‘Breitbart is smiling’: NYT vindicates Andrew Breitbart with major story on Pigford scandal

Smiling, indeed.

The late Andrew Breitbart and his team worked tirelessly to expose the fraud and abuse of the Pigford settlements scandal, the injustice to black farmers and the media malpractice in addressing the story. For his efforts, he was smeared, mocked and trashed as a liar.

Today he is vindicated by a New York Times story on page A1.

The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

It’s rare that we suggest this about a New York Times article, but read the whole thing.

Breitbart is here.

Video flashbacks via Lee Stranahan, who played a significant role in investigating the Pigford scandal.



A message from Stranahan:

  • Bob Smooper

    The NYT is Fishwrap of Record when you don’t agree with it, and a reliable source to vindicate Breitbart when you do agree with it. Hypocrites.

    • Pablo

      The butthurt came early this morning, eh Bob? Credit should be given where it is due, not always and only to your political allies.

    • marcellucci

      The media has been stepping on the necks of conservatives for years…

      To get a rag, trusted by liberals, to admit Andrew was right, is a victory…

      I see no hypocrisy here….just vindication……

    • http://twitter.com/Gator_Country Stephen K

      Just because the NYT happened to get one right for a change hardly means it’s any kind of trusted news source all of a sudden. They’ve got a LOT more work to do if they want to be considered anything but the utterly biased liberal rag they are, and I doubt they’re interested at all in doing any of that work.

      It still doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that they’re right this one time, though.

    • Stephen Speck

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Bob.

    • therantinggeek

      How’s that crow tasting this morning, Bob? Need some salt and pepper to go with it? :)

    • NRPax
    • Clayton Grant

      Your critical thinking skills need work. Not giving the NYT credit when they get something right would be hypocritical, doofus.

    • Kevin Krom

      “Even the NYT is finally getting on board” is not a compliment to the NYT, but an indictment of it. Idiot.

      • nc


    • HerodiousPeaskinner

      I adore reading Progdelyte accusations of “Hypocrite”. It’s so….hypocritical!

    • TocksNedlog

      Are you saying that this NYT story is untrue?
      Yes or No?

    • $270502

      Facts are facts, even when you don’t like them.

    • https://twitter.com/SmileyRoffle Smiley

      Bob, follow these steps:

      1. Get a dictionary
      2. Look up the word “vindication”

      3. Read the definition of “vindication” until it sinks in.
      4. When finished, take said dictionary and cram it.

    • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

      Fffk you, douchenozzle.

    • PeriMedic

      That’s the difference between us and you: we are willing to acknowledge when an “enemy” does something right, unlike you who would never acknowledge Fox being correct about anything.

    • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

      Correct, the NYT is fishwrap.

      And horseshit.

  • http://apostrophejones.com/ Gloves Donahue, Jr.

    Breitbart knew it was a con, as did everyone else.

    The difference is, he was not afraid of being called a racist.
    He knew, and now we do, a “racist” is someone who is winning an argument with a lib.

    • therantinggeek

      ^ this.

    • The Monster

      That was the definition a few years ago.

      Now, a “racist” is just someone who disagrees with a Lefty. You don’t even have to be winning the argument anymore.

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        That was the definition a few months ago.

        Now a “racist” is anyone on the left who briefly disagrees with the President, or anyone on the right who is living or dead.

        • Alan W. Bauerle

          That was the definition a few weeks ago.

          Now a “racist” is anyone who happens to be standing anywhere near an opportunity for a liberal to get attention, or anyone who has ever had a less-than-uncivil conversation with someone on the Right.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            That was the definition a few days ago.

            Now a “racist” is anyone who doesn’t like black puppies.

          • http://twitter.com/BrianPHovland Brian H (wackobird)

            *hat tip* to all. Blowing hot tea out of my nose was a real wakeup call……eye opener. Thanks, my sinuses havn’t felt this ALIVE in a month!

      • danheskett

        It’s easy to think this, but the difference between NYTimes and Breitbart was that the Times was willing to do the hard work, without publicity, for what I could only imagine is a long time. Unflattering, unglamorous, unsexy digging.

        And then, they spent the time to get people on the record, assemble responses, verify quotes, and then write it.

        Breitbart had many good qualities and a fantastic nose for corruption. But doggedly pursuing a story without fanfare was not always one of them.

        For every one claim he made that was spot on, there was another that was off the mark.

        Say what you will about the NYTimes, but they have the story just right – finally.

        • Alan W. Bauerle

          ROFL… the hilarious part is that you probably actually believe that. Peruse ANY major story covered by the Times in the past decade, and you find unquoted, unsourced, incorrect, and slanted prose, written long before facts came to the surface. The number of important stories that the NY Times has buried and ignored is longer than the ObamaCare text.

