Media Cry Foul When Democrats Talk About Race: The Truth About GOP's Racial Politics Apparently Terrifies Big Media

Some examples the New York Times offers of ads that "play on fears" with "racially
charged messages."

By Jim Naureckas
The New York Times (10/29/14) writes about the role of race in the 2014 midterm elections:

In the final days before the election, Democrats in the closest Senate races across the South are turning to racially charged messages…. The images and words they are using are striking for how overtly they play on fears of intimidation and repression…. That has led Republicans to accuse Democrats of turning to race-baiting in a desperate bid to win at the polls next Tuesday.

Republicans are accusing Democrats of race-baiting? It sounds like the Times' Jeremy Peters is making that accusation–isn't that what "race-baiting" means, to "play on fears" with "racially charged messages"?

But what exactly does the Times mean when it charges Democrats with race-baiting? Here's Exhibit A:

In North Carolina, the "super PAC" started by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, ran an ad on black radio that accused the Republican candidate, Thom Tillis, of leading an effort to pass the kind of gun law that "caused the shooting death of Trayvon Martin."

As speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Tillis got a "Stand Your Ground" law passed for the state.  These laws, which make it easier to claim self-defense after killing someone, are linked to rising state  homicide rates  (NPR, 1/2/13). And "Stand Your Ground" played a major role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman, Martin's killer–altering the judge's instructions to the jury in a way that at least one juror suggested made it impossible to convict (Mother Jones, 7/19/13).

But you're not allowed, apparently, to talk about this in the context of a political campaign–because that would "play on fears" with a "racially charged message."

Washington Post "factchecker" Glenn Kessler (10/29/14) gave the ad that evoked Martin's death "four Pinocchios"–and tried to explain why corporate media see such an ad as so reprehensible:

If an organization is going to argue that a particular law was the cause of a racially charged shooting death–leaving open the suggestion that the same sort of incident could take place in North Carolina–than it has a duty to explain its reasoning. Otherwise, voters have every right to think the worst about Senate Majority PAC's purpose in making such accusations on radio stations that have large African-American audiences.

As "Stand Your Ground" laws do seem to increase shooting deaths, it's likely a matter of time before one that is "racially charged" will happen in North Carolina (though the data so far suggests that the laws mainly increase the number of white men shooting each other). One might assume, because this is the way democracies are supposed to work, that the PAC's purpose in mentioning the law was to argue that a politician who supported bad public policy should not be elected to higher office. But Kessler encourages voters "to think the worst" of the PAC's purpose–which would be what, exactly? Encouraging blacks to vote by making reference to issues that make them angry?

The headline over the New York Times article was "In Democratic Election Ads in South, a Focus on Racial Scars." The word "scars" suggests wounds that have healed long ago; what's the point of focusing on them? The big question is, though: What if there are current issues that make real differences in the lives of people of color–issues that involve disenfranchisement, discrimination and state-sanctioned violence? How do political campaigns talk about these open wounds–without being told by corporate media that they're trying to "play on fears"?

Reprinted with permission from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.