Specifically, she notes how the Journal-Sentinel reported that five people were arrested WITHOUT specifying whether they were NSM activists or anti-racists (every other local media outlet also followed suit). She believes that had they been NSM activists, their affiliation would have been shouted from the housetops. She believes the Journal-Sentinel was attempting to cover up the fact that the five arrestees were all from the anti-racist side. Here's the pertinent part of her post:
...[Meg] Kissinger and [Tom] Kertscher wrote that during the rally, five people were arrested and taken into custody by police. Two people were taken away for weapons violations and three were arrested for disorderly conduct. Yet, the reporters did their readers a disservice by refusing to report who was arrested. It is easy to surmise that it was NOT the neo-Nazi's who broke the law on weapons violations and disorderly conduct. If any of the neo-Nazi's had been taken into custody, this would have made the headlines. So, why try to cover this up?...
Yet, Ms. Kissinger and Mr. Kertscher failed to do their jobs. Was this just bad reporting? Probably not. Was this an intentional attempt to protect to the counter protesters from bad publicity? Sure seems that way. Simply because the reporters wanted the neo-Nazis to be despised (and rightfully so), they decided to leave out necessary information from their report. Obvious bias such as this has no place in a news story. Because the reporters wanted to portray the neo-Nazis as the bad guys and the counter protesters as the good guys, they were willing to overlook the fact that some of the counter protesters couldn't abide by the law. Picking and choosing what to include in an article based on one's own feelings and agenda is wrong. Period.
Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer was, of course, citing the statistics provided by the Journal-Sentinel in their report. WTMJ Channel 4, in their later report, noted that 75 White activists showed up, but she probably is not aware of that report.
There is no evidence that Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer sympathizes ideologically with the National Socialist Movement. However, there is plenty of evidence that she's sympathetic towards journalistic integrity. Her idea -- when reporting hard news, call it down the middle like an umpire, and leave the editorializing to those unto whom such a task is appointed. White activists who have an account with the Journal-Sentinel should post a comment to her blog expressing recognition and appreciation of her fair-minded assessment.
The White racialist community has also weighed in. On this multi-page Stormfront thread, those who express opinions tend to fall into three categories:
-- Unconditional Solidarity: A number of people express unconditional solidarity with the NSM's actions, and don't criticize them for using the swastika or engaging in agitprop tactics. They defend the swastika as bing valid, and believe it should not be judged by those who have misused it in the past.
-- Conditional Solidarity: The largest group do express respect for the courage and involvement of the NSM activists, but continue to hold reservations about the use of the swastika. The presence of two million World War II veterans in this country, some of who fought against NS Germany, can make the swastika a difficult sell.
-- Absolute Disagreement: The smallest group express complete disagreement with the NSM's agitprop approach and consider it a waste of time. They believe the fact that NSM agitprop rallies generate the greatest amount of media publicity is outweighed by the drawbacks.
Stronger approval of the NSM's actions is expressed on VNN Forum.
Reaction posted on the N.S. Acumen of the Old Guard blog, reflecting opinion by the American Nazi Party, is critical of the NSM. They question whether there were 75 activists present. But they focused exclusively on the NSM's designated assembly area, while the Journal-Sentinel noted that not all White activists were standing with the NSM. At least 20 were standing across the street closer to the antis. Thus WTMJ's estimate of 75 reflects the total number of White activists present, both inside and outside the designated area. The American Nazi Party does not favor agitprop rallies and does not use them as part of their strategy. Their July 23rd indoor rally did not require police protection and was not interdicted by antis.
Their July 23rd indoor rally also did not attract any media publicity, and drew considerably less than 75 people, although they did recruit four new people. There's a tradeoff in results when using different strategies.
But the agitprop strategy is the one strategy which consistently attracts the attention of the mainstream media. And the fact that NSM participants consistently and scrupulously obey the law while anti-racists are getting busted is beginning to be noticed. In their personal behavior, the NSM rebuts the popular stereotypes of so-called "neo-Nazis". They forced the local community to confront the issue of escalating black teenage thuggery. Now the ground has been broken for other more conventional White political organizations, such as the American Third Position Party, to move in and further promote White racialist activity.