Today's New York Times article on Senator George Allen's (R-VA) apology for calling his opponent's campaign volunteer a "macaca" contains many of the hallmarks of a typical Times piece. With one notable exception.
First, a rundown of what we've come to expect.
In the opening line, journalist Carl Hulse writes that Allen made the apology "for a perceived racial insult." But let's be straight here. The only non-white face at the event belonged to the recipient of Allen's remark, S. R. Sidarth, a 20-year-old American of Indian descent. Whatever meaning of the word "macaca" Allen had in mind at the time, one thing is sure: its intent was derogatory. Various meanings have been attributed to the word, from "monkey" to the French slur macaque, used to disparage North Africans. Incidentally, Allen's mother is French Tunisian, Tunisia is in North Africa, and Allen speaks French. Coincidence?
Hulse then fails to mention what followed the one-word slur. After singling out Sidarth because of the color of his skin, Allen, sounding like a plantation owner from the Old South, said, "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Add this to his previous comment and, shaken or stirred, any arguments denying the racist overtones are simply intellectually dishonest.
The article also avoids citing Allen's previous attempts to explain away his remark, which were nearly as offensive as the original slur. The best his camp came up with was that Allen employed a mash-up of "Mohawk," describing Sidarth's hair - never mind it's actually styled as a mullet - and "caca," Spanish slang for "shit." So, in other words, Allen was actually calling the young man a "shit head"? Much better.
Hulse notes Allen's past "racial insensitivity" (i.e., racist behavior), but buries it near the end of the story.
Yet even some Republicans say it could intrude on Mr. Allen’s presidential aspirations, when he would have to appeal to a much wider audience. And the macaca gaffe could play into an earlier history that has raised the suggestion of racial insensitivity through Mr. Allen’s 1984 opposition to a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as well as an affinity for the Confederate battle flag.
Finally, herewith is that notable exception to what we've come to expect from The Times.
While disproportionately presenting conservatives' views (a common practice) of Allen's remark and apology, Hulse attributes a particularly irresponsible - and bizarre - designation to one of his sources. Readers of this site, and those who follow the manipulative and misleading language often employed by the mainstream media (which also regularly adopts conservative talking points) are familiar with such terms as "critics say" or "experts say" or, the exceedingly opaque, "some say." But Hulse goes a step further with his line, "Like other Allen backers and some impartial analysts, Mr. Wadhams said the incident was badly overblown."
It's one thing to label an anonymous source a "critic" or "expert," but adding the judgment "impartial" is simply outrageous. How are we to know how Hulse quantifies his source's impartiality? Besides, based upon who had delivered the opinion, isn't it, rather, the reader's choice to make any such judgment? Is Hulse sourcing God? And even if he were, I'm not convinced of his impartiality either.
Let's face it: "A source who knows Allen better than anyone else on God's green earth" would have been less irresponsible than "some impartial analysts."
nice. but that's just my impartial opinion.
Posted by: vanessa | August 25, 2006 at 04:51 PM
But critics say Media Bloodhound is expecting the mainstream media to be honest.
Posted by: Media Lapdog | August 30, 2006 at 01:58 PM
Never "expecting," but always demanding.
Posted by: MediaBloodhound | August 30, 2006 at 03:00 PM