VIRGINIA — The butterfly effect has been in effect here this week, as a Democratic state senator’s comments about racism in presidential politics on a Hampton Roads talk radio show led to a storm of condemnation from the right, drawing the attention of Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, the conservative blog world, and commentators like radio personality Laura Ingraham.
And while non-traditional news sources such as talk radio and the blogosphere are monitored but rarely reported on by most newsrooms, mainstream reporters start to take notice of some sort when a local story takes on national proportions. Here’s a look at the blowup and how some traditional media outlets have handled the controversy.
It started last Friday when Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), a campaign surrogate for President Obama, said that presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney is “speaking to a segment of the population who does not like to see people other than a white man in the White House or any other elected position.”
Lucas was appearing on a program hosted by John Fredericks, a veteran broadcast and print reporter and a conservative whose website says he strives to bring together “diverse views on the most pressing regional, state and national issues of the day.” Fredericks had recently played host to Romney, and Lucas was on to provide balance, and to speculate about why the Romney campaign was gaining ground on Obama. (She also offered another, less politically charged explanation: people are on vacation for the summer, and so not paying attention to the Obama campaign’s messages.)
The media attention started the following Monday, when conservative websites seized on Lucas’s more controversial remarks—relaying them in sometimes mild-mannered, sometimes angry fashion. (It’s a good bet that O’Reilly, who featured Lucas’s remarks on his show Monday night, got it from a source like these.)
By Tuesday, the episode had broken through to the mainstream press, getting
written up on The Washington Post’s “Virginia Politics” blog (which got the day of Lucas’s radio appearance wrong). The Post relayed a good chunk of Lucas’s comments, plus an outraged response from Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, but didn’t add much besides this bit of flavor:
A liberal firebrand, Lucas has never been one to hold her tongue. She stormed out of a committee meeting one day during this year’s General Assembly session, tossing papers as she left.
A day later, the editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch weighed in, arguing that Lucas’s claim that opposition to Obama is rooted in race is “absurd,” and concluding that “for the vast majority, their opposition stems from their belief that he is of the wrong party—not the wrong color.” Editorials are what they are, but the Times-Dispatch had provided no news coverage of the statements; it’s unfortunate that readers had no previous points of reference from which to draw for this particular bit of opining.
Meanwhile, as time passes, the coverage has become more thoughtful and thorough. The best coverage I’ve seen came from the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, the state’s largest newspaper. The paper’s Wednesday story (an updated version of an article that appeared online Tuesday) was even-handed: reporting on Lucas’s remarks in full, tracking the in-state and national response, noting that in addition to her controversial statements Lucas had called for a dialogue on race relations, and seeking follow-up. (Lucas did not respond to interview requests but did issue a statement saying, “the overwhelming majority of Virginians will make a choice in this election based, not on race or any other factor, but on what they believe is best for their families and their futures.”)
- 1
- 2
"It's not ______ when we do it."
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 10:12 PM
It's appropriate that the Virginian-Pilot offered thoughtful coverage of state Sen. Louis Lucas' remarks; that's the politician's hometown paper. Furthermore, the Daily Press of Newport News knows the Portsmouth legislator well since her district is less than 20 miles from the paper's doorstep.
As for race, evidence of racism and the election, a study called "unconscious bias" grabbed my attention. Eighty five [85] percent of white voters, said the author of the study, have open hearts, but unconscious biases. That leaves 15 percent who have racist beliefs and don't tolerate the first self-identified black president.
Candidate Obama won 44 percent of white voters in 2008. A better question to ask is how will the incumbent fare with white independents, who left the Democratic side in droves during the 2010 midterm Congressional elections, but have frustrated Republicans in '01 and '05 gubernatioral elections.
Virginia by the way is among the handful of battleground states getting hammered with 10 times more political commericials than most states, noted the "Washington Week" roundtable.
All of us here are prone to make careless statements because of all the political toxicity.
#2 Posted by Wayne Dawkins, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 12:34 PM
You know, after the NAACP appearance, 'free stuff' bs Romney pulled, the idea that Romney isn't comfortable in the ghetto shouldn't be a stretch. It ain't cause the ghetto's poor, because he's able to step into the poor sections of the red states and solicit the wife beater votes. It's gotta be something else.
Mr. Pierce had a thought about this in regards to the Joe Williams firing at politico.
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/joe-williams-politico-9947377
"Here's the thing. Joe was exactly correct in what he said about Romney. I know we're not supposed to bring this up, but Romney is a high official in a church that, as recently as 1977, thought Joe Williams carried the curse of Cain. The Romney campaign has shown little or no inclination to engage any of the issues of race in any serious way, and he ran through the primary campaign as Joe Arpaio in a better suit. He has shown no desire to distance himself from the racist rhetoric aimed by some in his party at black people, at immigrants, and at the president of the United States. From this, it is not a far reach to conclude that Romney is most comfortable around white people. And Politico is more comfortable around, say, Joe Scarborough than it is around its own employees."
And that's a wrap.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 02:11 PM
LOL!...
Yeah, ROMNEY went to a racist church 35 years ago.
It's not like Obama belonged to any racist church or anything, right?
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 03:53 PM
An elected official and member of President Obama's reelection campaign ought to eschew the use of racial rhetoric. A member of candidate Obama's "Truth Team" ought to appeal to the integrity of the human intellect and not to the passions and prejudices of how many thousands; she ought NOT sling accusations that Romney is appealing to a white racist vote and she ought not make hey of her having "finally" convinced her children that "racism is alive and well in America" because many in a nation that prizes criticism of elected officials dare to criticize the record and performance of America' first black President!
