As I write this, at this second, the AOL Welcome menu contains a picture of Al Sharpton, to further remind members of the story about how former senator Strom Thurmond's ancestors owned Al Sharpton's ancestors (as slaves). That story broke roughly one week ago.
That story was also on the Yahoo! News front page, the nightly news shows, and even made the front page of many major newspapers across the country.
Yet here's a headline/story that I accidentally found yesterday, buried in page SEVEN of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, obscurely placed in the corner of the page:
Obama's ancestors owned slaves, genealogical researcher claims
So why did the media consider the Sharpton/Thurmond story MUCH bigger news than a similar story regarding a presidential candidate for 2008?
Why didn't Yahoo! News have this headline on its front page?
Why didn't the AOL Welcome menu even have this for a headline, let alone on the front page?
In fact, why does the AOL Welcome menu STILL have a feature of Sharpton's story instead of this news? How newsworthy was the Sharpton/Thurmond story really? If anything, it was interesting -- and not major news.
But the Obama story is major news. Barrack Obama, and even other candidates, will still have to discuss issues like racism, progress since slavery, and mixed-race marriages -- and this story could serve as a suitable backdrop.
The Sharpton/Thurmond "news" is hardly more than trivia fodder.
Another major headline from yesterday's news outlets (including AOL's Welcome menu and the Yahoo! News front page) was this:
GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur
The first thing to notice is that THIS story is actually datelined, and written by a journalist from a major newspaper. (The Obama story was merely a blip off the AP wires.)
Here is the excerpted third paragraph of the article:
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."
Now here is the following (fourth) paragraph of the same article:
Mr. Edwards's aides responded with an e-mail message that attacked Ms. Coulter and urged supporters to donate to Mr. Edwards's campaign. "John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power," said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. "Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter's resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion."
First of all, Coulter is a much better writer than she is a public speaker. What she said here, while I chuckled in private, was wrong to say in public, especially at a GOP-representative event. What annoys me most about this is how Coulter lowered herself to typical liberal standards of name-calling and then skirting the fact that she did so.
But all that considered, the Edwards campaign response was downright embarrassing.
Bet on this: Coulter's comments against Edwards will be media-covered much more than was the story of Edwards's former campaign bloggers spewing hate speech to Christians several weeks ago.
In fact, don't be surprised if John Edwards plays the "victim" from this story, to try and salvage his tarnished image from the blogging scandal. I can see him now, responding to the questions about that incident something like this:
"Well, I try to learn from everything that happens in life. I've learned from my experiences helping people against medical wrongdoings and corrupt insurance companies. I've learned from serving the great state of North Carolina in the United States Senate. I've learned from the tragic death of my son and personal hero. I've learned from traveling across America and meeting so many diverse and wonderful people in this country, like Grace Jones of Huntsville, Alabama, who suffers painful dialysis because she can't afford medical costs and prescription kidney-aiding drugs. And I've even learned from people like little Joey McDonald, who raised money at a lemonade stand to support John Kerry and myself in 2004.
"But I also learned from the mistakes. I learned from 2004. [Notice no acknowledgement that it was a defeat, a loss, that America didn't vote for him.] And I learned from the unfortunate incident several weeks ago, concerning the bloggers we had to let go due to unacceptable behavior, which I do not condone, and never supported.
"I also hope other people can learn from that. People like Ann Coulter. And I hope they can realize that this language is wrong, and that America can do better than stoop to that type of dialogue. I learned from my mistakes, I did something about it, and I hope Miss Coulter, and many others, can learn from her mistake, as well."
Does that sound like enough B.S. to be accurate?
To close this entry, here are the other headlines from yesterday's AOL Politics News front page:
*Obama Blames U.S. for Stronger Iran
*GOP Hopefuls Court Conservatives
*McCain Under Fire for 'Wasted' Lives Remark
*Romney Losing Edge in New Hampshire
*Richardson Urges Rivals to Play Nice
*Edwards Apologizes for 2002 War Vote
*McCain Firm on Iraq Despite Cost to Candidacy
Notice a trend? Six of those headlines make Republicans look weak or inept, while three of the same headlines make Democrats look proactive and conscientious.
This happens all the time. It's a combination of hilarious, infuriating, and sad. But the worst part is that it is typical.
Liberal media bias? Even Stevie Wonder can see it!
(Oh... do I need sensitivity training now?)
