Washington Post Encourages New Bretibart Reader

Knowing little about Breitbart and being asked about Bannon (the former Chairman of Breitbart) who has been announced as Trump's chief strategist, I decided to look into the matter. I read a Washington Post article titled ‘Can you name one white nationalist article at Breitbart?’ Challenge accepted! to see if the assertion that it is "white nationalist" in nature could be supported and to see if I should be alarmed at Trump's choosing of Bannon. Being Berean in nature I researched the research of the WaPo author, Callum Borchers,

--------------------------------------------------

Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. Acts 17: 11

--------------------------------------------------

For those short on time, here is my conclusion:

The claim was made that Breitbart publishes white nationalistic articles. Washington Post author, Borchers, researched whether an article was guilty as charged and concluded in the affirmative. Borchers also tried to group three other articles from Breitbart into the same category of being "white nationalistic articles." I did not agree with the assessment of any of those articles. Instead, I found the main article researched to be informative about the alt-right. It also provided insight into why "vicious slurs and stereotypes" heard from some in the alt-right group should not be taken at face value. (One must also read The Onion with an approprate dosage of salt, I might add.) The three other articles cited by Borchers were also not found to be convincing of a white nationalistic message. They raised the issue of how people are exploiting the privileges associated in some circumstances with being black; reported on the information that is given to employers by the Idaho Refugee Agency; and described the statistical impact that illegal aliens have on the employment of youth from ages 16-24. Each was informative and non-inflammatory (other than the slightly sensational title word "scary" in one title). 

I intend to start reading Breitbart as a source of informative articles about current events and trends. I will distrust (at least the Washington Post narrative) that Breitbart is pro-white-nationalistic until I see evidence to the contrary.

What follows is my commentary on Borcher's article, indented from the bold text which is the full Borcher article.

On CNN Monday night, Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak issued a challenge to anchor Don Lemon: “Can you name for me, Don, one white nationalist article at Breitbart? Just one.” 

“Yeah,” Lemon replied. “There's an article defending the alt-right.” 

This is the claim. 

Since President-elect Donald Trump announced Sunday that his chief strategist in the White House would be former Breitbart chairman Stephen K. Bannon, the conservative news site has defiantly resisted the “white nationalist” label. In fact, Breitbart said in a statement to the Hill on Tuesday that it is “preparing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against a major media company for its baseless and defamatory claim that Breitbart News is a ‘white nationalist website.’ ” 

Breitbart feels that the "white nationalist" label is worthy of a defamation claim. 

Perhaps you, like Breitbart, are wondering how people would get that impression. In the interest of research, we took a closer look at the evidence, beginning with the article Lemon cited. Published on March 29, the piece in question was called “An establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right.” Here's how it looked on the site, complete with a Pepe the Frog cartoon. 

[picture omitted by me] 

And here are a few more headlines that have been featured on Breitbart: "Why White People Seek Black Privilege", "Read the Scary Descriptions of Refugees by Idaho Refugee Agency", and "Federal Reserve: Illegal Immigrants Take Teenagers’ Summer Jobs"

The headlines give no context and do not constitute evidence of white nationalism. 

Pollak claimed that the “guide” was “not defense or advocacy” but was merely about “explaining the alt-right to mainstream conservatives.” That's a stretch, to say the least. 

claim: the article was a guide;
counterclaim: article advocates for white nationalism 

Remember that Bannon told Mother Jones in August that Breitbart is “the platform for the alt-right.” So when the site explains that “there are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared),” the explanation reads a lot like a defense of a group in which Breitbart is a leading member. 

Providing a platform for someone to speak does not consitute an endorsement. 

Since Bannon identifies Breitbart as an alt-right news site, the question is whether the alt-right encompasses white nationalism, an ideology characterized by a belief that the United States' identity as a nation built by white people (or “European Americans,” as David Duke euphemistically calls them) is under attack and must be restored. The answer is clearly yes. 

