Saturday's Strib — the print version anyway — features bad editing by whoever handled the wire-service copy.
In an A6 story on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the GOP's right's racism allegations, the Strib reprints the judge's controversial quote this way:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."
Of course, that's not the whole quote, as the original Washington Post news service story indicates:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Emphasis mine.)
I know some people still find the longer version racist, and even President Obama was backing away from the utterance yesterday. But Sotomayor's defenders say the truncation makes it seem like she's downgrading all white males, rather than ones who have led more privileged or sheltered lives.
Regardless of who's right, this is the money quote of this debate — the very last thing that deserves to lose five words. And if you are going to prune it, at least include elipses (...) at the end.
What else did the Strib leave out?
A reference to racism allegations that dogged Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he was rejected for a federal judgeship in 1986. A part that notes "Republicans have lost ground badly with Hispanics over the past four years, in part because of rhetoric on immigration and other issues."
That's valuable context, but context is the first thing that goes when space is tight. Regrettable but defensible.
Also, three quotes were dropped or changed.
Excised was a comment from Curt Levey of the right-wing Committee for Justice, who argued Sotomayor was "picked because she's a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified." The final five words of ex-GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo's quote that the Hispanic group La Raza was "a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses" went missing, as was a passage from La Raza president Janet Murguia noting, "the optics don't look very good."
The Tancredo and Murguia trims were harmless, Levey's lost sentiment was a reasonable cut because it was more strongly expressed elsewhere.
But editors, please don't mess with main event if you reference Sotomayor's speech again.
More like this
- A diverse U.S. Supreme Court? Definitely, say two of the women who served on Minnesota's highest court
- I'm back and playing catchup on Sotomayor nomination
- Sotomayor hearing begins; Klobuchar calls judge's life an 'inspiring journey'
- Should Justices Ginsburg and Breyer retire now?
- Justice designee Sonia Sotomayor's Minnesota connection
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
33 comments
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
20 comments
-
19 comments
Comments (19)
I agree, don't truncate the quote. Use the ENTIRE section of the speech, which is here:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
I agree with Justice O'Connor. Wise people, regardless of gender, race, etc. should be able to objectively look at law and circumstances and reach the same conclusion.
Sotomayor may very well become our first post-modern justice who sees no absolute truth anywhere, who rules subjectively rather than objectively, and who puts experience based on gender, race, etc. ahead of the rule of law. That worries me.
By the way, I want to add that I don't think Sotomayor is a racist (she just made an arrogant and dumb comment that she probably regrets), but I can guarantee you that if Roberts or Alito had said the reverse, they would not be on the Supreme Court today.
The sloppy editing to which Mr. Brauer refers is typical of the deterioration of the Minneapolis daily newspaper. Anything you can think of is bad, and getting worse: Some, not all, writing; inept editing; dumb headlines; horrid retouching of photographs.
Right. Alito was merely a member of an organized group that tried to keep women and minorities out of Princeton.
Beyond even truncating the quote, what the MSM is leaving out of this whole discussion is that Sotomayor's comment was made as part of a discussion on judging **discrimination cases.**
Of course a woman or a minority group member is going to have a different experience in that area. Let's not forget that both Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor were discouraged from attending law school because they were women.
One of Ginsburg's professors at Columbia criticized her for taking up a slot that could have gone to a man.
After graduating from Stanford Law School, O'Connor didn't get a single job offer from a law firm -- although one did offer to hire her as a legal secretary.
Now try telling me that someone who has faced that kind of discrimination would not filter their judgment through a different lens than a white man who has advanced steadily through the ranks of our nation's most privileged institutions. Of course they would. And that's basically what's being argued about here.
If a white male made that comment, truncated or not, he would not only be out the Supreme Ct appointment, he would be off the appeals court, and many journalists would be calling for his disbarment.
Honest discussion on race. Please. If I make that statement, I LOSE MY JOB!
"But Sotomayor's defenders say the truncation makes it seem like she's downgrading all white males, rather than ones who have led more privileged or sheltered lives."
Oh *snap*!
Because. like, that makes her bigoted statement *so* much better.
Sheesh....give it up Dave. No, really.
Just started looking at this site, and it is obvious you blame the Strib for everything.
This is a widely distributed quote that even President Obama has commented on. He said she regrets using those choice of words.
While I don't agree with the coverage the Strib provides on every issue, I believe they try to be even handed. You, on the other hand, appear to want to blame the Strib on every issue.
This is why I hope newspapers survive. I would hate to have to depend on bloggers with agendas.
