You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Breitbart’ tag.

If sites such as Breitbart and Alex Jones’s Infowars are as crazy as the Left — Democrats — say they are, why give them any credence in a public address?

Yet, that is precisely what Hillary Clinton did on Thursday, August 25 in her speech in Nevada. I happened to be watching Alex Jones’s show live at the time and, honestly, she made not just his day but his season. He yelled:

BEST SUMMER EVER!!

Michael Krieger from Liberty Blitzkrieg thinks her comments will backfire spectacularly:

Precisely because she is so polarizing, Clinton can only make an opposing movement far stronger by engaging in direct attacks on them. Since she is incapable of being a unifying figure for this country, so the moment she calls out a group as her enemy, many people on the sidelines will suddenly say, well maybe they’re not so bad.

I agree. More and more Americans own a ‘Hillary for Prison’ tee shirt, which they probably bought from Infowars. I wear one, too, although mine is a copy from a place here in the UK. Jones has said he doesn’t mind people copying the design, because he wants as many people as possible to carry the message.

The shirt is now in its third limited edition, incidentally. They just cannot keep enough in stock. The design is slightly modified with each run.

But I digress.

Back to Clinton’s speech. Krieger went on to say:

The other problem with the speech were its laughable and obvious contradictions. For example, she starts off by saying the Trump campaign peddles in conspiracy theories found in the “far dark reaches of the internet.” She goes on to name a few of these “dark reach” sites, spending a lot of time on Infowars and Breitbart. This is where things start to come unglued. If these sites are comparable to supermarket tabloids (as she claimed), why craft an entire speech around targeting them? Why would you spend so much energy on crazy fringe sites?

Just so. It is because she feels threatened by their exposés about her and that millions more people are paying attention to them rather than to Big Media.

Krieger says:

The reason is because they aren’t fringe …

As he points out, if you do a search on her health problems, Infowars articles appear at the top of the list. One Clinton water-carrier tried to get that changed:

New York Times columnist Farah Manjoo recently whined on Twitter about how Infowars was appearing at the top of Google search for Hillary health queries. He publicly called for Google to “fix” the problem. That was Tuesday. Two days later the frontrunner for the Presidency of these United States also attacks Infowars.

Clinton also had a go at Breitbart and went so far as to read out several of their headlines. But, wait, if Breitbart is so discredited, as the Left say it is, why give them power over you by reading out their text? (Emphases in the original below.)

It’s because alternative media is now driving the news cycle and this is extraordinarily dangerous to status quo influence and power. This is simply a fact, whether you like Breitbart or Infowars or not.

The Drudge Report is another media opponent of Clinton. Yet, it was one of the first independent media sites on the Internet to gain popularity. My American friends started reading it as soon as it launched in 1996.

Hillary has said she will ban all of these sites if elected. Does that sound democratic and pluralistic to you? It doesn’t to me.

She is afraid of what they have been publishing about her past and present. It is extensive and highly detailed, going back three decades. Former Clinton insider from Arkansas days, Larry Nichols, is on the Alex Jones Show when he is well enough to give an interview. He is worth reading and listening to. What he doesn’t know about the Clintons could be written on the back of a postage stamp. (By the way, he is dying of cancer, so please join me in keeping him in your prayers.)

It will be very interesting to see how Infowars and Breitbart handle Clinton’s preoccupation with them going forward to November.

Alternative media sites are in the ascendant.

Long may they prosper.

Yesterday’s post discussed the growing influence of Breitbart and the allied non-profit Government Accountability Institute (GAI).

The two entities have one thing in common: Steve Bannon, who became the CEO of Donald Trump’s campaign on Wednesday, August 17.

It would be easy to paint Bannon as a conservative news site sensationalist, the way many young adults see his current boss as an outrageous reality show star.

The truth is very different, however. Bannon had a number of personal epiphanies which took him through the Navy, Democrat affinity and Goldman Sachs to considered conservativism, running his own media company and succeeding Andrew Breitbart.

