Now, I might just be one of those under-edumicated racist, sexist, homophobic yokels living in one of those mostly empty red states but even someone as dumb as people on the coasts assume I am still can recognize that when someone says a news source is something it utterly fails to prove, apart from one out of context comment, that qualifies as misleading or as they like to call it "fake news".
If you peruse the article you will find one whole mention of the "alt-right" in the entire article, a single quote from Steve Bannon:
Bannon himself has described Breitbart as a platform for the "alt-right," a term that encompasses many white nationalists now rejoicing over Trump's win.
That is all. The webpage itself does not feature "alt-right" writers or pro-"alt-right" articles. The one article on the alt-right on their site is a very useful overview of the alt-right movement, no mean feat because alt-right is a huge catch-all for lots of disparate groups that the Leftist media doesn't understand, including some they label "white supremacists". So given the utter lack of "alt-right" material on Breitbart, why would Politico label it an "alt-right" publication? That is pretty much akin to describing The Economist as a NASCAR enthusiast publication (I am sure there are NASCAR enthusiasts who read The Economist but hopefully you understand my point). Here is another example:
The sharp rhetoric on
("terrorist regime" is a typical modifier) is often combined with
strong affinity for Israel.
In what appears to be a July 2015 opinion piece about the nuclear deal
President Barack Obama's administration reached with Iran
and five other countries, the author asserts, "Obama wants Iran to be a regional power, because Obama fears
Israel more than he fears Iran."
Breitbart has a
bureau, which oversees much of its Middle East
coverage. Its stories and opinion pieces in general brook little sympathy for
the Palestinians, who are frequently described as terrorists. Meanwhile, people
or institutions that try to hold Israel to account for some of its
behavior, such as its construction of settlements on land claimed by
Palestinians, are often called out. "A very incomplete list of anti-Israel
biases at The New York Times," was one such piece in October 2015.
Such pro-Israel coverage stands at odds with the anti-Semitic views of many in the white nationalist community that holds Breitbart News so dear. At the same time, it could comfort supporters of
Bannon may have been influenced by such anti-Semitism. (Bannon himself has been
accused of anti-Semitic comments by his ex-wife, claims he denies. Trump on
Tuesday insisted Bannon was not at all a racist.) Such pro-Israel coverage
stands at odds with the anti-Semitic views of many in the white nationalist community
that holds Breitbart News so dear. At the same time, it could comfort
supporters of Israel
who fear Bannon may have been influenced by such anti-Semitism. (Bannon himself
has been accused of anti-Semitic comments by his ex-wife, claims he denies. Trump
on Tuesday insisted Bannon was not at all a racist.) Israel
Notice what they did there. On the one hand they admit that Breitbart has a "strong affinity for Israel" but then they write "Such pro-Israel coverage stands at odds with the anti-Semitic views of many in the white nationalist community that holds Breitbart News so dear." So which is it? Is Breitbart anti-Semitic or nor? Is Steve Bannon "influenced" by anti-Semitism? It seems unlikely that an anti-Semite would be so favorable toward Israel but if you throw it into a story, even without any evidence to support the idea, people who skim the story come away with "Breitbart is an anti-Semitic, alt-right publication and can be and should be ignored".
Why would Politico publish an article that has a completely erroneous sub-heading and is full of misleading information? The answer is pretty simple. Politico is a highly partisan publication and like many "reputable" publications they are insanely jealous of their self-declared prerogative to determine what is or is not newsworthy. After being caught with their proverbial pants down on Election night, the media is bound and determined to not let that happen again. Thus the new narrative that "fake news" caused Hillary to lose (instead of her own personal repugnance) and that anyone who is outside of the cool kids club of journalism is of course a publication of the "alt-right", a term itself that almost no one understands or can define but which nevertheless is a useful way to imply someone is a racist without actually being so crass as to just call them a racist.
I have been watching these developments with no small amount of alarm because they amount to a subtle form of censorship. While the political Left is still equal parts befuddled and enraged, the media Left is already moving to ensure that this never happens again ("this" defined as the peasants in the middle of the country not following orders from their coastal betters). Too many people are basking in the afterglow of the Trump win and not paying attention to how quickly a) he is abandoning his campaign promises, which I fully expected and b) the media is moving to squash and discredit contrary news and opinion sources. People who love liberty and the freedom to exchange ideas in the intellectual marketplace have a lot of be concerned about as Trump takes office. The media/bureaucratic elites and the Trumpian pseudo-populists are about to go to war and the truth is likely to be the first casualty.