Voter intimidation just isn't newsworthy.
The Department of Justice whistleblower who resigned over the "corrupt nature of the dismissal" of the New Black Panther case testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week. Unfortunately, except for the Fox News Channel — Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck and others — the nation's newsrooms are ignoring the story.
At the hearing in the Commission's Washington, D.C. headquarters, J. Christian Adams accused the DOJ of racial bias for dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party. An attorney on the case, Adams testified that within the DOJ's Civil Rights Division there is a pervasive and open hostility towards equal enforcement of the law. So insidious is this attitude that, according to Adams, even a minority DOJ employee was harassed by DOJ Voting Section staff for working on a case with white victims.
To support his allegations regarding the culture of the Civil Rights Division, Adams cited numerous second and firsthand accounts. Notably, he stated that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told him personally that the division is "in the business of traditional civil rights work.
"In other words, it will only pursue cases with minority victims," said officials at the Washington watchdog group Judicial Watch.
His testimony before the commission focused on the New Black Panther case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. Members of the New Black Panthers – clad in paramilitary outfits and brandishing a club – intimidated voters as well as poll watchers.
The individuals involved are seen on videotape verbally threatening citizens, hurling profanities and racial epithets. Using the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the group. Despite receiving a default judgment after the defendants in the case ignored the charges, the Obama Justice Department dropped the case in May 2009.
Adams testified that the Obama Administration used a political appointee to scrutinize former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates. When that political appointee delivered the order to dismiss the Black Panther case, he admitted that he had not even read the memos in support of proceeding with it. Additionally, Adams mentioned that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lobbied in March 2009 to have the case dismissed.
During the Hearing, Adams refused to answer several questions concerning specifics on the DOJ's handling of the case, citing fears that he would be revealing deliberative information. However, Adams confirmed that political appointees – not career attorneys – made the decision to dismiss the case.
The order came from Loretta King, who at the time was President Obama's acting assistant Attorney General for the civil rights division. No explanation was offered for the sudden dismissal and outrage ensued among federal prosecutors handling the case.
Despite the Obama Administration's stonewalling, the hearing reinforces that the New Black Panther Party story is not going away. The lack of transparency in this case forced Judicial Watch to sue the Justice Department.
In a racial double standard, the Obama Administration instructs government attorneys in the Justice Department's civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims, according to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.
In May, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ, after the Justice Department determined that "access to the majority of the records" responsive to the request should be denied.
Voter intimidation just isn’t newsworthy. Not correct. Conservative voter intimidation just isn’t newsworthy.
Bill:
For the most part, you are undoubtedly correct, but I suspect that some white liberals were, ironically, some of those intimidated also.
There are often charges by both conservatives and liberals that the media is ignoring some vital issue. But seldom is it pointed out that such media indifference is really due to economics, not politics. Even the Wall St. Journal ran a piece today urging government funding of media corporations so the public won’t run the risk of being “uninformed” now that the media industry has fallen on hard economic times. And since journalists are trained to be masters of communication arts, the WSJ’s op-ed piece ignored the real reason America is in a supposed danger of being uninformed and instead rationalized the under-reporting of current events as a national crisis – and a crisis of such critical proportions it requires a government bailout.
So, what’s the real reason behind this well written plea for your tax dollars? Well, basically, journalists like their jobs but they also like being well paid for their work. “Sell insurance, drive a cab, consider switching careers” you say. That’s easy for you to say, but the typical graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism considers him or herself entitled to a “paid” job in journalism. Would you ask a graduate of Harvard’s Law School to sell insurance or to be denied a position within the Obama administration over a trifling matter of economics? Well, you might, but the journalism profession is convinced that would be a mistake on your part.
