Left: Andrew Breitbart. Right: Rush Limbaugh. Photo credit: Wikipedia

It might seem odd to be writing about a blogger’s death and a broadcaster’s controversy in the same piece.

But, while the events are of two different natures, the repercussions are similar.

I first listened to Rush Limbaugh during the 1992 presidential election. It was a long drive back and forth to the southern campus of the college I attended, and conservative talk radio was just warming up. Limbaugh took to the airwaves daily to rail against the Democratic Party and warned of Armaggedon if the nation elected Bill Clinton over George Herbert Walker Bush.

Later, on his short-lived late night television show, I watched Limbaugh take facts and shape them into a narrative to further the conservative cause. While he made some valid observations, I noticed with particular interest over the years that a good chunk of the calls and questions from the audience was screened and selectively presented to keep the humble host — with talent on loan from God — in the best possible light.

Limbaugh frequently found himself in one controversy after another. He’s been accused of being racist, abuser of prescription drugs, heartless and hateful. Recently, he found himself cast as sexist and apologized for pointing out the absurdity of a female law student’s birth control testimony on Capital Hill by calling her a “slut.”

In the mid-1990′s, a younger, more brash version of Limbaugh came on the scene with the arrival of Andrew Breitbart.

Breitbart, who passed away last Thursday at the age of 43 and worked for a lengthy period at The Drudge Report, carved out a niche of his own a decade later when he helped launch the Huffington Post and his own blogging empire. Relatively obscure to mainstream America, Breitbart flashed on the scene when he helped turn the spotlight on questionable activities of a group known as ACORN which served as an advocate for low- and moderate-income families on various social issues.

Breitbart took on what he perceived as the liberal-dominated media machines, Occupy protestors, and the Obama Administration. He was loud. He was caustic. He could be foul-mouthed and unyielding.

Upon news of his death, the blogosphere began its digital dance, a ritual which seems to be more and more common these days. First, a hush fell over the fiber optic lines, as the first headline (oh yes, there was someone wanting to be first with this scoop) flashed on the monitor reporting Breitbart’s death. Then, more headlines trickled through the RSS feeds, each one a re-telling of the original, with just a bit more information or maybe a clarification on the time of death, or who was there, or where he was taken.

Inevitably, the commenters flock to each article, wanting to be the first to get their say in. A heartfelt message of sympathy at Fox News A courteous message to the family, “We’re keeping you in our prayers,” at the Washington Times, then someone begins to wonder why he died, how he died, how could he have died?

Finally, the speculation starts. The nastiness, which is normal now for Internet chatter, sets in. Someone on the left Tweets how much better the country will be without his hatred. Someone on the right wonders who on the left orchestrated his death, what suspicious timing for him to die on the very day he was scheduled to release some “explosive” videotapes of President Obama from his college days.

One national radio broadcaster even went so far as to suggest Breitbart was assassinated. All this without a shred of evidence at this point in time. Just speculation before an impressionable, and sometimes gullible, worldwide audience called the Internet.

On Facebook today it was speculated that Breitbart was just the recent in a long list of conservatives who have been silenced.

“Something smells for sure,” the Facebook poster stated. “One by one, the conservative mouth pieces are being done away with. Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, The Judge on FOX TV and this guy who was a top blogger and ran an independent news company. Food for thought? Or just brush it off?” – comment on Facebook, Sun. Mar. 4, 2012.

Three conservative commentators lose their jobs — that’s called firing, which goes on every day at thousands of businesses across America — and suddenly we have a conspiracy when a conservative blogger dies tragically and unexpectedly. What death isn’t unexpected, even ones resulting from terminal illness? That moment of finality catches everyone off guard in the end.

Friends, in America we still have freedom of speech. But that means we also have the freedom, and even the responsibility, to respond to these theories and keep the national discourse on a sensible level.

The last thing the Breitbart family needs to hear right now is that their son, husband and dad was “assassinated” as the result of some liberal plot ( maybe it was Bill Ayers, the so-called terrorist whom Breitbart had dinner with recently??). The family is grieving. We should respect their time of sorrow. Yes, Breitbart was a national, public figure by choice. He interjected himself in the national conversation willingly. But keep in mind, Breitbart, as well as Limbaugh, Hannity and a host of others, are also entertainers.

These personalities make a living off presenting you “news” and “information” in a way that best benefits their empires (their checkbooks), not necessarily in a way that presents the unfiltered and objective truth. Rush Limbaugh’s full-time job is getting you to listen to his radio program so he can sell air time to his sponsors. Andrew Breitbart wanted you to visit his websites, read his material, and support his advertisers.

And while there’s nothing wrong with this, we would do well to remember these media personalities are flawed, just like us. They get things wrong. They say things for which they have to apologize from time to time, and sometimes they lose financial supporters as a result.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said it best. The Breitbart he knew in private was not the “caricature” the nation knew. In other words, these people have a public persona but oftentimes are normal people like you and me in private.

Are we blurring the lines between journalism and commercialism? Objectivity and activism? Critical thinking and sensationalism? Truth and propaganda, on the left and the right?

Did you find this content interesting? If so, please consider a small PayPal donation.