Andrew Breitbart: 'The Left is, in Essence, the Media'

Andrew Breitbart: ‘The Left is, in Essence, the Media’

LOS ANGELES, California, May 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The bias of the liberal media is so deeply ingrained that it is an essential part of its structure - one that conservatives must fight hard to challenge effectively, according to conservative new media guru Andrew Brietbart.

“The left, to me, in essence, is the media,” said Breitbart an interview with CBN’s Matt Brody.

Big liberal names like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he explained, “possess limited charms.” “Their ability to get what they need to get done is because they’re carrying the water of the media,” said Breitbart. “The media is a left-of-center ecosystem, it’s a left-of-center organism. So the media can change the dynamics of what we’re talking about.”

Known for attacking liberal media bias head-on, Breitbart is a political commentator who owns his own news web site, Breitbart.com, as well as the blogs Big Hollywood, Big Government and Big Journalism. He also serves as an editor for the Drudge Report.

“I aim everything at attacking the media for its biases and holding them accountable for their biases, and the things that they report incorrectly, or the things they fail to report,” he said.

“By aiming everything at the media I’ve pretty much done the one thing they ask you not to do. ‘Please accept the premise that we’re fair, and let’s move on.’ No. I’m not going to accept that premise.

“For these people to tell me with a straight face that they don’t come to the media and their jobs from a political perspective, from a left-of-center perspective, is just a bald-faced lie.”

When facing mistreatment by the media, Breitbart urged conservatives not to play by the rules as defined by the mainstream media. “These people don’t fight fair,” he said. "The left does not fight fair, and so I’m basically saying to conservatives, you don’t have to fight fair.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050702.html

Brilliant Assessment of the Truth about the media in western culture..

:thumbsup:

But watch—any second now the professional media defenders will be all over this thread.

The way they work is by shouting down any true dissent in the name of stalinspeak.

[quote="Sailor_Kenshin, post:3, topic:197867"]
:thumbsup:

But watch---any second now the professional media defenders will be all over this thread.

The way they work is by shouting down any true dissent in the name of stalinspeak.

[/quote]

uhh, not to correct those wiser than myself, but I believe it is correctly termed "Newspeak" not stalinspeak...

Just an FYI

FSC

Yeah,but Stalin-speak seems to have a bigger “punch” to it-especially to those not familiar with Orwell.I myself prefer"Two legs bad.Four legs good"!:smiley:

Oh I'm sure the Usual Suspects will be here momentarily once they've caught their Leftist breath.;)

Thanks, but I meant what I said.

Any attempt to squash free speech is stalinism at its best.

Nope, at this point the left is following “Rules for Radicals”. They marginalize and attack.

ICall Newsweek and Time, the American Pravda’s. Their views are entirely Darwinist and Godless. Contempt for traditional Christian faith is derigor in these publications. The editorial staff is largely liberal arts majors trained at the world and American elite universities. You cannot be a traditional Christian and hold an editorial staff position on these publications. They will simply not hire you. To them all things are explained Darwinistically with genes and environment the only causative factors. Humans have no free will. There is no sin, and the solution to all problems is via environmental control. Although the human understanding of the environment is so weak that most positions remain only speculative. Their trick is overestimating the power of explanation. In the hard sciences, math, chemistry, and physics only very simple physical systems are explainable with enough theory and repeatable experimental results to verify. Yet these proofs are trite when it comes to the human who as a soul and spirit that can decide. We are more that genes and environment. We must confront sin and become responsible for our role in committing evil. Otherwise we are guilty of nothing. Thus the liberals see all problems as amenable to social engineering. We shall be as Gods’ this defacto atheism finds a form of monistic occultism where all is good appealing when it becomes clear that the humanist explanation fails.

