Friday, March 19, 2010

Pop Quiz: Tea Party or Huffington Post?

.

Continued from:
Special Report: HuffPost vs the Tea Party: Which one *really* incites and tolerates hate speech & calls for violence?

Since late 2009, HuffPost has published a steady stream of
news articles that have accused:
(a) Tea Party organizers of inciting and tolerating hate and calls for violence

(b) Tea Party organizers and event attendees of being racists, and prone to violence

Tea Party leaders have not responded specifically to HuffPost's accusations, but they have issued blanket denials of similar ones.

The casual observer may not know who to believe --- but obviously, these charges are very serious, and deserve to be explored in detail.

This "quiz" --- containing real-world examples of acts that have been perpetrated by one of these organizations --- will help enable the honest observer make an accurate determination as to where the truth lies.




POP QUIZ:
Which of the following acts were perpetrated by the management of the Tea Party --- and which were perpetrated by the management of The Huffington Post?

Links to documentation for each event described are contained at the end of the quiz.


============

(1) Which organization has knowingly enabled and protected members to publish threats and urgings of violence against the President of the United States --- and even to brag about being interviewed by the Secret Service for having done so?
These statements include:
(a) That the best way to help the president improve his sagging image would be "to cut off his f**cking head."

(b) That the president should be "hanging from a light pole in front of the White House."

(c) That the president "should be put up against a wall and shot."

Instead of immediately and irrevocably ejecting these members, this organization allowed them to remain active --- in some cases, for years. In the case of the member whom it allowed to express the first two statements, over the next several years, the organization:
(d) Allowed him to brag that he'd been interviewed in his home by the U.S. Secret Service as a result of his threats and urgings of violence.

(e) Allowed him to publish the real names of the Secret Service agents who conducted the interview, and vulgar insults against them.

(f) Fully restored his membership within hours or days after the 10+ times it temporarily ejected him (putting him in "time out").

(g) Routinely, permanently ejected non-violating members who dared to criticize and complain about him to management.

Go to ANSWER


(2) Which organization has knowingly allowed the same member in (1) to publish threats against the children of political opponents?
These threats include items such as:
His hope that a political opponent "has lots of pictures" of her children, because "they will be taking away your grubby little kids in a few days."

As noted in (1), the organization continued to protect him, while ejecting non-violating members, including those who complained about his behavior. Other members joined in and began cyberstalking this political opponent and others --- all of which could only occur with the organization's willful facilitation and approval.

Go to ANSWER


(3) Which organization has actively enabled and protected members to publish threats, urgings and justifications of violence against prominent public figures?
These include statements such as:
  • "We should cut of the hands of the thieving bankers [...] We should dismember the hedge fund managers."

  • (Reply) "I will ship my machete, someone else can do the chopping"

  • (Reply) "We have a dozen swords in the house, don't bother."

Go to ANSWER


(4) Which organization published an article by an individual whom it knows is an unrepentant domestic terrorist --- but didn't identify him as such?

Go to ANSWER


(5) Which organization published an article by one of its members that morally excuses the world's most notorious racists and anti-Semitic mass murderers?
Quotes from this article:
  • "You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well."

  • "They [fascist dictators] honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks / eliminating Jews"

Even after one of the most popular bloggers publicly condemned the organization for this act, it refused to remove the article, or fire the person who decided to publish it, or dissociate itself from the writer. In fact, he's still a member to this day --- and the article is still published on the organization's official website.

Go to ANSWER


(6) Which organization has knowingly allowed certain, "protected" members to publish inflammatory racial, sexual and gender slurs against political opponents --- then ejected other members who stood against them?
These statements include:
(a) "You are a dried up bitter old faggot, and I expect you are universally detested [within the organization]."

(b) That black Americans are only suited for one political party --- and blacks who deny this are either lying, or hate themselves.

(c) That a prominent black political figure is "the original Watermelon Man" and "an Oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside).

(d) That a black political figure (above) "hates black skin --- and so do I."

(e) That top members of a certain political party have homosexual relations within their Congressional offices and meeting rooms, and certain members "are so butch (gay) that they hold their own ankles in the air."

(f) That a female political opponent is a "whore," a "tramp," a "breeder," and "white trash" --- yet the organization almost immediately ejected another member who attempted to use identical terms against another, "favored" female political figure.

