Skip to main content

On Thursday, I reported the sudden and bizarre absence of VRA stories in major media websites little more than a day and a half after the story broke: Media Burying Voting Rights KKKourt Ruling with DOMA Bait-and-Switch; Change.org Petition Updates.  Some folks thought it was just a normal product of new stories of equal significance coming to the fore, such as the DOMA ruling, and suggested I wait until Sunday to judge how much coverage it was getting.  Well, surprise surprise, the media websites I examined on Thursday are still burying the hell out of it while endlessly expounding on other stories of equal or lesser significance.

Numbers reflect total number of links to the stated content, including redundant links under multiple categories, with items listed in descending order of number:

CBS News:
Gay marriage: 10
NSA/Snowden: 5
Zimmerman trial: 2
TX abortion battle/ Wendy Davis: 2
VRA: 1

NBC News:
Immigration: 7
Gay marriage: 7
NSA/Snowden: 7
VRA: 1

New York Times:
Gay marriage: 8
NSA/Snowden: 4
VRA: 2

Washington Post:
NSA/Snowden: 11
Gay marriage: 6
Immigration: 5
VRA: 2

CNN:
NSA/Snowden: 5
Gay marriage: 3
Hernandez: 3
Zimmerman: 3
VRA: 0

Los Angeles Times:
Gay marriage: 9
NSA/Snowden: 1 (Top headline)
VRA: 1 (A cartoon)

Yeah, they're really reporting the shit out of VRA this Sunday, eh?  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:12:44 PM PDT

  •  The press sees itself as the 'fourth estate' -- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Magnifico

    i.e. a locus of power and influence. The people taking the reins of government is not a welcome development for them, either. Journalists are in the business of telling people what to think; not taking direction from the populace.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:20:31 PM PDT

  •  Race (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Meteor Blades, mookins

    Not TV news, but on public radio race was the lead story yesterday on NPR's All Things Considered, Legalese Aside, How Do We Talk About Race Nowadays?. They covered the dismantling of the VRA and here is some of what their interviewees had to say:

    LYDEN: We've been discussing this week the ruling at the Supreme Court in which Chief Justice John Roberts said: We are different as a society. It sounds to me like you're saying we are different as a society, but that doesn't mean that we do not hold racial disparities as attitudes still.

    GOFF: Yeah. And so he got it right that we are different, but just because we are different doesn't mean that we are better. We see prejudice genuinely declining, because it is. And we see inequality being persistent or even increasing. And what do you do with that because we used to think forever that the root of all inequality was prejudice. And it turns out we were wrong, and we haven't yet begun to talk about, well, how do you get inequality even in the absence of prejudice sometimes?

    And as a result, he's looking around at the prejudice and says: I don't see very much of it. Therefore, we must be different in a way that allows us to be able to expire. Except that is on its face a kind of ridiculous logic because the Voting Rights Act was used how many times in just the last election cycle? So if we don't have a problem with inequality, if we don't have a problem with unfairness of treatment, why are we still using those same outdated laws?

    We see prejudice declining and inequality persistent are going up. And because we, as a nation, have had a hard time looking at that honestly, now it's almost like we can't look at it at all.

    LYDEN: Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff of UCLA. And in response to his question, the Department of Justice used the Voting Rights Act 14 times in 2011 and 2012 to block discriminatory voting practices.

    Civil rights scholar Dorothy Roberts at the University of Pennsylvania had similar thoughts about the chief justice's opinion.

    DOROTHY ROBERTS: It reflects a color-blind constitution that sees civil rights amendments as requiring the government to ignore race and the court to only protect against blatant racial classifications of the kind that existed in the Jim Crow era.

    LYDEN: The Supreme Court may be the most high-profile example, but she says that's a trend across all courts. It's harder these days, she says, to bring and win a case based on racial disparity.

    ROBERTS: For example, voter ID laws that appear to be race neutral, but we know they have a disproportionate effect on preventing voting by minorities. So those kinds of more subtle forms of discrimination that still have a very powerful effect to disempower and to prevent full participation continue to exist, but the court doesn't see that. And so in order to win, it's more and more important that plaintiffs be able to show the kind of smoking-gun statements about racism.

    LYDEN: Much of civil rights law has come about through litigation. Brown versus the Board of Education, Plessy versus Ferguson. In the context of these recent rulings, is litigation still a way forward?

    ROBERTS: I would say litigation is still important. However, with this recent set of Supreme Court decisions, the court is now actively dismantling or weakening laws, policies and programs that have been put in place to address racist practices and protect against future discrimination. Therefore, with the U.S. Supreme Court no longer a champion, there is a need to use a variety of other strategies like legislative strategies, institutional policies like the University of Texas' affirmative action policy. And also, let's never forget that the civil rights movement was a movement of people struggling to overturn an unjust system. And so protest by ordinary people is still important.

    •  My response to the ruling's rationale (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, mookins

      would be a lot harsher because the fact is they're just saying any old shit to rationalize disenfranchising minorities so the GOP can win elections.  "Racism?  What racism?  We have a black President thanks to VRA, so let's dismantle it and make sure that never happens again!"

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:28:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your claims re: the NYT, are absurdly inaccurate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, richardak, Victor Ward

    I can't speak about the other outlets, however.

