The Paradox of the News Media

This past week, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Naturally, there are both supporters and critics of the decision, as there are whenever a President nominates someone whom they want to interpret the law in a certain manner. Thanks in part to our frustratingly bipartisan political system, those on the right are quite skeptical of the pick, just as those on the left were equally critical of G.W. Bush's two picks (John Roberts and Samuel Alito).

I, like every other patriotic American, support this process. Sure, it's not the greatest example of representative democracy, but it ostensibly allows members of Congress to debate over Sotomayor's qualifications and decide whether or not she belongs on the highest court in the land. An intense debate--fueled by the facts and information surrounding Ms. Sotomayor's record--is yet another example of the wonderful "freedom" and "justice" with which this country is blessed.

Yet as the first decade of the 21st century races to its conclusion, we are facing the paradox of the 24-hour, instantaneous news cycle. Although we can access the web from our fancy phones, connect with others sharing the same interest through Twitter or Facebook, and choose from a handful of round-the-clock news programs on cable television, we aren't as well informed as we might believe.

Yes, that may sound like a bold assertion to you, but hear me out. It's been nearly five days since Obama announced his nomination, and in that time the news media has managed to successfully label her a racist. You'd have to scour to find evidence of her judicial record, or even basic biographical information about her. But that stuff doesn't seem pertinent to the news media. In fact, if you've listened to any of the critics wheeled out before the cameras to judge the Justice-to-be, you assuredly know nothing more than Sotomayor's history of "reverse racism." Oh, and the fact that she hates fire fighters.

But how can this be? How on earth could President Obama nominate such an evil, evil woman?

Oh, that's right. She's actually not a racist.

You see, professional blowhards like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other pudgy, middle-aged white males with their own television and radio programs have illustrated Sotomayor's racist record by citing one sentence (yes, one sentence) culled from a speech she delivered at the University of California in 2001. It reads as follows:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Okay. I've taken a step back. I'm trying to appreciate that quotation from their perspective. I suppose it does look a little damaging, especially when you switch around the two races mentioned within (which, Newt Gingrich contends, would get a white dude fired faster than you can say Sotomayor). Although one could also say that this quotation is more about bringing a diversity of opinions and perspectives to a judicial body. Perhaps we should examine the whole speech in an effort to understand where she was coming from when she said this. I'm sure that professional pundits, who have an obligation to best inform their viewership/readership/listenership took the time to examine Ms. Sotomayor's argument before they made the bold claim that she is a racist.

Oh, wait. It appears that they didn't. How careless of them! She actually was speaking to the benefits of having a variety of perspectives in the judiciary. In nearly the same breath as her supposedly inflammatory quotation, she actually recognized that whites on the Supreme Court have historically made some decisions that positively affected minorities. In fact, she said it a whole hell of a lot more artfully than me. Take a look for yourself:

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."

Getting back to my main point, the coverage of Sotomayor's nomination is just another example pointing to the rapid devolution of our country's news information. A quick browse of a site like Media Matters for America shows you how many talking heads have parroted this tripe. Rather than news sites providing text of Sotomayor's speech, that one sentence is dragged completely out of context and presented to the public as if it were representative of the woman's entire stance on race. Outlets like CBS News uncritically report on former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter's opinion of the quote, but don't even bother to mention what Sotomayor's speech was about.

The larger idea that I'm trying to address is that in this age of ubiquitous information, one must be critical of that which they read, hear, or watch. I'm anything but a Luddite, as I actively Twitter and start every morning with a cup of coffee and a perusal of the internet. I take my cell phone with me everywhere and I even maintain a list of the music I listen to so that others in cyberspace can check out my tastes. So I'm not swearing off technology or anything like that. This is just a plea to constantly question the information you receive. We should never part with our curiosity, as it's one of our greatest intellectual traits.

