Writing for Breitbart as an EC?

[The Knife & Gun Club]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ok so recently I was put in touch with a friend of a friend who's applying to med school and wanted some advice on a range of topics. Most were run of the mill, but then he asked what I thought about him including his internship at breitbart as an EC. Apparently he's actually written some articles for them as well as working in an administrative capacity. One of his former bosses also wrote him an LOR, but he's not sure if he should include it in his app.

Was wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I really can't make heads or tails of it.

At first my liberal brain was like "OMG NO" but after thinking a bit more I'm not really sure what an adcoms would think of it. Had it been for another news group (like HuffPost or something) it'd probably be a pretty good EC.

So, what do people think?

 

[DrDwayneJohnson]

I'm not really sure it would go over well for the Cali schools. I'd honestly say no unless he is desperate for LORs or ECs. It's a pretty politically charged climate and I think some reviewers may have a bias with these things, whether they admit it or not.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I'm not really sure it would go over well for the Cali schools. I'd honestly say no unless he is desperate for LORs or ECs. It's a pretty politically charged climate and I think some reviewers may have a bias with these things, whether they admit it or not.

Oh yea the other important part of this is that he's a Texas resident, so is applying almost exclusively to Texas schools

Fate could be sealed regardless though, because it's pretty darn late to be applying in Texas at this point

 

[LizzyM]

If he leaves it out, will there be anything else on his application for that time frame or will it look like he spend those weeks in contemplation of his navel? It is hard to say which would be worse: an internship with an organization that is not highly regarded by some members of society or making it look as if the applicant did nothing at all during that time period.

 

[eljefemdfuturo]

.

 

[jqueb29]

Absolutely put it. Can't guarantee nobody would get offended, but any adcom who does sure as heck doesn't deserve to be on an adcom.

 

[Lucca]

I wouldn't. It's not even just about politics, breitbart is at best a yellow paper and at worst a pure propaganda organ.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

I wouldn't. It's not even just about politics, breitbart is at best a yellow paper and at worst a pure propaganda organ.

Yeah, but so is Huffington Post, and I've seen people with Huffington Post internships encouraged to apply and write about it . I'm of the opinion that its good to stick with your guns, but not in the most important application of your life.
Off to SPF this goes.

 

[OchemOficionado]

I say definitely put it. I think applicants should show adcoms our interests and who we really are. No need to be fake. If it was kept hidden, would it have to be hidden all through med school? That's weird.

 

[Goro]

Ok so recently I was put in touch with a friend of a friend who's applying to med school and wanted some advice on a range of topics. Most were run of the mill, but then he asked what I thought about him including his internship at breitbart as an EC. Apparently he's actually written some articles for them as well as working in an administrative capacity. One of his former bosses also wrote him an LOR, but he's not sure if he should include it in his app.

Was wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I really can't make heads or tails of it.

At first my liberal brain was like "OMG NO" but after thinking a bit more I'm not really sure what an adcoms would think of it. Had it been for another news group (like HuffPost or something) it'd probably be a pretty good EC.

So, what do people think?

I think that this would be far too polarizing to have on an app.

Absolutely put it. Can't guarantee nobody would get offended, but any adcom who does sure as heck doesn't deserve to be on an adcom.

It's not the virulent politics per se, IMO, but the anti-rational mindset there. Not merely irrational...anti-rational. Those folks have done a good deal of harm.

BTW, I'd reject someone who was anti-vaccine, or a PETA member. It works both ways.

My school has no problems with Mormon students, they tend to be among our better students. I myself have a high regard for BYU grads. They're not exactly flaming liberals.

 

[fluffysquirrel]

BTW, I'd reject someone who was anti-vaccine, or a PETA member.

why peta tho

 

[Dr. Stalker]

Mate, don't. Play it safe. That has the potential of being seen as a Klan member as an EC. Well, maybe not that extreme, but its still very dangerous lol.

 

[Terror Billy]

Yeah I wouldn't be putting an experience that shows I condone headlines like "'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy," "Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage" and "Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet." I'm using lots of self-restraint to not use curse words to describe the degenerate jerk offs on that website, but yeah not exactly something I'd pridefully talk about.

 

[DokterMom]

I'd suggest your friend's friend needs better friends... 🙄

It's the anti-rational anti-science more than the politics.

 

[mw18]

When he looks back on his cycle, do you think he's more likely to think "Putting Breitbart down got me all these acceptances!" or "Putting Breitbart down kept me from getting interviewed!"? I think it's probably the latter. At best it is overlooked, at worst it's a reason to be excluded.

