Racism, from all sides, in all sorts of groups is well-documented.

Odd how the one group you condemn for it happens to be one which opposes your political ideology...

Now, are you simply a mindless automaton ideologue or are you going to explain how the things the Tea Party actually publically stand for are racist?

PS: Aren't there also well-documented cases of liberals organizing to crash Tea Party rallies by posing as racists and other types of scum in an attempt to demonize the movement? Or did you miss that memo too?

PPS: At least I don't think you're racist anymore ... ignorant is a better term.

unfortunately I think he is, he thinks people like Beck and Palin are something more than just a joke:doh:

1 t-shirt in 300,000+ people? How about a statistical analysis, instead. We'd need a decent number of random pictures (the news will of course try and use as many as they can find), then do a count of what % are racist. Though I am a little at a loss how an anti-slavery shirt is racist.

Stating something as a known fact that is entirely unsubstantiated often doesn't make it true.

I'm unwilling to make a statement one way or another about racism in such groups without pretty convincing statistics. I know I saw none driving down the street by a tea party thing here in town (it was right in front of my dentist's office, and I had to drive by about a mile of it after my appointment).

BTW, apply the same scrutiny to other rallies, say "million man march," or anti-war rallies.

No kidding. Reverse it and see what happens.

Nah you know how difficult it was to get that agent provocateur in place for that picture? Two tea party people saw him get out of the DNC van and had to be eliminated...

Dont expect alot of coverage on this event let alone 'random pictures' it is in the mainstream medias best interest to just let this pass with very little coverage.

No instead they will focus on the numbers and makeup of the crowd. The message is un-important and whipping up racisim paramount.

Now maybe It's just me but doesent the woman in the background of that picture appear to be of one of those 'other' races? The one with the cammo hat.

Isn't it funny how it's always "the mainstream media" that gets bashed by these types? Fox is the most watched new channel. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. have large radio audiences. Investors Business Daily, Drudge Report, and a bunch of other right conservative rags are huge. Krauthammer, Malkin, Coulter and the rest have columns in most every newspaper. The right wing media noise machine is huge.

Haven't they become "the mainstream media"?

Fox has the highest CABLE ratings. They don't touch the broadcast news in terms of viewers. The most eyeballs see the "mainstream" press, no question.

I like how a conservative editorial slant makes them "rags." Any conservative take on things is "the noise machine." Got it, as opposed to the "signal" which is whatever liberals are pushing.

Newspapers have editorial slants. It is public, they endorse candidates. You can look at said endorsements, and know with certainty where their slant is. News magazines and TV news pretend to be unbiased. They claim they are not biased, that is. Meanwhile, real journalists (newspapers) at least don't have that pretension.

Bottom line is that all studies of journalists at large shows a substantial bias in their political affiliations.

Rush, etc? Those are OPINION shows. They wear their bias on their sleeves. They don't claim to be NEWS. They don't claim to be unbiased, or somehow beholden to a transcendent code of ethics.

You appear to "have religion" regarding news—signal vs the noise of any opinion you disagree with. Myself, I take each story one at a time. I try to understand the bias of the reporting, and filter accordingly (that would go for fox, too, if I ever watched it). But enjoy whatever echo-chambers you read/see.

Both sides have rags and noise machines. Daily Kos is a liberal rag. Olbermann is a liberal noise machine. Don't misunderstand me. It's all a circus show.

Now you're making things up. I said nothing of the sort in that post. Don't do that.

Besides, it isn't news if it's an opinion. So your comment is not valid.

Gotcha. Fair enough. But you said "rags" and "noise machine" only in the context of opinions you disagree with. Had you mentioned "left" analogs, I'd not have responded that way.

Drudge doesn't really write much of anything, it's a page of links to news outlets. He's one of the bigger referrers to the NYT, The Guardian, WashPost, LA Times, etc. Yeah, he editorializes by which links, but it's not remotely the same as the editorial slant of a newspaper, newsmagazine, or TV news. They actually change the wording to suit them.

For TV, fox is IT. The ONLY news with any sort of conservative slant. They also have nonsense shows like Hannity, but in looking at NEWS slant, you can only look at the news shows (evening news, etc), not opinion shows—which are at least labeled as such.

Left TV? All the rest.

Newspapers? WSJ is right (not very, though), as in the WashTimes. The latter is not a major player.

News Magazines? None are conservative at all.

Columnists? Again, they are explicitly opinion.

I think the reason Rush, et al do so well is that there is a vacuum, and they fill it. Someone with a left slant can turn on the radio and listen to NPR, or any TV news other than Fox and hear an echo-chamber.

:har::har::har::har::har:
Crazy conspiracy theories again.
The worlds third largest media company backs an event and somehow the "mainstream media" is something else entirely.

Mainstream media is defined by total eyeballs.

Fox News is a leader only on cable. All three cable news outlets combined don't add up to one nightly broadcast news viewership. The three combined have almost 20,000,000 viewers, Fox has ~2 million.

The only broadcast news I ever hear on a regular basis is NPR, since that's what's on my radio every single morning.

That said, I often hear bias in there, though they are still good—just as the NYT is good, you just need to know where they are coming from, and seek some additional information.

I have a friend at NPR, actually, and he's pretty moderate-center. "Conservatives" in here would likely call him a liberal, LOL. I have another friend at the NYT. And a cousin is a reporter for Bloomberg. (wow, I know a lot of reporters, lol)

He told me he's virtually Rush Limbaugh at NPR in terms of their political spectrum (meaning a conservative Democrat would be "extreme right wing" there ;) ). He doesn't chime in with political opinions at work for that reason.

And newscorp is the worlds 3rd largest eyeball grabber, though with its news supply and partnership deals the two larger media groups get lots of their news from murdoch. which is why theliberal "mainstream media" conspircy is as nuts as the old wacko one about the zionists running the media.

Then why use them, if they offend others? Just because you can? I don't care about words per se, but a proper respect and courtesy toward others is what makes us civilized. I use language in my private life that I don't use in public, and this is a public forum.

On the other hand, there are posted rules here, and they are there for a reason, which is also stated. That you choose to ignore them shows a lack of respect for pretty much everyone but yourself, including the site's owner.