I've talked to many, many readers this week about continuing fallout from claims that members of "tea party" protests shouted racial slurs at members of the Congressional Black Caucus and one spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver on March 20.
The Web and the talk shows are awash with reports that the word "nigger" wasn't recorded by people with video cameras. Some have also disputed that Cleaver was spat on, though a video shows pretty clearly to me that he reacted that way contemporaneously. Was it simply spittle from the man yelling in his face, rather than a single intentional spit? You can't tell from the video -- but if someone was yelling at me so forcefully that he also spit on me, I'm not sure I'd make much differentiation there.
As I wrote earlier in the week, the initial report in The Star March 21 should have attributed the claims to the people who made them, instead of simply reporting them as fact.
On the other hand, I'm not terribly swayed by videos whose soundtrack doesn't pick up the slurs that Cleaver and others report hearing. One microphone at one location in a large crowd can't hear everything -- and you can't prove a negative in the first place. Not hearing something doesn't mean it didn't happen somewhere out of microphone range. Again, attribution of the allegations would have made a lot of these questions go away.
Readers are mostly objecting to the large amount of commentary that the incident has spurred. Most of it in The Star has accepted the reports on face value. Again, here is where I think the initial reporting was flawed by being too declamatory.
To be clear: I'm neither affirming nor denying claims by Cleaver, Rep. John Lewis or the protesters. I have recommended that the news side re-examine the issue, preferably with comment from the people involved.
I'll also note comments from readers who've told me they think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
Not that you should be overly concerned.....
......But in viewing Newsbusters tonight (link enclosed) I found an interesting post suggesting that you should follow through on this issue.
Yael posted a rather snarky and presumptuous conclusion that there was no doubt that racial epithets were hurled and that Cleaver was spat upon (rather than the victim of accidental spittle).
His conclusive piece of evidence was a supposed statement by NC Rep Heath Shuler (D), who he quoted and then closed his piece with "case closed" and then refused to post a rebuttal as has become his norm of late on midwest voices.
Since Shuler states quite clearly that he neither saw nor heard anything remotely close to Yael's rant it would seem that YT was (again) forwarding a narrative of choice as factual.
Is Mr Abouhalkah responsible for the "facts" that he forwards....or does the editorial board have any say? His name calling seems to be getting more and more frequent as he battles his despised tea party growth.
I would also like to know who decides if a response gets posted on the MV blog and why it takes up to 6 or 7 hours for submitted posts to appear? A year ago MV was a "real" blog.....it now appears to be YT's playground, and a "faux blog," much as the notorious Earth Notes was for Wally Winch whom you guys wisely, though belatedly shut down.
Here is the NB link which references James Taranto's WSJ article. (I sent YT a copy of the direct WSJ link.) I felt you might be interested in Gladnick's post since he suggests that you have been "snoozing" on the issue.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/04/15/ap-admits-rep-heath-shuler-did-not-hear-tea-party-racial-slurs-after-w
Thanks for your attention
I have to say that I simply
I have to say that I simply don't think this is worth a lot more attention or investigation at this point. Cleaver was hit with spit, whether intentional or not. Again, I doubt many would make a distinction. If someone was screaming at your daughter so vigorously that she had to wipe her face, would you say that person wasn't spitting? Cleaver has also apologized for painting his opponents with too broad a brush: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/8560 (Sorry, but as an anti-spam measure, there are no more hyperlinks in comments.)
The Washington Post's Andrew Alexander points out there's a clear recording of a protester calling Barney Frank a "faggot." And as for the other slur, The Hill's Roxana Tiron tells a story that hasn't been heard much about Reps. André Carson and John Lewis' account.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040903716.html
I myself have deleted creative spellings of "nigger" from comments on KansasCity.com and its blogs on stories about Cleaver, Lewis and President Obama. That these slurs are sometimes used during this "debate" is not debatable.
Both sides are making way too much of this particular incident. The initial news story should have attributed the claims -- then most of this argument would have been moot.
Time to move on.
Derek?
I think you are approaching this pretty fairly, with one exception. Intent has to play a role somewhere. Sure, the guy was yelling at close range. Don't a lot of protesters on both sides? But if it was accidental, then it wasn't intentional, which is worlds apart from someone spitting on another person.
Cleaver himself used the odd description of having "caused saliva to hit" his face. That description raises a huge red flag for me. And then when he went quiet and wouldn't comment further, it kept those flag up there.
Fair enough. Still, to my
Fair enough. Still, to my mind, if someone was screaming at me with such abandon that his spit got on me, I think I'd still term that "spitting." In the video, you clearly see Rep. Cleaver recoil, and then wipe something from his face. I can respect other points of view on it -- but I think everyone should try to put themselves in the other side's shoes in matters such as this.
Some rules apply to both the news side and the editorial side.
“As I wrote earlier in the week, the initial report in The Star Dec. 21 should have attributed the claims to the people who made them, instead of simply reporting them as fact.” And as I wrote earlier this week in response, the Star editorial on this topic also should have attributed the claims to the people who made them, rather than stating the claims as if they were certainties. Neither the news side nor the editorial side has the right to state “facts” which have not been substantiated. (I believe the correct date was actually Mar. 21.)
I won't disagree.
I won't disagree.