Rather than go silent, Va. State Senator Louise Lucas ought explain herself and answer some questions about her calumny and broad-based assertions of racism on the part of Mr. Romney, and conservatives (and liberals, too) who have criticized Pres. Obama:
Was Romney's decision to address the NAACP Convention "racist"--because he expected he'd benefit from the angry racist white voters who'd resent his being booed there? Is Sen. Lucas joining or encouraging the crackpots who think like that? Or does she think that because Obama is black any criticism of him, from any quarter, is "racist"? Isn't such thinking itself racist? Are there any positive feelings the State Senator has for those who deign to criticize Obama's record without any consideration of his skin color? Isn't it absurd if not Orwellian to conclude that because people on the left and the right openly criticize Obama's performance that they are engaging in "racism" and that "ergo" America is the more racist for such color-blindness in their evaluation?
I do not find Sen. Lucas' recklessness calumny and her shameless racial rhetoric as at all helpful or insightful to either Pres. Obama's or Gov. Romney's campaign. I am a liberal, and an African American, and I know something about racism. It is appalling when baseless accusations of "racism" are voiced by people in responsible and trusted positions--indeed, by an elected official, by one who is a self-identified surrogate for Mr. Obama's reelection campaign.
I do not take sides for or against candidates for elective office. We do analyze punditry and commentaries about "race" matters regardless of the speaker's party affiliation. And, so, I sent a letter to Sen. Lucas--asking for the evidence to back up her statement, "We know what's going on here...[Romney's] speaking to that fringe out there who do not want to see anybody but a white person in a leadership position." Such polarizing errant nonsense, such unvarnished, toxic racial rhetoric is unworthy of a public official--and especially of one who is a surrogate for President Obama. We are still waiting for Sen. Lucas' response to our questions and letter. In the meantime, it suffices to say that the worst thing that can happen in a multiracial nation such as ours, to paraphrase my mentor Roy Wilkins, is for public opinion and discourse to be racially polarized. I, for one, a liberal and a civil rights advocate, do not understand--I don't see how such hateful remarks of Sen. Lucas are helpful or insightful to either Mr. Obama's or Mr. Romney's campaign.
Sen. Lucas, I urged in my open letter to her, should revise and amend her remarks post haste.
Michael Meyers, President, New York Civil Rights Coalition
Manhattan, New York
#5 Posted by MICHAEL MEYERS, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 07:41 PM
Oh, shut up Mikey.
Sorry, but last I heard you were defending an ass cartoonist who thought it would be funny to show a bullet riddled chimp under the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
Sorry, what was that again about "eschew the use of racial rhetoric"?
And how dare you, HOW DARE YOU come here and give a lecture to us about innocuous remarks to do with Mitt Romney's preferences and then show up on the set of that son of a bitch, Shawn Hannity.
Where are you asking Hannity to tone down his "Obama is an anti-white radical who went to a madrassa and introduced a university to the racist Derek Bell and, by proxy, Louis Farrakhan! Hide your women!" rhetoric, huh?!
You fauxney, Fox News Liberal.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 08:39 PM
LOL!
Thimbles is the SAME screwy leftist who wrote here, in a forum dedicated to journalism, that black journalists should be held to different standards than white journalists.
Yep... That's what he did, alright. He claims that "black" journalists are entitled to express opinions and use words that white journalists should be forbidden from using. YES! HE REALLY DID. He actually wrote that.
Thimbo has stubbornly refused to inform how we can determine whether any particular journalist is "black" enough to earn the right of political expression, in his racistvestimation. Perhaps he envisions a paper bag test? Or a minstrel show? Who knows, with this hypocritical bigot?
Hoe DARE this hypocritical racist come here and attempt to ride his high horse?!
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 12:06 AM
Settle down, please. There's no need for name-calling here.
#8 Posted by Sara Morrison, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 10:30 AM
I apologize on behalf of myself and padikiller.
[snip]
Hey, this making accusations based on snippets of past postings absent context shtick is fun!
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 02:43 PM
Yeah... It's just a matter of context, huh, Thimbles?
Right!... SUURE it is, Brother!
"there's a big difference between a black columnist using the term "negro" and a couple of white guys" --- Thimbles
There it is, in plain black and white (so to speak) and in all of its contextual glory!
What I'm trying to figure out is how Thimbles can determine how any particular journalist is "black" enough to express opinions without restriction.
How about it Thimbo? How do we decide?
Can Obama do it? He's half "black" and half "pasty", after all. What about Soledad O'Brien? Does she pass muster?
[snip]
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 03:38 PM
I've edited the prior two comments to remove personal attacks.
#11 Posted by Sara Morrison, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 06:19 PM
... and the personal attacks are still coming, so I'm just going to shut off the comments to give everyone a chance to cool off.
#12 Posted by Sara Morrison, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 12:15 AM
The distinction between "criticism" and "personal attack" is an arbitrary one.
I don't think CJR should be in the business of censoring comments simply because any particular commenter is called onto the carpet for his or her own stated position.
We are dealing with a situation with a commenter who having written here previously that "black" journalists should be treated differently than "white guys" actually presumed to chastise Michael Meyer on matters related to race.
If it isn't fair to criticize such a plainly racist and hypocritical stance, and if doing so isn't topical in a thread related to allegations of racism, than what is?
The fact that this commenter responded with invective and name-calling (defamatory name-calling, in fact) doesn't merit giving him official cover from CJR.
The truth hurts sometimes, and right now it is certainly hurting the commenter in question. But that's what this forum is for, isn't it?
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 07:06 PM
"hurting the commenter blardy blardy blar"
Sigh.
Shine on, crazy diamond.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 07:11 PM