Wednesday, April 28, 2010

FINDING 3: HuffPost is far guiltier than Tea Party leaders of tolerating and protecting members who engage in hate speech and calls for violence


Continued from:

FINDING 2: HuffPost's smearing of the Tea Party is part of its continuing pattern of smearing and unfairly inciting hatred against others

FINDING 3: HuffPost is far guiltier than Tea Party leaders of tolerating and protecting members who engage in hate speech and calls for violence

HuffPost's apparent standard for assailing the Tea Party is:
If even one attendee* at any Tea Party event says anything, or displays anything on a sign, that a reasonable person would find offensive, then this person:
  • Is representative of the entire Tea Party movement

  • Had the approval of Tea Party leaders
(*Whether the person is a supporter, or a radical leftist infiltrator intent on emulating one --- then holding up a racist sign in front of a TV camera.)

Is this "guilt-by-association" a reasonable, legitimate standard upon which to hold Tea Party leaders to account? Of course not. The only legitimate litmus test for holding an organization's leaders to account for what attendees of its events do and say is the direct control that said leaders have (a) over the venue, and (b) over the individuals in attendance.

If this standard is used, HuffPost's management may regret ever having "gone after" the Tea Party leaders --- because as the remainder of this report demonstrates, it is infinitely guiltier of the offenses it has accused Tea Party leaders of perpetrating.


The three fundamental differences between HuffPost and the Tea Party


these two organizations, only HuffPost exercises total control over both its venue, and over all its members. How do we know this? Because of the following three fundamental differences between them:
(3a) Tea Party events are held on public property, and are open to the general public --- and as such, organizers have zero control over anything that any attendee says or does.

(3b) In contrast, the only content that appears on HuffPost is that which its management has reviewed, approved, and decided to publish --- and since at least March 2008, this includes all user comments.

(3c) Rather than enforcing its comment policy and terms of service, HuffPost has knowingly enabled and protected the worst-of-the-worst abusers of both --- while censoring and banning other users, on a minute-to-minute basis.

(3a) Tea Party events are held on public property --- and as such, 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 admit or eject anyone, or to approve or reject anything that any attendee says --- either verbally, or on a sign. The only things that Tea Party leaders are responsible for are their own statements and actions --- and those that they approve third parties to make/execute on the Tea Party's behalf, and per their instructions.

Leftist-anarchist infiltration of Tea Parties --- and commission of fake "hate crimes"

Furthermore, as HuffPost is (or should be) aware, several radical leftist and anarchist groups have made open calls for their members to
infiltrate and disrupt Tea Party events. There have been (thus far unconfirmed) reports that one leftist-anarchist group even suggested that its infiltrators display racially offensive signs in front of TV news cameras, and claim they're members of the Tea Party movement. Here is more information on what we know of these leftist infiltrators.

And here are some of the many documented instances of radical leftists committing phony hate crimes, including racist threats, which are then falsely blamed on conservatives and the "right wing": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

April 10, 2010 update: Leftist-anarchist group "" openly articulates its subversive goals. From The Examiner:
According to their website, they plan to:
"...act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them.
What is the purpose of
"WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary."

“HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.

Clearly, it is the open, organic, grass-roots, non-choreographed
nature of the Tea Party movement that makes it so vulnerable to HuffPost's smears, guilt-by-association accusations, and subversion by leftist-anarchists.

April 16 update: Here are a few examples of radical leftists, including one dressed up in Nazi attire, who tried --- unsuccessfully --- to pass themselves off as Tea Partiers at tax day rallies around the U.S. (image at right courtesy GatewayPundit). More here, here.

(3b) In contrast, the
only content that appears on HuffPost is that which its management has reviewed, approved, and decided to publish --- and since at least March 2008, this includes all user comments.

All the "news" articles and blogs that appear on HuffPost are published because its management has approved them. User comments are a different matter --- or so HuffPost would like the public to believe.

The following is a condensed version of a comprehensive report on this matter, here.
For years, and to the present day, HuffPost’s Comment Policy has claimed that the site "post-moderates" user comments on its news threads. This means that all user comments are automatically published as and when submitted, and that the site only removes objectionable content after it's been posted. As described below, this has not been true for a very long time.

October 2007: Shortly after a blistering report was issued by the Media Research Center, "Huffington's House of Horrors," HuffPost placed an indicator (right) atop each news thread, identifying how many comments were "pending," meaning it was reviewing them, and deciding whether to publish or reject them.

January 2008: On a news story concerning Israel, while 16 comments were published, 175 were stuck in "pending."

February 2008: More instances of outrageous user comments were exposed in the national media — particularly regarding users’
death wishes against Nancy Reagan, on HuffPost's news threads, while she was hospitalized.

