A Special Report by Huff-Watch, April 2010 Original materials are © Copyright 2010 by www.Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. Since late 2009, The Huffington Post ("HuffPost") has been publishing a steady stream of news stories that: • Accuse Tea Party leaders of inciting and tolerating hate speech, threats and calls for violence • Accuse Tea Party leaders, and attendees of their events, of being "racist" and "anti-immigrant" Tea Party leaders have not responded specifically to HuffPost's accusations, but they have issued blanket denials of similar ones. Clearly, HuffPost and Tea Party leaders cannot both be telling the truth. So where does the truth lie? This report will enable you to discover the shocking truth. Pop Quiz: Tea Party or HuffPost? If someone told you that the management of one of these organizations --- the Tea Party, or HuffPost --- had committed the following acts, which one would you think they're talking about? They've enabled and protected members who openly call for the murder of the President of the United States. Examples include claims (a) from one member, that he should be "put up against a wall and shot," and (b) from another member, that he should be "hanging from a light pole in front of the White House," and that someone should "cut off his f**king head." Regarding the latter member, they even allowed him to brag about getting interviewed in his home by the Secret Service for these and similar statements against its protectees. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 1 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. They've enabled and protected members who openly use racial, sexual and religious slurs against political opponents. Examples include claims that black Americans are suited for only one political party; that Senators and Representatives of a certain political party engage in homosexual conduct in the U.S. Capitol; and that a certain female political figure is "a whore," "a tramp," "a breeder," and "[skin color] trash." In all the above cases, they've ejected non-violating members for daring to denounce, mock or complain about the "protected" members who engage in this type of vile conduct --- and worse. They've published a variety of racially and culturally offensive articles. Examples include (a) an item containing one picture --- of a black man --- under the headline, "The Laziest People Ever"; (b) another that claimed the world's worst fascist dictators "honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks [and] eliminating Jews"; and (c) one that called the wife of a presidential nominee "a dick." They've published articles that they knew, or should have known contained grievous falsehoods that could only serve to unfairly smear political opponents. You're probably saying to yourself, "That sounds like the leaders of the Tea Party." The reality is that all of the above acts were perpetrated by HuffPost's management. [See "Pop Quiz: Tea Party or Huffington Post?" for links to source evidence on all the above instances, and more examples of actions by HuffPost's management.] THE THREE MAJOR FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT This special report contains the proof to substantiate three major findings: 1. FINDING 1: HuffPost has used false/misleading "news" reporting to unfairly smear and incite hatred of Tea Party leaders and event attendees. 2. FINDING 2: HuffPost's smearing of the Tea Party is part of its continuing pattern of smearing and unfairly inciting hatred against others --- namely (a) non-leftist individuals and organizations, (b) Israel and Jews, and (c) the U.S. military. 3. FINDING 3: HuffPost is far guiltier than Tea Party leaders of tolerating and protecting members who engage in hate speech and calls for violence. The report concludes with: • Our theory, and a forensic psychiatrist’s appraisal of HuffPost's motivation for its "racist" smear against the Tea Party • Information on how to make your voice known to HuffPost management HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 2 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. ================== About Huffpost, and its claims of journalistic nonpartisanship --- vs. the reality ================== Some conservatives and casual political observers say, "Oh, who even reads HuffPost, or believes anything it says?" and, "HuffPost is a blog --- not a 'news' operation!" The facts, which many find both surprising and disturbing, are that: • HuffPost is the #1 blog on Earth, one of America’s most popular news sites, and was recently named "the most powerful blog in the world" by The Guardian (UK). • HuffPost has more online readers than the Washington Post (the publisher of which recently said her paper "could learn from" HuffPost). • HuffPost has received preferential treatment in presidential press conferences, and has top members of Congress as official bloggers (article writers). It is also now a reportedly disgruntled member of the White House Correspondent's Association. • Inc. magazine recently claimed: "HuffPost... consistently breaks important news stories..." • HuffPost has attracted advertising from many of the biggest corporations in the world. Given these facts, regardless of how one feels about it: • HuffPost has become a powerful, influential part of both the "news" media and the political blogosphere • The types of inflammatory accusations HuffPost has made against the Tea Party movement, framed in the context of "news" stories (as opposed to opinion pieces), are going to have an impact --- especially as "mainstream" news media outlets pick up on its "reporting" HuffPost's claims of nonpartisan news reporting --- vs. the