The assertion that Bannon claims that Breitbart is an alt-right news site has not been substantiated. We are only told that it is a platform for the alt-right. It's scope might be much broader. The attack by Borcher has shifted from "is Breitbart 'white nationalist'" to "is the alt-right white nationalist" with hope to prove the former by proving the latter. Doing so does not constitute a proof without establishing that Bretibart is, indeed, committed to being an alt-right website. 

[video appears here] What is the alt-right? Play Video2:35 The alternative right has come under fire from Hillary Clinton and establishment Republicans, but it has been seeping into American politics for years as a far-right option for conservatives. Here's what you need to know about the alt-right movement. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Video evidence is given to indict the alt-right. This is not evidence against Breitbart.

In their guide to the alt-right, Breitbart's Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos acknowledge that the alt-right includes “real racists and bigots” but argue that “there's just not very many of them, no one really likes them, and they're unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right.” 

Describing the alt-right accurately does not constitute proof that Breitbart shares the same views. 

Why, then, is there so much online hate speech under the alt-right flag? Breitbart contends that most of it should be taken in jest. Here's more from Bokhari and Yiannopoulos: 

The "so much" is a qualifier that is unsubstantiated. Saying that it should be taken in jest could be valid. Words in print lose context. "I could kill you!" in print may be understood differently than hearing the same being said by someone who had just been embarassed by a friend's posting something online, for example. 

The alt-right openly crack jokes about the Holocaust, loudly — albeit almost entirely satirically — expresses its horror at “race-mixing,” and denounces the “degeneracy” of homosexuals … while inviting Jewish gays and mixed-race Breitbart reporters to their secret dinner parties. What gives? 

It sounds like the behavior of the group confirms the assertion that the language is not to be taken too seriously. To condemn someone for what they say without regard to what they do reveals that the heart of the accuser is close-minded to evidence. (Interestingly, it was the reverse -- knowing the action without the intent -- that saw Lavoisie lose his head: being accused of adulterating tobacco with water which he may have been doing to keep it from becoming brittle, but I can't find a definitive answer as to his motive.) 

If you're this far down the article, you'll know some of the answers already. For the meme brigade, it's just about having fun. They have no real problem with race-mixing, homosexuality, or even diverse societies: It's just fun to watch the mayhem and outrage that erupt when those secular shibboleths are openly mocked. These younger mischief makers instinctively understand who the authoritarians are and why and how to poke fun at them. 

I have seen people behave this way. I think it is a valuable service of Breitbart to make this clear about the group. I don't condone such talk as Proverbs 10:10 says that "He who winks the eye causes trouble. And a babbling fool will be ruined." I consider such talk to be "winking" in nature: the insiders know that they are baiting an opponent. 

There. See? Everyone should calm down, Breitbart explained, because hurling “vicious slurs and stereotypes” is akin to “jocks busting each other's balls at the college bar.” 

Yes, that's right: the comments taken without context sound vicious. It is language that (based on their actions to the contrary) is not to be taken at face value. While we might not condone that language or conduct, it doesn't mean that those who use it are that way at heart. It is interesting to note that many of the people that engage in such conversation on the bulletin boards are from "the west, the Balkans, Turkey, the Middle East, South America, and even, sometimes, Africa." Having lived in a foreign culture for 8 years, I can say that when someone is speaking in a 2nd language, they may say things that sound offensive to the native speakers without meaning to do so. That is the nature of communication...and the importance of understanding the words in context of the person. 

So when Breitbart writes about “why white people seek black privilege” and stokes fear of refugees and resentment toward immigrants, we shouldn't view those stories as embodying white nationalist themes. Apparently we should laugh. 

Maybe the author of this paper did not read the articles, perhaps was in a hurry and just used the headlines that appeared to fit the desired narrative. I read the articles. The first article raises "taboo questions ... about the nature of race in America." That seems like good reporting to me. The article states the following at the outset:
   

...being black in America in 2015 is perceived as a status symbol and an advantage. This does not deny the horrific and evil history of racism against black people in America. It also does not deny the fact that a disproportionate number of black people live in poverty and suffer as victims of crime (primarily from other black people, just as white people suffer crime primarily from other white people).  
 

But Dolezal and King [two people who have posed as black but apparently are not] make it clear that America’s attempts to repair the effects of that horrific history have now made black skin advantageous for a certain subset of activists, which is why people like Dolezal and now allegedly King have masqueraded as black for personal advantage. 

I don't see the white nationalism here. The fact that there are advantages to being of minority status are uncomfortable realities that some are exploiting. Even Elizabeth Warren has not been able to substantiate claims that she is part American Indian, yet "described herself as a minority in a law school directory and was touted as a Native American faculty member while tenured at Harvard Law School in the mid-1990s." [ref] Why would she do this if there was no advantage to do so? A recent book, "Almost Black" tells the story of an Indian who identified as black to gain admission to a medical school. It is irrefutable that being black today can carry privileges in the right places. The honest question that we need to ask is whether our policies have worked (or are working) in ways that were intended. Someone needs to ask these questions and point out the painful realities that perhaps they are not. Such similar introspection must be brought to bear on policies which incentivize the break down of family units which leads to children who are then statistically disadvantages relative to those from homes with both parents.

As for the claim that the other articles "stokes fear of refugees", a reading of Read the Scary Descriptions of Refugees by Idaho Refugee Agency does not support this. Although the title uses the word "scary" I think it does so in the way that online advertisers use "one weird trick" to lure readers into viewing an article. In the article they cite the Idaho Refugee Agencies information that is provided to employers of refugees. And indeed, there are many issues to be aware of. But to pretend that people acculturated elsewhere won't have issues when trying to enter a new culture is sociological foolishness. I think that Breitbart does a service to make readers aware of this. (Take a Rottweiler for example. A potential buyer should be told about the breed and what is needed to ensure a happy coexistence. Knowing that they need to be "thoroughly socialized at an early age so that their territorial instincts are controlled rather than indiscriminate" is valuable information which a wise buyer would heed and either make it so or else choose a different breed.) The article also provides an interesting perspective on whose shoulders the need to adapt falls. It seems to me, much of the intent of the guides is to tell employers how they should adapt to the refugee. We aren't told what information is provided to the refugee to help them fit in. Again, having lived elsewhere, I didn't figure that my host country should just get used to me doing things my way. I stopped handling money with my left hand, for example, in effort not to be offensive.
   
As for the claim that the other article would stoke "resentment towards immigrants" the article Federal Reserve: Illegal Immigrants Take Teenagers’ Summer Jobs reports, in the first paragraph, that
   

...a published report by the U.S. Federal Reserve late last year, “Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects,” blames this crash [a 36% decrease in employment of 16-19 yr olds and a 6% decrease of 21-24 yr olds] on a flood of immigrant labor that has displaced native-born kids from jobs at higher percentages rates than adults.

There is no mention of the race of the displaced, only that they are "native-born", Americans. So for the author to claim that this Breitbart article is stoking resentment with a "white nationalist" message is unfounded. So what if we drop "white" from the accusation: is it fair to say that the Breitbart article raises issues of nationalistic importance? Yes, I think it's fair to say. Is this a shocking thing? I don't think so. Those providing amnesty to illegal aliens know that many of them are here to work and thus prefer to refer to them as "undocumented workers." If an undocumented worker moves to your town during the summer months and picks rocks from the fields of farmers -- something you have done previously to fund your college education -- isn't that an issue of importance?  

To have a definition of self, family, city and nation seem to me to be very specifically supported in scripture. To deny such identity is like drilling holes in one's own ship. I cannot see how stating the fact of worker displacement by non-residence is reporting to shy away from. While scripture advocated for gleaning, no instances of taking a job away from an Israelite and giving it to a foreigner comes to mind.

I do not support Borcher's confirmation that the example given of a "white nationalistic" article is a valid one, nor do I support the corroborating evidence given in Borcher's article about additional Breitbart articles were evidence of the same.