DONATE

Boston Globe's biased reporting of attack on Tea Party -- supports rioters, confirms police unwillingness to intervene

Unbelievable willilngness to ignore what everyone saw there!

POSTED: May 4, 2012

The outrageous assault on the Patriots Day Tea Party event was completely ignored by just about all the Boston media. But the liberal Boston Globe came and covered it in their usual biased manner: They downplayed the attack. They portrayed the rioters positively, as "demonstrators." And they used a photo from one of the "photo-journalists" there to implicate the police for . . . overreacting!

On Monday, April 16, the day after the event, the Globe published two articles: "Dual rallies highlight fracture in Tea Party" devotes two short paragraphs to the "small group of counter-demonstrators" along with a photo of rioters "adding their voices" to the event. Right below that, another article, "Photos prompt review of police handling of Hub protest" describes an incident where police were allegedly "aggressive" with one of the "protesters" at the event.

This is the photo (supplied by a "photo-journalist") that got the Boston Globe so worked up about "aggressive" police action.

Of course, the Globe doesn't mention that he was no ordinary rioter. He was one of the organizers. As our photos and videos show, at one point he put on a lavender wig and mask and signaled to a group to start running through the crowd and start yelling a chant.

This is the same guy minutes before — clearly one of the organizers — signalling to start a new "protest" activity and generally terrorizing the event.

Police officer implicated by his own inaction!

On Tuesday, April 17, the Globe followed up with an article, "Protester considers legal action" showing a photograph of a police officer with his hands around the neck of one of the rioters. The "demonstrator" is claiming that the officer used excessive force against him for no reason.

When was the last time a pro-family activist "considered" legal action and got this kind of coverage?

Confirms police reluctance to act against rioters

However, as the article describes, the "protester" has a good point. The police officer never charged him with any crime or even detained him.

The police officer had his hands around the rioter's neck in an effort to subdue him. But then the officer and not charge him with any crime or even detain him — even though the man was part of a group trying to illegally terrorize a peaceful event. Why? Because the police were so supportive of the rioters that they were determined not to arrest anyone unless they absolutely had to.

As we've pointed out, we've seen police charge pro-family activists with a variety of "crimes" for any number of frivolous reasons. There's an enormous double standard.

Globe follows up with lead editorial!

But the Globe was not going to let this alone. The following Tuesday, April 24, the Globe's lead editorial reprinted the photo and continued to push the "overreaction" by the police against the illegal rioter. We'll probably see this followed up some more. And they'll continue to ignore the story of the hideous, obscene assault on the people who came to enjoy an event on the Boston Common.

The lead editorial a few days later continues the "outrage" over the absurd suggestion that the police "over-reacted." The exact opposite is true.

Media ignore the real outrage — rioters illegally disrupting peaceful event

We all know that had this been turned around — if Tea Party people had come and disrupted and chanted obscene slogans at a homosexual event on the Boston Common — it would be front-page news all over, and on every television station.

It's not that the Globe didn't know. They had their own person there taking video. But somehow their videographer didn't see the same stuff we did — or didn't want to see it. Here's the short (34 seconds) video they published of the event.

After so many years dealing with the local media, it doesn't surprise us at all. It's what we call the institutional hypocrisy of the media. The reporters, the editors, and others there just assume that because conservatives are "wrong," then anyone accosting them is justified. And their storming of the Tea Party event and drowning out the speakers simply constitutes "free speech."