Talk:Breitbart News

Birther Conspiracy

I propose changing

Breitbart News promoted the falsehood that President Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak nevertheless denied that Breitbart News was a "Birther website" or that it had ever made a birther-conspiracy claim.

to:

In May 2012, Breitbart.com published a copy of a promotional booklet that Obama's literary agency, Acton & Dystel, printed in 1991 (and later posted to their website, in a biography in place until April 2007) which misidentified Obama's birthplace and states that Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." When this was posted by Breitbart, the booklet's editor said that this incorrect information had been her mistake, not based on anything provided to her agency by Obama.Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak has denied that Breitbart News was a "Birther website" or that it had ever made a birther-conspiracy claim.

References

to reflect a paragraph in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. Simply stating that Breitbart promoted the birther conspiracy and citing an article that also simply states the same without any evidence, examples or arguments seems inadequate to me. To be clear, I'm not calling the New York Times or the cited article "fake news", and I'm not trying dispute whether or not Breitbart actually supported the birther conspiracy (although I believe they did, but I was unable to find any evidence they did, and I don't really care enough to keep looking). I feel the suggested paragraph has more information with a source that is more on-topic. It shows that Breitbart may have been trying to use the mistake in the promotional booklet to spread doubt about Obama's citizenship.Saith89 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Saith89 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A reasonable proposal, but I disagree. I think the current level of summarization is more encyclopedic. The proposed change might be read to imply that Breitbart was innocently relying on other sources' misinformation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done -- edit-request templates are to be used when there is a consensus for the proposed change. This is evidently lacking. (FWIW, I agree with Dr. Fleischman's comment.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for using a template, I don't have a lot of experience editing pages, and I have never edited protected pages (I would go ahead and remove the template, but I don't know if that might mess something up). The cited article for the "Breitbart News promoted the falsehood that President Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim." statement is unreliable WP:RSCONTEXT, The Times article is not about the Birther Conspiracy, It mentions that the alt-right movement's views include the Conspiracy and casually states that Breitbart supported the conspiracy but does not discuss it any further. One article I found that discusses Breitbart involvement in the conspiracy is at mediamatters.org. I don't know how reliable they are, but at least the article is on-topic. (Also, I'm changing the "edit request" heading to "Birther Conspiracy", I hope that's ok.)Saith89 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The cited Times source is absolutely reliable in this context. It describes Breitbart as "an online news organization that has fed the lie that Mr. Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim." The fact that the source isn't focused on birtherism is beside the point. There is no basis for arguing that the source isn't accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems as though the facts are being excluded out of fear that some people may think Breitbart is innocent. This to me seems less encyclopedic and incredibly biased. The NYT article is generally reliable, but because the article was not focused on the birther conspiracy and was only giving a short description of Breitbart News, it would not be necessary for them to include all the details about how Breitbart supported the conspiracy in that article. But this Wikipedia article is about Breitbart News, and the sub-section is "Conspiracy theories about President Obama" under the section "Notable Stories", and I don't think it is unreasonable to mention the Breitbart story that helped spread doubt about Obama's place of birth. I feel the statement needs more information, and/or cited articles with more information.Saith89 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your assessment is correct. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia that enthusiastically publishes the facts that brief news articles do not. Often, as in this case, those additional facts pull extremist claims back toward reality. However, in the official narrative of this now anti-encyclopedia, right up there at the start of the Breitbart entry is the claim that it is 'far right'. The actual facts about Breitbart only support 'right-wing' not 'far right', so some of them must be excluded. Anyway, welcome to post-facts 'fit the mainstream narrative' Wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing it. Can you point me to evidence that the details of Breitbart's birtherism received any sort of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources? (And btw I don't think that Media Matters sources is reliable.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there's the ABC News Article that the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page cites, I would have assumed that to be reliable enough, and if it's not then I'm done, I can't think of anything else to add to my argument. I lack the experience and desire to hunt down articles and determine the reliability of the source (I thought I had an article from the Huffington Post, but then I saw that it was a blog and that just killed any will I had left to keep going with this) Saith89 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean when you say the lack of detail makes our article biased? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't make the whole article biased, just the one section. You wrote "The proposed change might be read to imply that Breitbart was innocently relying on other sources' misinformation." This sounds like a biased reason to exclude the information from the article, as though it must be presented to read that Brietbart is guilty here. I honestly can't tell with absolute certainty that Breitbart News supported the conspiracy, and while my opinion is that they did, my opinion is biased. I think readers should see the facts and decide for themselves, rather than Wikipedia or the NY Times simply deciding for them. Saith89 (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, putting that claim in source voice is the best way to go. I'm going to do that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree - per WP:YESPOV, reliably sourced facts generally shouldn't be attributed in-text. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As a card carrying liberal, I have to admit: The counter-argument from Breitbart (the source used in the next sentence) is not something that is easily dismissed. And then there are actual breitbart articles like this one, which excoriate birthers and quote Andrew Breitbart as saying "[Birtherism is] self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue". Then blames birtherism on "the left" because breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with MjolnirPants and the original poster than with sentence #1's strong language above. I looked at the May 2012 article in question. Assuming that is an accurate copy of what was published, and if this is the only evidence for the NYT reporter's claim, that claim goes too far and we should not repeat it. Snopes agrees with the Breitbart analysis of the subject [1].

However, Rolling Stone seems to agree more with the NYT [2]:

This article starts off with a note from the senior editors stating that Andrew Breitbart, the site's late founder, along with the rest of the editorial staff, are not Birthers and accept that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. "It is evidence," the senior editors write, "not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times." These intentions seem deeply disingenuous when you look at the rest of the story – or more importantly, the picture they used of a 1991 bio from Obama's publisher that erroneously states he was born in Kenya. Even after the publisher announced that this was simply a fact-checking error, this post was used as fuel for the extremists behind Birtherism – something that can't be easily disposed of with an editor's note.

I see more validity to that claim than the way NYT reporter phrased it. And of course we do have Breitbart printing rubbish like this "Scott Baio Suggests Obama Could Be a Muslim Who Wants to ‘Totally Eliminate the United States". Perhaps some compromise language (like what was in Rolling Stone) considering other sources beside the NYT that tempers down sentence #1 and more actually reflects what was in the May 2012 article might work? I haven't checked for other sources on this. If you guys find any, please post.

I see there was a compromise to say that that is what the NYT said. That might work too. Certainly better than what was there originally.

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is "original poster" what is meant by "OP"?--in law it means opposing party Yes, "Original Poster", or the person who started the thread. But on political articles, it also often has the legalese meaning, as well.

I don't doubt that several birthers worked for Breitbart (and wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that some still do). But I remember being surprised almost a decade ago when Breitbart wasn't running birther stories left and right. I'm sure they're big fans of the CS, and I'm sure their article "questioning the idealogical background" of Obama was designed to fan birtherism while they publicly distanced themselves from it, but still. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Breitbart be described as far right?

"Far right" is a subjective term an should be avoided. Its open to interpretation. For many people "far right" describes "neo-nazism" and conjures up notions of violence. Breitbart certainly doesn't fall into this category. The terms used should be conservative or, arguably ultra conservative. Emotive terms like far right should be avoided in wikipedia and stick to actual words with certain meanings.

The8Corn (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This issue was discussed at length, and upon a Request for Comment not that long ago there was a clear consensus that we should describe Breitbart as far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then that consensus was incorrect?

It is objectively as far to the right as the Huffington Post is to the left, which is described as "politically liberal". Vox is described as "left-leaning".

Is anything that disagrees with the "National Review" considered far-right? Breitbart is the center of conservative and libertarian journalism. This adjective is slanderous, though interestingly reveals the blatant biases of whatever editors manage this page.

I don't even align with the site politically, but Breitbart (and Breitbart Jerusalem...) do not endorse neo-nazi views, and should not be grouped in with them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.170.197.194 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 

Saying it's "objectively" yadda yadda doesn't make it objective, and we've heard all that before anyway. If you have reliable sources discussing Huffington Post's political alignment, discuss them at Talk:The Huffington Post. Or don't. Wikipedia goes by sources. Do you have any sources about Breitbart that haven't been discussed yet? Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not yadda yadda. It's obvious: The far-right sites endorse neo-nazism, Breitbart has a Jerusalem section. Every leftist outlet (Daily Kos, HuffPo, Vox) is described as "liberal" or "progressive" and none are described as "far-left" or "Marxist". That's bias. It's clearly right-wing, but there are much better adjectives. Even mainstream US media hardly uses "far-right". The adjective is pejorative and simply inaccurate.

If anyone questions the political orientation of Wikipedia volunteers, this page provides a clear answer.

"the crusading populist-right website" - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/breitbart-hires-wall-street-journal-vet-to-expand-its-audience

"the right-wing news and opinion website" - NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/business/media/breitbart-news-john-carney.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.170.197.194 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, we've seen all this before. Saying this must be exactly the same as left-wing sites is a false comparison. Plenty of sources use far-right, and "crusading populist-right" seems pretty damn close to Far-right politics to me, anyway. Please take a look at past discussions, and make sure you have something new to offer. This isn't a platform for discussing the site, this is for improving the article. Repeatedly rehashing old discussions isn't productive. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can convince a consensus of editors that Breitbart isn't actually far right, then by all means do so. However it seems unlikely given that essentially the same arguments you raise here were already discussed and rejected. You'd be best to go back and read those discussions carefully. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this page it says: Be polite, and welcoming to new users; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; For disputes, seek dispute resolution.

And yet this particular group of editors decides to impose its "consensus" that Breitbart is far right. The term is as defamatory as it is unjust to describe Breitbart. It is at last crystal clear that Wikipedia editors don't even pretend to be neutral, welcoming or respectful anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirenny (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

So, to be welcoming and neutral we should to ignore the consensus, ignore dozens of reliable sources, ignore pages of debate, and instead accede to the wishes of the occasional drive-by editor who makes no effort research the subject, improve the article, or sign their talk page posts? - MrX 12:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line on "far right": Either supply a fully-referenced definition of what "far right" precisely means, or it must be removed as subjective opinion. If it can't be defined, then it can't be objectively determined as to whether it applies as a description, and thus the consensus opinion is objectively wrong. Can anyone define precisely what it means? Nairebis (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you think content decisions should be based on precision, you're welcome to propose a new policy at the Village Pump.- MrX 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

ETA -- I should say, I realize that it links to a Wikipedia page on the subject, but if you actually read that page, it couldn't be more broad and useless about definition exactly what makes something "far right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The description of Breitbart is based on a multitude of reliable sources, not the quality of the Far-right politics Wikipedia article. Don't forget to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end.- MrX 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not subjective. Breitbart is further to the political right than Fox News, which is clearly center-right. One can, mathematically go through political ideologies and produce a sum which represents the extremity to the right (or left) of any outlet with well-documented positions. Breitbart os objectively further to the right than a source which is objectively in the center of the right. Just because it's a judgement doesn't make it a subjective judgement. This isn't rocket science, folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, the term "far right" should be replaced with "right wing". At another place in the article, people whose opinion of Breitbart as far right can be quoted, alongside those who place Breitbart in the varying other degrees of right wing. It makes just as much sense to tar Breitbart with the far right brush than it would to characterize left wing news sources as far left, or even Stalinist. That game could just as easily be played on the other side of the spectrum.Hirenny (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart advocates for positions which are more closely associated with the far right than with moderate or center right. Also, Breitbart is usually defined as far right when reliable sources make an effort to actually describe it, whereas it's generally only referred to as right wing when the sources mention its political positions in passing. Even the small handful of sources who have defined Breitbart and used "right wing" are taken into account because the far right is a subset of the right wing. This has been extensively discussed on this page and in the archives. The consensus is rather clear to refer to them as far right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not "tarring" or otherwise derogatory to describe a website as far right. There is nothing wrong with far right. Some people like to read Breitbart precisely because it is far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

If anyone with half a brain were to actually go to the Breitbart Web site and read it for themselves they would see that it is not far right but ordinary right. All the citations in this article calling it far right are from far-left extremist propaganda sites. The so-called "journalists" who work for the liberal media are absolutely insane. Just go to the Twitter profile of any journalist that works for the left-wing media, and you will see that they are deranged far-left lunatics that cannot be trusted. The liberal media does not hire ordinary professional journalists anymore but rather far-left communist and anarchist activists posing as journalists whose only purpose in writing "news" is to push an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartspope1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a wonderfully cogent and well-evinced argument, sir. I'm sure we should all agree wholeheartedly and immediately change the article. While we're at it, we should get to work adding "insane, far-left communist and anarchist" to the articles about all the sources used here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone who thinks that all professional journalists who work for the libtard media are "far-left communist and anarchist activists" would describe Breitbart even as right-wing. I applaud you, Hartspope1, for maintaining some perspective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to take this article seriously when the adjective "far-right" appears in the article's first line and the sources are cherry-picked. AppNexus admits the following: "Our decision several months ago to bar the political domain Breitbart.com from our marketplace for violation of our hate speech policy was controversial. It did not draw uniform praise within the industry or among general interest news outlets" [3].

Why is Wikipedia siding with AppNexus instead of with the other general interest news outlets?

Técnico (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Baring Breitbart for hate-speech is what they are describing as controversial. Although it's obviously related, it's not the same issue as them being far-right. Being far-right has much broader support among news outlets, as indicated by sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, then, do you think that one or more editors should not have used the AppNexus source ["AppNexus bans Breitbart from ad exchange, citing hate speech". The Japan Times. November 24, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.] as an example of a source calling Breitbart far-right? Técnico (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for Grayfell, but I think you're misunderstanding the source. It was The Japan Times, not Appnexus, that said Breitbart promotes far-right views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. The AppNexus press release says that Breitbart violated their hate speech policy, which is only indirectly related to the term "far-right". The Japan Times article said that Breitbart "has drawn criticism for promoting far-right, sometimes racist views." As one of many sources making this point, this is appropriate. It would be inadequate for this point on its own, but it is not on its own, it's supported by many other sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Japan Times article is not saying Breitbart is far-right. It is saying Breitbart has drawn criticism.... The source is saying that Breitbart has critics. The source is not necessarily agreeing with those critics. Thus, why should we not drop this source? Técnico (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. I read it as saying Breitbart promoted far-right, sometimes racist views and that it has drawn criticism for that. But, I can see how one might interpret it the way you did. I'd be fine with removing the source on WP:CITEKILL grounds. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind if an editor removes the source because the source can be interpreted two ways? Your interpretation is compatible with WP:CITEKILL. My interpretation is that the source is not directly relevant. Técnico (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. I'ts definitely relevant, as it specifically mentions Breitbart being connected to the far-right, but it's slightly ambiguous and not necessary to make the underlying point. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, thank you! Técnico (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have some difficulty accepting that a news agency that was set up to support Israel can be described as far right. Breitbart is right wing, but its focus is on supporting Israel, not Nazism/Fascism, accordingly it should be described as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Israeli, right-wing", not as "far right".Royalcourtier (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is really not of our concern. If you think the many cited sources all made the same mistake, then write a letter to their editors. It might also be work considering that the website's ideology has changed over time, especially with the shift from Andrew Breitbart to Bannon, so AB's original goal might not be so relevant anymore. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This is correct and sufficient, but as a point of reference, there is a far-right in Israel, also. Category:Far-right political parties in Israel is a starting point for more information. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming Breitbart was far-right under Bannon, if the website's ideology changed after Bannon had left, then are not the sources calling Breitbart far-right out-of-date? The most recent sources are dated mid-November 2016. The Newsweek source says "His comments came two days after Trump appointed Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News Network, as his chief White House strategist" and is dated 11/16/16. Hasn't it been approximately six months since Bannon left Breitbart? Until more recent (and balanced) sources are found, should the article be edited to say something like this: "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a Los Angeles-based news, opinion and commentary[7][8] website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart, a conservative [2]. The website was called far-right in 2016 by some [6]"? Técnico (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No. There is nothing to suggest that the ideology of the website has changed and that any sources are out of date. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You say "reputable" sources (I guess mainstream media like Washpo, NYT and the likes) describe the website as "far-right", but you forget to mention that the same sources are often criticized by many people for having a liberal-bias. So obviously, for a liberal "source" anything to the right of Wall Street Journal is "Far-right". Breibart is objectively as far to the right as HuffPo to the left,...but you don't describe the latter as "Far-Left". These are subjective terms, how far to one side or another of the political spectrum depends considerably on your own political viewpoint. For a Marxist-Leninist Fox News is Far-right,...while Washington Post may be viewed by a deeply conservative southern evangelical as "Far-Left". So for the sake of neutrality, you should change this subjective and politically charged term (Far-Right) to something more serious and academic-sounding as Right-Wing, Conservative, or Nationalist. After all. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Vincent Shooter 20:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Could somebody add the Start date and age to "| launch date = 2007 (as Breitbart.tv)" so that it's "| launch date = {start date and age|2007} (as Breitbart.tv)"?

173.73.218.206 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 DoneᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)