    First of all...NYT Had A Top of Website Editorial By 2PM Tues...which ran in the paper the following day:

    An Assault on the Voting Rights Act
    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
    NY Times
    Published: June 25, 2013

    The conservative majority on the Roberts Court issued another damaging and intellectually dishonest ruling today. It eviscerated enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, in which Congress kept the Constitution’s promise of a vote for every citizen. But it did not rule on the constitutional validity of the idea that some places have such strong records of discrimination that they must seek federal approval before they may change their voting rules. Instead, the 5-4 ruling usurped Congress’s power and struck down the formula that Congress has repeatedly reauthorized to determine which states fall into that category.

    The court invited Congress to rewrite the formula, which has a profoundly disingenuous ring. It’s not the court’s job to legislate, but the justices know full well that Congress, which refused to expand the coverage formula in 2006, is extremely unlikely to take up the offer now. And so the preclearance rule lies dormant.

    The Justice Department is still free to sue jurisdictions over their voting policies after the fact, and should, as often as necessary, because such lawsuits will become an even more important tool to ensure justice. But that is not a long-term substitute for the preclearance rule. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her impassioned dissent, such suits have proven to be a less effective tool against politicians determined to find ways block access to the polls. The jurisdictions covered by the preclearance rule are for the most part firmly in that category.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, was right when he said that the formula used to determine the jurisdictions that are covered was written long ago — but if anything, the formula is too narrow. Chief Justice Roberts was entirely wrong when he wrote that the states can no longer “be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics...”

    And, here's just the first page on Google search returns from NY Times (there's significantly more, too) from the past five days, alone...so, based upon your claims, at least from this publication, I'd say you should, at the very least, doublecheck your claims...
    News for nytimes.com "voting rights act"

    The Future of Voting Rights
     New York Times ‎- 1 day ago
    When five justices of the Supreme Court disabled the Voting Rights Act last Tuesday, they left it to Congress to ... Meet The New York Times's Editorial Board » ...

    Developing Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights
    New York Times‎ - 5 days ago

    Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act - NYTimes ...
    www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted...
    5 days ago – The Supreme Court split along ideological lines with its ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting the states, mostly in the South, ...

    An Assault on the Voting Rights Act - NYTimes.com
    www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/...an-assault-on-the-voting-rights-act.html
    5 days ago – The Supreme Court kills a vital enforcement section, punting it back to a paralyzed Congress.

    A Guide to the Supreme Court Decision on the Voting Rights Act ...
    www.nytimes.com
    ...annotated-supreme-court-decision-on-voting-rights-a...
    5 days ago – Analysis of notable passages from the justices' opinions.

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...
    www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?src=mb
    5 days ago – The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and since updated by Congress, holding that ...

    Geography, Not Voting Rights Act, Accounts for Most Majority ...
    fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com
    ...majority-minority-districts-are-prod...‎
    5 days ago – There has been a lot of speculation about how the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act might affect the partisan composition of Congress, but ...

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...
    www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?emc=rss
    5 days ago – The Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, effectively ending the practice in which some states must receive ...

    Live Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision on the Voting Rights Act
    projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court
    5 days ago – The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act. Times reporters and editors provided analysis of the decision and its ...

    A Furor Over the Decision on Voting Rights - NYTimes.com
    www.nytimes.com/2013
    ...a-furor-over-the-decision-on-voting-rights.html
    4 days ago – Re “Justices Void Oversight of States, Issue at Heart of Voting Rights Act” (front page, ... The ruling against Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, though cloaked in ...

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act - The Caucus ...
    thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
    .../a-guide-to-the-timess-supreme-court-cover...
    5 days ago – Live Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision on the Voting Rights Act.

    And, again, there's more....this is just the FIRST PAGE of search returns...

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:58:38 PM PDT

  •  Well, not just on the main media (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    Watch as one Voting Rights diary after another gets buried on DKOS.

    The VRA case was huge news.  But a well-written VRA diary appears and it gets ten recommendations.  

    Something is out of whack

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:30:43 PM PDT

    •  Seriously out of whack. (0+ / 0-)

      On my more serious, detailed efforts I've watched Recs disappear and seen the system say there are comments when nothing shows up.  

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 09:52:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have wondered whether sock puppets are at work (0+ / 0-)

        As it seems there is little rhyme or reason to diaries that get promoted.  Very well done diaries get submerged beneath crazed rants that get ten times the recommendations within minutes of posting.

        "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

        by FDRDemocrat on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:43:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  For me, this was the most .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, OIL GUY

    ... cynical and disgusting story coming out of the 2012 general election. There's no doubt in my mind that major media outlets ignored it compared to its relative "value" as a news story. When it was brought up, the generic smirking Republican would say something along the lines of, "We need to ensure the integrity of the vote," even after that had been proven, conclusively, not to be an issue.

    Even after the proof came out, none of the election laws were repealed, the Tea Party officeholders still fought the cases in court, and only one Republican in the entire country called "shame" on the whole practice.

    So, the media gave up and gave in to one of the most diabolical voting plans in modern times. Glad you're not giving up, Troubadour! I can believe that those same media outlets are ignoring the same issue again, and I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. I've noticed a lack of hard reports on this issue at yahoo.com as well, although the competition there for the front page is stiffer, as they like to include multiple stories about the Kardashians every day.  

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 09:19:17 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site