http://gawker.com/5890660/andrew-breitbart-big-deal-big-coronary-big-corpse
All that needs to be said about Breitbart.
Oh, it's definitely not simple. Anyway, I'll say this- you're right on points 2 and 4. When it comes to fear and division and 'the main stream media labeling peoples concerns as racist/bigoted/idiotic etc.', I don't agree with you. Where do you think these concerns have come from? Yes, that's right- the mainstream media. The problem isn't dismissing these concerns, it's giving them equal billing as if they are somehow valid because they're 'opinions'. This applies to any number of things- the climate debate, Islamaphobia (se: Pauline Hanson's gig on sunrise), the 'political correctness' debate, and so on. Also- the treatment of the far right by much of the media in general, 'dapper nazis', that moronic abc interview with Richard Spencer.
When you talk of division and the emergence of violent groups, you have to realise that these people have always been there. They were just less active or they had less public support. The nazis, white supremacists, and ultra-nationalists haven't suddenly disappeared over the last 30+ years, they were just less relevant. Antifascists (largely communists or anarchists) likewise, but they're only visible now because their opposition is back in a big way.
My belief is that what we've seen recently is largely a response to pandering by major parties to increasingly right wing sentiment in an attempt to retain power/wedge their opposition/distract from economic worries. If you continuously tell people that radical Islam/asylum seekers/crime are existential threats, but then fail to back up these claims with drastic action (not that what's been done in Australia and elsewhere isn't bad enough), it's no surprise that more extreme groups offering 'answers' have picked up the slack. The biggest problem with addressing these concerns now is that doing so often involves giving some credence to worries that have never had any basis in reality.
Not sure how your post was bad? Man, read that shit again. It's flat out nuts, you shouldn't need to have that explained to you.
I've had this conversation a lot with people who talk about the 'left wing media' in Australia. I always ask what they're talking about. For me, it's pretty tenuous to claim that such a thing really exists. People will point to fairfax, but when it come to politics they're more often than not on the 'give the liberals a chance' side of things. The Guardian perhaps, but their politics coverage is actually extremely status-quo oriented most of the time. The project (which is sorta current affairs entertainment, to be charitable), is hardly an example of the left being influential in the media either. People seem to think that Waleed is some sort of raging lefty, but trust me, he isn't. It's classifying positions by where they sit relative to those of others. In reality, political discussions in much of the Australian media that are portrayed as between people who might represent the old left/right/centre divisions are more likely to be centre/centre-right/far right.