.png)
Author Information
The Post-Racism World???
.png)
Today's CNN Headline:
Justice stands by refusal to give interracial couple license to wed
CNN, predictably, is not outraged (just reporting the facts), which, according to the interviewed justice, are:
- I am not racist, I do marriages for black couples right here in my house.
- I know interracial marriages don't last.
- I am just worried about the kids who will suffer (because they have interaical parents I guess?).
They, CNN, do report that the wedding couple, the governor, the National Urban League, and the Supreme Court all disagree with the justice. But the way they report the story makes it seem like the justice might actually be making a valid point, as if this idea might be worthy of conversation, rather than jsut repulsive!
Or maybe I am just too sensitive this morning? What do you think?
Printer-friendly version- Topic Tags:
Comments
The Post-Racism World???---It's Definetely NOT!!!
You are not being over-sensitive by any means. The media, including CNN, which I have a like/dislike relationship with, probably does not want to take a position on the story in one direction or the other. If they do have an actual opinion about it, such as feeling the justice is wrong for his decisions, they may believe their position that could possbily cost them some viewers or cause people to bombard them with email them in a frenzied, narrow minded rage. I definetely do not really think that there should be any conversation or speculation as to the actions and comments that the ignorant justice made, but CNN does not surprise me one little bit that they would not publicly express outrage over the story. The easiet way out of something is usually the first path chosen.
Media responsibility
Shalene,
Thanks for the reply. Do you think media can "not take a position on the story?"
I would contend that by printing the story and not being outraged, they have. The have made the justice's position valid, meaning worthy of consideration. They have printed it and allowed it to be debated as if the point has enough potential merit that it is deserving a counter-argument.
I say that's crap. This story belongs in a section entitled unbelievable but true, with no explanation needed. By treating it any other way, the media legitimizes the discourse, thus taking a powerful position on the issue, made all the more powerful because of their "position-less" claim.
Post new comment