The Associated Press image of white America.

Tuesday I spent almost an hour waiting in line with a bunch of racists. Previously I would have described the experience as I waiting in line to vote, but thanks to the Associated Press, I now know different.

A recent AP poll on racial attitudes proves conclusively that should Obama lose the election, journalists will blame his defeat on white Republican racists.

According AP, “Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.” (emphasis added). How’s that for white America being bad to the bone?

The survey also confirms the vast majority of mainstream journalists still suffer from chronic liberal guilt, a pre–existing malady Obamacare will actively promote.

The Thought Police at AP explained, “The Associated Press polls were designed to dig into one of the most sensitive subjects in American Politics: racial attitudes and their effect on how people will vote in an election in which the nation’s first black president could be re–elected.

Overall the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, [Obama could lose] an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti–black attitudes…”

The Obama defeat story practically writes itself, particularly when Monday’s Rasmussen Reports tracking poll has the race at 49 Romney and 48 Obama.

The AP survey was not conducted over the phone. Instead the respondents were invited to complete the questionnaire on a computer because: “Studies have shown people are more willing to reveal potentially unpopular attitudes on a computer than in questioning by a live interviewer.” They certainly watch a lot more porn and use bad language online, so why not express unpopular attitudes, too.

But since AP researchers know white supremacists are devious and will try to mislead earnest scientists by doing something like electing a black president; they also tested “implicit” racism by means of an “affect misattribution” test. They claim this is accurate because social scientists say so.

What they don’t tell you is the research sample is often composed of a handful of university graduate students that need the credit for participating or simply need the money. The test is taken in an artificial environment where the subjects know they are being tested (see Heisenberg Effect for details). Then ‘mirabile dictu’ the test confirms what the “scientists” already knew.

The “affect misattribution” test —America Found Guilty — involves flashing photos of people of different races (ugly, fierce, plain, beautiful, the number of variables beggars description) for a nanosecond or two. Followed by a neutral image — in this case a Chinese character — and asking whether the logo for egg foo young is a pleasant or unpleasant symbol.

In an earlier time this technique was called “subliminal advertising” and it was found unpersuasive when used to try to convince movie goers to buy more Coke; but AP is convinced this technique will root out those who still think Rodney King should have gotten his behind kicked.

As David Moore points out, when you apply the same AP “methodology” to black subjects, you find 43 percent of the blacks express “anti–black sentiments.” While 30 percent of the whites express “anti–white” sentiments (no word on whether this group was composed of journalists or Democrats).

Maybe it’s just me, but I would question the accuracy of a survey that purports to reveal hidden white Republican racism, when it also “reveals” 43 percent of the black sample doesn’t like blacks either. Unless they are self–hating black Republicans.

Even if you ignore the voodoo part of the test the normal questions only confirm AP’s stereotype of white Republican racists.

To goad survey takers into being explicitly racist, the questioners ask if they agree, “Other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors,” “it’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder…” and “blacks who receive money from welfare could get along without it if they tried” to name but a few.

By my count the only one they left out was “Jackie Robinson was a credit to his race.”

As for the special condemnation of Republicans, you simply have to take AP’s word for it, since readers are denied access to the crosstabs.

But as I write this at 12:47 AM, the mainstream media won’t have to blame racists for defeating Obama, because he was re–elected. Instead results of this poll will simply be saved for some time in the future when reporters need to explain Republican motivation for opposing that nice President Obama, assuming it ever happens.

Mike Wallace's star on the Walk of Fame

The journalism establishment exemplified, by the MSM (mainstream media), does not believe in American exceptionalism. That’s reserved for the rubes in flyover country. Their admiration is reserved for themselves and the lofty position the “4^th Estate” holds in contemporary society. What’s more, members do not respond positively when anyone questions this self–assessment.

An interesting tidbit buried deep in the Associated Press obituary for television journalist Mike Wallace proves this is not a recent phenomenon. Over 26 years ago Wallace and CBS were jointly sued for libel by retired Gen. William C. Westmorland after the broadcast of a documentary entitled “The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception.”

The program alleged that Westmoreland deceived President Lyndon Johnson and the American public by orchestrating a conspiracy that fraudulently underestimated the size of the North Vietnamese Army.