And thus they turn to demons for inspiration that leads them astray as they have rejected the wisdom of the ages as they have been taught they are victims of a traditional morality. Read news week or time and the trite reasons given for everything, take the Masons, is enormously lacking and everything is permitted as Dostoevsky observed in the 19th Century. A sinister combination of Legalism and existentialism prevails that leads to a person who thinks one or more aspects of their person prevails as the good. George Bush even though he’s a fellow traveler is bad The view is simplistic and dangerous. Europe brought this hook line and sinker is on the verge of collapse. Negative population growth, a monster nanny state ignorant of our true nature to fall and worship the god of this world leads the sheep to the slaughter. Obama is determined to put America on the same path to the new world order where human demonic power will be enshrined in a new
Temple never meant to be built again after Jesus death and resurrection on the cross. The Devil loves both atheism and the occult as it places man as the center. Yea shall be as God indeed. And thus a modern Babylon waits in the offing. The deepest failure is to understand the true nature of evil in the human heart under the direction of Satan.

Would that Stalinism were only involved with free speech. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that “Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule.”

I don’t see how the media is supposed to be able to impose such a regime or rule on this nation. Besides, there are conservative newspapers to balance the liberal ones. I get the New York Times delivered daily and I read the Wall Street Journal as well - in addition to my state-wide newspaper, which is conservative. I believe that reading newspapers with varying editorial stances is the best way to get a handle on what various people support.

But, back to Stalinism. It’ll never happen in our country.

Just FTR, the newspeak was a reference to 1984… My bad. Sometimes I go a bit obscure on forums.

While I dont often find myself on the same side as Rich, I am, in this instance required to agree. There is definitely a move afoot to squash free speech in certain places and certain types of free speech. This has happened before and will be attempted again. I can think of lots of people (Myself included) that wish some people werent allowed to say the things they say… Yet I agree with Evelyn Hall “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

I got one of those silly emails the other day that I think is pertinent in this political clime…

A Conservative who doesnt like guns doesnt buy one.
A liberal who doesnt like guns makes them illegal.

A conservative vegetarian doesnt eat meat.
A liberal vegetarian tries to make eating meat illegal.

etc. etc. etc.

But it fits in the current debate over free speech on tv, radio, and in print.

FSC

The left, the right, every now and then the middle, the media has it all. I hear the conservative points as equal as the progressive ones. What is interesting is the right have a tendency to claim a bias of “the media” as if they’re not part of it? It’s downright perplexing. Where do Republican conservatives not get a voice?

If this is essentially addressed to coverage about abortion, there’s some truth to it.

The bigger problem isn’t “the media” per se. It’s the real probability that many of the media are formed in backgrounds with political science, economics or liberal arts without a strong philosophical or religious studies background. In other words its a lack of adequate formation.

If matters religious - and here I’m speaking about religion in general not simply Roman Catholicism - then responsible, religious institutions of higher learning are going to need to find ways to enter into dialogue with journalists. That may mean something as simple as offering a Religious Studies 101 course. Or start from there and then add denominational theological information.

If the author referred to in this article thinks “playing by the left’s rules” is what is needed - good luck. Don’t you have to be invited on air in the first place? If the invitation isn’t even out there, it doesn’t matter whose rules one plays or doesn’t play by - you’re not even in the game.

Spare me the extremist “new world order” language. We’ve just finished 8 years of destruction and chaos of any kind of world order except for that wrought by laissez-faire capitalism and we see where that path has taken us. While I definitely don’t agree with some of the policy decisions re: abortion that the Obama adminstration is proposing or supporting on the international order, I’d hardly say he’s demonic…

Newsweek actually has a very, good religion editor, Kenneth Woodward who has been a journalist for over 30 years. More like him are needed.

There is also a discussion on various websites about the need for more religious literacy on the part of journalists. Many receive their formation in disciplines like political science, economics and some even in liberal arts - all of which are fine to a degree. But insofar as they shape worldviews, they neglect a sound and thoughtful religious worldview

What is needed is a solid, religious education program directed to the needs of journalists. Many of our Catholic universities are well-placed to develop such projects. Such programs should include offerings like the philosophy of religion, denominational theologies and interfaith theologies for starters.

[quote="tpw, post:14, topic:197867"]
Spare me the extremist "new world order" language. We've just finished 8 years of destruction and chaos of any kind of world order except for that wrought by laissez-faire capitalism and we see where that path has taken us. While I definitely don't agree with some of the policy decisions re: abortion that the Obama adminstration is proposing or supporting on the international order, I'd hardly say he's demonic...