          • danheskett


            I am not sticking up for the Times. They have a bad record. I believe though this article is fairly well done. They have a few sources here that are not named, and that’s too bad, but overall, they have a done a nice piece of work getting people to comment on the record.

            This article, I don’t have many complaints.

        • http://twitter.com/politibacon Jason Hopkins

          Wait, how do you dis a guy for trying to gain publicity for a story by giving a back-slap to a major media outlet who did the same thing? The purpose of news IS publicity.

          • danheskett

            I don’t “dis” the guy per se, I am saying however, this article by the TImes, for example, has signs of work that Breitbart never did. For example, analysis of a good chunk of FOIA records.

            If Breitbart got into that and I missed it, my mistake.

        • Cappy Paxton

          Kinda funny … a newspaper avoiding publicity. hahahah, no, that really is funny.

          • danheskett

            How many stories/daily updates/you tube videos did NYTimes post while they were working on this story? How many public spectacles did they create, etc?


            I think that’s the difference. Breitbart has a flair for the absurd, and for publicity, and for promotion.

            The NYTimes, is grey. It’s just a different product and a different style.

        • https://twitter.com/SmileyRoffle Smiley

          Jayson Blair would no doubt love what you just posted.
          By the way genius, the “fanfare” surrounding Breitbart was the leftist establishment smearing him to death.

          • danheskett

            1. Blair was fired for doing the things I mentioned. It’s a bad trait. And eventually even the NYTimes recognized it.

            2. Are you saying that the blair model is what journalists should emulate? Seeking a lot of fame/publicity/fanfare?

            I don’t get your reference to the guy.

          • https://twitter.com/SmileyRoffle Smiley

            I’ll be patient and explain once again: Blair would’ve loved your post because you sound like the very saps that fall all the time for the MSM. Blair did NOT do any “unflattering, unglamorous, unsexy digging” or “spend the time to get people on the record, assemble responses, verify quotes, and then write it”. He brazenly made crap up in plain sight to serve The Narrative and got away with it for years due to the NYT’s “Newspaper of Record” nonsense. He’s embolic of the NYT and the MSM in general.

            Meanwhile, Breitbart was the one working hard for years and acquiring truth to this story, in the face of countless attacks and adversity, and a retaliatory MSM determined to falsely depict him and make him an outlandish caricature. So naturally you dismiss him under this same false caricature and praise the NYT for essentially discrediting themselves once again.

            You are either a schmuck or a moby.

        • Gallatin

          Really????!!!! You wrote this with a straight face???

        • TeaPartyGeezer

          Obviously, you were not following the story when Breitbart was doing it. Did you watch the video? The one where Breitbart said he’d been totally immersed in the Pigford investigation for the previous 7 months, to the exclusion of other breaking stories?

          Breitbart DID the hard work … “unflattering, unglamorous, unsexy digging” … years ago. The NYT is several years late to the party … and they have a pool of paid reporters … something Breitbart did not have. What they lacked, until now, was the willingness to investigate.

          Let us not forget to give credit to Lee Stranahan, who led the investigation and brought it to Breitbart’s attention to begin with. He, too, “spent the time to get people on the record, assemble responses, verify quotes, and then write it.”

          But, HOORAY for the NYT because they FINALLY got it right?

          Sure, years after Stranahan and Breitbart “doggedly pursued it” but was either ignored or demonized as “racists,” by the MSM, for trying to get the story out to the public … you know, with *publicity.*

      • BlueGood

        God Bless Andrew Breitbart and the HUGE SMILE he must be beaming down to us from up above! Well Done SIRE!

        By the way, please IGNORE the leftoid trolls…they WANT you to engage them, THEY WANT to steal the conversation.

        GIVE them what they DON’T WANT……Irrelevance & 40 or 50 MORE TEA PARTY Caucus Members!

        Get on 2014 NOW, it will be upon us very soon!

  • Bemani Dog

    Any chance they could issue a formal apology and retraction to Andrew Breitbart? I mean, he’s not here to accept it, but it would be good to have it on the record.

    • Stephen Speck

      I don’t think they have it in them. It would be an admission of the failure of “real journalists” to do the job the news blogosphere is stepping up to do.

  • peteee363

    good news, bad news. yes andrew knew of this fraud, and for 2-1/2 years the spigot was open pouring out cash. now that we are knee deep in red ink, they finally noticed at the times. makes you wonder what else they have been turning thier heads at?

    • dr44

      Makes one wonder, too, at the sudden willingness to do an expose’ like this by the New York Times, the “Monica Lewinsky of record” for the Obama administration. Could the NYT finally have developed some ethics?
      Nah. What was I thinking, right?

  • rivers

    A reminder, be fearless, pursue the truth. Rest in peace, AB, we miss you.