Rather than instantly and permanently ejecting these members, the organization continues to enable and protect them --- while ejecting other members who dare to criticize them. And even though the organization temporarily ejected some of these members, it notified them they were only in "time-out" for a few hours or days, after which it fully restored their memberships.

Go to ANSWER


(7) Which organization has published articles that negatively depict black Americans, based on false, inflammatory accusations?
These include:
(a) An article entitled, "The laziest people ever," atop a picture of (only) a black man?

(b) An article that depicted a prominent black American, in close proximity to nearly-naked white women, insinuating that he was with them --- without doing even basic fact-checking beforehand --- then, allowing this "story" to remain published long after acknowledging it wasn't true?

Go to ANSWER


(8) Which organization has knowingly allowed certain members to publish anti-Semitic libels and conspiracy theories, and even threats against Jews --- and left them active, while ejecting other members for speaking out against them?
These include:
(a) “Jews are evil. Israel runs the world. Lets kill ‘em all and give the land back to Islam; result-perpetual peace. Seig Heil.”

(b) "There's a reason [Jews] have been the most problematic group for thousands of years..."

(c) "They [Jews] all need to be rounded up and gassed"

(d) “Funny how [Israeli Jews] had NO problem with wiping the [Palestinians] off the face of the earth until they discovered they might actually be able to strike back in a meaningful way. proof that bullies like this are nothing but cowards.”

(e) That a Jewish-American politician is "a f**king rat" who "takes his orders from Tel Aviv" and "is a traitorous ZI0NIST... he wouldn't hesitate to sell the his party even the US down the river .... just to save his beloved country Israel .."

The organization not only has not ejected the members who said the above, it rapidly ejects non-violating users who challenge, mock or complain about them --- and those who attempt to use the same insults against another, "protected" religion.

Go to ANSWER


(9) Which organization has, almost since its birth, actively incited, reinforced and tolerated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred?
It has done this by perpetrating such acts as:
(a) "Framing" news concerning Israeli affairs in a way that incites inaccurate and/or unjustifiably negative perceptions of the Jewish state, and particularly its military.

(b) Using inflammatory, misleading and/or decontextualized headlines and headline imagery in its official newsletter.

(c) Using sources for its official newsletter that harbor known or easily-discovered anti-Israel (if not pro-Islamist) biases.

Examples: The organization has decided to publish in its newsletter:
(d) A variation on the age-old blood libel that Israeli Jews capture and murder Muslim civilians in order to harvest their organs --- even though the "reporter" admits he has "no idea, no clue" if the allegation is true or not.

(e) Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, regarding how "the Jewish lobby" prevented a national security nominee from being confirmed --- while not mentioning that there was broad bipartisan opposition to his nomination.

This organization has also failed to dissociate itself from one of its celebrity bloggers, who was recently photographed for another publication dressed up in a Nazi military uniform, eating burnt Jewish "people cookies" she took out of an oven.

Go to ANSWER


(10) Which organization claims it is "nonpartisan," yet has a long, documented history of inciting hatred against political opponents through smears, and by publishing information that it knew, or should have known, was false/misleading?

Examples include:
(a) Falsely claiming that a presidential candidate does not know basic facts about a critical medical issue, then manipulating source data in order to publicly advance this falsehood.

(b) Falsely claiming that a "report" found that a presidential candidate called his wife an extremely vulgar name, when it was clear there wasn't a shred of evidence to support the charge.

(c) Falsely inserting words into a U.S. Senator's mouth about a contentious public issue, to make him appear cruel and uncaring about the poor.

(d) Labeling the wife of a presidential candidate "a dick," as the title of a published, hate-filled rant against her.

Go to ANSWER



============

PREFACE TO ANSWERS

============

When we say, "which organization knowingly enabled and protected members to..." what we mean is that of these two organizations, only HuffPost exercises legal and operational control over its members. Why? Because of the following inescapable facts:
The only material that appears on HuffPost is that which its management has reviewed, approved, and decided to publish --- including user comments. By definition, as a publication, this includes all news and blog articles. And despite its denials and obfuscations elsewhere, since at least March 2008 (and to some extent since October 2007), HuffPost has been pre-moderating all user comments --- meaning that each is reviewed by a moderator beforehand, who decides whether or not to publish it. This is all documented in detail here.

Rather than upholding its comment policies and terms of service, HuffPost has knowingly enabled and protected the members who are among the worst-of-the-worst abusers of both. It has done this while, at the same time, ejecting non-violating users and those who dare to challenge them, on a minute-by-minute basis. This is all documented in detail here.

