My Tussle With Breitbart, the Genius of Agitprop

Andrew Breitbart<a href="">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

I’m hardly the person to properly eulogize Andrew Breitbart, the right-wing provocateur who died unexpectedly yesterday at the age of 43. My only contact with him was brief, but revealing. Like so many others who found themselves in Breitbart’s crosshairs, my interaction with him was through Twitter, where he hounded me to admit that the media had applied a double standard in its coverage of the tea party and the budding Occupy protest movement I’d been following in Oakland last fall. Insisting I was willfully ignoring the ugly reality of Oakland’s tent camp, 

I didn’t take the bait, and our exchange turned into a light-hearted back-and-forth in which he declined my invitation to play soccer in San Francisco. “More of a baseball and football guy!” he tweeted back. “Moving. Fast. Or. Even. Slow. Not. My. Strong. Suit.”

Offsides: Breitbart demurs to a invitation to a friendly soccer match.Offsides: Breitbart turns down an invitation to a friendly soccer match.Our brief correspondence angered at least one Occupier, who demanded to know why I had given Breitbart the time of day, or at least hadn’t tried to savage him. Her reaction was indicative of Breitbart’s simple genius, upon which his shock-jock journalism shop successfully, relentlessly trolls its political foes, who then unwittingly play into its hands. My first story on Occupy Oakland touched on this: By taking easy jabs at the left, Breitbart and his co-conspirators elicit hysterical reactions that reinforce whatever perceived hypocrisy they’re assaulting.

Such a tactic isn’t particularly novel, but it was the extent to which Breitbart flaunted boundaries—hijacking former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s resignation press conference, screaming at Occupy CPAC protesters to “stop raping people!” (see video below)—that defied the tediousness of a Hannity or an O’Reilly. His outbursts were so outrageous that he often seemed unhinged. But he acted with purpose, reckless though it could be, and he was surprisingly effective. I wasn’t the only one to suspect that the early reports of his death were another ploy until a coroner’s report confirmed them.

In an excellent 2010 profile, The New Yorker’s Rebecca Mead noted, “No battle is too petty for Breitbart, no target too small or pathetic.” Breitbart’s brand of political theater openly embraced, thrived on, and existed only because of the absurdity of the hyperpartisan vitriol that infects American politics, a fact that seems lost on many of his opponents. He was one part political operative, one part gonzo journalist. “I have two speeds,” he told Slate, “humor and righteous indignation.”

For better or for worse, Breitbart greatly influenced the new media landscape. He was a key player in the Drudge Report’s early good fortunes and later used what he’d learned there to help launch the Huffington Post. Then he built up his eponymous media empire, where he employed equally tenacious, if far less talented, peddlers of agitprop, like leftist-turned-FBI informant Brandon Darby and radio host Dana Loesch (who last month applauded US Marines who urinated on the corpses of their enemies). Breitbart published James O’Keefe’s infamous pimp-costume video that took down ACORN, broke the Twitter sexting scandal that forced Weiner into retirement, and got agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack to prematurely fire then-USDA employee Shirley Sherrod through a vicious campaign accusing her of racism. (That stunt remains the subject of a defamation lawsuit.)

In the best Breitbart obit so far, Jack Shafer wrote, “An F-bomb from Breitbart’s lips was a sort of Irish blessing, an invitation to get in the ring with him to see who was the champ and who was the chump.” Breitbart’s war against the established media order was one of conviction, aided by his utter disregard for the traditional conventions of journalism. His politics were deplorable to anyone on the left, but the critics who understood his game couldn’t help but respect his resolve.

Even in death, Breitbart is at the center of a rhetorical war, his critics’ vitriol and glee playing directly into the narrative he spent his career weaving. Like Christopher Hitchens, whom Breitbart admired, and other rabble-rousers who ignored the custom of never speaking ill of the dead, Breitbart would have had it no other way.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend