Comments on: How Andrew Breitbart Changed Digital Media

By: Daniel Frankel

Daniel Frankel — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 05:09:11 +0000

I agree, how he approached Kennedy’s death was abhorrent to most decent people. But I think, on some level, whether he was conscious of it or not, Andrew knew he wasn’t targeting decent people. I think it was all driven by narcissism, commerce … and brilliance. Just my take from spending two years with him.

By: Raygold1

Raygold1 — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:48:01 +0000

Like it or not, Andrew spoke the truth about Ted Kennedy.

By: Abrams

Abrams — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:39:17 +0000

This guy was no David Brooks of NY Times and certainly by any stretch not William F. Buckley. Yes, he did indeed changed the medium, for the worst. If you do not believe me, just look up what he said of Ted Kennedy. Each time I come across what he said of T. Kennedy while his body was still warm, always takes my breath away.
He was simply a vile,crude & a crass human being. Good riddance.

By: DilbertAsended

DilbertAsended — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:36:02 +0000

You can call it “humanizing”, or providing a revealing look at the “real” person behind all the hate and lies.

The way I see it, if you’re an adult of many years, and you choose to pollute this world with hate and mistrust, that’s really all I need to know about you.

That’s his legacy.

That’s his contribution.

That’s how he should be remembered.

By: txpatriot

txpatriot — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:31:28 +0000

@daniel: it took me a minute but I finally figured out that UGC = “user generated content”. A good journalist defines such terms before using them. Don’t assume all your readers will recognize such terms as easily as you do. This is another example of why blogging will never replace traditional journalism.

By: Sohrob Tahmasebi

Sohrob Tahmasebi — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:34:57 +0000

Nice piece. Humanized the guy for me. I still think his views were majorly flawed though.