In contrast, the Tea Party events are open and held on public property, and organizers have zero control over anything that any attendee says or does. Tea Party events are almost invariably held on public property (e.g. the D.C. mall), and as such, anyone can attend. Organizers have no authority to either approve or reject anything that any attendee says, either verbally, or on a sign, and they have no control over what attendees do (e.g. allegedly spitting on a Congressman). The only things that Tea Party organizers are responsible for are their own statements and actions --- and those that it approves third parties to make/execute on its behalf, and per its instructions.


============

ANSWERS

============

For an overview of the matter of HuffPost enabling, protecting and emboldening the worst-of-the-worst users... see our special report on this matter:
HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis

Please note that although some screencaps are inserted below, they generally only represent a small portion of the documentation available at the links provided. Viewing them in isolation, outside of their greater context, tends to diminish their importance, and the pattens of behavior.


(1)ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
(a) & (b): See summary of HuffPost's enabling and protection of user "kevenseven" here. See here for detailed documentation of his threats and calls for violence against President Bush, his resulting interaction with the Secret Service, and HuffPost's facilitation and protection of him. Preview:


(c) See profile of user "Postman606" in 5/2/09: HuffPost users: "Hey, someone should murder President Bush!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!"). Preview:


(d),(e): See Section 5 in detailed analysis of user "kevenseven" here. Preview:


(f),(g): See Sections 7 & 8 and Addendum items in detailed analysis of "kevenseven" here.


(2) ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
  • See Section 1 and Addendum 3 of detailed analysis of user "kevenseven" here. Preview:



(3) ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
  • See summary of HuffPost's enabling and protection of user "KQuarksSuperKollider" here; more here. Preview:



(4) ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
  • Documented by NewsBusters here.


(5) ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
  • Documented by Little Green Footballs here.

  • Also see here for proof that two years later, HuffPost still left the article published, and the blogger active.

  • More at this comprehensive chronology of articles concerning anti-Semitism at HuffPost.


(6)ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
(a) See summary of HuffPost's enabling and protection of user "kevenseven" here, and detailed analysis here.

(b) See "HumeSkeptic" --- Racism, a special, brief report on HuffPost's enabling and protection of one of its most pathological violators, against users who called him out on his racism. Also see a summary of "HumeSkeptic" here, and a detailed analysis here.

(c),(d) See Part 2 --- "Racism" --- in 5/2/09: HuffPost users: "Hey, someone should murder President Bush!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

(e) See detailed analysis of HuffPost's enabling and protection of user "LookToTheLeft" here. Preview --- of a post he's put up some variant of, hundreds of times, even though HuffPost prohibits homophobic "comments" (except when they're directed at conservatives):


(f) See 7/26/09: The "MirrorMirror" Test. In summary, HuffPost allowed its long-term, pathological violators (invariably radical leftists) to call a female political opponent a "whore," a "tramp," a "breeder," and "white trash." Yet when another user (a conservative) attempted to use identical comments but slightly reworded to be applied against a female political figure of another race, HuffPost censored then banned the user, within minutes.


(7)ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
(a) 3/20/10: Did HuffPost claim that black people are "the laziest people ever"?

(b) 3/29/10: HuffPost's near-racist smear of RNC Chairman Michael Steele


(8)ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
(a) See documentation of "PedroTheImmigrant" here; user account is still active.

(b) Screencap; user account is active; 2,594 comments here.

(c) Screencap; user account is active, but HuffPost removed all comments, here.

(d) Screencap 1 and 2; user account is active; 19,168 comments here.

(e) See comments documented in 10/27/09: Lieberman acts independently, incites HuffPost's biased wrath and its users' anti-Semitic venom (HuffPost: "Approved!!!"); all users still active.

Also see:


(9)ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.

(10) ANSWER: THE HUFFINGTON POST.
(a) 3/16/07: False headline re McCain quote on contraceptives incites torrent of hate comments

(b) 4/7/08: A "report" that McCain called wife a vulgar term turns out to be nothing more than a vicious rumor --- at best

(c) 8/23/09: Grossly misleading headline about Sen. Lieberman, incites user hate comments (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

(d) In the spring/summer of 2008, mixed in with its "news" blurbs on its main page, HuffPost placed a picture of Cindy McCain, with the headline, "Cindy McCain Is A Dick." The link led to this page:


Also see:





Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)