Posted by guest contributor Andrew Marcus. Director, Hating Breitbart

Here’s the headline from The Hollywood Reporter: “Andrew Breitbart Doc Nears Rotten Tomatoes Record”

We are on trajectory to hold the title for widest spread between Critic rating and Audience rating ever recorded on Rotten Tomatoes, 0% vs 96% ! It’s a dubious honor but one that proves the premise of our film Hating Breitbart.

The Editor-In-Chief of Rotten Tomatoes offers this explanation:

TRENDING: Wray Claims "White Supremacists" Make Up the Largest Share of Racially Motivated Terrorists in the US as BLM Burns Businesses to the Ground (VIDEO)

While it’s interesting, Rotten Tomatoes editor in chief Matt Atchity says not to read too much into the phenomenon, because Hating Breitbart is the kind of film that attracts politicos who are motivated to pump a film not on its merits but because they agree with its message.

You see that? The reason for the gap is because of conservative bias! Not because of reviews like this one included in the RottenTomaotes listing:

featuring only footage of him and his family, friends, and other conservative journalists or politicians who respected him. By interviewing only people who loved and admired the man, Marcus makes sure that the audience sees only the positive about Breitbart’s professional mission

This is just factually incorrect and might just expose that the critic never watched the film prior to reviewing it.

Or how about this gem from another of the reviews that went into the 0% on the Tomatoemeter:

There is far more footage devoted to his lengthy battle against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which lost most of its governmental funding because of an ethically dubious video entrapment endorsed and endlessly pushed by Breitbart.

Hmmm. No bias there. No matter that Breitbart and O’Keefe published the FULL audio and transcripts from all the tapes, something the MSM is never expected to do. No matter that this critic can’t cite a single example of ethical dubiousness beyond their own. The smear machine churns on.

I could go on but what’s the point?

To directly answer Rotten Tomatoes editor in chief Matt Atchity’s claim that the Audience rating is just because of conservative bias and not based on the merits of the film, I don’t think the audience is pumping the film. I think they’re making their voices heard right next to the critics voices, thanks to the democratizing technology Rotten Tomatoes affords them. Why should Atchity dismiss them for using the very public platform he edits? I have a sneaking suspicion why he would do this but since I’ve never met the man I’ll defer judgment.

I do wonder however, much like with the alleged critic above, if Matt Atchity even bothered to watch the film before commenting on its merits. Dubious.

Either way, this whole ugly badge of honor only proves Breitbart’s thesis, and the thesis of our film. The old media monopoly on the narrative is dead. They still have a strangle-hold but not a monopoly. This bias, and it’s loosened grip, is evidenced in the side by side rating seen above – thanks only to the new technology that empowers all of our voices, much to the chagrin of the gate keepers of yore.