Joshua Green’s article, ‘This Man Is The Most Dangerous Political Operative In America’ — referring to Bannon — is a must-read. Citations and summaries below come from his eye-opener.

Navy a natural choice

Bannon grew up in a pro-Democrat, pro-union, pro-Kennedy working class household in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Bannons could see the local naval base from their house. Therefore, it was a natural choice for Bannon to finish college then sign up for a tour in the Navy in the 1970s.

Over the course of the next four years, he served at sea on a destroyer, as an auxiliary engineer in the Pacific then in the north Arabian Sea as a navigator during the Iran Hostage Crisis, Jimmy Carter’s diplomatic and political debacle which saw his resounding defeat to Ronald Reagan in 1980:

By the time he arrived in the Persian Gulf in 1979, the U.S. was preparing its ill-fated assault on Tehran, and Bannon’s faith in his commander in chief had dimmed: “You could tell it was going to be a [disaster].” His battle group rotated out just before Carter’s Desert One debacle.

After his tour of duty, Bannon worked at the Pentagon as special assistant to the chief of Naval operations. At night, he attended Georgetown University where he earned a master’s degree in national security studies.

By then, Ronald Reagan was in his first term of office. The atmosphere in the United States was changing.

The lure of Wall Street

Stephen Bannon is a few years older than I.

I graduated from university when Reagan won his first election. There was a real step change in mood among my classmates between the moment we left for Christmas break in 1979 and our return in January 1980.

Suddenly, my classmates turned from being fun-loving and curious to serious and closed minded. Tolerance for different points of view died out. Men spoke of Reagan and the necessity for conservatism. Women listened to them intently. One told me, ‘I’m educating myself. They say Reagan will be the head of the most important movement this century.’

As someone who wanted Jimmy Carter to win re-election, I was completely bemused, to say the least. At a drinks party before graduation, one male classmate told me in all seriousness to get on the ‘right side’ of things or be ‘left behind’. It was sickening.

Money also became a popular topic of conversation. Once the milk round arrived, formerly laid-back partiers turned humourless and intense, especially those who were picked up by accounting and consulting firms. They could speak only of new cars and their future lifestyle, which always included cable television. One New Yorker told me, ‘I’ll soon be able to get 100+ channels. I can’t wait’.

I describe my own experience to set the backdrop for Bannon’s change of course, which was similar to that of my classmates:

The siren of Reagan-era Wall Street capitalism drained the military life of its luster, so he resolved to make the leap. “Somebody told me,” he says, “if you want to go to Wall Street, you have to go to Harvard Business School.” HBS accepted him, and Bannon, at 29, matriculated in 1983.

Well, Bannon and all my classmates were right. The 1980s belonged to the likes of Gordon Gekko and his imitators in a variety of industry sectors. It was the decade when a proper lunch break went out the window.

For arts majors like me, it was an eternal turn-off.

However, Bannon was assessing his future. Despite his hard work at Harvard Business School which propelled him into first-year honours, he was having problems finding a summer associateship. His more successful classmates told him his age and naval service went against him. Even worse, they told him he hadn’t gone to the right schools.

He received an invitation to a Goldman Sachs recruiting event on campus. Entering a tent teeming with several hundred fellow students did not fill him with confidence. He stood on the sidelines, had a drink and started talking with the two men standing next to him:

We have the greatest conversation about baseball, and I find out after half an hour it was John Weinberg Jr., whose dad runs the firm, and a guy named Rob Kaplan, who became a senior partner.

That night the Goldman Sachs people gathered to discuss potential hires:

“They said, ‘Well, Bannon, I guess we’re gonna reject him. He’s too old for a summer job,’ ” Bannon says. “And these guys say, ‘Oh no, we talked to him. He’s terrific.’ Literally, a complete [gamble]. But I got a job.”

The Goldman Sachs years

Bannon started working at Goldman Sachs in the second half of the 1980s.

