>>
>>You are, of course, wrong. I do read centrist and right-wing POVs. But there's a difference between say, the National Review or the WSJ, and Breitbart or Drudge.
>>
>>>
>
>Just a follow-up - while I don't care for the tone of some of the Breitbart content, that doesn't always make them wrong or dishonest.
>
>For instance, back in spring of 2011, Breitbart was the first to run the story of Anthony Weiner and lewd photos.
>
>For several days, Weiner claimed he didn't do anything wrong, and was the victim of hacking. In a manipulative move, he hired a law firm to investigate. But by early June, Weiner changed his story and admitted he had lied about the pics.
>
>It's not the first time Breitbart ran a controversial story and was proven to be right. But given the very recent news on Weiner, it was one I could easily recall.
>
>And in fairness, there are individual pieces in HuffPo that I agree with.
>
>The point is this - both sides lie.

This isn't about lying. This is about who they are trying to represent and attract. The head of Breitbart has said, specifically, that the site is "a platform for the alt-right." No ambiguity there. The site is trying to represent white nationalists.

Tamar