Breitbart Responds

Andrew writes in response to this post:

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.

When lefties have asked to challenge something written at either site I have granted them the ability to do so.

I have even proactively reached out to others. Recently I asked the authors of "Manipulating the Public Agenda: Why ACORN Was in the News, and What the News Got Wrong"  to weigh in on Big Government's reporting on the ongoing ACORN scandal story. They refused.

As you well know, I was the person who came up with the idea behind the Huffington Post, and even helped Arianna and Ken Lerer launch the sucker. At the time I did not abdicate my point of view as a right leaning voice. I stated what I believe today: Let's put it all out there, and may the best ideas win.

Is it insignificant that I was behind the left's most prominent blog/media site?

Is it insignificant that I have written for the liberal-leaning Daily Beast which carried Conor Friedersdorf's criticism of me?

I believe that you and Conor would like to paint me into a corner, the one you are currently trying to paint Glenn Beck into. You are trying to marginalize me because of the net effect, pun intended, of the White House/NEA "propaganda" series on Big Hollywood, and the explosive ACORN exposée on Big Government. Protecting President Obama and the left at all costs is your prerogative. 

But anyone who knows me, has conversed with me, understood my complexities and paradoxes, does not comprehend the "obvious point" that Conor is trying to make, and you are attempting to affirm.

The New York Times is a daily read. It always has been. I loved its recent profile of my college pal, hotelier Jeff Klein. 

No daily publication can capture the essence of the cultural elite -- good, bad and ugly -- like the New York Times. The paper has its merits, no doubt. But when it comes to the political scene, its ascent into monolithic partisan hackery in its news pages -- never mind the op-ed experience --  is worthy of exploration granted its self-identified motto "all the news that's fit to print" is disproved day after day when the news that hurts the political left is either ignored or distorted to sate its diminishing readership's need for political conformity.

At no point have I attempted to hide my political leanings as I have endeavored to create Big Hollywood and Big Government. There is a need for a checks and balance against the New York Times and the rest of the supposedly neutral traditional press. Just as there was a need in 2005 for Arianna to put her platinum Rolodex online so that the world could see how the power brokers, power agents and power left felt on matters that face us all. Information is gold.

I don't resent criticism. I embrace it. But I do resent self-superior journalists attempting to malign me and my vision without coming to me to get my thoughts. I'm glib and quotable and even prone to slip up. Try me!