By then, Americans were divided about Wall Street. They either loved it or hated it. Regardless of what side they took, corporate raider and ‘junk bond king’ Michael Milken was a household name. He later served time in prison for securities and reporting violations. Since his release, he has devoted his efforts full time to philanthropy.

Bannon told Bloomberg’s Joshua Green:

“Everything in the Midwest was being raided by Milken,” he says. “It was like a firestorm.”

Goldman Sachs wanted no direct involvement in hostile corporate acquisitions. Instead, the firm defended targets of hostile acquisitions.

The other thing they did was never to lead, but to follow other companies into a particular market segment. That way, they avoided the flak from other Wall Street firms and the general public.

Bannon was in his element at Goldman, even though the only day off he took was Christmas. He told Green:

The camaraderie was amazing. It was like being in the Navy, in the wardroom of a ship.

And:

Goldman in the ’80s was like a priesthood, a monastic experience where you worked all the time but were incredibly dedicated to client services, to building and growing companies.

He later went into leveraged buyouts, one of which involved Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.

By the end of the decade, global scope began to shape world markets and:

size suddenly mattered. Everyone realized that the firm, then a private partnership, would have to go public. Bankers also could see that the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial and investment banking was going to fall, setting off a flurry of acquisitions. Specialists would command a premium.

With a speciality in mind, Bannon represented the firm in Los Angeles. He went into the media and entertainment, a new sector which brought in companies one normally did not connect with those fields. General Electric and Westinghouse come to mind:

“A lot of people were coming from outside buying media companies,” he says. “There was huge consolidation.”

Eventually, with the change in Goldman’s ethos and the acquisitions market [added link and emphases mine]:

He underwent a conversion like the one Michael Lewis has described, watching with horror as staid private partnerships such as Goldman Sachs became highly leveraged, publicly traded companies operating like casinos. “I turned on Wall Street for the same reason everybody else did: The American taxpayer was forced to cut mook deals to bail out guys who didn’t deserve it.”

Bannon & Co. and Seinfeld

Bannon and a few of his Goldman colleagues left to set up Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank which specialised in media and entertainment.

This involved not only media company acquisition but the new and risky valuation of assets such as film libraries:

At the time, investors preferred hard assets—manufacturing companies, real estate—and avoided things like movie studios and film libraries, which were harder to price. Bannon’s group, drawing on data such as VHS cassette sales and TV ratings, devised a model to value intellectual property in the same way as tangible assets. “We got a ton of business,” he says.

They were so successful that MGM and Polygram Records were among their clients. When Crédit Lyonnais, a major financier of independent Hollywood studios, was in danger of going bankrupt, Bannon & Co. began lending to media companies.

The firm’s sale of Castle Rock Entertainment in the mid-1990s was a turning point for Stephen Bannon.

If you are a student of title and credit sequences, Castle Rock Entertainment should jump out at you. It was the production company behind a number of successful films and television series, from Billy Crystal to Seinfeld.

At that time Westinghouse Electric owned the production company. They wanted to sell it in 1992, when Seinfeld was in its third season. The ‘show about nothing’ was still a cult classic, even though it aired during prime time on NBC.

Westinghouse asked Bannon’s company to find them a buyer for Castle Rock. Bannon approached Ted Turner:

“Turner was going to build this huge studio,” he says, “so we were negotiating the deal at the St. Regis hotel in New York.

Everything was going well until:

when it came time to actually close the deal, Ted was short of cash. … Westinghouse just wanted out. We told them, ‘You ought to take this deal. It’s a great deal.’ And they go, ‘If this is such a great deal, why don’t you defer some of your cash fee and keep an ownership stake in a package of TV rights?’ 

After working through the present and anticipated future numbers, Bannon accepted:

a stake in five shows, including one in its third season regarded as the runt of the litter: Seinfeld. “We calculated what it would get us if it made it to syndication,” says Bannon. “We were wrong by a factor of five.”

