Inexcusable Huffington Post Censorship

Aren’t racist tirades damnable no matter who they come from? Or, to borrow a phrase from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, are some people “more equal” than others?

When Mel Gibson got a DUI back in 2006 in the infamous “Sugar Tits Incident”, he made an anti-Semitic remark that made national headlines. What exactly did he say that was so inflammatory? After his arrest, he said: “Fucking Jews… The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Gibson then asked the deputy, “Are you a Jew?”

The “White power! Fuck the niggers!” anti-Obama Jewish guy.

 The consensus was that the alcohol revealed how he really felt about Jews, and as such, it didn’t matter whether or not Gibson was drunk when he said it. Gibson was demonized, and perhaps he deserved it. The Jews, if I recall correctly, didn’t invade Poland and start WWII. Looking at the TMZ page with the recorded remarks, it’s clear that most of the readers saw this as a valuable story that gave true insight on Gibson’s “anti-Semitism” and that breaking the story was a public service. Let us assume this is true. Why then, censor a story about Israeli interviewees spouting racist remarks about Obama on the eve of his visit to Cairo, calling him a “nigger” and screaming, of all things, “white power!” into the camera? Why are their actions dismissed as drunk rants with no news value? Worse, not all of the interviewees were drunk. How can we stomach this hypocrisy?

Clearly, the Huffington Post has taken the stand that drunk Jews can call a man a nigger and yell, in a sick irony, the “White power!” refrain of neo-Nazis and it doesn’t mean a thing because they’re drunk. However, when Gibson was drunk, not only did the fact he was drunk when he made his remark about Jews relevant, it was often cited to point out that alcohol is like a truth serum, and it reveals how people really feel inside. If the measure was applied equally and fairly, and we assume that alcohol does reveal who you are, then it’s no wonder things are so fucked up in the middle east and no wonder why Gibson is called an anti-Semite. Max Blumenthal, who produced this video, noted:

The Sugar Tits “Jew hating” Guy

“Within a few hours, I received an email from a Huffington Post administrator informing me he had scrubbed my video from the site. “I don’t see that it has any real news value,” the administrator told me. “For me it only proves that one can find drunk people willing to say just about anything. Especially drunk, moronic people.” For the first time, the premier clearinghouse for online news and opinions had suppressed one of my posts.”

 So here’s my point: if Gibson is an anti-Semite fuckwit, then those Israeli interviewees are racist, supremacist fuckwits as well. In that case, both stories are equally newsworthy. The Huffington Post ran all over the place with the Gibson story, highlighting his drunken shit bubble tirade, and Arianna Huffington even called for his head.

Then they censor the other story because the Israeli interviewees were drunk when they spewed their own racist shit fountains. So what’s that mean? Vile, racist tirades are okay if you’re a drunken Israeli, but not if you’re a drunken Gentile like, say, Mel Gibson? Aren’t racist tirades damnable no matter who they come from? Or, to borrow a phrase from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, are some people “more equal” than others? Watching this video, one thing stands out as I hear these rants. These aren’t just any fuckwits, these types go the extra mile and spew the neo-Nazi rallying cry of the very people who gassed and threw them into ovens. That in and of itself is newsworthy. Oh. And by the way, what you see below is what constitutes “real news value” at the Huffington Post now.

Over at the Leader-Telegram, we read the following (please visit the link to see the whole post):

Israel can do no wrong

By Gary Hupfer

Following are the Twelve Golden And Infallible Truths That The Media Is Obligated To Adopt:

1. In the Middle East, the Arabs always attack first and Israel always defends itself. This defense is called “retaliation.”

2. Neither Arabs, Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to kill civilians. This is “terrorism.”

3. Israel has the right to kill civilians. This is called “legitimate defense.”

4. When Israel massively kills civilians, the Western powers ask it do it with courtesy or politeness. This is called “reaction of the international community.”

5. Neither Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to capture Israeli soldiers inside military installations with sentry and combat positions. This has to be called “kidnapping of defenseless civilians.”

6. Israel has the right to kidnap as many Palestinians or Lebanese as they wish and at any time or place. Their present figures are about 10,000 imprisoned, 300 of whom are children and 1,000 women. They do not need any evidence about their culpability. Israel has the right to detain such kidnapped prisoners indefinitely, even if they are people democratically elected by Palestinians. This is called “imprisonment of terrorists.”

7. Whenever the word “Hezbollah” is mentioned, it is compulsory to add in the same phrase, “supported and financed by Syria and Iran.”

8. When “Israel” is mentioned it is absolutely forbidden to add “supported and financed by the United States.” This could give the impression that the conflict is uneven and that Israel’s existence is not, after all, at risk.

9. In any statement about Israel, any mention of the following phrases is to be avoided: “occupied territories,” “U.N. resolutions,” “human rights violations” or “Geneva Convention.”

10. Palestinians, as well as Lebanese, always are “cowards” hiding behind a civilian population that dislikes them. If they sleep in military accommodation with their families, this has a name: “cowardice.” Israel is entitled to annihilate with bombs and missiles such barracks where they sleep. This is to be called a “surgical, high-precision action.”

11. Israelis speak English, French, Spanish or Portuguese better than the Arabs. That is why they deserve to be interviewed more frequently and have better opportunities to explain to the audience at large the above rules. This is called “media neutrality.”

12. Any newspaper in disagreement with the above rules is to be branded a “highly dangerous anti-Semitic terrorist media source.” Right?

So I’m an anti-Semite now, for challenging the notion some people are “more equal” than others? If you believe that, you could not be more wrong. And you have a job waiting for you at the Huffington Post. Maybe you can write about famous toenails, too. Have at it. The people have a right to know.

Related Post

CC BY 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.