reality Upon HuffPost's debut in May 2005, Arianna Huffington, its Editor in Chief, claimed that her site would adhere to a higher standard of political discourse than rivals: "If you're looking for the usual flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric ... don't bother coming to the Huffington Post." [...] In February 2010, she scolded Roger Ailes and Fox News Channel for what she claimed is their incitement of hate... and urged them to adopt a HuffPost-like approach: "[At HuffPost] there are guidelines that have to be followed -- and they include a prohibition on conspiracy theories or inflammatory claims..." [... unlike Glenn] Beck [who] preys on fear, political instability, and economic suffering, which, in turn, means that Fox News profits from fear, political instability, and economic suffering." In between these two statements lies a long list of other claims by Ms. Huffington, asserting that HuffPost is a “nonpartisan” source of "news, ”not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news,” that seeks “to debunk the left-right way of thinking,” and whose purpose is “to ferret out the truth, consequences be damned.” HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 3 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. The reality is that instead of upholding these high-sounding principles, HuffPost has consistently acted in violation of them, primarily regarding its "news coverage" of: • Tea Party leaders, attendees of its events, and anyone who dares to dissent from the Obama-Democrat- radical leftist agenda (Section 1) • Non-leftist individuals and organizations in general (Section 2a) • Israel and Jews (Section 2b) • The U.S. military (Section 2c) ================== FINDING 1: HuffPost has used false/misleading "news" reporting to unfairly smear and incite hatred of Tea Party leaders and event attendees ================== The following are five examples of HuffPost's ongoing assault on the Tea Party, presented in chronological order. The original article upon which each example is based is linked just beneath the title, and again at the end. Note that after each example is a list of user comments that were incited by HuffPost's actions, which contain misconception-based hatred, and even open calls for violence. As documented in Section 3b, despite HuffPost's statements to the contrary: • The only reason that these and other comments appeared is because it reviewed, approved and decided to publish them. • Many of these calls for violence came not from new users (as HuffPost claims, "anonymous, trouble-making trolls"), but from long-term users, with 20 or more "fans," indicated in bold. ========== EXAMPLE 1, November 17, 2009: HuffPost headline claims Tea Party event "turned violent" --- implying they initiated it --- even though the evidence clearly shows that militant leftists physically assaulted peaceful Tea Party demonstrators. This incident is documented in detail here. In summary: • Tea Party demonstrators were peacefully assembled in South Florida in mid-November, 2009. • Militant leftists (from Int'l ANSWER, a revolutionary communist, Stalinist front group) physically assaulted them --- as they'd urged their members to do, via an email sent out earlier. • Rather than being an isolated incident, this was representative of the far larger pattern of radical leftist violence, as documented in a recent report by the Media Research Center. • This assault was captured on video HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 4 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. Instead of running this as a story of unprovoked violence against peaceful demonstrators, HuffPost chose to run this story under the headline, "Tea Party Protest Turns Violent." And here are the first two sentences in HuffPost "reporter" Dawn Teo's report, seemed to imply that the peaceful Tea Party demonstrators had initiated this physical clash (emphasis added): Tea Partiers tussled with counter protesters during at least two of the nationwide anti-immigration Tea Party rallies on Saturday. In Ft. Lauderdale, several Tea Partiers brawled in the street with counter protesters from the Florida Chapter of Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER). The story generated more than 1,000 user comments. The following is a sampling of the hateful, violence-inducing ones that were incited by HuffPost's depiction of this attack --- which appeared only because it reviewed, approved and decided to publish them (see Section 3b): bluntobject 31 fans permalink This is all these redneck, ignorant republicans are about -- brawling. I am only sorry that more of this teabag-trash weren't popped in the face. He deserved it, and more! Posted 11:28 AM on 11/17/2009 mcthfg 21 fans permalink I'm all for beating the crap out of tea baggers. [...] They need to be shown that there are consequences to their actions. Posted 11:22 AM on 11/17/2009 Genep34 39 fans permalink It is about time someone stood up to these ignorant white power cowards. Posted 10:35 AM on 11/17/2009 See the full documentation of this incident here. ========== EXAMPLE 2, March 7, 2010: HuffPost disguises smear-filled activist rant as a "news" story; falsely claims that the Tea Party is racist, has an "anti-immigrant agenda," and are "teabaggers." This incident is documented in detail here. In summary: • From its 2005 debut to the present day, HuffPost's front page design has consisted of opinion pieces (blog articles) placed along the left column, and news stories in the center and right columns. This is the design approach Ms. Huffington defined in 2005, so readers can distinguish the types of content on the site. • On March 7, HuffPost published in its news section a story with the headline, "The Tea Party's Anti-Immigration Agenda," which linked to a story page entitled: "Mexicans Are Filthy Stinking Animals - Teabaggers: That's Really Not Racism." • The story, written by an anti-Tea Party activist, consisted of a continuous smear, alleging that because one attendee at one Tea Party event was caught on video making an inflammatory statement, the entire Tea Party movement is "racist" and "anti-immigrant." • It turns out that the video was produced by the article writer. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 5 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. This inflammatory smear against the Tea Party --- which HuffPost disguised to appear as a "news" article --- incited nearly 1,000 user comments, many of them filled with hate and libels, which it then reviewed, approved and decided to publish (see Section 3b). See the full documentation of this incident here. ========== EXAMPLE 3, March 20, 2010: HuffPost falsely "reports," as fact, an evidence-less rumor about Tea Party demonstrators calling black Congressmen "the 'n' word." This incident is documented in detail here. In summary: • In preparation to vote for a healthcare takeover bill that 55% of Americans opposed at the time, several black Democratic Congressmen decided to walk directly through the tens of thousands of Tea Party protesters. • Several of these Congressmen later alleged to HuffPost and other "news" organizations that they were called the "n" word, spat on, called homophobic slurs, etc. --- for which there was no proof whatsoever. • Instead of posting this "news" story under a headline indicating it was based on allegations, HuffPost's headline indicated the account was factual: "Members Of Congress Called 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot,' Spat On By Tea Party Protesters." (right) • Turns out that the HuffPost "reporter" who wrote this story, Sam Stein, is a graduate of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. This prompted us to ask, in our coverage of this incident: "Does not basic journalistic ethics demand that if one is going to smear an individual or group with a charge as incendiary as having used the 'n' word, that the reporter provide one iota, one shred, one kernel of tangible proof? In normal "news" rooms, the answer is yes." As in earlier incidents, HuffPost's incitement led to more than 10,000 user comments, many of which were filled with hatred, and some containing calls for violence, which it then reviewed, approved and decided to publish (see Section 3b). A sampling: imright59 4 fans permalink the time is right for fighting in the streets!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted 09:31 PM on 3/20/2010 nicole473 541 fans permalink Yeah, let's hear all you baggers claiming that you aren't r@cist again. This makes me want to kick all of their ugly_butts out of the country!! Posted 08:49 PM on 3/20/2010 zee12 10 fans permalink Bring out the dogs. Round them up. [...] throw them into jail. Include the editors, publishers, radio and TV persons at Fox news for inciting hate crimes, riots and treason. [...] Posted 05:22 PM on 3/20/2010 See the full documentation of this incident here. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 6 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. ========== EXAMPLE 4, March 24, 2010: HuffPost triples-down on reporting as "news" false smears against the Tea Party --- even though video evidence shows none of it occurred. This incident is documented in detail here. In summary: • HuffPost published another original "news" story that claimed --- without any proof whatsoever --- that black Democratic Congressmen were called racial slurs by Tea Party activists. • HuffPost cited in the article the "activist" who wrote the March 7 smear (which it disguised as a news article), asking readers watch a video which (according to HuffPost) "shows Republican lawmakers waving signs from a balcony and applauding the crowd of Tea Party protesters as they shout racial and homophobic slurs." The video showed no such thing --- and HuffPost failed to note its prior relationship with the "activist." • Numerous videos (included in our blog article, here) clearly show that none of what HuffPost or its "activist" allies allege occurred. In fact, the evidence shows that even the Congressmen in question and their aides were videotaping the incident, as if they anticipated something would occur. Yet none of their videotapes show anyone called them racial slurs. • Photographic evidence shows how many other people in the crowd were videotaping the event. Noted blogger Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who can show that anyone called any Congressman a racial slur. He even offered this money if any of the Congressmen could pass a lie detector test regarding their allegations. No proof has come forward --- and none of the Congressmen have, either. HuffPost's incitement led to more than 2,000 user comments, many of which were filled with hatred, and some calls for violence, which it reviewed, approved and decided to publish (see Section 3b). A sampling: lumpy gravy 5 fans permalink yeah, no need to censor them. it would be better if people started kicking their teeth in. Posted 01:47 PM on 3/24/2010 Obamas Spine permalink Believe me, we're ready. We're going to start taking an arm for an arm, tooth for tooth [...] threatening the lives of your representatives children (and we don't just "threaten"). We're ready 4 u! Posted 02:11 PM on 3/24/2010 mltmama 4 fans permalink The Rethugs want these people to do their dirty work. They want someone killed. Period. [...] Posted 01:05 PM on 3/24/2010 chiodo08 24 fans permalink [...].from my experience a bully a hole won't let up until you beat them down....let's get on with it...I think they will be VERY VERY surprised in the amount of weight progressives can "bring".... Posted 12:53 PM on 3/24/2010 See the full documentation of this incident here. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 7 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. ========== EXAMPLE 5, March 28, 2010: HuffPost falsely claims in blaring news headline that "many" Tea Party activists are "on the dole, turning to government for help." This incident is documented in detail here. In summary: • This HuffPost "news" story was based on an article published by the New York Times. • The Times article did not have any indication that "many" Tea Party activists are seeking or obtaining financial assistance --- in the form of unemployment, into which all U.S. workers are forced to pay, just for such situations. Thus, these individuals are not "on the dole" (receiving charity), as it is their own money, which was forcibly taken from them for this purpose, that they are getting back. • Rather than discussing "many" of the estimated 1.5 million Tea Party activists, the Times article focuses on a few individuals, some of whom have decided to volunteer for the Tea Party while they're out of work. Yet HuffPost crafted a blaring headline that its own source demonstrated was untrue. HuffPost's incitement led to more than 8,000 user comments, many of which were filled with hatred, and some calls for violence, which it then reviewed, approved and decided to publish (see Section 3b). A sampling: NoSillyName 100 fans permalink Tea Partiers and their leader, Spalin, are nothing but nasty, violent hypocrites. [...] Posted 01:15 AM on 3/28/2010 lizr 296 fans permalink I think part of the point of the article is that they are BROKE and DISPOSSESSED nasty violent hypocrites. [...] Posted 01:56 AM on 3/28/2010 jessikins permalink With one hand, holding a picket sign, the other outstretched for government assistance pooled from fellow American taxpayers of all ilks. Way to go, teabaggers--bite the hand that literally feeds you. [...] Posted 01:13 AM on 3/28/2010 RichInSeattle 58 fans permalink I don't like it when these people use the American Flag. It reminds me of the hate and intollerance of Germany in 1930's. [...] Posted 01:33 AM on 3/28/2010 lisakaz2 268 fans permalink All, the land of not-making-sense. Let's take government benefits but complain about 'em at the same time. "We deserve 'em but no one else," I guess. Posted 01:32 AM on 3/28/2010 ========== Additional notes on these five examples of HuffPost's "news" reporting on the Tea Party: • All of the physical evidence that emerged since HuffPost began its smears against the Tea Party over the March 20 rally in Washington indicate that the alleged events never took place. This fact was covered by three of the most popular conservative blogs --- Gateway Pundit (1, 2, 3, 4), Big Journalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and Powerline (1, 2, 3, 4). HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 8 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. • See "Timeline: Anatomy of a Tea Party Smear by the Democrat-Media Complex," by Doug Ross (cited at Gateway Pundit) for a detailed analysis of how HuffPost's false reporting on March 20 incident in Washington, DC was picked up by the mainstream media --- setting in motion a series of stories that reported unproven allegations as facts. • Instead of "walking back" its false allegations against the Tea Party, in the days after contradictory evidence began emerging, HuffPost escalated its unfounded smears. • Even after additional stories like this emerged --- proof, in leftist-anarchists' own words, of their plans to "crash" and disrupt the Tea Parties --- HuffPost refused to "ferret out the truth" of the matter, which Ms. Huffington claims is the "highest calling of journalists." Taken in total, these examples demonstrate HuffPost's pattern of malicious, incendiary smears against the Tea Party, its leaders and event attendees, based on allegations that it knew, or should have known, are false. ================== FINDING 2: HuffPost's smearing of the Tea Party is part of its continuing pattern of smearing and unfairly inciting hatred against others --- namely (a) non-leftist individuals and organizations, (b) Israel and Jews, and (c) the U.S. military ================== (2a) This archive contains numerous examples of HuffPost's smears and incitement of hatred against non-leftist individuals and organizations, primarily through its use of: • False/misleading "news" headlines • Inaccurate, biased "reporting" Some "highlights": 8/23/09: Grossly misleading headline about Sen. Lieberman incites user hate comments (HuffPost: "Approved!!!") 4/7/08: A "report" that McCain called wife a vulgar term turns out to be nothing more than a vicious rumor --- at best 3/16/07: False headline re McCain quote on contraceptives incites torrent of hate comments (2b) This archive contains numerous examples of HuffPost's smears and incitement of hatred against Israel and Jews, primarily through: • Its use of false/misleading headlines and headline imagery • Its use of "news" sources that harbor known or easily-discovered anti-Israel (if not pro-Islamist) biases — including the terrorist-friendly, notorious al Jazeera • Its failure (refusal) to cover, or downplaying of stories that defend or exonerate Israel, when the original perceptions it incited are later determined to be false or overblown See a comprehensive report on this matter, here: The Stimulus And The (Approved) Response: Anti-Semitism and Israel-Hatred on Huffington Post HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 9 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. Some "highlights": 2/17/10: HuffPost manipulates headline to falsely incriminate Israel in assassination (Users unleash hate; HuffPost: "Approved!!!") 