Is the media really ignoring Sessions’ past?
Media Matters claims papers aren't keeping their readers informed, but their own research seems to contradict them
Topics: War Room, Jeff Sessions, Politics News
Media Matters, a liberal press watchdog, believes major newspapers are “disappear[ing]” the history of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. The senator is currently leading his fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee during the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but a little more than 20 years ago, the same committee rejected his nomination to become a district court judge over allegations that he had a history of racist statements.
The problem? In an e-mail announcing the group’s report, its press secretary, Jessica Levin, included some of her own notes, which cast doubt on its accuracy. From the e-mail:
I wanted to make sure you had seen Media Matters’ latest research on the media ignoring allegations that surfaced during Sen. Jeff Sessions’ 1986 nomination to the U.S. district court. As reported by the Associated Press, Sessions’ “nomination originally drew fire from civil rights groups because of his [1985] prosecution … of three west Alabama civil rights activists on vote fraud charges. The three were acquitted by a federal court jury, prompting civil rights leaders to charge that the prosecution was an attempt to intimidate black voters.” Doesn’t the fact that we quote the AP undermine the idea that the media is ignoring the story? