Filed Under Politics | 6 Comments
Once the effectiveness of lies and misrepresentations wears off — after all the straw has been plucked from the straw man and a story has worn out its effectiveness due to a drastic lack of evidence for the charge — you can always count on the media to get bored and flirt with the truth before moving on to something else.
There’s a piece on the Washington Post’s website today entitled “Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes.”
Obama’s calling the WaPo as we speak to ask why they didn’t hold this story until after next month’s election:
A new analysis of political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month reveals that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government’s economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events.
“Really this is an issue of salience,” Ekins said. “Just because a couple of percentage points of signs have those messages doesn’t mean the other people don’t share those views, but it doesn’t mean they do, either. But when 25 percent of the coverage is devoted to those signs, it suggests that this is the issue that 25 percent of people think is so important that they’re going to put it on a sign, when it’s actually only a couple of people.”
Ekins spent the summer researching the tea party movement and also as an intern at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. The survey was for her UCLA graduate studies.
Do you know what this means?
“That this alleged ‘researcher’ named Emily Elkins is in fact a Tea Party co-conspirator and a swastika-carrying racist?”
No, but nice try Ms. Pelosi… it means that the Washington Post just stripped the ball from their columnist Eugene Robinson, who very often runs with the “racist tea party” generalizations based on hearsay — not that this will stop him anyway.