I guess for them “fear” and “repulsed by his actions” are one in the same.

The scale and terminology are horrid. Its either a “credibility” scale or a “bullshit” scale. In my mind, those are opposites (higher credibility moves to the right; “higher bullshit” moves to the left on the given scale).

If you want to make a useful and intuitive scale, you need to put some thought into the units. When your scale is arbitrary, why choose -30 to +30 points? Percentage with defined zones would display the information much more intuitively.
0-25% credibility = bullshit
25-50% credibility = probably ignore, if it seems promising, look into it further
50-75% credibility = potentially true, take with a grain of salt
75-99% credibility (nothing gets 100% credibility, every source can be wrong) = trusted sources, likely to take at face value, but could still be inaccurate

Taking a label like “youtube” and pointing it at {-20, -5, 10, 25} says… IDFK, i just go with my gut. which is probably true, but plotting it without naming the sub-categorizations implied just displays confusion.

Like i said, its a personal nit-pick, but graphs should add clarity, not detract from it. Maybe I enjoy xkcd too much…

When Breitbart makes a demonstrably false or hateful statement it becomes associated with his real-life persona. As a result people like you and I are able to form a lasting opinion as to his credibility (very, very poor). People can send him hate mail or organize protests against his organizations. He might attract angry stalkers. His record of inflammatory statements make the odds of ever winning elected office (if he chose to run for one) virtually nil. None of these things can be said about people who practice anonymous hate speech on 4chan or YouTube.

Why Breitbart, or O’Keefe, or their media-amplifiers receive any credibility, on any subject, is beyond me.

Repeat after me… Andrew Breitbart is not a journalist.

But anonymity is unrelated to credibility. Anonymous sources have zero credibility, just as famous ones have, until either delivers proof of their assertions. Negative credibility has to be earned, by lying or repeatedly failing to deliver.

A certain star reporter who pipelined a government official’s agenda and the editor who allowed it to be published, to name an extreme example, put their prominent newspaper in negative credibility territory (happily, not among people who mattered). Ditto for sitting on a big story about telephone companies illegally spying on customers at the government’s behest, so as not to jeopardize that administrations re-election.

As Gillmor points out, Breitbart has a record of trading in doctored rightwing sleaze and minor stories inflated to major ones by hysterical amplification. Therefore, Breitbart is in negative territory for anyone not already predisposed to believe him and must remain so for a long time to come.

But why Gillmor would finish with a (possibly forlorn) hope that Breitbart’s credibility improves is beyond me.

But my point isn’t really to make a moral judgement of scum like Breitbart. There will always be scum like Breitbart. My point is that decent people should stop helping him.

When Breitbart makes a demonstrably false or hateful statement it becomes associated with his real-life persona. As a result people like you and I are able to form a lasting opinion as to his credibility

So you’re saying that he’s got the makings of a Presidential candidate?

I’m arguing that he is so far beyond the pale that moral comparison to people who may or may not be more contemptible, is not productive. The useful question is how we should judge the people who stick microphones in his face, when they should be turning their backs.

As it is, there’s certain anonymous forums (notably most of the off-/b/ 4chan boards) whom I’d trust more than any fox news talking head, simply because they’re not seriously trying to incite me toward a direction. Also, because I prefer blatant hate speech meant jokingly to carefully phrased hate speech meant seriously.

“Credibility is a hard-won asset, and all too easy to forfeit. Breitbart’s credibility has improved in the wake of the Weiner affair. Will it move into positive territory?”

Brightbrat’s credibility doesn’t matter. What does matter is the immediate plausibility of any particular story that he pukes up. If the corporate media can run with it, they will. It doesn’t matter much if later, an audience that’s one tenth or less the size of the initial one here’s a retraction or correction. The damage is done.

sorry.

hear hear!

It’s debatable whether the journalists who still quote him as some kind of expert pundit are more contemptible.

Exercise: apply the same reasoning to the term ‘homophobia’.