Sister Toldjah!
2/3/2006 - 9:26 pm

11 references in Google News, and still only one semi-mainstream source mentions the swastika reference: World Net Daily. Absolutely amazing.

James Taranto nails it:

Isn’t it newsworthy when the leader of a venerable organization like the NAACP engages in such over-the-top, crackpot rhetoric? (Or, if you’re an over-the-top crackpot and think Bond was right, isn’t it newsworthy that the leader of a venerable organization like the NAACP is telling the truth about the evil Chimpy W. Hitliar?)

Why did the local media ignore Bond’s crazy talk? (The speech doesn’t seem to have received any national attention outside WND and cable chat shows.) The most likely explanation, it seems to us, is that they recognized the talk as crazy and felt it would be invidious, inflammatory or both to depict a respected black leader as crazy–even though doing so would have been merely a matter of quoting his own words.

What we end up with, then, is a double message, very much like Yasser Arafat* talking peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic–except that in this case Bond is speaking a language everyone understands, and reporters, whose job is to report the facts, are instead concealing them. Bond’s mostly black audience at Fayetteville hears his message of division and resentment, while the broader public is told that he has a “positive attitude” and is engaged in a “fight for equal rights.”

Yep.

Move along …. nothin’ here to see.

Update: Oh, but when Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compares Cindy Sheehan’s new pal Hugo Chavez (Venezuelan dictator) to Hitler, it makes news at the Associated Press and gets posted at MSNBC (for starters). And look at all the articles where this comparison was noted.

Double standard? Nah. Of course not!

The blogosphere is abuzz on this story. Mark in Mexico has a huge link roundup of blogger commentary on Bond’s swastika slur.

Related Toldjah So posts:

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Media Watch, Politics, Race Issues
| Email This Post | Print This |   

Trackback URI for this post:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/02/03/bonds-gopswastika-comparison-still-gets-no-msm-coverage/trackback/
Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. More Big MSM Bias Exposed

    Sister Toldjah has another example of big media’s liberal double-standard bias in regards to reporting. This time: NAACP chairman Julian Bond’s comparison of the GOP with Nazis gets almost zero coverage but Rumsfeld’s comparison of Venuzuelan dictat…

    Trackback by The World According To Carl — 2/4/2006 @ 2/4/2006 - 10:03 pm

  2. [...] And for those of you who think that I’m disparaging fellow conservatives and/or other bloggers - I’ll point recent example of how New Media outmanuvers traditional media to get a good story. Local Blogger “Sister Toldjah” (not her real name - but high on my list for possible girl names for the newest Thibault) posted an article titled: “Bond’s GOP/swastika comparison still gets no MSM coverage“. A very good read on NAACP’s Julian Bond behaving badly. You won’t read it in any paper; but it’s better cooberated and researched than anything you’ll find in the paper or on TV. [...]

    Pingback by The View From The Cheap Seats » Blog Archive » NCC’s First Amendment Blues — 12/14/2006 @ 12/14/2006 - 9:24 pm


Comments

  1. “Double standard? Nah. Of course not!”
    Left get headlines. Bush gets results. History will remember Bush, but consign the left to the gutter they richly deserve.

    Comment by stackja @ 2/3/2006 - 10:29 pm

  2. Of course it is a double standard, did we expect anything less?

    What I don’t understand is the MSM still believes if they don’t report something it doesn’t exist and that is why Blogs have come to be sources of information to check on instead of a biased MSM.

    And the MSM wonders why thier viewership is plummeting.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/3/2006 - 10:29 pm

  3. This isn’t suprising at all. If they don’t report it, it never happened. If they report it, it didn’t happen the way the way it really did - it happened the way they wanted it to happen.

    Comment by scmommy @ 2/4/2006 - 1:20 am

  4. - S’ok folks… Take heart that in this, as in so many ways, the leftwing MSM continues to sew the seeds of its own demise…..

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/4/2006 - 1:30 am

  5. Bond is an antique of the 70s, when his star was bright on the Left and the “civil rights” organizations of which he was a part were generally accorded respect. Today, he’s like many other leftist icons whose time is long past: he’s struggling to hold onto some measure of relevance, some power to affect popular opinion. That he can’t is making him crazy.

    Pity him. Hold him in contempt — he’s earned it — but pity him as well.

    Comment by Francis W. Porretto @ 2/4/2006 - 8:47 am

  6. 2% of the black population supports bush, why would Bond not slam him? Instant applause. On top of that the corrupt Republicans who allow Big Oil to make billions in profit should be shown to be the rightwing Socialists that they are. Peace

    Comment by steve @ 2/4/2006 - 11:07 am

  7. ‘Freedom of the press’ allows editors to publish all the news they chose to print. Journalists abandoned the high ground when they sought advertising and became addicted to profits.
    I have no idea if those who manage blogs are able to make a significant amount of money. I believe they make the effort because they truly believe in what they produce. That gives them a great advantage in the search for truth.
    Blogs have no editors to extract conclusions and rearrange paragraphs hoping to increase audience. The author stands by his/her conclusions. Blogs are both timely and subject to instant analysis and criticism. The author can either modify or defend the position taken. Those who cannot defend the position, will resort to name calling and risk exposure as having nothing to contribute to the debate on difficult issues.
    Journalism today appears to be ego driven, with idealist trying to right all the wrongs of the world. They will not accurately report facts that conflict with their conclusions. Since they believe a great injustice has been visited upon ‘people of color’ there is an understanding that tones down inflammatory rhetoric by members of a minority while exaggerating and distorting the rhetoric of the majority. Journalist will chose what news is fit to print.

