Here’s your daily bit of irony. The Washington Post is reporting today that advertising on the “the alt-right website Breitbart.com has dropped 90 percent in recent months, from 242 in March to 26 in May, according to data from MediaRadar, a New York firm that tracks online advertising.”
Those still ponying up to have clickers click on their ads include”a gentleman’s club in Northern Virginia, a golf resort near the coast of Spain and the conservative foundation Judicial Watch.”
As the story implies, it makes little sense to align with such an obnoxiously partisan media outlet and in so doing run the risk of alienating a large part of the purchasing public. And as advertisers pay close attention to web traffic, there is this:
The number of visitors to Breitbart.com has also taken a hit, tumbling 53 percent since November, to about 10.8 million unique visitors in May, according to ComScore. (Web traffic to The Washington Post, meanwhile, is down about 24 percent in the same period.)
But the irony is contained in this comment by Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at the City University of New York:
“If Breitbart lost every single penny of advertising tomorrow, it probably wouldn’t matter,” Jarvis said, adding that the site is backed by billionaire Robert Mercer. “Quite the contrary: It would probably be a badge of honor.”
The right wing always goes on about how media like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should die if they can’t survive in the marketplace without public funding. But it’s apparently okay for hyper-right wing media like Brietbart to fail in the marketplace but survive due to access to one gigantic billionaire teat.
A market of one. Sounds very democratic, doesn’t it?