Racists are so filled with virulent hatred for the color of the skin, they can’t even process the fact that these immigrants and great for America’s economy.

They only cost us $182 Billion a year in taxpayer funds. Meanwhile, they pay a whooping $32 billion in taxes.

It’s easy math.

New York Post:

The migrant crisis is more costly than Americans realize.

Last year, US taxpayers shelled out some $150 billion in government services and support to help the 20 million illegal migrants in the country, according to a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

And most of the cost is being borne by state and local governments.

See: Massachusetts Republicans Want Detailed Breakdown of State’s $1 Billion “Secret” Migrant Spending

In New York, the comptroller estimated that the migrant crisis will cost state taxpayers $4.3 billion through 2025, and New York City taxpayers $3 billion in fiscal year 2024 alone.

However, according to FAIR’s estimates, the estimated 1.45 million illegal migrants and children in the state already cost taxpayers nearly $10 billion in 2023.

While most states’ accounts of migrant expenses focus on emergency housing and aid, FAIR’s assessment factored in the full breadth of state services they draw on while in the US.

Services like education, medical expenses, law enforcement, legal costs and welfare were prominent factors FAIR looked at in its study.

Those, coupled with the differences in tax revenue compared to expenses, helped contribute to the discrepancies between state reporting and the estimated true cost of hosting migrants.

FAIR also included the costs of US-born children of illegal immigrants — something many reports don’t factor in.

Half of US states were estimated to have shelled out in excess of $100 million, while the bill for 19 reaches well over $1 billion.

California led the country with expenses of nearly $31 billion to take care of illegal immigrants and their children, according to FAIR’s study.

Texas followed at more than $13 billion; Florida clocked in at more than $8 billion; then New York and New Jersey.

The total outlay by American taxpayers was even higher, according to estimates from FAIR, at $182 billion.

However, illegal migrants do pay taxes — and FAIR estimated their contributions to local, state and federal treasuries came to about $32 billion.

However, that still left $150 billion in costs that American taxpayers were saddled with, FAIR estimated.

Oh. So we do loose $150 billion a year with immigrants.

Okay, well. That doesn’t mean anything. It’s still good for our economy, because of the GDP, for some reason.

And anything, you can’t put a price on diversity. It’s our greatest strength. Tens of millions of poor people and criminals leeching off of the taxpayer make us much stronger. Since the Biden Administration fully opened the border, we’ve gotten only stronger and stronger.

At this point, America’s back might break under the weight of all of this strength.

And besides: the immigrants share our values.

Why else would they come to America, other than that they share our values?

They came here for $150 billion in free money?

Not likely.

They love America because it is the greatest country ever.

Richard Cohen, head kike of the SPLC

Under Trump, these filthy bastards at the SPLC may finally get what’s coming to them.

Everyone who works for the group should be in prison, period.

It is nothing more than a racketeering scheme.

Washington Times:

An immigration reform group this week said it will ask the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Southern Poverty Law Center and strip the civil rights watchdog of its tax exempt status over what it described as illegal political activity undertaken prior to the Nov. 8 presidential election.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) on Tuesday said its legal affiliate expects to file a tax complaint with the IRS challenging the SPLC’s standing as a nonprofit organization.

Dan Stein, president of FAIR, said his immigration reform group plans to provide the IRS with 100 pages worth of information showing “in laborious detail how the SPLC operates as a campaign operation for one political party and nothing more.”

“The SPLC is deeply invested in promoting mass immigration, bullying political opponents into silence, and is nothing more than a daily smear machine uninterested in the free exchange of ideas. It uses the same ad hominem tactics year in and year out to try to manage political speech in the interests of its own agenda,” Mr. Stein said in a statement devoid of specifics concerning the SPLC’s alleged illegality.

“The SPLC is simply not a credible source of accurate or truthful information,” he added, but a “basket of partisan propaganda artists masquerading as public policy advocates.”

FAIR’s threat marks only the latest development in a row between the two groups dating back several years.

The SPLC, one of the nation’s foremost civil rights watchdogs, has long accused FAIR of ties to white supremacy, and since 2007 has listed the organization as a recognized hate group.

“Although FAIR maintains a veneer of legitimacy that has allowed its principals to testify in Congress and lobby the federal government, this veneer hides much ugliness,” the SPLC claims on its website.

…

“FAIR is threatening to file a complaint against us with the IRS for one reason and one reason alone — It’s upset that we’ve exposed it for the hate group that it is, and it wants to silence us,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a statement Wednesday.