    Comment by omapian @ 2/4/2006 - 11:14 am

  8. - Steve, how bout some facts (proof) that goes with your wrong analysis? I can bet you we have proof you are once again…wrong.

    - Omapian, blogs have come out in stark contrast to the MSM because at least you kow if they lean right or left, where as MSM like ot say they are nuetral and unbiased when that is a complete falsehood in itself.

    Blogs have no ‘editors’ and no fact checking [b](supposedly the MSM does, but my guess that fact checking is not regularly used)[/b], but in the blogs cases, they either get the facts right and/or make very timely corrections when they find out there was a mistake in reporting, or they will be blogs with no readers. The readers and other blogs are the fact checking, and believe me, there are plenty of people who nit-pick and investigate out here…….

    Comment by sanity @ 2/4/2006 - 12:05 pm

  9. Steve - the question here isn’t why Bond wouldn’t slam Bush, but why the MSM isn’t reporting his comparison to Nazis.

    Just keep chiming in with statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Comment by Ryan @ 2/4/2006 - 12:18 pm

  10. I think Bond gets away with this stuff for three reasons:

    1) Everyone is uses to it . Old news

    2) MSM elitees, mostly white folks, are scared to death of being called “racist”

    3) Black folks are scared of disunity, of splitting their vote, and see power in unity. they don’t want to criticise etheir leaders because they believe it plays into the hands of the dreaded conservatives.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter @ 2/4/2006 - 2:36 pm

  11. Once, at a sensitivity training session, a speaker asked “what do you people want?” The audience, largely male, white, New York City Police Officers, immediately took offense. - What do you mean by ‘you people’?
    When a speaker (or writer) assumes the audience is different, has different needs, different dreams, or different values, they expose their own bias. They start their discussion from a different paradigm, rather than from common ground. The speaker says apples, the audience hears oranges, and the advancement of ideas fails. Neither side talks to the other and the discourse is reduced to name calling.
    In the political arena, some people pander to an audience and play on their fears hoping to divide people into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ They do not want to reach common ground. Such speakers often have prepared texts, one for each special interest group. Lacking ideals, the speaker can only drum up hatred of an opponent. When it is ‘us’ against ‘them’ winning is more important than improving conditions.
    Communications between adults are facilitated when the speaker and listener start from the same page. The media in attendance at an event will select which portion of the speaker’s text to report in headlines, and which to ignore. Without accurate reporting the general public is surprised to learn that we are a deeply divided nation.

    Comment by omapian @ 2/4/2006 - 3:01 pm

  12. Because bush being a nazi is old news to everyone but you Fascists, and therefore not newsworthy any longer. It’s like calling the religious right Fascists or rightwing Socialists, everyone knows that’s what you all are so it’s like saying Republican or corrupt crony or greedy warmonger. See? Peace

    Comment by steve @ 2/4/2006 - 3:41 pm

  13. Geee thanks bunches Steve for the simpleton’s view point. My eyes have been opened. /sarcasm off - Lorica

    Comment by Lorica @ 2/4/2006 - 4:28 pm

  14. Meanwhile every time Pat Robertson opens his mouth something stupid falls out, and despite the guy’s total lack of relevance, it’s front-page news.

    Comment by Van Helsing @ 2/4/2006 - 8:08 pm

  15. It’s frontpage news because the liberals like to link him as the direct direct source and holder of all the republican values.

    Pat Robertson does not speak for me, and probably a majority don’t agree with the majority of his statements.

    But as I said, the Liebral media likes to make it seem like Pat Robertson speaks about the ideals and ideas of the republican party which is just not true. For myself, I just ignore him.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/4/2006 - 8:19 pm

  16. Steve = troll

    Don’t waste your time with him.

    l-)

    Comment by Carl @ 2/4/2006 - 10:05 pm

  17. And a few days later Robertson always apologizes for them. I wish he, and Steve, would think before they yak. But then I suppose that I could wish I was living with a very hot blonde in a new town home in North Carolina, before either of those two start to think before they yak. =)) - Lorica

    Comment by Lorica @ 2/5/2006 - 12:09 am

  18. I think Robertson gets a little lonely with his 6 viewers on the 700 club, and just needs to be back in the spotlight now and then, says something really dumb, and then goes “oopsie”….

    - Bang **==

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/5/2006 - 2:03 am

  19. Ya gotta admit, if Steve is a troll he’s not your garden variety drive by troll. He keeps up with the discussion and has a degree of comedic value at the thought he really believes the nonsense he speaks and verifies his statements with such proof as, “just look at them”.

    Comment by J Rob @ 2/5/2006 - 7:17 am

  20. See my comment on the Moslems at the above address. I think these demonstrations are the tip of an historical event, much like Hitler’s invasion of the Rhineland was the beginning of an historical event. We are heading for hard times.

    Comment by Cump @ 2/5/2006 - 10:46 am

  21. “Proof”. What is truth? Or propaganda, for that matter? You’ll know it when you see it, right? Here is reality, “When I eat, I eat. When I sleep, I sleep”….Zen Buddhist formula. Peace

    Comment by steve @ 2/5/2006 - 11:36 am

  22. Hey, that’s Forrest Gump’s formula too! “When I got tired, I slept. When I got hungry, I ate. When I had to go, you know, I went.”

    Comment by blogagog @ 2/5/2006 - 12:01 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice. If you are new to this site please make sure to read my policy on comments and trackbacks before submitting your comment/trackback.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.