Thanks to the groundswelling of support that hit KCMO Mayor Mark Funkhouser's offices in favor of retaining Parks and Recreation Commissioner Frances Semler, he's remained reticent in the face of City Council resolutions urging him to ax her for being a member of the local Minuteman Chapter (that another commissioner, Ajamu Webster, is the founder of the local chapter of National Black United Front which argues in favor of reparations and African separatist educational curricula--for black kids in the US--is apparently not concerning in the least).
You wouldn't know it from the local media reporting, though. All four of the KC metro area's television news outfits failed to mention the popular support for Semler, a septaugenarian and grandmother whose crime was joining a grassroots political group that most Americans view favorably. Along with the KC Star, however, they did devote stories to a Thursday morning "rally" that took place on Cesar Chavez avenue. Although it had been hyped up all day Wednesday during the local news cycles, less than forty people--including the organizers and representatives of the Jewish and Hispanic groups behind it--showed up.
The local media have also consistently reported that "some view [the Minutemen] as a violent vigilante hate group," without mentioning that despite ACLU and other 'civil rights' watching them like hawks, and the constant provocations local chapters have received at gatherings across the country, there has been no evidence that the Minutemen have been either "violent" or "vigilante". Essentially, they are a national neighborhood watch group, keeping an eye on the community and reporting illegal activity to the proper authorities.
I realize that pointing out leftist bias in the journalistic world is about as stimulating as pointing out that WWF wrestling is staged, but doesn't sound reporting require some minimal vetting of the sources used and the assertions those sources make?
I thought the ostratization of ZGD heretics was especially bad at the national level, where the distance between the act of moral posturing and its actual consequences is greatest. But the ad hominen mudslinging can get pretty nasty at groundlevel as well. A blogger who goes by the name Tony is a bit of a local phenom, regularly appearing on local TV and news radio stations. As a Latino activist, he unsurprisingly makes all kinds of baseless charges, stating that supporting Funkhouser in retaining Semler is to "hate Mexicans" as a "virulent racist". Predictably, Tony makes no attempt to back up any of his assertions or challenge any of mine, cloaking himself in the 'satire' panoply.
Character assassination is also on display in the vitriolic comments section. The strategy isn't novel: Scour previous writings for a few controversial conclusions, excerpt them out of context, present them as baseless assertions without mentioning the evidence the writer used to arrive at them, and point-and-sputter using every "ism", "ist", and derivative of "bigot" that can be thought of. Divert attention from analysis of the facts at hand, while being as aggressive as possible to preempt any serious discussion. Draw attention only to the 'controversial' conclusion without giving any attention to what led to it.
Thankfully, the internet is rendering that stratagem less effective by the day.