The late Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012), foe of mainstream media’s role as chatbots for progressive government, would be proud: From Lucas Nolan at Breitbart:
According to a report from leading analytics site NewsWhip, social media metrics show that Breitbart has one of the highest number of Facebook engagements for political pages leading up to the election. The study analyzes data between October 31st and November 7th, showing that Breitbart is the 6th highest ranking Facebook page for election content, outranking CNN, The Huffington Post, NowThis Election and, The Daily Caller.
Breitbart has dominated social media in recent months as the biggest publisher of political content for the months of May and June this year, with a lead of nearly 2 million more interactions than the second place page The Huffington Post. Breitbart beat other news organisations such as CNN, The Hill, and The Guardian with a total combined 9,098,013 Twitter and Facebook interactions, of which 89% came from Facebook and 11% from Twitter. More.
Reality check: HuffPo and Breitbart are both new media but the difference is that HuffPo is, for the most part, reassuring progressives.
My take is that many progressives must have actually wanted to know what is going on. Simple-minded detractions of Donald Trump provide reassurance only to people who do not really want to know what is going on. Reading Breitbart gives one a much better sense of why the sea is boiling hot.
One thing the election upset might do is improve the quality of progressive media, in the way that the National Post, for a while, forced the Globe and Mail to become a better paper.
Progressive media could become interesting again if they get around to taking in what happened and responding to it coherently. On the other hand, they may resolve to quietly plot for much more censorship, to be enacted when their cronies return to power. We’ll see.
See also: New York Times’ disastrous third quarter
Big Networks fear public doesn’t trust them on election night. Trust?