Financial independence followed a few years later when Société Générale bought Bannon & Co. in 1998.

Not having to work led Bannon to pursue what he really wanted to do: finance films and make them.

Hollywood

Although he had been living in Los Angeles for several years, Bannon was now able to live the Hollywood life in terms of how he spent his time.

In 1999, he was executive producer of Titus, an Oscar-nominated film starring Anthony Hopkins.

He also made the acquaintance of Jeff Kwatinetz, a talent agent who had just launched his own company called the Firm. Kwatinetz invited Bannon to become a partner.

The Firm’s biggest achievement was the acquisition of former Disney chief Michael Ovitz’s company, Artists Management Group. Ovitz, a household name in Hollywood, had visions of creating a media monolith with his company. Unfortunately, he was losing money hand over fist. Selling Artists Management Group to the Firm in 2002 was a sad necessity:

as Vanity Fair recounted, Bannon was dispatched to Ovitz’s Beverly Hills mansion to deliver the final humiliation in person, an offer for AMG of $5 million, less than the value of Ovitz’s home.

Ovitz went on to become a private investor, advisor to film luminaries and a philanthropist. Although he is still married to his wife Judy, in 2015, he became engaged to Tamara Mellon, the co-founder of shoe company Jimmy Choo and ex-wife of Matthew Mellon, of the banking family. Mellon describes her fiancé’s marital situation as ‘complicated’.

9/11, politics and Breitbart

Although he had always admired Ronald Reagan, the events of September 11, 2001 shifted Bannon’s interest from entertainment to politics.

Since 2004, he has made 15 socio-political documentaries on various subjects, including Reagan, border control, the Tea Party and America’s future.

His first film, In the Face of Evil, was modelled on a book called Reagan’s War. The author of the book was none other than Peter Schweizer, a Cold War expert. Bannon went on to found the non-profit Government Accountability Institute (GAI), of which Schweizer is president. As I explained yesterday, the GAI’s research feeds into Breitbart, which Bannon heads, although he has taken a leave of absence to work on Donald Trump’s campaign.

When In the Face of Evil was screened in 2004, one audience member became quite excitable:

“We screened the film at a festival in Beverly Hills,” Bannon recalls, “and out of the crowd comes this, like, bear who’s squeezing me like my head’s going to blow up and saying how we’ve gotta take back the culture.”

That ‘bear’ was none other than Andrew Breitbart.

Breitbart also lived in Los Angeles. Interested in new media, he had worked for Matt Drudge before helping Arianna Huffington launch her Huffington Post. When he and Bannon met, he was in the process of launching his own eponymous site.

When Breitbart was working on the Drudge Report, he developed a feel for the news cycle: anticipating big stories, breaking them and following them. When you read Matt Drudge, you are looking at Breitbart’s legacy.

Bannon found this fascinating. He gave Breitbart financial advice and found him office space.

It was the beginning of a faithful friendship and involvement in Breitbart:

“Our vision—Andrew’s vision—was always to build a global, center-right, populist, anti-establishment news site.” With this in mind, he set out to line up investors.

Bannon continued making his not-so-subtle documentaries:

big, crashing, opinionated films with Wagner scores and arresting imagery … In the Bannon repertoire, no metaphor is too direct. His films are peppered with footage of lions attacking helpless gazelles, seedlings bursting from the ground into glorious bloom

Sarah Palin loves them, especially one about her, The Undefeated:

Palin, for one, ate it up and traveled to Iowa, trailed by hundreds of reporters, to appear with him at a 2011 screening in Pella that the press thought might signal her entrance into the 2012 presidential race. (No such luck.) Breitbart came along as promoter and ringmaster. When I spoke with him afterward, he described Bannon, with sincere admiration, as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Tea Party movement.

