Skip to comments.Can Andrew Breitbart Save Hollywood?
Posted on 06/26/2009 12:01:55 PM PDT by khnyny
Yes, the rumors are true. After decades of cowering in the deep-blue (as in Blue State) shadows, Hollywood conservatives are beginning to openly express their political beliefs despite the price theyve paidboth socially and professionallyfor doing so in the past. Some are calling this newfound courage the Breitbart Effect, named for the affable New Media titan who exposed the amoral Superfund toxic waste site of Tinsel Town by subjecting it to the standards of traditional, conservative (read: normal) American values.
Through his pioneering work on news aggregation Web sites such as the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post, Breitbart led the charge away from the take-it-or-leave-it company store of monolithic network news and toward the consumer-driven free market of the New Media. How important was it to break up this monopoly? Before there was a New Media, Dan Rathers CBS Evening News exposé about George W. Bushs National Guard service (complete with forged documents) would have gone unchallengedand Dan Rather would still have a career. Because of New Media and outlets such as Drudge, Rathers inept hoax was discoveredand shared with the worldwithin a matter of hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
He is the son-in-law of Orsen Bean...
Big Media also doesn’t like people leaving the plantation and listening to bands from other countries, other genres, and other labels or eras either. Just as ASCAP wouldn’t publish rock & roll, rhythm & blues, or country & western songs (BMI would), so explains their outrage at downloading and online music discussions.
Big Media - We Decide, You Submit.
Did he contribute to Orsen Bean’s change of politics?
Everyone should spend at least some part of the day at Big Hollywood.com!
Weren’t two FReepers responsible for exposing that forgery right here on FreeRepublic?
now if I could just stop double posting here...sorry
That’s okay. I get get excited too.
From the article...”In a flash of insight, Breitbart realized that the media were the Democratic Party, that the NAACP was the Democratic Party, that NOW was the Democratic Party...”
We, repubs/conservatives, have failed to grasp this insight. We still refer to them as “mainstream media” and such. They ARE the Democrats. The heads of the Democratic Party are not Howard or Nancy and Harry, they are Gibson, and Sawyers, and Williams, and Couric. The agenda of the Democratic Party is devised and disseminated by the heads of their news division before their congressional members can act. We do ourselves a disservice by gracing them with names other than Democrats at ABC or Democrats at CBS. IMHO
Wow. Beautiful photos! Thank you.
Yes, I think so.
Precisely! There's no liberal slant to the news. It's the liberal news delivered by liberal democrats.
The full story, including proper credit to FR, can be found here.
Yep. Imho, astute observation. They’re crafting the “message” for public consumption.
You’re welcome. Thank you.
Interesting article, but the author needs to learn what “A-list” means. Angie Harmon, much as we might like her political opinions, isn’t nearly on it.
“Precisely! There’s no liberal slant to the news. It’s the liberal news delivered by liberal democrats.”
You and I know this, Andrew knows this, so why do our guys keep assigning them cute pet names like MSM, drive-by, etc? It dilutes the truth, puts a smiley face on it...if you will.
Why would anyone WANT Hollywood to be saved??
I read this article in the print version of Town Hall a few days ago, and like you, I felt that In a flash of insight, Breitbart realized that the media were the Democratic Party, that the NAACP was the Democratic Party, that NOW was the Democratic Party... was the money quote. I guess I differ with you a little as to what places Charlie, Katie, Brian, Diane, et al have with The Party. Sure, they are commissars, but I don't think they make the decisions. They are given their marching orders and carry them out like good little Chekists.
“Yep. Imho, astute observation. Theyre crafting the ‘message’ for public consumption.”
They are the daily face of the Democratic Party yet no one refers to them as such. Our news should begin with statements like, “Democratic leaders Sawyers and Couric today said that President Bush was presiding over a failed policy in Iraq. Our investigation indicates that contrary to assertions by the Democrats at ABC and NBC, civilian deaths in Iraq are far below those in our most populous cities with Los Angeles and Chicago leading Iraq in year over year figures. We contacted ABC and NBC and tried to get a comment from their Democratic spokesmen but have not received a reply. Back to you Andrew.” Yes?
Ummmm, he doesn't know liberals are closed minded bigots? Liberals don't believe in the "free exchange" of ideas unless it's their ideas being rammed down our throats - - that, they'll "freely" do...
Is Hollywood worth saving?
“Sure, they are commissars, but I don’t think they make the decisions. They are given their marching orders and carry them out like good little Chekists.”
Thanks for the dialog, but you’re correct that we see this a bit different. I believe that the Democratic agenda BEGINS at ABC, CBS and NBC and is followed by the Democrats in congress. If ABC, CBS and NBC began a series on the horrifying aspects of partial-birth abortion, how many minutes do you think it would be before congressional Democrats would have legislation on the floor?
ABC, CBS and NBC are a constant, congress fluctuates. The agenda must be set from a non-fluctuating source. IMO
One more thing. We have an example in Global Warming. It was entirely media manufactured and media driven. Today, however, it is on the floor of congress. It did not start on the floor, it started at ABC, NBC and CBS.
The Viet Nam war is lost
Bush lied people died
Iraq is a quagmire
After the media started these and many other conventional wisdoms the dems followed suit often shifting their positions 180 degrees from their previous positions and votes.
“After the media started these and many other conventional wisdoms the dems followed suit often shifting their positions 180 degrees from their previous positions and votes.”
I guess you and I have been watching this stuff for too many years and therefore we’ve come to a different conclusion from others. I used to believe that the media was simply parroting the Democratic congressional leaders, but history indicates that is no longer the case.
Many years ago there was a hint that congress was being controlled by the media and not the other way around. Our guys recoiled at the suggestion claiming that it was simply unthinkable. Wild-eyed conspiracy talk. The leaders of the Republican party in both the media and congress have continued the tut-tutting of what is painfully obvious to you and I by granting them the independent sounding honor of calling them “the main stream media” rather than the Democrat Press Corps.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have no problem calling Fox the Republican network!
I read Big Hollywood but the format sucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.