How epically dishonest has the Sotomayor "Latina woman" coverage been?
June 05, 2009 3:38 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Almost beyond words dishonest. Like, off the charts dishonest, which was only highlighted by a new piece of research that I came across. Just really depressing stuff.
First, the background. As I detailed in my column, the Beltway press has categorically refused to put Sotomayor's controversial "Latina woman" quote in context and have steadfastly refused to inform news consumers the comment was made in reference to discrimination cases; a context that completely eliminates the "racist" attack against her. Put it context, it become completely obvious that Sotomayor was plainly not suggesting that women, categorically, make better decisions than men. (But don't tell ABC's Diane Sawyer, who spun the story that way this morning.)
So why is the press playing dumb? Simple. Republicans in the U.S. Senate have made it rather clear that they are not planning any sort of wholesale opposition to Sotomayor's nomination. But reporters and pundits are banking on nomination drama, so they're willing to chase, and legitimize, the "racist" storyline. To do that though, the press has to play dumb on an epic scale about the "Latina woman." To pretend it really was some kind of Battle of the Sexes proclamation.
Bottom line: Reporters and pundits must avoid providing any kind of context for the "Latina woman" quote in order for that storyline to survive even modest scrutiny.
Well, mission accomplished because I just did a Nexis search and found that during the last ten days there have been more than 950 media mentions of Sotomayor and "Latina woman." Then I looked to see how many of those 950-plus news reports included the word "discrimination" as a way to put that quote in context.
Answer: Less than 20.
Or, approximately two percent of news reports have managed to do journalism's most basic task, which is to provide all pertinent information. Instead of informing news consumers, the press has been actively misinforming them about Sotomayor.
That's how dishonest the coverage has been.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
The context of her remarks is so apparent by now that the fact that she is still being cited as if she spouted off about Latinas is proof of their dishonesty.
The speech was given at a Berkeley conference on gender and ethnicity, and just two paragraphs before the remark, she specifically cites race and discrimination cases as her topic at hand. So why the press is acting like she was giving a "La Raza Unida" speech is troubling.
They are lying. Or else they are really, really stupid, and cannot process any kind of inference, even from a few sentences away. Are they all that subliterate? It's quite possible they are.
That is it. And keep in mind she said it 4+ times, and there was not one particular topic she was saying this about. She is saying hispanic women make better judges. What are the qualifying words, hispanic and woman. So, all of you who are saying, "but she meant this", and "you are taking her statement out of context". First, how do you know? And second, would you be defending a white male if the subject was reversed? I can confidently say, NO. Minorities would have already chewed that individual up. We have seen it in the past, and continue to see it. This woman is not qualified for this statement, and for some of the decisions that seem to be influenced by race. End of story.
She was speaking at a conference on gender and ethnicity and was referring explicitly to discrimination cases. She cited that in her speech just a few paragraphs before. She was not making a "Viva Chicanas!" speech.
A misogenist pig like Newt Gingrich is handed an open mic to trash-talk a democratic female (Clinton, Pelosi, Sotomayor) and the Village piles on. Oh joy, what fun!!! Let's all gang up on the smart chick! We'll show her who gets to sit at the cool kids table who doesn't.
A latina woman. That is the noun. More often than not, will make better decisions than a white male. So, the qualifier, a latina woman makes better decisions than a white male. The modifier, more often than not. How can this be interpreted as anything but racist. She is flat out saying latina women make better judges, because they reach better decisions. You and your ilk are simply unable to allow the english language to speak for itself. Instead, you say, "but she didn't mean it, she meant. . . .". Everytime Oreilly sticks his foot in his mouth, do you identify his context, or what he was trying to say? No, you simply crucify him. Why not then Sotomayor?
A Latina who is dealing with gender and ethnic discrimination cases.
Just like Republicans always say that judges with business experience make better decisions about business cases. They might be right. So might Sotomayor.
You even strip away the context that provided within the sentence itself which she started by saying: "I would hope that ......". This opening phrase changes the meaning of the subsequent words and is another example of how the context is being ignored.