 

[Goro]

why peta tho

Pro-terrorist group. Virulently anti-animal research, and supporters of the Earth Liberation Front.

 

[freak7]

Yeah, but so is Huffington Post, and I've seen people with Huffington Post internships encouraged to apply and write about it . I'm of the opinion that its good to stick with your guns, but not in the most important application of your life.
Off to SPF this goes.

I wouldn't put Breitbart or Huffington Post on my app, but that's just me.

 

[Lucca]

I wouldn't put Breitbart or Huffington Post on my app, but that's just me.

HuffPo is a liberal rag but it is not the same thing as Bb, not even by a long shot. Bb might as well be the propaganda organ of Stormfront.

 

[freak7]

HuffPo is a liberal rag but it is not the same thing as Bb, not even by a long shot. Bb might as well be the propaganda organ of Stormfront.

I'm not saying HP isn't more credible than Bb, I just wouldn't be proud of writing for either. I prefer non-sensationalized news without bias (except for pro-health bias I suppose).

 

[Mad Jack]

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

 

[Mad Jack]

HuffPo is a liberal rag but it is not the same thing as Bb, not even by a long shot. Bb might as well be the propaganda organ of Stormfront.

I'd reject a Huffpo writer instantly.

 

[Lucca]

I'm not saying HP isn't more credible than Bb, I just wouldn't be proud of writing for either. I prefer non-sensationalized news without bias (except for pro-health bias I suppose).

No such thing as no bias. I prefer outlets that are honest about where they are coming from, and also aren't likely to support Zombie Hitler. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[freak7]

No such thing as no bias.

Idk, I really enjoy Reuters. That's as close to unbiased as I can get.

 

[Lawpy]

why peta tho

Pro-terrorist group. Virulently anti-animal research, and supporters of the Earth Liberation Front.

Reminds me of this:

 

[fluffysquirrel]

Reminds me of this:

disliking peta is understandable but being vegetarian/vegan does kill less animals. it's about doing the least harm; it's not possible to do NO harm. while rodents/insects are killed in veg farming; it's nothing compared to billions slaughtered for consumption.

 

[Lawpy]

disliking peta is understandable but being vegetarian/vegan does kill less animals. it's about doing the least harm; it's not possible to do NO harm. while rodents/insects are killed in veg farming; it's nothing compared to billions slaughtered for consumption.

Which also reminds me of this:

 

[fluffysquirrel]

Which also reminds me of this:

like I said, it's about doing the least harm. there's just no justification for the cruel and unnecessary treatment of billions of animals each year for consumption. any excuse to avoid that cognitive dissonance though, right?

 

[aafhem]

Reminds me of this:

You can't get mad at people for wanting to do better for the world just because you disagree, lol.

 

[aldol16]

It's ironic how the staunchest liberals can have the narrowest minds and be the most un-accepting of others' viewpoints. Breitbart is obviously an extreme case here, but even something like doing an internship in Mitch McConnell's office could probably make a bad first impression on someone. Bias isn't supposed to exist but it does.

 

[Lawpy]

like I said, it's about doing the least harm. there's just no justification for the cruel and unnecessary treatment of billions of animals each year for consumption. any excuse to avoid that cognitive dissonance though, right?

You can't get mad at people for wanting to do better for the world just because you disagree, lol.

Just one more

 

[fluffysquirrel]

Just one more

loving the omni outrage

 

[freak7]

Can we knock this off and get back on topic please?

 

[Govols22]

like I said, it's about doing the least harm. there's just no justification for the cruel and unnecessary treatment of billions of animals each year for consumption. any excuse to avoid that cognitive dissonance though, right?

Whether we kill chickens for food or a wolf kills a chicken for food, they are going to die. Chickens don't generally die from old age and get to reminisce about their wonderful chicken lives. Personally, i'd rather get decapitated than get eaten alive by another animal.

 

[fluffysquirrel]

Whether we kill chickens for food or a wolf kills a chicken for food, they are going to die. Chickens don't generally die from old age and get to reminisce about their wonderful chicken lives. Personally, i'd rather get decapitated than get eaten alive by another animal.

That's not the point I'm making. While I personally believe it's totally unnecessary to kill animals, it's obvious people are going to continue eating meat. A wolf killing a chicken is so different from humans killing a chicken. Are you aware of the torture and abuse farm animals go through? If not, I suggest you look into that. There's no empathy in the meat industry. At the very least, we need to find ways to treat the animals we kill better.

