Spinning and smearing: The New York Times and the right-wing assault on Sonia Sotomayor

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Liberal media? Yeah, right. Those of us who actually are liberals know just what a joke that is. Here's another example of a major supposedly "liberal" media outlet regurgitating right-wing spin and enabling the Republican Smear Machine:

It's The New York Times on Sonia Sotomayor.

Friday: "Sotomayor's Focus on Race Issues May Be Hurdle," by David D. Kirkpatrick.

-- The article claims, without substantiation, that Sotomayor has "championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career." The first person quoted is Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas. The second person quoted is another conservative, Gary Marx. For "balance," the article goes back to the '90s and quotes Lani Guanier, a controversial Clinton nominee back then (she withdrew) and a woman whose credibility was shattered by the Republican Smear Machine. And she is brought out to defend Sotomayor? (It's not that she can't defend Sotomayor, or that she isn't qualified, it's that her very presence in this article is loaded.)

-- The article is also grossly misleading. Sotomayor has talked extensively about her experiences, and about her identity as an Hispanic woman, but she isn't all about affirmative action and racial quotas, as the article suggests. If her nomination has brought "affirmative action and other race-conscious remedies for patterns of inequality" back into the news, it isn't because she has done so but because her opponents on the right are smearing her as an affirmative action case who has only been successful throughout her career because of her sex and race. (Her opponents are also claiming that she's just plain stupid, and hence thoroughly unqualified for the job. Who are the racists here?) And yet, as a recent study by SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein suggests, Sotomayor has not used her time on the bench to advance judicial remedies for discrimination. Goldstein concludes: "[I]t seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking." And so what if she once said that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." How is that not true? How is that not true even for white male judges? (The implication is that white male judges are somehow immune from relying on their own experiences, that they, and only they, are able to transcend who they are and judge from a position of perfect neutrality. This, of course, is incredibly stupid.)

Saturday: "Court Choice Brings Issue of 'Identity' Back Out," by Peter Baker.

-- The article claims, also without substantiation, that "identity politics is back with a vengeance." To the extent that it is, it is Sotomayor's opponents who are responsible, not Sotomayor -- and certainly not Obama, though the article opening paragraphs suggest that he is to blame for failing to "usher in a new post-racial age," which, apparently, he was supposed to do (a gross oversimplification -- Obama spoke maturely and responsibly about race during the campaign, but it's not like he promised that he could overcome and heal America's racial divides, or that that was even possible without enormous individual and societal effort). (Obama is essentially faulted for opting for a "selection process [that] was geared from the beginning toward finding a female or minority candidate, or both." Apparently, he should have loaded up with white men. Apparently, any non-male, non-white nominee would have met with similar criticism.)

-- Once again, the article provides a platform for, and gives prominence to, Sotomayor's opponents. The first person quoted is Abigail Thernstrom, "a leading conservative scholar on race relations," who blames Obama for not "pick[ing] a post-racial candidate." What does that even mean? Are Roberts and Alito post-racial judges? If so, how? Because they're white men who espouse the right's preferred judicial fundamentalism? (The fact is, the right would have been critical of any Obama nominee. It's just ridiculous that some of them are now pushing the mirage of post-racialism and using it to bash Obama. Do they really believe in post-racialism? No. They say that they support perfect non-discrimination, but what they really promote is the interests of the privileged white male.

-- Yes, the article quotes Obama advisor David Axelrod, but what he offers is a generic line about what Obama means for America. The article goes on to quote yet another conservative, William Burck, deputy counsel under George W. Bush, before highlighting, as the other article does, Sotomayor's taken-out-of-context line about how her experiences, anyone's experiences, matter. Long before then, though, the thrust of the article is crystal clear.

These two articles aren't explicitly pro- or anti-Sotomayor (and their authors, as well as the newspaper itself, may claim they're both balanced), but, in granting primacy and prominence to her opponents, as well as to some of the key lines of attack from the smear campaign against her, they essentially, inadvertently or not, take a firm position against her. (An editorial position on her nomination is expected, but news coverage should be unbiased, and not tilted against Sotomayor, even as overcompensation.)

The New York Times should be ashamed of itself.