Media activist Andrew Breitbart died this morning in Los Angeles at the age of 43, according to one of his Web sites. While I do not agree with his activist approach to communications or his political philosophy, he exposed hypocrisy in the leftist-dominated media. He got people thinking about the press. The media has become an industry of toadying influence peddlers that ignore, distort or evade the facts, support the welfare state and cheer for total government control, so it makes sense that his media activism caught on. Breitbart activated and participated in major news, such as corruption and hypocrisy among those in power, and he brought important news to the public’s attention as he denounced collectivism. Though his career was more reactive than creative, Breitbart was often passionate about what he regarded as liberty.
I heard the charismatic conservative address an enthusiastic crowd last year. He arrived late and proceeded to talk extemporaneously for almost an hour – no small achievement – about a range of issues, taking questions and going well past his scheduled time. He also rambled, used foul language and stalled in several spots, going completely off the topic. I left thinking that Breitbart’s was an essentially libertarian view of freedom, mixed with a conservative’s religious morality. At times, he bordered on incoherent, so I wondered if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I concluded that he was not in good health. I can’t say that I am shocked by his death. I say this partly because some are sure to speculate about his cause of death. I have since read that he had a history of health problems.
Andrew Breitbart should be remembered as one who shed light on the media and the government. The husband and father was an avenger when he thought there had been a particular injustice. He did not stand by and do nothing when he thought something was wrong. Whatever else, in a nation heading toward dictatorship, this fact alone makes him better than most Americans.