In 2010, Bannon was instrumental in financing Breitbart‘s relaunch. Unfortunately, he had problems as one of their big stories had gone very wrong:

The site published video, furnished by a conservative activist, of a speech to the NAACP by a Department of Agriculture official named Shirley Sherrod, in which she appeared to advocate anti-white racism. Within hours, she was fired, as the story blanketed cable news. It soon became clear that the Breitbart News video was misleadingly edited—that Sherrod’s point was the opposite of what was portrayed Fox News, which aggressively promoted the video, banned Andrew Breitbart as an on-air guest.

However, as Breitbart, Bannon and the other employees know, it isn’t long before redemption comes. And Breitbart’s came in the form of Huma Abedin’s husband and then-congressman, Anthony Weiner, with his salacious selfies. Breitbart wasted no time in publishing the sorry story in 2011 and, with that, he was allowed back on Fox News.

Breitbart was due to relaunch in March 2012. Breitbart was ebullient. Then, he collapsed during a walk in his Brentwood neighbourhood on March 1, dying shortly afterwards of heart failure at the age of 43. Many still find this suspicious.

Bannon became executive chairman and went ahead with the website’s relaunch.

By then, he fully understood Breitbart’s take on the news. People want to understand it as a series of ongoing stories, whether drama or farce, with names, faces, events, climaxes and pivots.

Alex Marlow, the site’s editor-in-chief, told Bloomberg’s Green:

Our whole mindset is looking for these rolling narratives.” He rattles off the most popular ones, which Breitbart News covers intensively from a posture of aggrieved persecution. “The big ones won’t surprise you,” he says. “Immigration, ISIS, race riots, and what we call ‘the collapse of traditional values.’ But I’d say Hillary Clinton is tops.

And, adopting the Goldman Sachs dictum of never leading, only following, Bannon brings in their big, investigative exposés from the GAI. Clinton Cash is one of them.

Breitbart News gets 21m unique hits every month. Big Media, in the US and abroad, are paying attention. This fits into Bannon’s strategy of making these stories irresistible to Fox News and The New York Times, among others.

Politicians, in turn, have to read it, too:

“They have an incredible eye for an important story, particular ones that are important to conservatives and Republicans,” says Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican. “They’ve become extraordinarily influential. Radio talk show hosts are reading Breitbart every day. You can feel it when they interview you.”

Breitbart is promoting Donald Trump. During his leave of absence, Bannon is beavering away in Trump Tower for the GOP candidate.

It will be fascinating to see what results their efforts will produce on Tuesday, November 8.

On Wednesday, August 17, Donald Trump hired Stephen Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, as his campaign’s chief executive.

On Friday, August 19, Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign manager until last week, stood down. Manafort, a Republican presidential campaign veteran from the 1970s to the 1990s, was a tremendous asset in helping Trump obtain the GOP nomination.

Long-time Trump and Manafort friend Roger Stone explained that Manafort did the right thing by bowing out quietly. Stone said that Manafort is guilty of no wrongdoing with regard to Ukraine — to accuse him of that is ‘actionable’ — and that the campaign is moving into a new phase. Stone also said that verbal attacks from Hillary’s people and the media would have made Manafort’s staying on untenable.

Kellyanne Conway, a former pollster for Mike Pence, becomes Trump’s campaign manager and will be flying around the country with him to rallies and other public appearances. Conway can definitely hold her own, as seen in this Hardball clip with Chris Matthews:

With only 80 or so days to go until the election takes place on Tuesday, November 8, this move could work either way.

Manafort’s previous ten-year assignment which took him to Ukraine is thought to have been raising eyebrows.

My analysis is that, rightly or wrongly, Trump chops and changes where necessary. Corey Lewandowski energetically propelled him into all sorts of speaking engagements and rallies during primary season. He was a powerful, unpredictable personality that probably had to go once the Sisyphean task of reaching the magic delegate minimum came up. Therefore, Paul Manafort stepped in to surpass expectations.

After Labor Day, the election campaign will be in full throttle. Trump is looking for someone who thinks as asymetrically as he does, hence, Stephen Bannon.