“The SPLC is careful to comply with the restrictions on organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, we do not intervene in elections for or against any candidate for public office,” he added. “At the same time, we work tirelessly in pursuit of our mission to educate the public about hate and bigotry in the public sphere, including hate and bigotry that infects the political process. Despite FAIR’s threat, we promise to continue to do so.”

Yeah.

Here’s the cover of their website from a few months ago:

Both the SPLC and the ADL need to be audited.

But what’s more, they need to be classified as organized criminal gangs and prosecuted under RICO.

What is RICO, you ask?

Wikipedia:

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

And what is the definition of “racketeering”?

Wikipedia:

A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.

Both these organizations have invented a fake problem – “hate groups” – and then proceeded to extort tax money from the government, solicit donations based on the hoax and threaten various private organizations.

There is also clear embezzlement and possibly money laundering going on with these Jew organizations.

The SPLC has shut down every single outlet for me to fund this website – including shutting down PayPal and any ad revenue – by calling up private businesses and threatening them with slander if they do business with me.

This is known as tortious interference.

Wikipedia:

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff’s contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract). There is also a tort of negligent such interference.

I am now reduced to using only bitcoin and snail mail donations to fund the site (btw, please contribute).

This has happened to many, many other people.

The SPLC has also repeatedly slandered me and others – and even publicly accused me of felonies, knowing full-well that I hadn’t committed any crimes.

Keegan Hankes of the SPLC claimed that I had threatened to murder Heidi Cruz. They reported this to the FBI and Secret Service and it was determined there was no crime. This article was not retracted.

They have called up and harassed my family members.

They have also continually claimed that I “hosted” Dylann Roof, based on their own “research” into the comments section of this site. It has not be proven that Roof commented or visited this site, yet they continue to state it as fact. They were able to sic the FBI on me because of these alleged comments.

The ADL repeatedly violated their 501(c)(3) status during the election by attacking Donald Trump and claiming he was the leader of a neo-Nazi KKK group. We did a mass-reporting drive, and the IRS did nothing.

The Trump administration needs to investigate and prosecute both of these vile criminal operations which are working to undermine the United States by flooding it with terrorists and other primitives and aggressively attempting to destroy the lives of anyone who questions their Jew agenda.

Along with this, all of those who have been shut down by the SPLC kikes need to get together in a class action lawsuit against them. We can win this. This criminality is flagrant. We just need to organize.

Hadn’t you heard? Nazi dork is the newest fashion.

All right everybody: I have an announcement to make.

This is going to surprise you, but hear me out.

The media is actually controlled by a vast Nazi conspiracy. While pretending to be operated almost exclusively by Jews, whom they use as a cover, their true agenda is to subtly push hard core racism and nationalism on the unwitting populace.

Don’t believe me? I have the documents, folks.

The good people at FAIR told me all about it earlier, and it’s all legit.

(((Adam H. Johnson))) writes at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:

There’s been a recent wave of press for a certain unnamed Nazi Dork who threw a gathering in Washington, DC, for his Nazi friends this past week, attempting to use the Trump victory to raise the profile of himself and his Nazi “think tank.” The man who coined the term “alt right”—which has become a popular euphemism for those unwilling to use “white supremacist” or “neo-Nazi”—has of late received fairly softball interviews in Mother Jones (10/27/16), the LA Times (11/19/16) and, most recently, the Washington Post (11/22/16)

Indeed, the journalists at Mother Jones and the Washington Post could hardly contain their enthusiasm for Spencer’s hardline Nazi rhetoric. They almost blew their cover.

A sneak peak into the NYT’s editorial board.

His Nazi get-together got endless coverage, from the New York Times to The Atlantic to USA Today to CNN. The actual event itself, according to the Post, had a Nazi attendee–to–reporter ratio of 6 to 1. The Nazi Dork’s goal was to exploit and feed off the Trump campaign and subsequent victory, and he did it with tremendous success, thanks in part to a shiny-object obsessed media.

FAIR is being coy here. While they’re aware that CNN and the NYT is controlled by Nazis, they don’t want to openly reveal it, for fear of their lives. So they pretend that the gushing coverage NPI has received is only due to the need for sensationalism.

But we know better, of course.

