NEWSROOMS THAT WENT WILD WHEN DAVID DUKE ENDORSED LAURA INGRAHAM SUDDENLY SILENT WHEN HE DID THE SAME FOR REP. OMAR
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
NEWSROOMS THAT WENT WILD WHEN DAVID DUKE ENDORSED LAURA INGRAHAM SUDDENLY SILENT WHEN HE DID THE SAME FOR REP. OMAR
Becket Adams | The Washington Examiner March 11, 2019:
Weirdly enough, these exact same newsrooms have yet to report on the former grand wizard’s full-throated endorsement of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s, D-Minn., attacks on Israel and American Jews .
How strange!
In 2018, Ingraham claimed the “America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore” because immigrants have dramatically altered longstanding racial demographics. Duke was jazzed to hear her say this.
“One of the most important (truthful) monologues in the history of [mainstream media],” the former Klansman wrote in a since-deleted tweet.
Newsrooms were quick to cover his tweet, with many of them going so far as to suggest (either explicitly or implicitly) that Duke’s endorsement of Ingraham’s monologue is proof of her bigotry.
“Laura Ingraham’s Anti-Immigrant Rant Was So Racist It Was Endorsed by Ex-KKK Leader David Duke,” the Daily Beast reported.
Business Insider reported of the fallout, “’My commentary had nothing to do with race’: Laura Ingraham disavows white-nationalist support after controversial segment on immigration.”
“Laura Ingraham’s Walkback of Her David Duke-Approved Monologue Completely Missed the Point,” read a headline published by Esquire .
The Huffington Post got in on the action with a series of report and op-eds , including one titled, “Laura Ingraham Is Mainstreaming White Supremacy, But She’s Not Alone.”
The Associated Press reported that Duke had endorsed Ingraham. Politico’s morning rundown reported that Duke had endorsed Ingraham. The list goes on .
Many of these same newsrooms have also covered Duke’s kind words for President Trump. Their coverage of his pro-Trump remarks has similarily implied (or declared outright) that the former Grand Wizard’s support is proof of the president’s racism.
But then came Omar came along. Suddenly, a Duke endorsement is a non-story.
Last Thursday, as the Minnesota congresswoman avoided a formal rebuke from her party despite engaging in several clearly anti-Semitic tropes, Duke tweeted , “By Defiance to Z.O.G. Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!
“ZOG” is his abbreviation for “Zionist Occupation Government,” which is his own cute term for “federal government.” Don’t ask me. Your guess is as good as mine.
Duke also tweeted, “Simply stated, [Omar] is important because the dared expose the gorilla in Congress that nobody dares speak! There is no salvation of our people heritage, rights and freedom until ZOG is overthrown!”
He added elsewhere that Omar shows real potential for “ building partial coalitions .”
It has been four days since Duke backed the congresswoman. Not a single one of the newsrooms that rushed last year to cover his endorsement of a right-wing cable news host has reported his similarly enthusiastic support for a progressive lawmaker.
As of Monday morning, the Daily Beast has published nothing on Duke’s praise for Omar. Neither has the AP, the Huffington Post, Politico, Esquire, Business Insider, or Talking Points Memo. Surely, these newsrooms don’t believe Duke endorsing a right-wing cable host deserves coverage, while his support for a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives deserves none. What is the explanation, then, for the disparity in coverage? The answer seems obvious. Certain news organizations are willing to contradict their own news judgment in service of protecting a progressive congresswoman.
The reporters and editors who flooded the zone last year with Ingraham stories likely never considered their arguments against a Fox News host could also be used against a Democratic lawmaker. They thought it was safe to report on Duke’s Ingraham remarks, suggesting all the while that his support is proof of her racism. But now Duke has praised Omar and the same people who reported last year that his endorsement is proof of guilt are finding themselves in an awkward position. They have to pretend either that Duke didn’t endorse Omar, or that it’s not a newsworthy event compared to his support of Ingraham. “Ignorant or lying” isn’t a great look for a supposedly serious news organization.
So, how about this: Instead of doing this dance every time Duke resurfaces from whatever bog he’s haunting to endorse either a conservative or a liberal lawmaker, we all agree to never speak of him again.
We’ll be better off for it. Trust me.
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
Liberal bias at it's finest.
So, how about this: Instead of doing this dance every time Duke resurfaces from whatever bog he’s haunting to endorse either a conservative or a liberal lawmaker, we all agree to never speak of him again.
This has always been a bit of a head scratcher for me Buzz. Who gives a care as to what Mr. Duke may think or whom he might endorse.
I did not post this as news about the Nazi, I posted it as an example of media bias.
I am aware of that which I thought I covered, but perhaps I should have been clearer, if the media ignored him, he would eventually dry up and go away. Hence the who cares what Mr. Duke thinks etc. and any other hate mongers out there.
Yeah but they won't. The next time he endorses something a Republican says or does, it will be front page news again.
It's amazing..
So many of the posters here like to throw Duke's "endorsements" around as proof that the endorsee is as evil as Duke.
Now...crickets.
Why could that be?!
The one thing they have in common is that they both hate Jews. Therefore, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...
How about when David Duke endorsed Donald Trump and Trump pretended to forget who Duke was?
[deleted]
How about the media crowed about Duke endorsing Trump; but has not said a word about his endorsement of Omar?
Or didn't you read the article?
I doubt it. Deflection is strong with that one.