Newsweek actually has a very, good religion editor, Kenneth Woodward who has been a journalist for over 30 years. More like him are needed.

There is also a discussion on various websites about the need for more religious literacy on the part of journalists. Many receive their formation in disciplines like political science, economics and some even in liberal arts - all of which are fine to a degree. But insofar as they shape worldviews, they neglect a sound and thoughtful religious worldview

What is needed is a solid, religious education program directed to the needs of journalists. Many of our Catholic universities are well-placed to develop such projects. Such programs should include offerings like the philosophy of religion, denominational theologies and interfaith theologies for starters.

[/quote]

I understand this is meant to be "opinion", but a few facts or sources would lend some credibility. While I disagree with your opinion, I also would argue that even if you were correct, the assertion that our Catholic universities are well-placed to develop such projects is very dubious.

thenewmanguide.com/

If you read the introductory chapter to this text you will find that most "Cathlolic" universities in the US do no me the requirements of Ex Corde Ecclesiae,

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html
Even such standards as having 50% practicing Catholics on ones faculty are openly ignored. In fact, the percentage of practicing Catholics is generally lower at Catholic universities than in the public at large.

The result is that media, which participate in a religion in a much lower rate than the public at large, tends to on the whole provide a rather negative perspective on the role of religion. clas.ufl.edu/users/kenwald/pos4291/spring_00/relig2000.htm

You ought to have posted the entire email. It sounds interesting. May I add one from my liberal point of view?

A Liberal who doesn’t like pornography doesn’t buy any.
A Conservative who doesn’t like pornography tries to have it banned.

:smiley:

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:16, topic:197867"]
You ought to have posted the entire email. It sounds interesting. May I add one from my liberal point of view?

A Liberal who doesn't like pornography doesn't buy any.
A Conservative who doesn't like pornography tries to have it banned.

:D

[/quote]

lol, touche.

Heres the entirety.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues..

To TPW the difference between Bush and Obama is nothing but a Hegelian game. Has Obama removed the troops from the Middle East? No! Did Bush end the legalization of abortion? No! Newsweek has a good religion editor? Read their articles for crying out loud. Everything about faith is in that tired academic bull about never generalizing or makes any distinctions. In other words, don’t think. Trust me Liaise Faire capitalism is alive and well under Obama but it is oligarchy not little free marketers the rule the roost. Both Bush and Obama supported the bank bailout. That Good and Evil can extend beyond the human and reach the preter and supernatural realms scares a confident atheist who prefers a short flawed life and then oblivion.

[quote="Coleski, post:18, topic:197867"]
To TPW the difference between Bush and Obama is nothing but a Hegelian game. Has Obama removed the troops from the Middle East? No!

[/quote]

He promised to move them to Afghanistan and set up a time table for removing troops altogether. Both of which I believe he has done.

[quote="Coleski, post:18, topic:197867"]
Both Bush and Obama supported the bank bailout.

[/quote]

That was an interesting position for both men. Either support an existing backbone of the economy and hopefully generate lending and enterprise again or let them fall and be devoured by other banks but save some money. Neither is a great solution, but the bet is that the money spent would keep the US out of a long term recession and hasten recovery. Has that been achieved? google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rates We'll see if things improve by 2012.

[quote="Coleski, post:18, topic:197867"]
scares a confident atheist who prefers a short flawed life and then oblivion.

[/quote]

LOL I wonder which poor atheist gets scared :rolleyes:

The transfer of enormous wealth from the taxpaying citizens to bankers by the government when they both caused the problem is just another form of theft. Sure the bankers are on top again with all the money as it was intended to be while the middle class slowley bleeds to death financially. Bravado and contempt are sure signs of fear. The atheist falsley believes in a short life followed by oblivion. He believes puny humans are the only thinking players in the all of it. The truth is his viewpoint leads to false pride and nihilism. His vision is blind and stunted and if he is right, his life is short, flawed, often painful, and over. There is no ultimate justise then. If at the moment of death, there is no fear of oblivion, then he’s probably drugged out of his mind and if he laughs he laughs the death laugh and wears its grin.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.