Tomorrow’s post will feature a profile of Bannon. He is more than ‘just Breitbart‘. He had an incredible career with several business and political epiphanies which brought him where he is today. Again, more on that later.

For now, let’s examine the rise of Breitbart and Bannon’s Government Accountability Institute (GAI).

I am not Breitbart‘s biggest fan. Until several weeks ago, accessing the site caused my PC to stall. Going into archive articles dated as late as May 2016 produces the same problem. The layout is hideous and the readers’ comments even worse.

However, for those who read it — and millions more are — it continues to follow in the footsteps of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart with exposés at home and abroad.

The work of the GAI has helped to propel Breitbart to the forefront of what is called alt-right media.

Bannon co-founded the GAI and serves as executive chairman.

The GAI’s president is Peter Schweizer, who wrote Breitbart’s promotional book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich and has also written a recent e-book, Bush Bucks, as well as an exposé of the establishment called Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison.

In 2015, Bloomberg landed in-depth interviews with both Bannon and Schweitzer. Joshua Green’s article, ‘This Man Is The Most Dangerous Political Operative In America’ — referring to Bannon — is a must-read.

Schweizer worked for several years at the Hoover Institution. There he learned the fine art of investigative research, beginning with Soviet archives. By 2004, he took a closer look at American politics. That year, he co-authored The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty which was well-received. Far from being a compilation of journalistic efforts, he was able to interview many Bush family members personally.

All his digging caused him to be disillusioned with Washington. He told Bloomberg’s Green that he saw the establishment as being similar to professional wrestling. The oppositional rhetoric, just like wrestlers’ violence, is merely for public consumption. Ultimately, he said:

I eventually realized they’re actually business partners.

In 2011, he published the aforementioned Throw Them All Out, which made 60 Minutes. The segment concerned congressional insider dealing.

Disillusioned, he left Washington for Tallahassee, Florida, where he established GAI. The Institute is in a quiet area of ante-bellum style buildings. Green describes it as:

… a sleepy cul de sac of two-story brick buildings that looks like what you’d get if Scarlett O’Hara designed an office park. The unmarked entrance is framed by palmetto trees and sits beneath a large, second-story veranda with sweeping overhead fans, where the (mostly male) staff gathers every afternoon to smoke cigars and brainstorm.

Note that they smoke. This can only help their work. Smoking aids conviviality, conversation and concentration.

Schweizer is friendly and easy to talk to. One could almost say that he and Bannon have a good cop-bad cop thing going on:

Bannon nurses this regular-Joe appeal by forbidding him from wearing a tie when he’s on TV.

Clinton Cash is the book of the 2016 campaign season. It was carefully conceived to avoid the usual left-wing — Democrats included — accusation of ‘conspiracy theory’.

Bannon told Bloomberg’s Green:

We have a mantra. Facts get shares, opinions get shrugs.

As the Clinton back catalogue, which stretches back to the 1980s, is too extensive to cover in any one book, Bannon advised ‘periodicity’, or exploring one recent aspect of their dubious dealings:

So they’d focus only on the last decade, the least familiar period, and especially on the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation.

GAI researchers got to work digging into the Deep Web — not the dark net with drugs and porn but the far reaches of the Internet:

GAI researchers plumbed tax filings, flight logs, and foreign government documents to turn up what the foundation withheld. Their most effective method was mining the so-called Deep Web, the 97 percent or so of information on the Internet that isn’t indexed for search engines such as Google and therefore is difficult to find.

Tony, GAI’s data scientist, spoke with Green and explained that he wrote software protocols to make searching less onerous:

Since this requires heavy computing power, Tony struck a deal to use the services of a large European provider during off-peak hours. “We’ve got $1.3 billion of equipment I’m using at almost full capacity,” he says.