If you’re thinking, “wait a minute, why do I have to subsidize the salary of journalists, I already know everything about Lindsey Lohan, her problems, her love affairs, how does that make me uninformed?” Well, right, you philistine but journalists are basically bored with Lohan and her antics, they were promised exciting and sexy jobs as “foreign correspondents”, visiting exotic lands, drinking with their counterparts in foreign bars, building up important contacts toward lucrative future prospects in related areas of journalism. Sure, you could always get the news from the internet by visiting the websites of international media corporations – but without that unique American perspective only a graduate of Columbia would bring to the issue.
So, rest assured, it isn’t politics which prevents certain news (and, coincidentally, often news critical of the Democrats) from being fully covered. It was just that some deserving journalist was recently laid off before the issue could be reported, just read today’s Wall St. Journal, they’ll inform you on how that whole under-reporting thing works.
Pat,
Journalism has morphed into something different than the “We report you decide” that it used to be a couple of generations ago. This is why they now believe they should be entitled to comfortable salaries. After al; they entered journalism in order to change the world, to communicate the ‘correct’ attitudes regarding sex, economics, war, climate, politics and a host of other issues.
They have begun the believe their own hype; That they are the indispensible distributors of opinion.
“So, rest assured, it isn’t politics which prevents certain news (and, coincidentally, often news critical of the Democrats) from being fully covered.” I disagree, I think it falls back under this journalistic purview of what the journalist believes you should think of the issue. If the reporting involves liberal persons or positions it must be painted in the best light possible.
One only has to look at the difference at how debt was covered by the New York Times under the Bush administration and how debt is covered by the same source under the Obama administration.
Bill, OK, if you really want a serious discussion of this issue, then I agree with you for the most part. My “serious” thoughts on journalists, America and the price of Fig Newtons are as follows:
Journalists are slaves to their sources and to their deadlines. The book “Public Relations, Dirty Tricks and Other Fun Stuff” makes a good case for this (hint: I’m making this book title up but I believe the lesson reflects reality). Right after the book’s inscription: “Dedicated To My Mother and My Goldfish, Rufus” the first line reads: “Control your journalists by controlling their information”. With constant deadline pressure, most journalists are forced to maintain a symbiotic relationship with their various sources, the journalist gets a quick quote or two from a trusted source, enough related trivia and facts to pad out his or her story to between 1,000 and 2,500 characters and can, thereby, crank out a daily production quota of stories very quickly. The journalist’s sources controls the stories’ content by repeating their organizational party line and withholding any unflattering information they don’t want published – and then there’s always the option of punishing upstart reporters by ignoring their future phone calls. I suspect about 90% of news reporting follows this pattern, the public consumption of news is voracious and daily production quotas don’t allow much time for lengthy and independent investigation.
The media is a business and every business has a market. I believe the market shapes the tenor of the media organization and determines what the reporter’s motives and opinions should be through a roundabout process of attrition. As an example, Detroit has two long standing daily publications (both newspaper and website). The Detroit Free Press is left of center, the Detroit News is right of center. In decades past, the Free Press was usually on the side of the union in this one industry town, but there was always room for both conservative and liberal reporting in their daily output. As Detroit’s demographics changed over the years, the liberal bent became much more obvious, the conservative viewpoint gradually disappeared.
Every day of the week, the Free Press is a veritable house organ for Obama, they sing his praises and always take his side on any issue. That’s what their readers (inner city and border suburb residents) want because their readers believe in Obama and expect their chosen media outlet to support him. There is no pretense the Free Press is objective about Obama and the Democrats – what’s the point in objectivity given their reader demographics? And there’s nothing unusual about this blatant violation of journalism’s high ideals nor is it confined solely to Detroit’s media – the New York Times reflected a very, upper west side Jewish, news/editorial viewpoint until recent years and it’s the flagship of American publications.
The Free Press’s professional employees are a hard core group of Liberals (or Progressives if that is your preferred term), conservative writers were either forced out in the past or left on their own for greener pastures. So, which came first? The Liberal chicken or the Liberal egg? Business reality requires the Free Press to reflect its market and reflecting its market requires reporters who can “act Liberal”. Now these present Free Press reporters’ personal opinions were provided by their sociology professors in college and the Free Press merely provides a venue for them to exercise their opinions while being paid for the effort. If you want news and opinion with a conservative slant, go to the Detroit News or Fox-Detroit, why are you expecting the Free Press to be unbiased? Over the years, the Free Press meandered more and more in a leftward direction and the make up of their professional reporter workforce did as well – sort of a circular process which reinforced and fed on itself.
But if you ask any journalist if their profession is biased, they usually answer “No”. Why? Because they’ve probably had their liberal or conservative outlook since college or even before, so their opinions and the subjective slant in their writing really hasn’t changed much over time and, naturally, they resent any implication that they aren’t “independent” in their thinking. Are the present mainstream media folks unabashedly liberal in tenor and opinion? Sure they are and that’s the problem they’re trying to disguise with this government bailout propaganda. Their market strategy has finally failed, their demographics have shifted and they don’t like that reality, from either an ideological or a personal economic viewpoint. Readers and listeners are increasingly turning to other sources for information and opinion, just as Americans prefer, numerically, foreign cars over domestic and our Big 3 automakers steadily lost market share when they refused to improve. Changes within markets are nothing new in the business world, but liberal reporters don’t intend to start covering garage sales for the Weekly Shopper, they want the dream to continue. And the danger is they have a pretty good shot at getting their wish.
Pat,
Several of your observations are correct. Media does have to reflect its ‘consuming audience’ in order to remain viable. Media also has to toe the lines its sources advocate in order to continue to receive grist for the mill.
I also agree with your observation that most journalists of either political persuasion, while they have held their own particular points of view for such a long time, believe themselves to be unbiased when they report the news.
The disconnect seems to be in their tone and quality of reporting during different political ideologies of subsequent administrations. This is what I believe accounts for the decline in readership of ‘brick & mortar’ institutions (both print and broadcast).
A portion of the decline has to do with the explosion of alternative sources, but part is also the ideological bent of the operations themselves. Look at the admission of California Congressman Brad Sherman who had no idea of the discussion regarding voter intimidation lawsuit and the DoJ hand in all this because literally every media source he consults to keep abreast of current events did not include ANY media source that felt it worth mentioning.
My personal opinion is that progressives that are now being challenged more and more to logically defend their positions (i.e. the T.E.A. Party) are discovering that their traditional media sources are not equipping them with the ammunition they require to mount reasonable defense of their positions. Few of us, regardless of political persuasion, deliberately sequester ourselves with only one or two sources of news. It just doesn’t equip us well enough to carry on intelligent conversation anymore. Even the most casual debater realizes that he/she must have several sources to quote from or refer to. No one tolerates a one trick pony.
Bill, you raised an important point about not trusting the media to keep a person informed. And, you’re very right the mainstream media shot themselves in both feet by cranking out “me too” stories while reducing the overall quality of their product. With the media’s market fragmentation we’ve seen in recent years, the discriminating consumer can pick and choose news and opinion sources, including foreign publications offering easily accessible websites – thereby sending traditional mainstream media outlets to join the ranks of buggy whip makers and whalebone corset suppliers.
Liberals have their own favorite publications and websites, usually ones I avoid – a chance to read a contrary news slant or point of view isn’t a big selling point if it’s just an excuse to parade a bias – after an initial visit to sample the flavor there’s often no reason for a return visit, I consistently avoid certain websites and newspapers. And traditional media corporations publish in lockstep with each other, the same news slant, the same sources, the same editorial viewpoints. I think this is deliberate; they’re after a certain segment of the market, a segment that appeals to specific reader demographics.
But with the rise of the internet, the traditional urban newspapers lost many readers who found their bias distasteful and are delighted an alternative is available. Many of these old line publications still service their historic and rapidly dwindling urban cores and the majority of them are liberal in slant. The San Francisco Chronicle, the L. A. Times, the Boston Globe are merely better written clones of the Detroit Free Press. They all practice “me too” journalism, the same story subjects, the same slants, the same heroes and villains. Depressingly undifferentiated reporting on their part and, fortunately, no longer the only game in town. But, for businesses interested in reaching these dwindling urban market segments, these publications still attract advertising dollars.
However, the problem for journalists is these old line papers attract fewer and fewer dollars each year and their “me too” websites bring in only 18% of the revenue lost from print advertisements formerly published in the daily fish wrap. For broadcasters, the 100 different cable channels and the internet have undermined the Big 3 networks’ revenue from the nightly news hour – plus the continuing rise in the viewer ratings of the Fox Network. Simple economics is performing the ideological house cleaning which many scathing editorials accusing these publications and broadcasters of deliberate bias could not. Go get em’, Adam Smith.
The other problem is the lack of journalistic quality in the reporting. Unceasing outrage, sanctimony, vindictiveness, whining – the whole liberal tool box has become standard product features in much of their reporting. Kind of like flashy paint jobs and chrome did to disguise poor engineering and abysmal manufacturing quality in Detroit built cars during the 60s’, 70’s and 80’s. And like Japanese built alternatives to Fords and Chevys, a host of independent websites have sprung up which point out the misleading viewpoints and factual errors within the daily output of these old line publishers/broadcasters. Remember the Dan Rather fiasco? If you visit these alternative websites, you not only get the same objective news, you also get the “inconvenient truths” which weren’t published by the mainstream media. And that certainly bums out those journalists who resent these websites earning a good living by debunking their professional efforts.
But it’s probably a mistake to assume we’ve seen the “final solution” to liberal dominated media – the urban reader cores and upper west side New York liberals still need to be served. Downsizing, staff reductions, “no growth” revenues in the mainstream medias’ profit statements, yes – but not final extinction. Even the technologically outdated news weeklies, like Time and Newsweek will probably survive in some reduced form.
What’s really puzzling is that American business generally offers second chances to the alert businessman and dispenses more forgiveness than Father O’Staggers during a busy Saturday in the confessional. Why didn’t these media corporations see the handwriting on the wall and reinvent themselves? They had the economic power a decade or so ago to change, so why did the mainstream media Titanic not see the iceberg ahead? I think the answer is that cub reporters become senior editors over time and the media business recycled the incompetent managers who grew up during the mainstream medias’ dominance and couldn’t adapt to the new world order. But, in the Liberal way of thinking, that conclusion is unfair and a government bailout is not only warranted, it’s obligatory.
Pat,
“The other problem is the lack of journalistic quality in the reporting.” I would have to say that this is an understatement. Unlike yourself; I do spend quite a bit of time perusing some of the more liberal on-line publications; know thy enemy, ya’ know. Lately I’ve found it almost impossible to separate editorial from what passes for journalistic reporting. It’s almost as if the entire publication contains nothing more than opinion.
Your are proffered ‘facts’ that tend to support the ‘conclusions’ (stated or implied) that are invariably included in the ‘tickler’ of the piece. Contrary evidence is condescendingly waived aside, if it is mentioned at all.
“Why didn’t these media corporations see the handwriting on the wall and reinvent themselves?” I think the answer lies in one of my previous posts. I had previously commented that a generation or so ago there was a sea change in the colleges of journalism. Students began entering this area of study in order “to change the world”. This is a different commitment than the journalists of old. These students of th4e last twenty-five or so years ago are the editors of these papers. Plus the fact that the ones coming after them have had their beliefs affirmed by the very people in the industry. Just as a neighborhood may suffer from inter-generational dependency; so may an industry suffer from inter-generational hubris.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander. Rachel Alexander said: Intellec. Conserv.: News Media Ignores Justice Department Whistleblower http://bit.ly/aPx2a3 [...]
[...] been an interesting week so far politically, particularly with this stunning shoot-out between Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and Kirsten Powers. Powers was obviously outmatched and egregiously unprepared for this interview, apparently planning [...]