David Frum speaks of the recently dead Andrew Breitbart.
But to speak only “good” of Andrew Breitbart would be to miss the story and indeed to misunderstand the man…. The attack was everything, the details nothing. This indifference to detail suffused all of Breitbart’s work, and may indeed be his most important and lasting legacy. Breitbart sometimes got stories right (Anthony Weiner). More often he got them wrong (Sherrod). He did not much care either way. Just as all is fair in a shooting war, so manipulation and deception are legitimate tools in a culture war. Breitbart used those tools without qualm or regret, and he inspired a cohort of young conservative journalists to do likewise…. And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous.


7 comments
March 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm
silbey
On the theory of not saying anything if you can’t speak well of the dead, my thoughts on Breitbart’s passing:
March 1, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Malaclypse
What silbey said. So to speak.
March 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm
TF Smith
Thumperian principle in play
March 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm
ben
A friend of mine quoted Psalm 109, 16–19, in memory of Brietbart. Seems fair. Also this.
March 1, 2012 at 9:45 pm
JazzBumpa
Thom Hartmann read Donne’s No Man is an Island.
Donne was idealistic, and Hartmann far too kind.
Valar Morghulis.
But no one is diminished by this.
JzB
March 2, 2012 at 10:21 am
pa joe
The wingnuts’ fallen hero will not be missed nor long remembered. He will, however, be too soon replaced by yet another worthless purveyor of made up shit because it always pays very well to mislead the ignorant.
March 2, 2012 at 8:26 pm
erubin
As a minor quibble, while Breitbart was correct about Weiner’s infidelities (and Weiner was extremely foolish to deny the accusation), he was an outstanding congressman.