 

[cactusman]

Which also reminds me of this:

Right... because it's not like livestock have to consume massive amounts of crops in order to grow and produce meat.

Oh wait.

 

[freak7]

It's ironic how the staunchest liberals can have the narrowest minds and be the most un-accepting of others' viewpoints. Breitbart is obviously an extreme case here, but even something like doing an internship in Mitch McConnell's office could probably make a bad first impression on someone. Bias isn't supposed to exist but it does.

I mean yeah, but there are hypocrites and dumb dumbs on both sides of the aisle. However, ultimately that argument is kind of irrelevant in this case since one would assume that an adcom would view an internship for an actual US senator as an interesting and unique experience no matter who they are.

Edit: Punctuation for ease of reading.

 

[freak7]

Whether we kill chickens for food or a wolf kills a chicken for food, they are going to die. Chickens don't generally die from old age and get to reminisce about their wonderful chicken lives. Personally, i'd rather get decapitated than get eaten alive by another animal.

That's not the point I'm making. While I personally believe it's totally unnecessary to kill animals, it's obvious people are going to continue eating meat. A wolf killing a chicken is so different from humans killing a chicken. Are you aware of the torture and abuse farm animals go through? If not, I suggest you look into that. There's no empathy in the meat industry. At the very least, we need to find ways to treat the animals we kill better.

Right... because it's not like livestock have to consume massive amounts of crops in order to grow and produce meat.

Oh wait.

Stahp. I like this thread and I don't want to have it locked

 

[Lawpy]

loving the omni outrage

Nah not even mad. I couldn't resist the opportunity to post SMBC comics on vegetarianism here when the topic of PETA/animal rights were mentioned.

Can we knock this off and get back on topic please?

Pretty sure the topic was already addressed early on quite handily so not sure what's more to be addressed. There are two views on the matter. One is to be honest and state it. The other is to know your audience. Personally, interning/writing for Breitbart isn't something to be proud of since it's basically a propaganda machine that contradicts reason. In a way, Breitbart can be interpreted as a satire on far-right views but still it's pretty bizarre.

 

[7331poas]

It's ironic how the staunchest liberals can have the narrowest minds and be the most un-accepting of others' viewpoints. Breitbart is obviously an extreme case here, but even something like doing an internship in Mitch McConnell's office could probably make a bad first impression on someone. Bias isn't supposed to exist but it does.

Its about the values you hold. If a med school advocates for underserved communities, how are they supposed to admit an applicant who seeks to remove access to healthcare from these individuals?

There is a clear barrier there. I suppose if you did intern at his office, you can't speak in agreement with most program's missions.

 

[freak7]

I suppose if you did intern at his office, you can't speak in agreement with most program's missions.

I mean of course you could. Just because you do an internship with someone doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. Maybe the person wanted to "see the other side" or wanted to reaffirm their own beliefs by working with them and then later changed their mind. There's tons of ways you could net a positive out of that kind of opportunity.

 

[Lawpy]

It's ironic how the staunchest liberals can have the narrowest minds and be the most un-accepting of others' viewpoints. Breitbart is obviously an extreme case here, but even something like doing an internship in Mitch McConnell's office could probably make a bad first impression on someone. Bias isn't supposed to exist but it does.

Its about the values you hold. If a med school advocates for underserved communities, how are they supposed to admit an applicant who seeks to remove access to healthcare from these individuals?

There is a clear barrier there. I suppose if you did intern at his office, you can't speak in agreement with most program's missions.

So wait. Medical school adcoms are willing to reject applicants based on their different political viewpoints? So if someone decides to intern for a congressperson who strongly supports Trumpcare/GOP ACA repeal simply because being a congressional intern is a valuable experience, medical schools are going to reject this applicant on the grounds that the applicant opposes ACA and is willing to deny healthcare coverage to people?

 

[Terror Billy]

So wait. Medical school adcoms are willing to reject applicants based on their different political viewpoints? So if someone decides to intern for a congressperson who strongly supports Trumpcare/GOP ACA repeal simply because being a congressional intern is a valuable experience, medical schools are going to reject this applicant on the grounds that the applicant opposes ACA and is willing to deny healthcare coverage to people?

I would say they have every right if their school's mission is geared towards serving undeserved populations or some sort of primary care emphasis. It would be the ultimate example of cognitive dissonance to admit someone who not only supports in private (which is their right), but actively works against the values of your school. Just my $.02

 

[ChymeofPassion]

Its about the values you hold. If a med school advocates for underserved communities, how are they supposed to admit an applicant who seeks to remove access to healthcare from these individuals?

There is a clear barrier there. I suppose if you did intern at his office, you can't speak in agreement with most program's missions.

So all Republicans who believe healthcare should be reformed can't be trusted to help underserved populations? Based on a difference in politics. Im not gonna discuss the actual merits of either the ACA or the proposed plan because thats off-topic, but what you're saying is offensive at best, at worst just exemplifying how malignant partisanship has become.

 

[freak7]

I think we're all missing a major point here: just because an applicant interns for a public official, does not mean the applicant has to agree with that official. Let's say you're a liberal from Kentucky who wants to learn more about the legislative process and you want to do an internship with a US senator, are you just SOL and intsta-rejected from medical school as a career because you've lived in KY your whole life and only choices were MM and Rand Paul? I vote hell no.

 

[Lawpy]

I would say they have every right if their school's mission is geared towards serving undeserved populations or some sort of primary care emphasis. It would be the ultimate example of cognitive dissonance to admit someone who not only supports in private (which is their right), but actively works against the values of your school. Just my $.02

People can have different political views from the congressmen they're interning for. Medical schools' making an assumption on applicants' political views based on their congressional internship experiences is frankly naive and misleading. It's only fair grounds when the applicants themselves disclose their political views on essays and experience descriptions, but if the applicants simply said they interned because it's a useful experience and kept rest of the application apolitical/neutral, it's totally unfair to make assumptions on the applicants' political views and rejecting them for that.

I think we're all missing a major point here: just because an applicant interns for a public official, does not mean the applicant has to agree with that official. Let's say you're a liberal from Kentucky who wants to learn more about the legislative process and you want to do an internship with a US senator, are you just SOL and intsta-rejected from medical school as a career because you've lived in KY your whole life and only choices were MM and Rand Paul? I vote hell no.

That's pretty much the point I'm making in a general case.

 

[Terror Billy]

People can have different political views from the congressmen they're interning for. Medical schools making an assumption on applicants' political views based on their congressional internship experiences is frankly naive and misleading. It's only fair grounds when the applicants themselves disclose their political views on essays and experience descriptions, but if the applicants simply said they interned because it's a useful experience and kept rest of the application apolitical/neutral, it's totally unfair to make assumptions on the applicants' political views and rejecting them for that.

I totally agree with you if they keep it apolitical/neutral. However, if they say want to work to extend the agenda of say, Jason Chaffetz who made that outrageous iphone or healthcare comment then there might be a problem and a school might have that right (maybe?). It's a grey line and we'll probably never know how it's viewed.

 

[Lawpy]

I totally agree with you if they keep it apolitical/neutral. However, if they say want to work to extend the agenda of say, Jason Chaffetz who made that outrageous iphone or healthcare comment then there might be a problem and a school might have that right (maybe?). It's a grey line and we'll probably never know how it's viewed.

Right whatever the applicants disclose on their application is fair grounds for evaluation and discussion in interviews. If an applicant discloses political views for some reason, it's fair to be questioned. Rejecting only on grounds for political views is a dangerous move by schools, since it can be viewed as a form of discrimination (although of course, schools can tiptoe away by pinpointing to other flaws in the application).

Personally, it's better to just approach the application cycle neutrally and avoid giving politically charged opinions in essays and interviews. Listing political internships is generally fine for the experience, but in OP's case, interning at Breitbart isn't something to be proud of and it's best not to list it.

 

[aldol16]

Its about the values you hold. If a med school advocates for underserved communities, how are they supposed to admit an applicant who seeks to remove access to healthcare from these individuals?

There is a clear barrier there. I suppose if you did intern at his office, you can't speak in agreement with most program's missions.

I mean of course you could. Just because you do an internship with someone doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. Maybe the person wanted to "see the other side" or wanted to reaffirm their own beliefs by working with them and then later changed their mind. There's tons of ways you could net a positive out of that kind of opportunity.

So wait. Medical school adcoms are willing to reject applicants based on their different political viewpoints? So if someone decides to intern for a congressperson who strongly supports Trumpcare/GOP ACA repeal simply because being a congressional intern is a valuable experience, medical schools are going to reject this applicant on the grounds that the applicant opposes ACA and is willing to deny healthcare coverage to people?

