH or Nolte link.
Yeah, you’ve made a similar comment earlier. Bannon was a presidential advisor. He was fired from his position. He made some accusatory comments about the president’s son that he was treasonous – as it relates to a meeting perhaps central to the Russia collusion story. After his dismissal from the White House Bannon lands back at Breitbart.com where the widow of Andrew Breitbart and some of the financial backers may want to remove him for his recent behavior. The Wall Street Journal, by no means a rag, considered that newsworthy. I’m not sure that the Wall Street Journal can be credibly considered in the same league as Soap Opera Digest.
I wish Ricochet could be different, too. But I’ll be nice and reserve the reasons why I wish this.
I’m not trying to single you out, Brian. I think the news shovels this crap at us, and demands that we care, and increasingly I just don’t. Nor do I want to. There’s actual newsworthy stuff happening, but our news media focuses on the gossipy crap. And that causes us to focus on the gossipy crap, too. I think we need to be more discerning. Is this worth talking about? Or is this what the news media prefers that we talk about?
This article was pointed out to me today:
Life Time fitness tunes out all-news TV outlets from its big screens
I figured that’s a great start. Now if only we could get airport lounges and clinic waiting rooms to follow suit.
Ricochet has a rule (more often observed in the breach) against posting conspiracy theory stuff. I recommend a similar rule about political gossip, but it’s probably not possible. One man’s gossip is another man’s Jim Acosta Special Report!
The topic of Washington Gossip being presented as news is probably worth a thread of its own.
And let’s be fair: Washington Gossip is the limitless resource that fuels talk radio. It’s nothing new.
(Probably why I don’t listen to that, either.)
I think the basic rule of thumb is that if you don’t care you probably shouldn’t comment and move on to comment on posts and subjects you do care about. Posting a comment that you don’t care about the subject matter of the OP is essentially rude and really contrary to the aim of Ricochet which is to engage people in discussion about the topic at hand.
I’m not demanding that anyone care about Bannon or the fate of Breitbart.com. I’m not screaming at the Ricochet membership that this story is critically important or potentially life-changing for them. If anything it was a passing observation on how Bannon’s recent escapades could affect the future of Breitbart.com’s mission and methods. That’s what we do here on Ricochet, isn’t it? Post topics and opinions about the news of the day? Is anyone holding your face to the firehose of news and information that pops up on Ricochet and elsewhere that seems to overwhelm you? I understand if you’d like to get away from it all. That’s a reasonable sentiment. But grousing about the constant “crap” shoveled at you seems a bit off topic unless you really meant to say that my post is really of load of crap that is somehow disturbing your otherwise serene day. If that is the case, don’t beat around the bush and simply say it.
They are smart. If I was forced to endure the mainstream media at the gym, I’d quit going there.
I think fitness centers, like Lifetime Fitness are reading election results, and aim to remove things that disrupt the peace of 49-51% of their potential clients.
It’s not that I don’t care about the subject. I’m afraid I used your topic as a springboard to bring up a related topic that’s been on my mind. My apologies. I’ll shut up now.
Or create a post. It is certainly worth the conversation.
From Theodore Kupfer at National Review today on Breitbart.com’s fawning treatment of Paul Nehlen who ran against Speaker Paul Ryan and lost by 68 points:
This is just one of the reasons that Breitbart.com should be under new management. The fact that the editors had an epiphany and decided that supporting Nehlen was no longer tenable is at least a good sign but I believe more has to be done to clean out the rot and pry the barnacles off this vessel.