If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   If you love to hate Andrew Breitbart, you are going to hate loving "Hating Breitbart", a new political documentary full of, well, something   (americanthinker.com) divider line 12
    More: Interesting, Andrew Breitbart, documentary, feature length, movie trailers, crotch, hate  
•       •       •

1423 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Oct 2012 at 1:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-05 03:43:49 PM  
4 votes:

jbuist: Did he also rape puppies or something? Am I missing a key component of the Brietbart hate?


Let me put it to you like this:

Honesty and integrity don't exist in the minds of people who are corrupt and deceitful. Andrew Breitbart falls into this category. It's not that his targets are corrupt and fraudulent (whether they are or not is a different discussion), it's that in his mind they already are, irrespective of the actual facts. And if they aren't -- no, they are, and his mission is to expose this corruption. If it does not exist -- no, it does exist, and he will expose it through obfuscation, lies, and trickery if he has to. Essentially, invent something that might not actually be there. If I had a degree in Psychology I might call this self-enforced psychosis, but on a much less clinical level it's simply Colbert's "truthiness" in the hands of concentrated activists.

Every one of Breitbart's -- and to a more aggressive extent, his protoge James O'Keefe's -- media stunts followed this model of truth-fabricating investigative activism, to the extent that he was not really exposing or uncovering any actual news, he was just inventing it. He was was a shameless self promoter who ranked beside Don King and Bob Sugar on the scale of slimeyness. Every scandal he broke put himself as the centerpiece, such that it wasn't the scandal itself that became important, it was what he claimed was the scandal.

And he was not bothered by that. After all, to the kleptomaniac of truth, it does not matter what the facts are, only who believes in them. I call this aggressive, activist style Orwellian Journalism (like yellow journalism before it, only instead of merely sensationalizing news, it actively creates new news on top of old news, like a palimpsest, erasing and rewriting history in a manner of their choosing). The organization James O'Keefe founded to run his own scams is even called Project Veritas (latin for truth, a snide slice of doublethink).

With the technological tools available today, anyone can edit anyone else into any public perception they want (Reality TV is a championship example of this). Thus, Breitbart can throw together a damning piece of forgery, and it gets heralded ostentatiously by the people who agree with him, denounced vehemently by the people who don't, and treated as suspect by the people who don't know who he is, where he's coming from or why he's even doing this. And the media didn't see fit to critically challenge him because the guy breaking the story was more important than the facts and controversy sells.

The documentary, thus, is a twisted distortion of the truth every bit as heinous as Breitbart's scams. In truth, the media didn't hate him. The media loved him. Moreover, the media loved hating him, because journalism needs villains just as much as episodic television does, and he was a terrific heel.

But it's not good for America, because it overwhelms the signal with noise; each side devolving into a war over public opinion, public perception, and public acceptance of factual events. And all of it driven by lies, hatred, folly, evasion, obfuscation, deceptive editing, and mistrust. The ends justifies the means. There are no journalistic standards.

That's what's wrong with Breitbart.
2012-10-05 02:02:29 PM  
2 votes:
Hate? No. Pity? Absolutely. Mock endlessly? Without question.
2012-10-05 01:24:08 PM  
2 votes:

TwoHead: The man is dead and while he was less than perfect in life that is no reason to hang such a label on him in death. Sure, he could be hateful, but there was probably a small scared little boy inside him that made him lash out as he did. I won't defend who he was, but I think calling him a name like Hating Breitbart as though he was some sort of hating machine is just wrong.


The dude made a living off the hate he peddled. He is one of the contributors to the toxic political environment crippling this nation.

I'm glad he's dead. Sadly, I'm sure other opportunistic, dishonest trash will take his place, however.
2012-10-05 07:10:39 PM  
1 votes:

Second Try: I love how he makes Fark leftists mad.


I know that my main criterion for evaluating the worth of a human being is the level of anger he inspires in my strawman-like enemies.
2012-10-05 03:36:08 PM  
1 votes:

DancingElkCondor: Of course, the derps will never mention that he was as much Anti-Birther as the gang on MSNBC....and helped Arianna Huffington start the Huffington Post.


So all of the other stuff he did and said doesn't matter?
2012-10-05 03:17:40 PM  
1 votes:

TwoHead: The man is dead and while he was less than perfect in life that is no reason to hang such a label on him in death. Sure, he could be hateful, but there was probably a small scared little boy inside him that made him lash out as he did. I won't defend who he was, but I think calling him a name like Hating Breitbart as though he was some sort of hating machine is just wrong.


There was a scared little boy inside him because he adbucted the kid from the playground.
2012-10-05 03:12:54 PM  
1 votes:

jbuist: I rape puppies

2012-10-05 03:10:30 PM  
1 votes:

jbuist: Crickey! I know the guy could be a jerk in his commentary but there's an awful lot of butthurt in here.

Did he also rape puppies or something? Am I missing a key component of the Brietbart hate?


Yes.
2012-10-05 02:59:46 PM  
1 votes:
fark breitbart's rotting corpse. the man was a vile piece of subhuman shiat. the world is a much better place without him.
2012-10-05 02:35:13 PM  
1 votes:
I love to hate the insignificant and meaningless. I truly hate the pernicious and vile.

And while I do not celebrate the death of anyone, the world really is a better place without certain people in it.

Related note: Lee Atwater's demise makes me reconsider the existence of karma, which I contemplated just the other day when I saw flies eating from the carcass of a dead rodent and couldn't decide which I'd prefer be Atwater reborn.
2012-10-05 02:30:09 PM  
1 votes:
I'm glad he's dead. Sadly, I'm sure other opportunistic, dishonest trash will take his place, however.

I'm sorry he's dead. He was a festering weasel's doucheplug, and he should be alive, preferably in pain, witnessing the continued disparagement of his so-called career and personal worth, absorbing shame and perhaps noticing that his family is also being punished for his vile anti-social anti-patriotic anti-humanist bullshiat. It's his family who should be happy that he's dead.

I have no interest in the film, but I kind of hope it does well just for the notoriety. People should remember Breitbart so they realize what an insult it is to be called a breitbart.
2012-10-05 02:09:53 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Hate? No. Pity? Absolutely. Mock endlessly? Without question.


This. Breitbart himself had more than enough hate for all of us.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report