Is the media really ignoring Sessions' past?
Media Matters, a liberal press watchdog, believes major newspapers are "disappear[ing]" the history of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. The senator is currently leading his fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee during the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but a little more than 20 years ago, the same committee rejected his nomination to become a district court judge over allegations that he had a history of racist statements....
In this case, Media Matters focused on five newspapers -- the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal -- and noted that in their July 14 coverage of Sessions' opening statement at the Sotomayor hearings, none mentioned his past.
That's true -- but it's not true that those papers have ignored Sessions' own history in front of the committee, or failed to inform their readers about it. In fact, according to a search of Lexis-Nexis, four out of the five had previously covered the issue in some detail; two of those published profiles of him that focused on the episode. The only paper not to mention it, according to a search of its Web site, was the Journal.
The notion that Session's racist record can covered once, and then it's all good is nothing short of bizarre. The fact that Sessions is even in the Senate ought to be cause for such embarrassment and outrage that the GOP either forced him to resign, or else refused him membership in their caucus. (But, of course, if they did that, who would be left in thc caucus?) The fact that Sessions is the GOP's ranking member on the Judiciary Committee? That's just icing on the cake. And the media has a say in this. If they reported honestly on who Sessions is, what he has said and done, and how a GOP-majority Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination 23 years ago, and did that every time he opened his mouth to attack Sotomayor, or any other minority, exactly how long do you think that the GOP would sit on its hands and do nothing about him?
Put simply, the national corporate media is aiding and abetting the continued power and influence of neo-Confederate white supremacy. And Alex Koppelman sees nothing wrong with that.
Fortunately, Salon readers are not so totally clueless. There's this:
I disagree
with you Alex. No matter what ran in the past, even if it was the day before, these major newspapers should include all the relevant comments Senator Sessions has made in the past right alongside the comments that Senator Sessions made in the present. It's like saying, all right, I had a banana yesterday and some ice cream today and tomorrow I will eat some chocolate sauce, so that's the same as having a banana split. It isn't the same by a long shot.
runfastandwin
And this:
The media fails because it lacks context.
And that moots Koppelman's entire point. It would be a true service by the media to note the context of Sessions' questions, and his own history and hypocrisy to ask the questions that he does. That would be holding these pompous blowhards more to account, and maybe they'd blow less hard and be less pompous if that were to happen with great regularity.
-- lemecdutex
And this:
Let Me Give You Some Advice Salon
Don't fuck with Media Matters. You guys certainly haven't earned the right. Your "reporting" and commentary 7 out of 10 times is poor at best. The only reason I even visit this site is to read Glenn Greenwald.
One of the biggest complaints about the MSM is they don't put things in context. Context matters. Do you think just because someone reads the Washington Post, they know Sessions complete history? Just because a media outlet has noted something before, doesn't mean its readership is up to date on the information....
-- PietroMaximoff
Just to sample the creme of the crop.
The message is clear: (1) Ignoring white supremacy is condoning white supremacy. (2) Context is everything.
To paraphrease Brad DeLong, "Why can't we have a non-racist media?" (Even I know that asking for an anti-racist media would just be too, too much.) |
