A Matter of Context II

 Last week, I pointed out  how newspapers often write "historical fiction" when the author gets 90% of the story right but leaves out (or makes up) a couple key facts. 

Then yesterday,  I pointed out that newspapers often write stories that while technically accurate, are so out of context that the reporter has essentially misled the reader. 

Here's an example of coverage that actually contains both problems.  It confuses readers because it lacks context or is simply made up. 

Newspapers love to focus on what they portray as the Republican race problem.  Indeed, most African Americans and Hispanics identify with the Democratic Party and as these groups become a larger percentage of the population, we could see a demographic shift that works to a Republican disadvantage.  Republicans will counter that African Americans and Hispanics tend to be socially conservative and as the Democratic Party becomes the Party of Gay Marriage and Hollywood, people of color--especially those in the middle class--may start to identify with the Republican Party.

While the narrative above is a pretty good summary of the current situation, newspapers like to raise another issue--the history of discrimination, Jim Crow and voter suppression that have plagued black voters for the last 100 years.  Here's a great example.

The GOP’s struggle over its future and the party’s fitful steps to attract minorities are on full display in the differing responses of Republican governors to a major Supreme Court case on voting rights.

The court will hear arguments April 29 about whether federal oversight of election procedures should continue in 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of preventing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from voting.

 

Incredibly, in an article that focus exclusively on past discrimination and the Republican Party, the author never bothers to mention the glaring fact that Jim Crow, Segregation, Voter Suppression and all White Primaries were entirely DEMOCRATIC PARTY phenomena.

 

From Reconstruction to the 1980's, the South was dominated--indeed controlled--by the Democratic party and for 100 years the Democrats used every tool at their disposal--from "Grandfather Clauses" and Whites Only Primaries to intimidation and outright lynching--to ensure that the only Democrats who voted were white Democrats. 

 

But the shameful history of Democratic Party discrimination against African Americans doesn't fit the newspaper narrative, so younger readers can be excused for thinking that it is the Republican party that is trying to overcome a history discrimination.  The AP story is a great example.  It's an entire story about the GOP's struggle to deal with the Southern states' history of discrimination without one word to indicate that that entire history is a Democratic one. 

 

What will we do when the newspapers are gone?  In many cases, we will be better off.  Sometimes it's better not to read a story than to read propaganda. 

Comments

[Naum]

Um, that context would include how that division in Democrats over Dixiecrats led to (a) many southern Democrats converting to the Republican party, based on their opposition to civil rights, (b) the Republican "Southern Strategy", as Nixon campaign architects admitted that pandered to the racist voting block that also (c) split asunder the "New Deal Coalition" that returned Democrats to national power after many years on the outside (except when 3rd party candidates split the Republican vote, i.e., when Wilson was elected in 1912)…

In the 21st century now, the Republican party is the elderly, lily white party, where 95% of black voters cast votes for opposition party, as well as a substantial majority of other minority voters and young voters (under age of 30)…

[Cicero's Echo]

Umm, that narrative doesn't fit the fact that the Civil Rights Voting Act passed with Republican votes and that minorities median income historically rises under Republican Presidents, including Nixon. The bottom line is that while Democrats pander to minorities, segmenting and differentiating based on shades of color and gender preferences, Republicans focus on colorblind opportunity for all. That's the reality that doesn't fit the narrative.

[Naum]

1. Again, as a result of civil rights, Democrats in the South jumped to the Republican party, the South turned republican, as LBJ stated how he lost the South for a generation (it's 2 and counting, though Obama did take NC in 08)… …please tell me you're not denying this historical reality?

2. By any economic measure, GDP, unemployment, stock market index, the economy has, on aggregate, performed better under Democratic rule than Republican rule. Look it up. And the measures that created the middle class were the direct result of FDR policies in the 1930s that initiated the largest expansion of the middle class (1930s - 1970s, under Democratic presidents, except Ike, who according to many scholars and his own children, would be to the left of Clinton's politics).

That is the REALITY.

Worse, you're insinuating that minority voters have been "duped" and know not the "score" — it's not that they're enamored with Democrats, but they are fully aware that the Republicans are the party of the racists, and it's been that way since the 1960s civil rights political storm when they jumped ship from the Democratic party to the Republican party.

[Dave K.]

"Worse, you're insinuating that minority voters have been "duped" and know not the "score" — it's not that they're enamored with Democrats, but they are fully aware that the Republicans are the party of the racists, and it's been that way since the 1960s civil rights political storm when they jumped ship from the Democratic party to the Republican party."

Wow.

Congratulations. I honestly have to say that I believe that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and I've been around a while now.

Just when you think they can't stoop any lower ...