October 14, 2006

Worthy of major news website headline

Dean chides law students over ‘ghetto’ party is a headline over at MSNBC.com. In the article:

A group of first-year law students at the University of Texas at Austin has been chided by the dean for participating in a “Ghetto Fabulous”-themed costume party and posting pictures from it online.

The party is the latest racially insensitive incident to emerge from the university, which has struggled for years to boost minority enrollment and make students of color feel welcome.

“Among the many ways to happily party in Austin, this particular one was singularly heedless and odious,” Dean Larry Sager said in an e-mail Friday to the law school’s student body.

Say whaaaat? College students -- acting silly? "Insensitive"? But the point to ponder is that MSNBC considered this worthy of a headline on their website, yet a search of that same site reveals not a single article about the debacle at Columbia University where representatives of the Minuteman Project were harassed off of the stage -- after being invited to speak -- by student radicals "representing" various [student] organizations. One of the Minutemen, Marvin Stewart, is black, and he stated some of these student protestors yelled the "N" word at him.

Now that's insensitive. But consider who was being "insensitive" in each of the noted cases. That's why one gets MSNBC coverage and one does not.

UPDATE: Boy this is even better. Check out the big headline at the top of MSNBC.com at approx. midday EDT:

"Political Pioneer"?? For what -- having the first known sex tryst with an underaged [same sex] page?

No, you know that's not what MSNBC really means, don'tcha? And even though it's mentioned in the article, it really "ain't that bad":

Studds was never ashamed of the relationship with the page.

“This young man knew what he was doing" (said Studds' partner) ... "he was at (Studds’) side.”

Think Mark Foley could get away with that in the press? Y'know, the same Mark Foley whose scandal is greatly assisting in the defeat of Republicans this Novermber?

Posted by Felix at October 14, 2006 01:59 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Think Mark Foley could get away with that in the press?

Well, if it weren't for the actual issue in the Foley case -- the cover-up and the hilarious fact that he was a House leader in cracking down on ... himself! -- you might have a point.


Posted by: dan at October 14, 2006 02:53 PM

Also:

* On your odd "pioneer" slam: If Rosa Parks had shoplifted from a convenience store later in her life, I think she'd still be a pioneer, wouldn't she? Or does a mistake negate one's pioneering acts? Or was what Stubbs did simply not pioneering in your eyes?

* Your criticism of MSNBC holds no water. It's a meaningless "work the refs" tactic -- attributing statements by others as bias by the outlet itself. To wit:

1) Stubbs and others said he never felt sorry about the page incident
2) MSNBC is biased to the left for printing that factual statement.

Looks ridiculous when you think about it, eh?
Because, Fee, if one chooses to read it from a different ideological viewpoint, one could easily -- easily -- take those few paragraphs as catering to the right-wing worldview---by pointing out yet again that Stubbs is a deviant who didn't even feel the least bit sorry about the horrific thing he'd done.

And finally:

(said Studds' partner)

afraid to print "husband," eh? Still in a bit of denial about that?

Posted by: dan at October 14, 2006 03:22 PM

Actually, Studds stayed closetted until he was caught -- only it was disclosed that he sodomized a 17-year-old did he wrap himself in the holy mantle of homosexuality and proclaim that it wasn't anyone's business. And the Democrat House leadership allowed him to stay in COngress, and supported him for reelection.

On the other hand, Foley sent creepy emails and talked dirty to a couple of pages and was forced out by the GOP, which has no tolerance for exploitation of pages/interns by powerful men with powerful sexual appetites.

And by the way, there was no "cover-up" in the Foley case. There was no evidence of ACTUAL misconduct until September 29, when the IMs surfaced. In the interim, Democrats had been shopping around the emails to press outlets that felt tehre was no story.

I guess that the Democrat position is that the only bad queer is a conservative queer.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at October 14, 2006 03:37 PM

Yeah. Let's go ahead and compare the two party's positions and credibility on the issue of homosexuality.

Posted by: dan at October 14, 2006 04:07 PM

afraid to print "husband," eh? Still in a bit of denial about that?

Geez, dan, laying it on a bit thick, eh? Like, would homosexuals actually get upset at Felix's use of "partner" since they themselves actually use the term "partner" as well?

When you refer to a someone of African descent, do you use "African-American" or "black"? Or, do you use them interchangably? If you said "black" would it be prudent for me to say "afraid to say 'African-American,' dan?" I saw that the original MSNBC article used "husband," but don't writers -- bloggers or otherwise -- always utilize synonymous terms in their articles?

Posted by: Hube at October 14, 2006 04:16 PM

Yes, I am laying it on a bit thick.

Posted by: dan at October 14, 2006 04:27 PM

And dan -- the Dems' big talking point now is "safeguarding the children" (the pages) from people like Foley (even though, like in the Studds case, the age of consent in DC is low enough so that neither Foley nor Studds could be tried for statutory rape ... oh, that's right -- Foley didn't engage in any actual sexual activity but Studds did!).

But, of course, the story was quite a bit different with Studds now, wasn't it?

(Don't get all huffy dan -- we both believe, at any rate, that what Foley did, and what his colleagues assisted in hiding, however slight, was wrong. And it's gonna cost the GOP.)

Posted by: Hube at October 14, 2006 04:27 PM

BTW, by "both" above I meant Felix and I, not you and I, dan. But you probably agree too, I'd wager.

Posted by: Hube at October 14, 2006 04:42 PM

I was too young to be paying attention, but wasn't the story "different" with Studds because it was a "let's call it a draw" situation? A Dem and a Republicken (see, I can botch the other party's name in a meaningless way that's supposed to be derogatory too, RWR!) caught around the same time? I thought it was an entirely different atmosphere for that reason, though I could be wrong.

the Dems' big talking point now is "safeguarding the children" (the pages) from people like Foley

Well, Foley's big talking point was safeguarding the children from people like Foley. So you can't really beat that in terms of hypocrisy. ;)

Posted by: dan at October 14, 2006 06:17 PM

Well, Foley's big talking point was safeguarding the children from people like Foley.

Yep. And that's a killer point.

Posted by: Hube at October 14, 2006 07:24 PM

In 1983, the GOP -- especially the up-and-coming Newt gingrich -- wanted Studds and Crane EXPELLED but were stopped by a Democrat leadership team that wouldn't hear of such a thing. And teh GOP gave crane NO support for reelection in 1984, while the Dems donated and actively campaigned for Studds.

In 2006, it was the GOP leadership that made Foley get out.

Because after all, creepy talk with a 16-year-old is so much more serious misconduct than sodomizing a 17-year-old.

Let's compare teh credibility of the two parties on the issue of sex with interns.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at October 14, 2006 08:07 PM