What Would Andrew Breitbart Do If The Media Targeted Gun Owners?
In case you haven’t heard, a New York newspaper recently published the names and addresses of gun owners. The paper denies any wrongdoing but this was at least a violation of privacy as well as an attempt to “out” and vilify gun owners. These people did nothing wrong, yet the paper in question sought to expose them as if they were sex offenders.
Since Andrew Breitbart is no longer with us, I’m going to have to guess how he would respond to this situation. I think Andrew Breitbart would have been outraged. I think he would have, in the most public way possible, shamed and attacked this newspaper relentlessly.
He might have started by doing what one blogger did – publishing the names and personal information of the people who work for the newspaper.
Then he might have called the paper to demand an explanation like BigFurHat did…
BFH: Does the Journal News stand by their decision to publish the names and addresses of gun permit owners?
JN: There’s been no change.
BFH: What was the motive of publishing this map?
JN: The motive was clearly stated at the time of publication
BFH: Can you spell it out for me what the motive was?
JN: It was spelled out when we published it.
BFH: I didn’t see that. I saw the map.
JN: If you haven’t seen it then why are you calling?
BFH: For your…
JN: What does it have to do with you if you haven’t seen it and you’re not affected by it?
BFH: No, no no, I haven’t seen what you say is the reason you published the map. I’ve seen the map. I haven’t seen your stated reason. I don’t know where to go to read that. Why can’t you just state the reason now?
JN: One of the roles of journalists is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even if it is unpopular. We knew providing the information in the database in the context of our story would be controversial, but we thought that sharing the information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.
BFH: What is the import of that?
JN: We felt that it was important for people to know about that.
BFH: Know about what?
JN: The information that was imparted.
BFH: Well, what are people supposed to do with that information?
William Jacobson points to this article at American Thinker of which Andrew Breitbart would surely approve. It illustrates how NBC’s David Gregory and CNN’s Piers Morgan, both of whom have also publicly and hypocritically attacked gun owners, met their match…
David Gregory and Piers Morgan have both met the Alinskyite Right, and progressives in positions of power should take note. Both men are the targets of digital petition drives aimed at holding them to their own standards, and ridiculing them, invoking Rules 4 and 5 from Rules for Radicals:
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Jacobson concludes by noting the fecklessness of the establishment media…
Do not expect any help from the mainstream conservative media on this. Many of them are circling the wagons around Gregory, refusing to recognize that such deference would not be accorded them by NBC much less MSNBC.
Is there any more vile network than MSNBC, which has turned into a stinking cauldron of race and class warfare? Yet there is no group targeting MSNBC akin to Media Matters which targets Fox News and other conservative media. I wish the Media Matters of the world and their tactics didn’t exist, but they do … and they are effective. Fox News is on the defensive all the time, while MSNBC gets a pass.
I think Andrew Breitbart would approve of all of this.
I also don’t think he would stop. Ever.