The balance between covering hate and promoting it is a difficult one, and one that we shouldn’t dismiss out of hand. But after a week of wall-to-wall coverage, most of which one could imagine the Nazi Dork and his Nazi friends reading and posting to Facebook with a smirk, the balance has come down heavily on the side of fascist agitprop.

No, but seriously.

This FAIR Jew is unironically accusing the Jewish media of pushing fascist propaganda.

For the post’s header image, Johnson actually went through and edited all of the tweets about Spencer, blacking out his face and changing his name to “Nazi Dork.”

Can you imagine the type of person who’d unironically black out the face and name of someone he doesn’t like in a bunch of pictures?

I guess it’s not really out of character for an organization whose purpose is to criticize the mainstream media for not being sufficiently subversive.

The piece does have a lot of comedy gold however.

The profiles themselves, while frequently bringing up the more disgusting aspects of the Nazi Dork’s ideology, were written like any other glossy-magazine celebrity profile, complete with scene-setting details of their fancy meal. The Mother Jones profile began:

[He] uses chopsticks to deftly pluck slivers of togarashi-crusted ahi from a rectangular plate. He is sitting in the Continental-style lounge of the Firebrand Hotel….

ROFL!

They’re complaining that Mother Jones praised Spencer’s chopstick skills!

I guess we’re not allowed to be good at using chopsticks.

The LA Times followed up with a profile on Wednesday that was met with immediate social media backlash due to its sexy framing. “The Los Angeles Times glamorized the white supremacist,” Fusion’s Katherine Krueger wrote, “with a lead image of [him] posing like rebel-with-a-cause bad boy wearing black Ray-Bans”

Sexy Nazis, smdh.

Don’t they know that Nazism is full of sex-appeal?

Like the others, writer John Woodrow Cox felt the need to sell the Nazi Dork’s norm appeal to the reader. This is likely supposed to create tension in the piece (“no longer are white supremacists a bunch of toothless hicks!”), but the effect is outright promotion. Indeed, this is why the Nazi Dork named his think tank the benign sounding “National Policy Institute” and coined the term “alt-right”—it was all rebranding, an attempt to normalize neo-Nazism as something fresh and socially acceptable. By indulging in this narrative, the media helps do just that.

The profile went on, making genocide incitement seem witty and cheeky:

[He] of course, would expel Muslims from his ethno-state. And most women, he said as he was being driven from the hotel to his next appointment, would return to their traditional role of bearing children.

His attitude toward women and minorities made his admiration for Tila Tequila, the Nazi-loving Vietnamese American, surprising. Would he allow her in the ethno-state?

“There are always exceptions, I guess,” an amused [him] would say later. “I’m a generous guy.”

A generous ethnic cleanser. All right, then.

It must be a strange world these Jews are living in, convinced that the media isn’t “progressive” enough for their tastes.

A brief perusal at the author’s Twitter (@adamjohnsonNYC) reveals him to be a hardcore SJW agitator, so I guess nothing short of the Huffington Post will meet his refined palate.

Maybe someone should go on there and politely explain to him the difference between actual Nazis and NYT journalists.

A “national media watch group . . . offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship” is a great idea. And that is how Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) describes itself, which, on the face of that, makes it a welcome initiative.

According to their website, they “work to invigorate the First Amendment by greater diversity in the press and scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints”. Who could object to that?

Certainly, there needs to be greater diversity of opinion in the press, and minority viewpoints are under-represented—unless one considers the viewpoints expressed by mainstream media outlets to be minority ones, a case for which could well be made.

The organization was founded in 1986 by Jeff Cohen, and—certainly in his mind, at least—has been serving the public good ever since. Cohen has had the honour of being mentioned by this website once previously (see here).

Yet, amazingly—and in this they are not alone—their view of media bias is the complete opposite of how readers of this and similar websites experience it. In fact, one would think that the organization inhabits a parallel universe, which is a complete inversion of ours, because, in their opinion, the mainstream media in America is biased in favour of a white, male, Right-wing viewpoint.

Yes, you read that correctly.

When they say “greater diversity in the press”, they mean not opinion, but skin colour. When they say “minority . . . viewpoints”, they mean viewpoints from people with different skin colours. And when they say ‘dissident viewpoints’, they mean, weirdly, progressive ones.

I suspect the founding of this organization during the height of the Reagan era is significant, for people who describe themselves as “progressive” view that era as a sort of Dark Age.

Their view is that the media should be representative of the society they report to. And this is a very laudable principle—one with which I totally concur. But their belief is that American society is way more progressive and biologically diverse than the media would lead you to believe.