So all Republicans who believe healthcare should be reformed can't be trusted to help underserved populations? Based on a difference in politics. Im not gonna discuss the actual merits of either the ACA or the proposed plan because thats off-topic, but what you're saying is offensive at best, at worst just exemplifying how malignant partisanship has become.

People can have different political views from the congressmen they're interning for. Medical schools' making an assumption on applicants' political views based on their congressional internship experiences is frankly naive and misleading. It's only fair grounds when the applicants themselves disclose their political views on essays and experience descriptions, but if the applicants simply said they interned because it's a useful experience and kept rest of the application apolitical/neutral, it's totally unfair to make assumptions on the applicants' political views and rejecting them for that.

This is my point exactly. I didn't even say what kind of intern this person was and people's minds already start to wander and stereotype the person. Anybody who sits on the admissions committee is also a person with defined political beliefs. Saying anything can have certain political connotations whether or not the student actually wants to make those connections. It's all about what the adcom member thinks and how open he or she is to actually reading the little blurb you get in AMCAS and not reading beyond that.

What if the student was a software intern in the senator's office in charge of maintaining the website? Or IT support for social media? You can't immediately jump to conclusions but that's what many liberals (not pointing fingers here) do just by hearing a name or trigger word. What if I list Breitbart as an employer but I was a software engineer? That is a legitimate job. Sorry but if that's my one job offer out of college, I would take it.

 

[freak7]

This is my point exactly. I didn't even say what kind of intern this person was and people's minds already start to wander and stereotype the person. Anybody who sits on the admissions committee is also a person with defined political beliefs. Saying anything can have certain political connotations whether or not the student actually wants to make those connections. It's all about what the adcom member thinks and how open he or she is to actually reading the little blurb you get in AMCAS and not reading beyond that.

What if the student was a software intern in the senator's office in charge of maintaining the website? Or IT support for social media? You can't immediately jump to conclusions but that's what many liberals (not pointing fingers here) do just by hearing a name or trigger word. What if I list Breitbart as an employer but I was a software engineer? That is a legitimate job. Sorry but if that's my one job offer out of college, I would take it.

As I said before, one would hope that the committee would have had some sort of training on biases to know that A doesn't always imply B. You're capable of making that distinction, I'm capable of making that distinction, why are you so quick to say that an adcom member wouldn't be able to make that distinction?

Edit:

What if I list Breitbart as an employer but I was a software engineer? That is a legitimate job. Sorry but if that's my one job offer out of college, I would take it.

The OP is concerned with writing for Bb, not just working for them. I'm with you on "if that's the IT job I can get, I'm taking it," but this is not writing for them.

Also:

that's what many liberals (not pointing fingers here) do just by hearing a name or trigger word.

That's some awfully fingerpoint-y non-fingerpointing.

 

[Lawpy]

This is my point exactly. I didn't even say what kind of intern this person was and people's minds already start to wander and stereotype the person. Anybody who sits on the admissions committee is also a person with defined political beliefs. Saying anything can have certain political connotations whether or not the student actually wants to make those connections. It's all about what the adcom member thinks and how open he or she is to actually reading the little blurb you get in AMCAS and not reading beyond that.

What if the student was a software intern in the senator's office in charge of maintaining the website? Or IT support for social media? You can't immediately jump to conclusions but that's what many liberals (not pointing fingers here) do just by hearing a name or trigger word. What if I list Breitbart as an employer but I was a software engineer? That is a legitimate job. Sorry but if that's my one job offer out of college, I would take it.

Ok so recently I was put in touch with a friend of a friend who's applying to med school and wanted some advice on a range of topics. Most were run of the mill, but then he asked what I thought about him including his internship at breitbart as an EC. Apparently he's actually written some articles for them as well as working in an administrative capacity. One of his former bosses also wrote him an LOR, but he's not sure if he should include it in his app.

Was wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I really can't make heads or tails of it.

At first my liberal brain was like "OMG NO" but after thinking a bit more I'm not really sure what an adcoms would think of it. Had it been for another news group (like HuffPost or something) it'd probably be a pretty good EC.

So, what do people think?

From what's presented, OP's friend apparently wrote articles and did some administrative work. That's a bit more involved than just doing software work or interning out of interest. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I would be comfortable listing Breitbart on my AMCAS since it's not something to be proud of (although personally, I wouldn't work at Breitbart at all).