5/29/09: Using a biased Arabic "news" source to present a distorted account of a terror suspect killed by the IDF 5/23/08: Grossly misleading headline re Israeli Air Force foments torrent of hate (HuffPost: "Approved!!!") (2c) Here are several examples of HuffPost's smears and incitement of hatred against the U.S. military, primarily through the exact same means it uses against Israel and Jews: 4/5/10: HuffPost falsely smears the U.S. military, again; User hate-fest erupts (HuffPost: "Approved!!!") 5/4/09: The HuffPost-alJazeera alliance: Fomenting (and approving) anti-U.S. military, anti- Christian propaganda, hate and libels ================== 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. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 10 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. ============ The three fundamental differences between HuffPost and the Tea Party ============ Of 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 "CrashTheTeaParty.org" 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 Crashtheteaparty.org? "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.” HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 11 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. 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 of fake Nazi 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” HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 12 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. March 19, 2008: As is shown in this video, 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: HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 13 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. • 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." See 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. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 14 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. • "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. See 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). HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 15 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. 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 report, "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. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 16 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. • 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. ================== CONCLUSION: A theory on HuffPost's motivation for its "racist" smear against the Tea Party; how to make your voice known ================== So what is HuffPost's motivation? What would cause it to maliciously smear the Tea Party's leaders, and attendees of its events ("the Tea Party"), with the false charge of "racism"? Only HuffPost can explain why it has acted as it has. Perhaps one day, someone in a position of influence will ask it to do so. We contend there are a number of interrelated reasons for its behavior: 1. To blunt the growing resonance that the Tea Party is having with the American people --- without substantively addressing any of it. More Americans now claim the average Tea Party activist is aligned with their views on major issues than President Obama. 28% of Americans call themselves supporters of the Tea Party --- while only 20% of Americans self-identify as "liberal." This is a stunning success for an organization that didn't even exist one year ago. Rather than engaging the Tea Party in a civil debate on the substance of its concerns and criticisms, however, advocates of the status quo would rather hurl hateful, vile smears. (See larger graphic at right here) 2. To deflect attention away from the fact that the vast majority of political violence and off-the-charts "hate speech" in recent years has been perpetrated by "liberals" and leftists. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 17 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. The Media Research Center recently completed a report on the proliferation of left-wing violence; more data here, here, here, here, here. Regarding the left's use of hate speech against political opponents (which HuffPost ignores, wholesale), see reminders of when dissent was patriotic here, here, here. 3. To cause this worst-of-all smears to publicly hang over the Tea Party's head. After all, how does one defend against a false charge of racism? It's the equivalent of trying to respond to a question such as, "So when did you stop beating your children?" 4. To try to intimidate the Tea Party into silence. What better way to stuff a sock in a critic's mouth than to teach him that there will be a savage price for speaking out in the future? 