February 28-March 3, 2008: HuffPost’s Community Manager formally announced that the site was going to begin pre-moderating all user comments on its news threads, and that it had 15 (soon 18) moderators working 24-7 on this task. From then on, all comment-submission boxes contained a statement, "All comments are moderated."

March 1, 2008: A new notice appeared on each HuffPost news thread, which read (emphasis added):
“All comments are moderated by 15 real-humans 24/7; approved comments are published to our site very quickly, but not always instantly!”

“Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to”

March 19, 2008: As is shown in the video below, Ms. Huffington falsely alleged that HuffPost post-moderates user comments on news threads. Further, she falsely claimed that comments such as those that appeared re Nancy Reagan are freak incidents that accidentally slip through, but are removed as soon as HuffPost becomes aware of them --- after the fact (as O'Reilly's producer attempted to show her, this was not the case):

March 20, 2008: Ms.Huffington responded to O'Reilly's criticism by falsely claiming, once again, that HuffPost post-moderates user comments on its news threads.

Soon thereafter, a new status bar (below) began appearing on every HuffPost news thread, as it has to the present day. It shows how many comments are "pending," meaning that they are awaiting HufPost’s review, and its decision as to whether to publish or reject them. As noted, this status bar states that only those comments that are "approved" would appear on the site:

July 2008: Ms. Huffington confirmed HuffPost moved to pre-moderating all user comments. When asked in an interview to identify the biggest mistake HuffPost made since its debut, she replied (emphasis added):

"From the beginning, I would have established a policy of pre-moderating all comments on the site... [O]ur comments on the news site were originally post-moderated (i.e., objectionable comments were removed only after our moderators were alerted). We eventually decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."

Thus, according to HuffPost itself, all the comments that have appeared on its news threads since at least March 2008 (and to some extent since October 2007) --- including those containing threats, calls for violence, racial, sexual and gender slurs, and anti-Semitic hatred --- were published only because it reviewed and approved them, beforehand.

Yet as of April 2010, HuffPost still
falsely claims that it "post-moderates comments on news stories."

To see a comprehensive report on this matter, click here.

(3c) Rather than enforcing its Comment Policy and Terms of Service (CP-TOS), HuffPost has knowingly enabled and protected the worst-of-the-worst abusers of both --- while censoring and banning other users, on a minute-to-minute basis.

The following is a condensed version of a comprehensive report on this matter, here.

Like many major websites, HuffPost has published its Comment Policy & Terms of Service (CP-TOS). Essentially, these documents dictate that under threat of being banned, users are prohibited from personally attacking, libeling or harassing others, using racial, sexual or religious slurs, from threatening or urging violence, etc.

The report "HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its 'policies' --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis," however, documents the fact that instead of enforcing its CP-TOS on the nonpartisan basis it promises, HuffPost:
  • Allows its top news comment threads to be "hijacked" by a growing "gang" of radical leftists who engage in the most vicious forms of hate speech, and violations of its CP-TOS --- including threats and calls for violence.

  • Protects and emboldens these users, by routinely censoring and banning, in real-time, non-violating users who who dare to express conservative viewpoints, challenge or mock its protected "gang" of radical leftists, or respond to their hate speech and vicious personal attacks. In some cases, HuffPost has banned these users after as few as six comments --- often in response to the explicit requests of its worst CP-TOS abusers, who erupt in joy at the special "power" they have at the site.

  • Has allowed a growing group of these radical leftists to essentially "live" on the site for 12-18 hours a day, every day, and to amass 40,000-90,000 comments under the same screen names (or near-identical alternates), over one to five years.

Here are profiles of some of the radical leftists that HuffPost has chosen to protect, enable and embolden --- no matter what they do:
  • "kevenseven" --- 50,000+ comments since 2005. HuffPost enabled and protected him for nearly two years --- and to post an additional 20,000 comments --- after allowing him to (a) repeatedly threaten and call for the murder of President Bush and Nancy Reagan, (b) brag about how he was interviewed in his home by the Secret Service for these "comments," and (c) "out" the identities of, and insult these USSS agents, by name. He has stalked other users and made threats against their children, and has posted vicious homophobic insults. HuffPost has "banned" him a minimum of ten times (three times in October 2009 alone), usually for a day or less, then fully reinstated him. At the same time, HuffPost has censored and permanently banned those who dare to criticize him, some within minutes.
    See summary here, and detailed analysis here.

  • "KQuark" --- 50,000 comments since 2006. HuffPost allowed him (a) to openly call for certain public figures to be physically chopped apart, (b) to claim that he has the swords to do it, and (c) to post a graphic "HEIL HITLER!!!" He admitted on another site that half his comments at HuffPost are rejected or removed after the fact --- yet no matter what he does on HuffPost, he "can't get banned even once." Although HuffPost eventually banned his original screen name, "KQuarksSuperKollider," it has allowed him to continue to post tens of thousands of comments as "KQuark."
    here and here.