The results were astounding (emphases mine):

This effort yielded a slew of unreported foundation donors who appear to have benefited financially from their relationship with the Clintons, including the uranium mining executives cited by the New York Times (who showed up on an unindexed Canadian government website). These donations illustrate a pattern of commingling private money and government policy that disturbed even many Democrats.

All the information had to be put forward into a readable book that would engage people, especially the media.

So, a young writer, GAI’s Wynton Hall, set out to work on a storyboard and approach that would make Clinton Cash irresistible:

Hall’s job is to transform dry think-tank research into vivid, viral-ready political dramas that can be unleashed on a set schedule, like summer blockbusters. “We work very long and hard to build a narrative, storyboarding it out months in advance,” he says. “I’m big on this: We’re not going public until we have something so tantalizing that any editor at a serious publication would be an idiot to pass it up and give a competitor the scoop.”

Wynton’s team are used to hearing him say:

ABBN — always be breaking news

and

Depth beats speed.

The approach works because journalists love receiving fact-filled material rather than fluffy pieces such as press releases. Furthermore, Big Media don’t have the money to employ their own investigative journalists:

“The modern economics of the newsroom don’t support big investigative reporting staffs,” says Bannon. “You wouldn’t get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We’re working as a support function.”

This ‘support function’ allows this conservative outfit to get entry to The New York Times and other bastions of left-of-centre media. Wynton Hall describes it as:

Anchor left, pivot right … weaponizing

a story into Big Media.

It would be easier for him to propel these exposés into the small-time conservative online media bubble. Using the ‘anchor left, pivot right’ strategy enables him to go much further. Hall explained:

We live and die by the media. Every time we’re launching a book, I’ll build a battle map that literally breaks down by category every headline we’re going to place, every op-ed Peter’s going to publish. Some of it is a wish list. But it usually gets done.

Consequently:

Once that work has permeated the mainstream—once it’s found “a host body,” in David Brock’s phrase—then comes the “pivot.”

This is why Breitbart is increasingly quoted in Big Media stories this year:

“With Clinton Cash, we never really broke a story,” says Bannon, “but you go [to Breitbart.com] and we’ve got 20 things, we’re linking to everybody else’s stuff, we’re aggregating, we’ll pull stuff from the Left. It’s a rolling phenomenon. Huge traffic. Everybody’s invested.”

Even veteran Democrats are impressed with this new kind of conservative media. One told Bloomberg’s Green:

They’ve adapted into a higher species.

Ultimately, however, most senior Democrats think that Breitbart will go overboard and damage their own cause.

Bannon disagrees and says the GAI efforts are showing that:

the donors highlighted in Clinton Cash violated many of the principles liberals hold dear: “You look at what they’ve done in the Colombian rain forest, look at the arms merchants, the warlords, the human trafficking—if you take anything that the Left professes to be a cornerstone value, the Clintons have basically played them for fools. They’ve enriched themselves while playing up the worst cast of characters in the world.”

Agreed, but will the Left read the information?

Bannon said he is also taking older Clinton scandals to a new generation:

There’s a whole generation of people who love the news but were 7 or 8 years old when this happened and have no earthly idea about the Clinton sex stuff,” he says.

That is so true, and that is why the Democrats are probably right in banking on ignorance. Talk about low-information voters. You couldn’t get much lower.

We are now into the sunset of the 2016 presidential campaign. Bannon could — and should — try to target Sanders voters within the remaining weeks. They would be the best target market for his anti-Clinton information.

Whilst I do not believe the skewed polling going on since the Democratic National Convention — Reuters have significantly altered their methods — I also don’t believe those who say Trump is strongly ahead.

That said, it would be something if the LA Times polls showing a one to two point difference end up being the most accurate. It’s interesting that the latest Los Angeles Times poll dated August 20 shows that he is half a point ahead of Clinton.

We’ll see what sort of magic Bannon can work for Trump between Labor Day and Hallowe’en.

Tomorrow: why Trump (probably) chose Bannon

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,536 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

January 2022
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,668,002 hits