Average citizens who have invoked the proudest traditions of the American Revolution during various Tea Party events have been tied with a long list of unsavory groups and individuals who operate at the fringes of American politics. The stark ideological differences between free market advocates and conspiracy theorists are nowhere acknowledged or reported in what could have been a detailed, even-handed informative article…

There’s a good report on the Tea Party movement struggling to break through some of the snide, superfluous commentary that works its way into reports about beleaguered American taxpayers who have found expression.

Every large-scale movement has disparate forces and peripheral players that are not central to the causes and concerns of most activists. While they deserve some mention, journalists should also maintain a sense of perspective so that readers are properly informed about overall tone and direction of the political forces at work.

Unfortunately, The New York Times sees fit to slight and marginalize the Tea Party movement instead of capturing and reporting on the key ingredients that have fueled average Americans who are becoming active for the first time.

This front page report includes some interesting nuggets and helpful background on the many elements of the Tea-Party movement. The reporter lands several good interviews with key players but inserts incendiary observations that dilute from what could have been an effective piece.

“The Tea Party movement defies easy definition, largely because there is no single Tea Party,” the report says.

So far, so good.

“At the grass-roots level, it consists of hundreds of autonomous Tea Party groups, widely varying in size and priorities, each influenced by the peculiarities of local history. In the inland Northwest, the Tea Party movement has been shaped by the growing popularity in eastern Washington of Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, and by a legacy of anti-government activism in northern Idaho.”

Fair enough.

“Outside Sandpoint, federal agents laid siege to Randy Weaver’s compound on Ruby Ridge in 1992, resulting in the deaths of a marshal and Mr. Weaver’s wife and son,” the article continues. “To the south, Richard Butler, leader of the Aryan Nations, preached white separatism from a compound near Coeur d’Alene until he was shut down.”

And how does this relate back to the Tea-Party movement? So the next time a street crime is committed in close proximity to a progressive event, or say it is discovered that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright once sleep at the same hotel that also accommodates Democratic party activists this will somehow be converted into hard news.

There’s more….

“Further complicating matters, Tea Party events have become a magnet for other groups and causes — including gun rights activists, anti-tax crusaders, libertarians, militia organizers, the “birthers” who doubt President Obama’s citizenship, Lyndon LaRouche supporters and proponents of the sovereign states movement,” the report shrieks.

There are no interviews here with LaRouche supporters or “birthers,” which is not to say they did not invite themselves to certain Tea Party events. But is it really accurate to say the movement has become a “magnet” for either group. There’s a definitely a libertarian streak to the Tea Party at all levels in light of the emphasis that has been placed on free market issues and constitutional rights. Activists seem less interested in cultural questions as the movement is mostly concerned with economics.

This is the kind of an analysis that goes missing from the report. Given the left-wing bent of LaRouche’s economic views his supporters would not make for an easy fit with Tea Parties. The reporter also goes through considerable gymnastics to interlink conservative and libertarian activists with conspiracy theories animated by an unreasonable fear of the federal government. Here the reporter confuses distrust with paranoia.

The largely defunct John Birch Society also finds its way into the article as a way of needling Tea Party participants who are quoted including an Arizona sheriff who expresses concern over the scope and reach of the Federal Reserve Board. Unfortunately, he was set up in the following paragraph”

“It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.”

There is a legitimate debate raging about the proper role of the Federal Reserve Board that gets into larger questions of financial reform. The Tea Party movement has been a conduit for these concerns but don’t expect them to get a fair hearing in the New York Times.