  • TexasVetgal

    God bless Andrew, and those that assist him, as they drop the curtain on our Corrupt government with theid lies and deceit … He will be sorely missed.

  • nc

    I long for the day when major stories are “vindicated” because they were vetted by Michelle Malkin et al.

  • pairadimes

    Nothing matters more to our future right now than the truth. Pursue it relentlessly.

  • MovingToNevada

    And yet, with all this government fraud going on including Medicare ($100 BILLION annually), food stamps, welfare, disability, etc., they want me to pay more taxes. GFY.

  • teamfrazzled

    Bob I think you need to work on your critical thinking skills. What is it you can’t get? Liberals and liberal media labelled Breitbart a racist for discovering and reporting on Pigford fraud and corruption and abuse of taxpayer money. But now we are all supposed to pretend this is a fine piece of investigative reporting when the NYT reports the identical facts but WAY late in the game? THAT is the hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is NOT happening to notice one liberal rag finally stopped avoiding this story. Hypocrisy is insisting liberals are not the real racists -but then telling everyone including blacks themselves -that unlike everyone else, blacks can’t possibly be expected to succeed against (implied) superior whites unless expectations are lowered for them. Soul destroying paternalistic racism is far worse than blatant which can at least be readily seen and dealt with. But paternalistic racism purports to be done for ‘caring’ reasons while making the racist feel all warm and fuzzy for being a filthy racist of the worst sort. Hypocrisy is liberals insisting they aren’t the real racists -but then demand that the members of an entire race and no other race-MUST all think and vote alike-or be publicly humiliated and excoriated, called every filthy, vile and racist epithet -and making it quite clear these words are obviously part of the liberal’s daily vocabulary but something I never -NEVER-hear used by anyone I associate with! Now THAT is hypocrisy. And no one does it better than a liberal.

    • usaman


    • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

      Indeed, bravo.

    • danheskett

      I think there are a few critical differences:

      a. The facts are not identical. For one, there are many developments after Breitbart died. That’s just the basics.

      b. Secondly, instead of ancedotes, the Times got primary sources and researched them and created an analysis that stands on its own. I am not sure that Breitbart went down that road? I remember many articles with antecedotes, but I dont recall any FOIA requests.

      c. Breitbart obviously had a very powerful agenda to promote in this story. The NYTimes article, I think, does not have that feature.

  • Vince Stagbaugh

    You gotta admire a guy like Andrew who relentlessly pursued truth and justice while getting a real rise out of exposing crooks and a$$holes.

  • Diggsc

    I am shocked, shocked I say, that blacks have flocked to free government money like flies to dung. I am even more shocked that tens of thousands are making false claims of racism to get their hands on taxpayer money. And even more shocked that this is happening with the approval of the Obama administration. Lastly, I am most shocked that white lawyers and career civil servants have figured out a way to make a large portion of that money line their pockets.

    • $27789750

      Much that is wrong with this countries policies is tracable to the Obama administration. It may take years for all the abuse to surface and decades to repair it.

      • twolaneflash

        Repair is not going to happen; replacement is the only option, but first comes more misery, till the fullness of time “When in the course of human events…”. Career bureaucrats by the millions are entrenched like inoperable cancers in the massive monster that is Government in America. We are all Socialists now, working for The Party members.

        BTW, Obama says Pigford is ebonics for reparations, so keep paying Whitey, and shut up, racists.

      • Mike H.

        We haven’t finished repairing the damage from the sixties. This damage will still be around fifty years from now.

  • PatriotRG

    its a shake down – in the fashion of the not so reverend jackson

  • meyo

    This just out, As soon as Obama Is out of office, the MSM is going to vett him.

  • Hal Fast

    What is a racist definition by the left? Anybody who seeks and speaks the truth because the truth is the left enemy.

  • tommcgtx

    As if a quality man such as Andrew Breitbart needs vindication from a pathetic rag like the NY Times…….

  • mirt

    Those who care learned about it from Breitbart. MSM is just trying to be relevant, publishing 2 and half years old news. In general, you cannot trust NYT, they err too often, willingly or unwillingly, to be taken seriously.

  • BAW

    It’s the point that what the Times is reporting, is not news? Not to anyone who had already done the media’s job and informed themselves about Pigford. Whether people learned what the Times has just figured out through Breitbart’s work or other sources the point is the Times did not do its job and is only now reporting, “old news.”

  • $35072932

    Here’s another scandal from the Dear Liar’s regime:

    Strassel: Nearly Sideswiped by Another Green Car
    Next AutoWorks failed to get hundreds of millions in federal subsidies—despite the best efforts of its politically connected financial backers.

    Fisker Automotive featured in a House hearing this week, as congressmen questioned how that luxury electric-car maker—now in financial straits—ever qualified for a $529 million federal loan guarantee. The Obama Energy Department is facing some awkward questions—a la Solyndra—about what role politics played in granting that subsidy.