According to Wallace and CBS, Westmoreland arbitrarily established a maximum estimate of 300,000 NVA troops and during the infiltration prior to the Tet Offensive; he discounted the number of soldiers (estimated as high as 20,000 per month) who were coming south in preparation for the attack.

The goal was to convince the public that progress toward victory was being made and shore up support for continuation of the war.

It was a devastating portrayal of command deception at the expense of the lives of American soldiers in the field. Westmoreland sued in an effort to restore his reputation.

But that’s not the interesting part.

During his career on 60 Minutes Wallace popularized the “ambush interview” where unsuspecting targets were surprised by Wallace and his video crew. The confrontation would occur without warning. Wallace would pepper the totally unprepared victim with questions while the crew taped the interviewee’s obvious discomfort and shock.

What’s interesting is that during the libel trial Wallace found himself the target of questions and accusations regarding his work. Instead of “Mike Wallace crusading investigative journalist,” he was characterized as a liar and unscrupulous propagandist.

For the first time in his life, Wallace was subject to the same kind of unrelenting pressure, accusation and vilification to which he routinely subjected his interview subjects.

And when the kitchen got hot, Wallace couldn’t take the heat.

At the conclusion of the trial he was hospitalized for over a week with “depression.” Or in his words, bringing irony to an entirely new level, “Imagine sitting day after day in the courtroom, hearing yourself called every vile name imaginable.”

Yes, do tell.

For Wallace and the MSM, Westmoreland should not have been surprised when he was targeted. And the same went for businessmen, bankers, conservatives, Republicans and all the rest of the usually suspect bad guys. Benefit of the doubt did not exist for those outside of the media’s list of approved occupations, causes and thought processes.

When the camera’s red light came on you were guilty. But a reporter being criticized in the same way he filleted his victims was simply unheard of in 1985.

So Wallace was completely unprepared when the situation was reversed. I suppose in different circumstances Wallace could have asked Westmoreland what he did to recover his equilibrium after being called a liar on nationwide TV.

Today the MSM still believes it is an exception to the rules governing the rest of us. Recurring controversies surrounding civilian police review boards prove my point. It’s a given that reporters and editorial page writers strongly favor these kangaroo courts where individuals with zero background in law enforcement — and who are often actively hostile to the police — sit in leisurely judgment of working cops who have to make life or death decisions in fractions of seconds.

Internal police investigations are not good enough. The MSM demands an independent body to oversee law enforcement. But on the other hand when there are calls for an outside organization to evaluate bias and unfair coverage on the part of monopoly newspapers or TV stations, outsiders suddenly become unqualified to evaluate the decisions of reporters made on deadline and in fast moving circumstances. Why, it would be like asking Gen. Westmoreland to approve the news!

Journalists assure us the public doesn’t have the background or experience to sit in judgment. Instead, the media offers the “Ombudsman” who just happens to be an employee. Somehow this internal investigation passes muster, while the police internal investigation is hopelessly tainted.

The MSM knows what’s good for the public and your job is to shut up and read it. Just ask George Zimmerman if you disagree.

Ann Curry, one of the Today Show’s set of shiny teeth, said after Wallace died, “Tough questions are being asked in heaven today.” Which is certainly true, but once again Wallace won’t be the one doing the asking.

Much of the recent bluster has been about the moderator – Donald Trump, but he’s not the only poor choice Newsmax and ION have made. Former CNN News Division Chief Eason Jordan will be one of the producers of the event.

Mr. Jordan was pressured to resign from CNN in 2005 after making statements that our troops in Iraq were deliberately targeting and killing journalists. At the World Economic Forum, Mr. Jordan said “he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) who was on the “Will Democracy Survive the Media?” panel with Mr. Jordan.

CNN then furiously spun the comments as having been misconstrued and “taken out of context” by a few bloggers. In the end, Mr. Jordan’s tenure at CNN came to an end.

That’s only the most recent of Eason’s mis-steps. His time in CNN’s Baghdad bureau was tarnished by his cover-up of Saddam’s violent and murderous acts against Iraqis and his own bureau’s staff – all so that he wouldn’t lose his position at the bureau.

Eason is no great model of integrity. Add on Trump and you have a debate more fit to be a circus side-show than a Presidential event.

I don’t blame Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul one bit for passing on this debate. I won’t be watching either – and I haven’t missed one yet.