I suspect former TOO contributor, Edmund Connelly, would have a few comments to make on the matter.

Inevitably, since this is an American outfit and the times are what they are, their blog evinces a crude fixation with skin colour: a search for the words “racist” and “racism” aggregate to no less than 614 results. This is the biggest category by some margin, ahead of sexist (50), sexism (41), homophobic (26), homophobia (24), ageist (1), disableist (0), and even anti-Semitism (63). Still, the blog hits all the categories of victimhood, keeping the wounds of privileged groups raw.

Interestingly, however, the word “Israel” produces 594 results. It would appear that, among the progressive causes espoused by this organization, criticism of pro-Israel bias in the American media is the second biggest one. See here.

Altogether this would put FAIR in Noam Chomsky’s camp—not in the sense that Israel is doing the United States’ bidding, which is another strange inversion of the facts, but in the sense, albeit in a roundabout way, that private corporate capitalist interests exerts undue influence in policy, which is another of FAIR’s targets. Exactly how corporate interests advance those of the white, male, Right-winger is something I’d be interested to hear.

This congeniality with Chomsky is no coincidence, for it turns out that Cohen and his brand of media FAIRness was inspired by Chomsky in the first place. Indeed, Chomsky was a guest speaker at one of FAIR’s events.

And it is not only Chomsky’s media readings that inspired Cohen. The latter also seems to share with his guru a hostility to the West. Note how Cohen concludes his birthday tribute to Noam Chomsky:

While he didn’t succeed through that one TV appearance in bringing an end to Western imperialism, or what passes for Western Civilization, he goes on trying at age 85. Happy birthday, Noam! [My emphasis]

A TOO contributor pointed out two years ago that

Chomsky’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion . . . He claims that all European Christian politics are racist. To Chomsky, the existence of European Christians, whether in their homelands in Europe, in the United States, Canada or Australia, is not a normal human historical project, but a trans-historical racist one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a White. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a White or Christian and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a White or a Christian is to be a racist.

This only contributes to the stereotype of Jewish campaigners as being typically at the vanguard of ‘progressive’ social and political causes, pushing the frontiers of liberalism ever further to the left.

So we have a mixed bag: some good, but much evil, in the form of inversion, deflection, confusion, and hostility to our civilization, which, for these gentlemen, is little more than planetary bullydom.

But the good is certainly worth dwelling on, for it is instructive—perhaps not for you and me, but certainly for many. Even if you don’t agree with the idea that the US corporate media represents a pro-White, pro-male, and pro-Right-wing viewpoint, some of their critiques overlap with those of TOO, which means there is much to be learnt from their dissection of selected news stories.

My favourite part is their media activism kit, a page on their website where they show how to detect media bias. This is applicable in all cases, irrespective of whether you think the media is run by Marxist hoodlums or fascist pigs.

The first question to ask is, Who are the sources?

Be aware of the political perspective of the sources used in a story. Media over-rely on “official” (government, corporate and establishment think tank) sources.

Establishment think tank sources . . . —that is an interesting one, because I can’t think of any Right-wing ones regularly employed by the media. Can you? The most cited think tanks in the United States are the Brookings Institution, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the American Enterprise Institute, otherwise known as “neo-con central”. For information about genuine “Right-wing” voices, the media relies on $PLC boilerplates. So I suppose it’s a question of what is “Right-wing” for whom—the Socialist Workers Party in the UK shows that if you are on the outer fringes of the Far Left, even a progressive liberal is “Right-wing”.

In the case of research findings, a related issue is not so much who the sources are, but how the data came into being. In recent years we have seen pseudoscientific studies according to which Right-wingers were ‘proven’ to have lower IQs; immigration was ‘proven’ to boost the economy; racism was ‘proven’ to be a curable anxiety disorder; and so on. Upon critical examination, the studies producing such data have obvious design flaws, stemming from their initial assumptions. Too often, it becomes clear that the study in question was designed from the outset to confirm an a priori conclusion.

FAIR suggests the next question: Is there a lack of diversity?

Diversity of skin colour, certainly. But diversity of opinion? Not so much. What is referred to as “debate” is usually a simulacrum thereof: the scope is kept very narrow, with cacophonous exchanges of views that, though nearly identical, though sharing all the essential suppositions, are presented as polar opposites. Varieties of skin pigmentation and physiognomy are but added methods of concealing the lack of difference under the appearance of difference, for the “diverse” voices authorized to speak all share the establishment’s essential suppositions, except they may represent future development along the same continuum.

Third question: From whose point of view is the news reported?

In FAIR’s universe,

[p]olitical coverage often focuses on how issues affect politicians or corporate executives rather than those directly affected by the issue. . . . Economics coverage usually looks at how events impact stockholders rather than workers or consumers.

There is truth to this. CNN exemplifies this with reports like “Political Chatter: Obama blamed for immigration influx”, the first two paragraphs of which read:

In what has become a dire and politically explosive situation at the border that includes droves of unaccompanied young border-crossers, overcrowded holding facilities, angry protesters and finger-pointing politicians, Washington struggles to get the situation under control. Politicians, however, easily point fingers of blame.

On Sunday, politicians from both sides of the political aisle said President Barack Obama is not doing enough to stem the influx of immigrants — some young children — from coming to the United States.

Indeed, immigration stories are typically told either from the point of view of politicians and how immigration affects them or from the point of view of immigrants, emphasizing their difficulties, their law-abidingness, their willingness to work hard, and their humanity.

When reference is made to public anger at excessive immigration, the news reports seldom personalize that viewpoint, speaking in generalities and focusing on how politicians are reacting to it. It is the view of an anonymous, dark crowd, which is everywhere, but which does not have individual stories; the only individual is the politician, who has to solve this “difficult” problem. Ironically, that problem is the ever-present viewpoint of the majority, not some anomaly or freak phenomenon.

The fourth and fifth questions need no elaboration: Are there double standards? Do stereotypes skew coverage? Hm. I wonder . . .

The next two questions deal with more subtle and insidious problems: What are the unchallenged assumptions? And, Is the language loaded?

A report published in March this year, with the headline “Immigrants DON’T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say”, begins:

Immigrants have cost UK taxpayers more than £22 million a day for 17 years, a report by an anti-immigration lobby group has claimed, a figure strenuously denied by the academics who did the original research.

Migration Watch UK research claims that the public purse was £140 billion worse off between 1995 and 2011 as a result of people moving to Britain.

Migration Watch based their claim on figures from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, at University College London.

Notice how MigrationWatch UK is described as an “anti-immigration lobby group”, while the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) is presented, neutrally and unprefixed, as simply an academic research centre. Yet, CReAM states on their website that their purpose is to help “steer the current policy debate”. Note the word “steer”, instead of “inform”. The word ‘inform’ would be consistent with their stated desire to do so “without partisan bias”; the word “steer”, on the other hand, implies direction, which is not consistent with lack of partisan bias. The unchallenged assumption in the report’s wording is that CReAM is simply an unbiased academic collector of data, and that they are, therefore in a different category from MigrationWatch UK, which is not academic but a politically motivated organization. Notice the words “lobby”, which immediately bring to mind politics and pressure, and “group”, as opposed to think tank. Accordingly, both in the headline and the copy, the article implies that CReAM “finds”, while MigrationWatch “claims” or “says”. In other words, one publishes findings based on empirical data, while the other merely spins and asserts. Yet, both CReAM and MigrationWatch UK are, in fact, think tanks, relying on empirical data for their published findings or opinions.

As to the loaded language, the moment you describe an organization as being ‘anti’ something, you are giving it a negative connotation. It says the organization is there to negate, to block, to say no; they are not for anything, they are against something. When you are against something, it is because you either fear it or have been angered by it. These are negative emotions, so the “anti” elicits a negative emotional response.

Finally, notice the angry capitalization of “DON’T” in the headline, and the word “strenuously” in the opening paragraph. This also suggests anger, but a very different type of anger: not one arising from fear and prejudice, but a righteous anger, arising from indignation at an outrage.

For a media watchdog that denounces loaded language, however, FAIR seems peculiarly prone to it. In a recent blog discussing John Huppenthal, the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Arizona who spearheaded a ban on ethnic studies, FAIR described him as a “racist internet graffiti artist”, who wrote “screeds”. His crime? Posting on a blog (anonymously) opinions such as

We all need to stomp out balkanization. No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv stations, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English.

Now, is there a lack of context?

We carry on with the above example. The above quote appears in a piece in the Arizona Republic, linked to directly from FAIR’s blog post on this issue. You would think from the above that Huppenthal wants zero immigration. Well, let’s examine the quoted text with the two paragraphs that preceded it and were omitted by the Arizona Republic:

We are now going to see the dark side of controlling immigration – fewer jobs for caucasions. [sic] In an improving economy, free flowing immigration creates more jobs for caucasions, not fewer. Economic growth is one part productivity growth and 2 parts population growth.

