nazi rhetoric and institutional memory feels it is proper to promote fear mongering WRT Iran. In the end, isn't antisemitism another form of fear mongering WRT "the other"? Isn't all stereotyping and fear mongering unfair? Maybe it is impossible for people to act unbiased when one thinks of a country as an enemy, but one hopes an honest person will reflect and consider whether they are guilty of the same bias of which they accuse others. Isn't this the definition of intellectual honesty? Be the bias against a people, a country, or political ideology, it is still bias. It seems pretty clear by now that the wingers can do no wrong on this nazi rhetoric issue - at least WRT the ADL.

Well said, Glenn. I hope they actually answer your specific questions. Something tells me they won't.

Perhaps the hope, ultimately, is to get answers from Foxman. But in reality, to expose Foxman for what he is, is what is happening here, and that is more than a good place to start.

Having a family member as well as a friend who are active in a northern California chapter of the ADL, I can assure you, based on numerous conversations with them, and having attended a number of ADL sponsored speaking engagements, that the ADL under the directorship of Abe Foxman, has no intention whatsoever of condemning any right wing hate speech against the "left". Foxman, who rules the ADL with an iron fist is completely an "Israel right or wrong" person who wholly supports the ideology and positions of the Likud block, which in turn has very close and intimate ties to the US neocons and their allies in Fox and right wing media in the US. The fact that Foxman, in his latest response to glenn failed again to explain why the ADL wouldn't condemn the right wing comparisons of liberal bloggers to Hitler and Nazis is another indication that the ADL under Foxman engages in a double standard policy that clearly favors the right wing.

Why make an issue of the "relationship" between ADL and Rupert Murdoch and/or Fox News? They are never going to admit to anything in that regard.

Why won't they answer? I documented in the first post that there is clearly some relationship between Murdoch and the ADL - he has served on ADL committees before.

Shouldn't a group that specializes in monitoring media coverage and commentaries by media personalities avoid entangling alliances with media moguls, precisely in order to avoid having their conduct influenced this way? Most groups try to avoid offending their significant donors.

I don't know why the ADL is so reluctant to refuse to condemn these ongoing Nazi/Hitler commentaries from Fox. That's why I'm asking.

They will just fall back on the generalities of "no different than NBC, ABC, or any other news organization." And then get huffy. What is their obligation to answer?

Obviously, they have no legal obligation to answer. They can refuse to answer. But a group that wants to preserve its credibility would be eager to be as transparent as possible about such matters.

If you are going to accuse them of something -- go for what you have the goods on. Stick with that and don't let them deflect with side issues.

There is a difference beteween a question and an accusation. And I asked the question based on the evidence I referenced above.

I think Greenwald is right on the money in focusing a spotlight on the media's capitulation and malleability when it comes to being used by this corrupt administration. O'Reilly is really showing signs of completely coming unglued. Glenn and others like Media Matters, after all, are only holding up a mirror to their own words and actions. The bottom line is that Goldberg, O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al don't like being called out for their hate speech. Now they now that their rhetoric will no longer go unchallenged, and that's why sites like Salon, Media Matters, Raw Story are so invaluable. It's a new media world, and it's a huge advantage for the left to be able to circumvent the mainstream media in such a constructive fashion.

6 million Iranians in the next 60 minutes and the ADL would be silent.

But they'd at least have made the effort to stay silent, rather than cheer and party.

Which I'm sure would be happening at more than one settlement in the West Bank.

I see this as direct action to stop the upcoming attack on Iran. More..faster

I'm curious as to how the tactics are applied here.

Why make an issue of the "relationship" between ADL and Rupert Murdoch and/or Fox News? They are never going to admit to anything in that regard. They will just fall back on the generalities of "no different than NBC, ABC, or any other news organization." And then get huffy. What is their obligation to answer?

If you are going to accuse them of something -- go for what you have the goods on. Stick with that and don't let them deflect with side issues.

After all, if they had been acting consistently would it matter if Murdoch has been giving them money or not?

I remain thoroughly impressed that by dint of sheer high-quality writing and hammering away at these issues, you have actually gotten to the point within one year that people are listening to you.

This kind of pressure is what made the media so thoroughly right-wing and reactionary, and it's precisely this kind of pressure that will fix it. I just feel privileged to witness it all.

6 million Iranians in the next 60 minutes and the ADL would be silent.