  • AZWarrior

    “……..And the truth shall set you free!”

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    As a farmer myself all I can say is…..finally

  • maplebob23

    Does this vindicate Breitbart or damn the Mainstream Media, especially the New York Times?

    • Pablo

      You don’t get vindicated by catching up to the truth.

  • nol west

    Paul Krugman fighting hurricanes while holding a cat today at http://progressivethoughtvsacidrock.blogspot.com/

  • patriot1742

    The Obama administration run by liberal democrats is a CON and a FRAUD on the WORKING people of America.

  • JoeMyGodNYC

    Breitbart is here? That’s weird. I read on this very site that he was assassinated by President Obama’s subsonic death ray fired from a low-orbit satellite.

    • KhadijahMuhammad

      Come on. Obama doesn’t have a death ray. That’s been disproven so many times it’s not even funny.

      It’s a high frequency sonic wave oscillator that bursts the capillaries in your brain.

      EVERYONE knows THAT……(sheesh).

      • JustLikeAnimals

        And, it’s hidden in Michelle “I’m entitled” Obama’s big, fat ass.

    • Guest

      quit it honey. What time are we going to the sauna?

  • KansasGirl

    It’s so bittersweet.
    I can just imagine his reaction. lol
    He would have had a blast.

  • Sam

    Pigford is nothing less than backdoor reparations.

  • Frankie Lee

    The New York Times had been very Incompetence,crooked and nasty.Breitbart,who was always known to be a man of integrity,needed such crooks to vindicate him!How is it that crooked people,like NYT gets so much power to vindicate a good man,and we are always seemingly the underdogs,at their mercies?I will never forget when God did His might healings on many crippled and deformed cases,by miracles,the Catholics and many Institution investigations became the”Lord of All”who gives verdict,show themselves greater that God Almighty!..And they will deliberately delay God, the Justice… by delaying HIm many years to show His miracles are realThey really put God to the test and tried Him all over again and again!

  • Frankie Lee

    Since NYT did horrible deeds to Breitbart,any apologies,compensations for all the wrongs done?Oh I see,we should get away from our evil deeds,is that right?

  • Lamar Carnes

    When will the black communities of America realize that the Liberal, Socialistic Democratic party is nothing more than a “self-interested politicians party” out to make things happen for them and not the people of America! The Democratic party as a whole (some exceptions always of course) has been the worse party for the black people of America that has ever existed. They not being privy to what is going on behind the scenes think their interests are being taken to heart but it is not. The Democratic party wants their votes on every election but that is as far as it goes and what is worse, some “popular named” black men and women are part of the entire scandal harming the black communities, people such as Jackson, Waters, etc.,! I speak not unadvisedly or with ignorance at all, because the New Times article reflects much of what I speak of. It is time the black folks realize that only Conservatives (social progressive ones at that) along with Tea Party type people have not only the black people in mind but ALL Americans in mind as they try and re-direct this nation back to our Constitution and Bill of Rights and back to the right to work, back to free enterprise and the HOPE to better oneself and not be kept on a welfare farm all of their lives as some as being brainwashed to believe that is all there is!! Help us be a loud voice to the nation on this issue – get the word out!

  • CHHR

    Question, does this mean that the NYT is now racist too?

  • TeaPartyGeezer

    The story is not about ‘method.’

    The story is about Breitbart exposing this fraud years before the NYT decided that maybe Breitbart wasn’t a liar and racist after all, and was on to a real story of government ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ on a massive scale.

    The NYT article (all 8 pages of it), didn’t uncover anything new. The question remains, why didn’t the NYT, or any other MSM outlet, send somebody out to investigate whether or not the Breitbart/Stranahan story had any credibility to it? Why now, why not 2 or 3 years ago??

    That’s all Breitbart wanted … for the MSM to investigate Pigford, to cover the story. By not covering the story, the MSM effectively covered up massive government corruption.

  • TeaPartyGeezer

    For crying out loud! WTH is your problem? Both did the same story, both put in the time and effort to cover the story. But you keep asserting that somehow Breitbart’s coverage was less than the NYT’s coverage, because … ?

    You keep inferring that Breitbart was less than honest, so his coverage must be inferior. Yet, you don’t specify what he was dishonest about. As far as I know, nobody has ever proven that Breitbart was ever dishonest … just a lot of slander, misquoting, deliberate misinterpretation and ignoring of facts, and blind demonizing of the man.

    If that quote was from Stranahan, good on him. It sounds like he is being very gracious to somebody who took his story and ran with it … 2-1/2 years after he did the same story. Too bad you can’t be bothered to display the same graciousness. I guess it’s a matter of character.