  • "LookToTheLeft" --- 20,000+ comments since February 2009. Huffpost has allowed him to pathologically post graphic homophobic insults against other users, conservative public figures, and their family members. He has graphically described how he wants to violently attack a Republican pollster. HuffPost has "banned" a minimum of five times, usually for a day or less, then fully reinstated him. He admits HuffPost has rejected or removed tens of thousands of his comments, yet warns other user who criticize him that they're going to be banned -- and they almost invariably are (permanently).
    See detailed analysis here.

  • "HumeSkeptic" --- 90,000 comments since 2005. HuffPost has permitted him to post vicious anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-U.S. military libels and propaganda --- and to claim that he would "beat the shit out of" President Bush if he were ever in the same room with him. It has also permitted him to repeatedly claim that African-Americans only belong in the Democratic Party --- and those who claim they don't are either frauds, or hate themselves. Users who have dared to challenge him on this have been permanently banned. HuffPost enables him to "live" on its site for 12-16 hours a day, every day. It has also (a) apologized to him for comments of his that it had "approved," but which, due to technical glitches, did not appear, (b) asked him for advice on how to improve the site, and (c) disclosed information to him about other users. Users who dare to challenge or mock him are usually banned, permanently, within minutes.
    See summary here, and detailed analysis here.

  • "Postman606" --- 40,000+ comments since 2009. HuffPost has permitted him to claim (a) that President Bush "should be put up against a wall and shot," and (b) that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is the original Watermelon Man." His "friends," also pathological violators of HuffPost's Comment Policy & Terms of Service (CP-TOS), delighted and fed off this racial slur, to the point where they agreed they "hate Thomas's black skin." HuffPost permits him to basically "live" on the site all day, every day, and to pathologically violate its CP-TOS at will. Even though it eventually "banned" him as "Postman606," it allowed him to immediately resume as "Postman66," under which he's posted an additional 25,000 comments thus far.
    5/2/09: HuffPost users: "Hey, someone should murder President Bush!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!") Update April 29, 2010: HuffPost has made “Postman66” a moderator.

  • "Poco767c" --- 25,000 comments since 2009. In July 2009, HuffPost permitted him to repeatedly post numerous "comments" filled with graphic swastikas. Yet when another user called him out on this, HuffPost swiftly, permanently banned the user --- but left "Poco767c" free to continue commenting.
    See detailed analysis here.

  • "CaptainQueeg" --- 400 comments since 2009. On January 27, 2010, in response to HuffPost's decision to twist a crime story to focus on an irrelevant Jewish aspect, it permitted him to claim that he's "Getting sick and tired of all of the Heebe's [sic] in this world." In the days prior, it also permitted him to claim (a) it's "Time to grab a Baseball bat and start caving Repubs heads in," and (b) "Get the Baseball Bats ready. A few Supreme Court heads need bashing in." Yet rather than instantly banning him, as it does with non-violating non-leftists, HuffPost surgically removed these comments, and left him free to continue commenting.
    See detailed analysis at end here.

As documented in Section 7 of this report, while HuffPost has chosen to enable, protect and embolden the above users and their "friends," it routinely censors and bans (permanently) users who don't violate its CP-TOS, or who dare to stand up to these violators, in real time --- some, after as few as six comments. Also see the following special reports:
Quiz: Are you qualified to be a HuffPost Moderator?
A grimly satirical "quiz" that goes to the heart of the matter, with specific, historic examples of choices that HuffPost moderators have made, which have created the toxic environment that one encounters on the site.

Comparing HuffPost comment threads to those on other major political blogsites
Documentation of the fact that while other political websites are able to keep their comment threads "clean" for the most part, HuffPost routinely allows its comment threads to be "hijacked" by the growing "gang" of radical leftists that it enables, protects and emboldens. Instead of enforcing its rules that require users to comment on the topic of the thread (e.g. the deaths of U.S. soldiers), HuffPost allows these leftists to hijack it for purposes ranging from arranging fistfights, to flirting, "music nights," etc. And when other users complain --- it is they who are routinely banned, to the delight of the radical leftist violators whom HuffPost has chosen to protect.


Tests: What did HuffPost do when "acceptable" slurs were reformatted, and submitted against "protected" entities?


Section 8 of
this report links to several tests have been conducted to determine what HuffPost would do if carbon-copies of hate comments it approved, which were directed at "acceptable" targets --- such as conservatives, Republicans, Israel and Jews --- were reformatted and directed to "protected" parties. The consistent result: HuffPost refused to publish the comments or quickly removed them, then permanently banned the users who submitted them (to the open delight of the radical leftists that it caters to).

For example, this special report documents the fact that while HuffPost repeatedly allows Sarah Palin and her children to be called "whores," "white trash," etc. on a daily basis by protected radical leftists, when identical comments were submitted against a prominent black liberal public figure, the user was censored and almost instantly banned. (Ironically, this outcome was explicitly predicted by one of HuffPost's most notorious, Secret Service-interviewed violators, "kevenseven": "Oh are you going to get banned, and quick" --- which is exactly what happened.)


"The stimulus and the response"
--- the formula for a preventable tragedy


In January 2010, Huff-Watch released its first major repor
t, "The Stimulus And The (Approved) Response: Anti-Semitism and Israel-Hatred on Huffington Post" (first published at FrontPageMag), which documents exactly what the first part of the title suggests:
  • The stimulus: HuffPost publishes inflammatory, inaccurate, decontextualized "news" articles concerning Israel and Jews

  • The response: HuffPost then approves and publishes user comments containing anti-Semitic hate speech, libels, conspiracy theories and even threats* submitted in response to the stimulus (*e.g. "I am targetting all jooooooooos in my area, but when they get it they will never know what hit them..."; screencap)

HuffPost's subversive, dishonest "war" against the Tea Party is quite similar, in that it:
  • Publishes "news" stories containing libelous, inflammatory accusations against Tea Party leaders and attendees of being violent racists, bigots, homophobes, etc.

  • Then approves vicious user comments that are submitted in response to this incitement, as noted earlier, up to and including threats and calls for violence

HuffPost's smearing of the Tea Party, as opposed to its smearing of Israel, is marked by one key distinguishing characteristic. In contrast to the global resurgence of anti-Semitism (which is becoming more acceptable in some social circles), as Andrew Breitbart* has noted, “calling a person a racist is the worst thing you can call a person in this country.”
(*Ironically, Breitbart was HuffPost's co-developer and first News Editor, but went on to become one of its most ardent critics [1, 2, 3, 4, 5])

Breitbart should know: For daring to support and defend the Tea Party, and helping documentary filmmakers Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe expose the endemic corruption at ACORN, he and they have been repeatedly smeared with unfounded charges of being "racists." Fortunately, Brietbart has been fighting back hard --- even confronting his accusers on a face-to-face basis whenever possible.


"It only takes one"


In the context of the Internet in general --- and HuffPost in particular (which has 300,000+ visitors per day) --- this is an extremely serious matter, because as cybercrimes investigators know well, "it only takes one" --- one on-the-edge person who may just need that extra "nudge," to act out on this incitement. Examples:
  • An anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who frequented certain hate-based websites, but had no known history of criminal behavior or of issuing threats, apparently “snapped,” and murdered three police officers.

  • A woman with no known history of criminal behavior or of issuing threats became so despondent after a man she met on a computer service discontinued their “relationship,” that she apparently “snapped,” traveled to the state in which he lived, broke into his home and attempted to kidnap him.

  • A frustrated, depressed “coward” with no known history of criminal behavior or of issuing threats apparently “snapped,” and murdered thirteen people.

  • A man with no known criminal convictions, who’d separated from his wife, apparently “snapped” after he learned that she changed her status on a social networking website from “married” to “single,” then hacked her to death with a meat cleaver.

Radical leftists --- those who hold the ideology that HuffPost has decided to cater to, protect and embolden --- hardly need any more incitement, as they are the primary purveyors and threateners of political violence (see item 2 under “Conclusion” in next section for data; image at right courtesy of Zombie, part of a comprehensive photo-essay, here). In fact it was only a few years ago that the FBI named radical leftist eco-terrorists as the number one domestic terror threat.
Will a totally preventable tragedy occur as a result of HuffPost's malicious incitement against the Tea Party, particularly due to its incendiary, false charges of "racism"? Who knows?

One thing we do know, however, is that if such a tragedy occurs, and can be traced directly back to the "comment" threads at HuffPost, it may well have to answer for its actions (and inactions) in the courtroom --- and in the court of public opinion.

Proceed to:

CONCLUSION: A theory on HuffPost's motivation for its "racist" smear against the Tea Party; how to make your voice known


You are here:

HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Introduction

FINDING 1: HuffPost has used false/misleading "news" reporting to unfairly smear and incite hatred of Tea Party leaders and event attendees

FINDING 2: HuffPost's smearing of the Tea Party is part of its continuing pattern of smearing and unfairly inciting hatred against others

FINDING 3: HuffPost is far guiltier than Tea Party leaders of tolerating and protecting members who engage in hate speech and calls for violence

CONCLUSION: A theory on HuffPost's motivation for its "racist" smear against the Tea Party; how to make your voice known


No comments:

Post a Comment