So when you hear someone label Sonia Sotomayor a racist, take it with a grain of salt. Ask why she is labeled a racist, and if you're offered a sound bite in lieu of an answer, determine its source and seek to place it within its context. Not everyone has time to do all of that, I know. But that's all the more reason to be wary of the things you hear in the news media.

Vendetta!

The presidential election is over. Huzzah!

My candidate of choice won. Double huzzah!

I’ve gotta say that election night was pretty sweet. Barack Obama ran a great campaign. Sure, it was full of lofty rhetoric, the majority of which I didn’t really buy into, but that’s not why I voted for him. I checked his name off on the ballot because his platform, for all intents and purposes, was diametrically opposed to the way things have been run during the past eight years. I won’t mention any names, but I’ll wager you have a good idea of what I’m talking about.

So, there I was election night, basking in the nascent reality of a Barack Obama presidency, and although I just said otherwise, I was swept up in the lofty rhetoric of Barack’s victory speech. Well, that’s not fair. It was a momentous occasion for both sides of the political spectrum: the vision of the civil rights movement had come to fruition and Americans had elected their first black president. Much has been written about the historic occasion, so I’ll let that be. But the main point was that I was quite taken by the historical enormity and occasion of the night. Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

Riding the emotional high, I did an about-face and headed into the dark and sordid catacombs of the internet: the forums on Sean Hannity’s website.

Now, allow me to provide you a little bit of background. I despise Sean Hannity. I’m very much a non-violent guy, but Sean Hannity is one of the few people on this earth whom I’d enjoy strangling. The weekend before Election Day, I registered a free account on his website so I could partake in the spirited political debate within. Oh, and by “spirited political debate” I mean “vile, baseless attacks on Barack Obama.” You see, what started out as an honest attempt to engage the other side in civil debate quickly devolved into portraying the Republican electorate as an uneducated, xenophobic group of outlandish reactionaries. I make no excuses for what I did, only that that’s the environment that Hannity fosters every single day he shows up for his radio and television gigs.

So my short stint on the Hannity forums was nothing to be too proud about, but around 12:30 am EST on November 5^th, I wrote and posted a scathing, but polite, criticism addressed directly to Hannity, accusing him of dumbing down the electorate and costing John McCain any realistic chance of election.

And it got me banned from the forum. For life.

I’ll be the first to admit that I was gloating. And I won’t apologize for it. After the low, low feeling that accompanied the 2004 results, the night of Obama’s election was like the combination of three Christmases and two birthdays from childhood. It was a great! But even though I was a dirty gloater, my post contained no profanities. I addressed Mr. Hannity, but did not threaten or insult him in any way. I simply criticized his lowbrow tactics and his role in creating a gaggle of inexplicably hysterical Republicans who would rather face electric shock therapy than an Obama presidency.

Yet, about 15 minutes after posting my screed, I refreshed the page and was informed that I had been banned from the forums for “contempt of host.” When would that ban be lifted? The window informed me that I would never be welcomed back.

Of course, the grand irony in this whole story is Hannity’s commitment to conjuring up the mythical bogeyman of talk radio: the “fairness doctrine.” This doctrine, which has been discussed in Congress, but has zero chance of ever becoming an actual piece of legislation, supposedly aims to eliminate the bastion of conservative thought (an oxymoron?) on the public airwaves. He loves to bring it up at every chance he gets in the hopes of illustrating how liberals are vehemently opposed to the First Amendment rights. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

And so it is that this self-proclaimed champion of liberty and opinion has banned exactly that. On his own website. Hypocrisy much, Mr. Hannity?

My bold prediction is that freedom of speech will be fine. Hannity and company will be free to develop their asinine personas as Obama’s presidency progresses. If there’s anything Americans love more than firearms, it’s insipid blowhards who have opinions they can’t keep to themselves. But beware Hannity’s website. Unless you’re a god-fearing, socialist-hating Dixiecrat, you’ll be silenced.

And since I’m forever silenced on your website, Mr. Hannity, I’ll take the liberty of using my own webspace to give you a bit of advice: read a damned book, you moron.