5. To dissuade Americans of color from joining the Tea Party --- and stigmatize those who already are members, as being the equivalent of "Uncle Toms" to their races. And anecdotal evidence suggests that this has been a somewhat successful strategy --- until recently. More here, here. On the other hand, some black Americans have been motivated to stand up to such slurs and support the Tea Party, as documented here. 6. To promote the (false) notion that the American left is genuinely concerned about the welfare of African-Americans. Freedom-oriented economists and philosophers argue that leftists have caused more harm to black Americans than any other force in recent years. In addition to these objectives, to have a "news" entity as powerful as HuffPost essentially leading the charge in smearing the Tea Party as "racist" serves as a larger warning, against others who speak out against the radical left --- or contemplates doing so. We also asked Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., a forensic psychiatrist and the author of the book "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness," to comment on why an otherwise "professional" organization would knowingly smear others with false charges of racism. Dr. Rossiter's response (emphasis added): The motivations and objectives of the radical left listed above are right on target, but are embedded in a larger and deeper set of motivations. In fact, the radical leftist views any opposition to his neurotically (and in some cases psychotically) driven agenda as a villainous attack on his efforts to create an egalitarian utopia, to undo what he believes to be the terrible injustices of capitalism, to compensate by “redistributing” to all who have suffered, and to punish the "evil rich" and others who, in his mind, are callously indifferent to the victims of the world. This last motive is just as critical as the first three: the leftist mind is full of hatred originally felt as infantile rage toward the depriving, withholding, neglectful, abusive parents of his formative years. In his unconscious, the present day reincarnations of those evil parents are conservatives, republicans, libertarians, and anyone else who actively opposes him. In the leftist’s mind, these people must be punished. The efforts of the radical leftist/statist to "shut down the debate" are different in degree but not in kind from any dictator's (the Russian, North Korean, Venezuelan or Iranian government's) brutal suppression of dissidents in the press or on the streets. The radical leftist is beyond intellectual cowardice in not permitting an open debate: in his doctrinaire mindset, opposing ideas are intolerable, must be seen as heresy, and must be excluded, lest they unsettle the minds of true believers. The leftist views any opposition to the idealized state -- the deified state – as the work of the devil (or in this case, Tea Party demonstrators). The leftist's position on this matter is fundamentally paranoid: he believes that individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, and free market capitalism permit -- and even advocate – not only a lethal neglect toward the plight of ”society's” victims, but also an active exploitation of the masses for material gain and sadistic satisfaction. The left's paranoia envisions a malevolent conspiracy (“the vast right-wing conspiracy”)which must be destroyed in preparation for the coming collectivist utopia. In the leftist’s unconscious fantasies, that utopia is the idealized good mother/parent who will replace the evil, depriving, abusive, coldly neglectful, bad mother. HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 18 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved. If this sounds nuts to you, it is -- but these dynamics are well established (in the work of Suttie, Sullvan, Jacobson, Klein, Kernberg, Kohut, Masterson, Meissner, Bowlby, Shengold, Pierce and Newton, and others in the psychoanalytic community, by Ellis, Beck, Maultsby and others in the cognitive psychotherapy community, by Bradford, Whitfield, Miller and Stettbacher and others in the inner child school, and by my own work on these matters.) The radical leftist's use of racism as an epithet is clearly retaliatory: to the extent that he knows he is destroying the liberty and taking the wealth of his fellow citizens, he is vulnerable to feeling shame and guilt. In order to avoid these painful emotions, he has to blame his critics, suppress their protests about what he is doing to us and our country, and punish them for their heresy against his dogmas. Of course, the more ruthless of the radical left don't care about anyone’s protests, but those with some residue of conscience have to defend themselves against remorse for their all too obvious destructiveness. Given the facts contained in this report, HuffPost clearly has a choice to make: To continue fashioning "news" stories regarding the Tea Party's leaders and event attendees based on libels and falsehoods --- and continue publishing the hate-saturated comments that these stories incite in the radical leftists it has enabled, protected and emboldened. Or... To recommit itself to its nonpartisan journalistic principles, and stop enabling and protecting radical leftists to pathologically violate its comment policy, and possibly even the law. If HuffPost chooses the second course, it should give Tea Party leaders a platform from which to address the persistent vilification and libels that it has incited and tolerated against them over the past several months. For as Ms. Huffington said in a 2008 video interview, HuffPost is happy to provides a means for public figures to respond to accusations of serious wrongdoing against them: "If someone wants to smear you about something, come to us." Was Ms. Huffington serious about that offer? Time will tell. *** How to make your voice known If you are as concerned as we are about HuffPost's actions, and would like to make your voice known to its management, here's how to do so. We also encourage you to email your comments to huffwatcher1 (at) gmail.com. We'll be publishing the best of your comments in a few weeks, and forwarding them to HuffPost's management. . HuffPost vs. the Tea Party: Which one REALLY incites and tolerates hate speech, and calls for violence? Page 19 of 19 © Copyright 2010 Huff-Watch.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.