Hi "stan" -- welcome back --
Where did I write the Strib has an agenda in the above piece? No, really, where?
They made an unfortunate edit that affects a key quote in a big story. Whether Sotomayor's sentiment is or isn't wrong - a caveat noted in the story - good journalism says don't mess with it.
And sorry, yes, part of my job is writing are noting unfortunate omissions. That's what a media analyst does.
For highlights of what the papers (and others) do right, see Daily Gleans every weekday. I'll be up tomorrow morning writing another one - not without criticism where appropriate, but also highlighting their best work.
The Star Trib has an ongoing problem with providing context for "sound bite" types of quotes. Although space may be limited, a newspaper is better positioned to print longer passages than television news can provide.
The Star Trib consistently fails to do this and instead just prints whatever the TeeVee talkers are using. This kind of behavior is why folks who want in-depth coverage of daily news events are now looking elsewhere for it.
Racist is as racist does. Or so my momma always told me.
The U.S. is a racist society, if we can agree that by racist we mean a race-focused society, one which recognizes the fact that certain advantages and disadvantages come along with the color of our skin. They also come with other physical and socio-economic charatericistics.
Was Sotomayor accurate when she said that two people of different skin colors, gender and experiences likely will see some things differently? Undoubtedly. Would her judgment be better? That may well depend on the question before them. From the context of the articles I've read, I can't say.
Was her statement impolitic? Absolutely. Will it derail her nomination? It shouldn't, but time will tell.
David:
I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the Strib's editors. You cite the complete sentence in question:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
First of all, the clause "who hasn't lived that life" is a redundancy. What white male HAS lived the life of a Latina? (Latina woman is a redundancy, too.)
You then write, "the truncation makes it seem like she's downgrading all white males, rather than the ones who have led more privileged or sheltered lives," implying that Latinas by nature live less privileged and less sheltered lives than white males.
I believe you're putting words in Ms. Sotomayor's mouth.
Michael: better than taking them out!
Let the reader decide, I say, as people obviously have different views on this one. It was too important a quote to mess with.
The Strib is deteriorating seriously, and has been for years. Here's one example: after the bill passed that would crack down (but only a little) on credit card companies, they published an AP story that listed 5 "probable" consequences, all of them negative. There were NO possible positive effects.
Now we have Katherine Kersten back.
I think that Sotomayer obviously misspoke. But if you look at her whole speech, what she is really saying is that a diversity of experience and views is important. That's why we have appellate decisions made by a group like the nine on the US Supreme Court rather than by a single appellate czar.
(Also, I believe there was a misprint in the original speech text. It was Justice Mary Jean Coyne (not Coyle) of Minnesota who made the original wise woman/wise man statement that was repeated by Justice O'Connor.)
All this "discussion" about whether Sotomayor's a racist or a reverse racist is just so much sand being thrown in the eyes of the public. It doesn't matter who Obama nominates; the republicans are gunning for them, no matter what triviality or inaccuracy they have to blow up to try to make an argument. Before he nominated anyone, they were digging up talking points and alleged reasons to disqualify her or anyone, chief among them being an "activist judge." Whatever that means.
"I think that Sotomayer obviously misspoke."
Yeah, except she was reading a prepared text....
"no matter what triviality or inaccuracy they have to blow up to try to make an argument."
Perhaps racism has become trivial in leftist circles, I dunno, but it seems that there are still considerable "pockets of resistance" to that notion out here.
What inaccuracy have "they" blown up?
The reaction of the left is like the old cartoon of a guy laying in bed with a young girl, innocently asking his irate wife, who is standing in the doorway, "what girl?".
If you have no defense, deny the very existence of the offense. Worked well enough on old episodes of "Friends".
Why do we need an explanation to tell us what Sotomayer really meant?
"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
Does that sound better? We're told that by "hasn't lived that life" Sotomayer meant a life of privilege. Fallon says that what he means is a life of justice. Either spin is equally prejudicial to the other person.
Racism is racism. Maybe Sotomayer is suitable for the Supreme Court. Let the record settle that but racism is racism. It is as evil to explain away racism with a nuance it as it is to express racism in the first place.
The inaccuracy in the use of that quote out of context. As John pointed out, she was speaking specifically about discrimination cases, yet this is never pointed out by commentators or even reporters using the quote, even though leaving this vital context completely changes the meaning.
It seems the people looking to bash Sotomayor just don't want to acknowledge this. Even though the John pointed out the context, subsequent comments completely ignored it. Peter, Thomas, it seems you're just refusing to listen.
Since Eric Ferguson addressed me may I reply? Eric, please don't presume about me that I refuse to listen.