Oh dear. Breitbart:

I’ve had $100,000 burning in my pocket for the last three months and I’d really like to spend it on a worthy cause. So how about this: in the interests of journalistic transparency, and to offer the American public a unique insight in the workings of the Democrat-Media Complex, I’m offering $100,000 for the full “JournoList” archive, source fully protected. Now there’s an offer somebody can’t refuse.

The American people, at least half of whom are the objects of scorn of this group of 400, deserve to know who was colluding against them so that in the future they can better understand how the once-objective media has come to be so corrupted and despised.

Sully says:

Yes, the Economist was right. This is not about transparency, or hypocrisy. It's about power. And when you are Andrew Breitbart, power is all that matters. There is not a whit of thoughtfulness about this, not an iota of pretense that it might actually advance the conversation about how to deal with, say, a world still perilously close to a second Great Depression, a government that is bankrupt, two wars that have been or are being lost, an energy crisis that is also threatening our planet's ecosystem, and a media increasingly incapable of holding the powerful accountable.

To which Breitbart says:

To think I was once his biggest advocate, but now he’s an incomprehensible ‘marm. In the transparent world of conservative journalism, conservatives admit their biases; in the world in which Sullivan now curries favor, he sidles up to the ends-justify-the-means left that exposed his sexual tastes in order to put him in his place. These are the Alinsky monsters whom I seek to flash a light on.

Perhaps Sullivan and Charles Johnson should share a townhouse in the bizarro editorial no-man’s land that they both now inhabit.

Funny that 24 hours previous, Breitbart was commenting as such:

Weigel’s career at the Washington Post was assassinated for his crimes against conformity. Try as he might, as a left-leaning journalist he didn’t conform enough. When conservatives jumped on his exposure, he cited defending me as a mitigating alibi. Defending me publicly is a hangable offense in them thar liberal hills!

Weird. A few assorted comments:

-Isn't 'nonconformity' exactly the crime that permanently leaves guys like Johnson, Sullivan, and several others out of the so-called 'conservative dialogue'? We understand why it happens: Conservative issues are always positioned as being zero-sum. In that context, only ideological purity and complete idea homogony can be acceptable. But - even if you bite on Brietbars bit - why would it be 'wrong' if the left was dropping out Weigel for being right leaning if the same behavior is exhibited on the right on a daily basis?

-What good comes of this? Honestly? Even if Breitbart gets what he wants, and he gets a whole hard drive full of smear porn, and he can use it to weave some tapestry to show us all that there's a vast left wing media conspiracy and he somehow validates what every god fearing conservative knows: that the media is dripping with left wing bias. Trouble is, every god fearing super conservative already accepts this and everybody who isn't a party line conservative stopped listening to Andrew Breitbart a long, long time ago.

-What bad can come of this? Quite a bit. Really. Truth is, we don't know what the content is of the forum, nor do we know exactly how Breitbart intends to use whatever content is there. Not to be cryptic: but if you know any journalists, you know that, in an informal setting, they're often more than willing to share little secrets. These little secrets can be the type that breaks campaigns.

-Maybe the best case scenario is that nobody will hand over the goods. Maybe of those 400 people, there's 400 people who think Breitbart is a jag and professionally lacking the credentials to be trusted. That leaves breitbart in a permanent position to continue the idea on speculation of the contents alone.