Caucasians aren’t reproducing themselves, so all population growth has to be immigration.

We are condemning ourselves to a second rate future if we don’t reestablish the melting pot with a strong flow of immigrants engaging in economic activity, not crime.

We all need to stomp out balkanization. No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv stations, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English.

So, it turns out that Huppenthal is actually for lots of immigration.

But FAIR is not wholly unfair. It also provides a good example of information out of context in another blog post:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made headlines (e.g., “Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter,” New York Times, 4/1/14; “Talks in Limbo After Move by Abbas,” Washington Post, 4/2/14) when he decided on April 1 to apply for membership in a number of international conventions and treaties. That decision was portrayed as a serious breach — one that forced Israel to pull out of negotiations.

What was happening in reality was much different — but still fairly easy to understand. The agreement that established this round of talks, as Yousef Munayyer (Permission to Narrate, 4/4/14) explained, required that Israel release 104 Palestinian prisoners, a move intended to put off any Palestinian appeals to the United Nations. The final prisoners were to be released on March 29, but Israel failed to do so, apparently thinking they could use these prisoners as a lever to extend the talks. The Palestinian move came in response to that decision.

It seems then that, like the British MP George Galloway, this public service does serve the public on occasion, even if for all the wrong reasons.

Next: Do the headlines and story match?

On the anniversary of the 7 July, 2005 bombings in London, the Huffington Post led with the headline “‘Blair Lied, Thousands Died’”. Did you notice the extra set of quotation marks? It turns out that the article does not report on a condemnatory statement by an establishment figure nor on a finding by a think tank against Tony Blair, but on graffiti painted on the 7/7 London memorial. The copy focused on the outrage of politicians and the sorrow of the victims and survivors. This mismatch is particularly interesting because it reinforces its nearly endless stream of negative reports about Tony Blair (I’m not complaining: he deserves it): the outrage of politicians is a distraction, a mere veneer of decency and concern; what is important is the juxtaposition of ire at Blair and the victims of bombings caused by Blair’s war-mongering. Front and centre, however, is the ire.

FAIR points out that many people just skim the headlines, and don’t actually read the copy, so this can be used to mislead, to shape attitudes; the copy, once read, if read at all, may give the headline a very different meaning, but simply by being there responsibility for deliberate deception can be averted on a technicality.

The mismatch practice can occur within a news report itself. Often, readers are sold a viewpoint in the first part of the copy, but this viewpoint is refuted further down. Typically, inconvenient or contradictory information is hidden somewhere in the middle or the bottom third, before the copy carries on, “pretending” there has been no refutation or contradiction. A reader has to be very careful to spot it, or go into the story looking for evidence of media attempts to deceive.

Are stories on important issues featured prominently?

Whether it is a question of a story being featured at the top or buried way down in the news, or its being reported nationally as opposed to locally, or its being given plenty of space as opposed to very little, or its being subject of vast amounts of commentary as opposed to none, or is reported with strained voices or shouts as opposed to a soothing murmur, or is deliberately eclipsed by a big story, prominence or lack thereof has many facets.

Yet the question goes beyond whether a story is given prominence or not, because prominence itself can be a tool for obfuscation. Important information and insights can be hidden in plain sight by swamping them with vast amounts of detailed and very noisy discussion and commentary that keep the focus on only a subset of the facts, or on a specific interpretation of them.

Such would be the case with FAIR’s blogging on examples of “racism”, a word with an infinitely elastic definition. Racism is more or less universal, particularly in multiracial societies, like the United States. Jared Taylor’s White Identity is crammed with examples of racism from Afro-Americans and Hispanics, but you would think that there is no such thing from reading FAIR’s media analysis, which otherwise provides a blizzard of blog posts about racism. Also not given prominence are the efforts by white Americans to eliminate any form of racial bias anywhere, and their strenuous condemnations whenever and wherever it is detected. No. In FAIR’s universe, only racist whites—real or imagined—are given prominence.

Ultimately, while FAIR’s stated aims are admirable, it is yet another tool in enforcing media bias—one that is doubly deceptive because the outfit claims to be against media bias. They are, in fact, fully in agreement with current trends; they are just unhappy that the mainstream media doesn’t go far enough in supporting them.