Is this the most ridiculous thing the Washington Post ever labeled ‘racist’?

Bill AyersThe far left Washington Post took one of the oldest political advertising tactics in history and have attempted to spin it into a blatant display of racism.

For time immemorial politicians have darkened the hue of their opponents in negative television advertisements, sometimes depicting them in black and white, while a narrator recites some supposedly heinous thing they did or bill they voted for.

When it comes to ads of that nature run against President Obama, however, those same ads used by everyone against everyone are suddenly racist, according to the paper.

On December 29 that was the drivel author Max Ehrenfreund was peddling when he wrote a piece on how, he said, Obama’s skin color was changed in the 2008 ads run the Sen. John McCain– campaign against Obama.

Ehrenfreund cited a new study that he said showed the ads were designed to appeal “to some viewers’ racial biases.”

The finding reinforces charges that some Republican politicians seek to win votes by implying support for racist views and ethnic hierarchies, without voicing those prejudices explicitly. The purported tactic is often called “dog-whistle politics” — just as only canines can hear a dog whistle, only prejudiced voters are aware of the racist connotations of a politician’s statement, according to the theory.

That debate has been prominent in the 2016 campaign, primarily targeting Donald Trump, but it has existed in almost every recent presidential election. To hear their opponents tell it, when Republican politicians say they oppose a generous welfare system, they really mean black beneficiaries are lazy. If they endorse strict immigration enforcement, they really mean that Latinos are criminals, critics say.

A study published online this month in Public Opinion Quarterly provides new evidence that one GOP campaign — intentionally or not — has aired advertisements that exacerbate viewers’ racial biases.

Analyzing 126 advertisements from the presidential campaign in 2008, the authors first digitally measured the darkness of the two nominees’ skin in each spot, then sorted the ads into categories based on themes. President Obama and his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), looked very different in various advertisements depending on how the footage was edited and produced.

The Post cited a video in which a connection between Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was highlighted as an example of such bias.

Though they didn’t point out that Ayers, a white man, also appeared in black and white contrast in the ad.

Then again why would they?

It wouldn’t serve their “anyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist” narrative.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Carmine Sabia


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles