This article is a small example of ways media attempts to perpetuate a political agenda based on race. How? It is done through the editorial comments that this voting rights law was in a southern state. The state was formerly a confederate state. The law was passed by Republicans and critics of the law asserted that the law intended to restrict the right of American citizens of black skin from voting. The assertion that the accusation by the critics of the law reflected the fact of the intention is further communicated by inclusion by the editor that the voiding of the law by the Federal court of the fourth circuit was based on that accusation. And the editors prejudice is cemented by communicating that the US Supreme court’s refusal to hear the case upheld the lower court’s decision that the law was intended as racial prejudice. However, in the body of the article it is reported that the former Republican administration passed the law. That the law was opposed by Democrats and the NAACP. The present Democrat governor of NC does not want to pursue the former Republican administration’s appeal but the State legislature thinks it has a right to continue the appeal. The end result? The US Supreme court in a two page statement said that the confusion within the State of NC as to which executive or legislative body has a legal right to pursue the appeal is enough to not hear the case.
Granted, some will claim that the US Supreme has reviewed the actual case and discussed it on the merits and decided not to hear the case because by doing so the US Supreme court accomplished two things: It lets the idea continue that the previous court’s judgement that the law was a racially motivated attempt by a former Confederate State to limit Americans of black skin from voting; Second, it allowed the court to keep out of the political argument. But is this truth or the interpretation of the editor? Did the court actually spend the time to review the fourth circuit court documents, testimony and legal arguments or did the court refuse the case because the legal standing of the parties involved was murky and such a case would take too much time on an already full court docket?
This author takes the position that the two page document is the whole affair and the court is not thereby ruling that the law passed by a former Republican legislature and signed by a former Republican governor is clear evidence of their continued Confederate leanings and of their intention to limit the rights of American citizens of black skin from voting. In others words, the editor’s innuendo that the NC Carolina people are racists is really evidence of the stereotypical prejudice and racial bias of the editor. And Yes, if the reporter and editor are both of white skin, it is very possible for white skinned people to be racially prejudice against other people of white skin.
Progressive Politics 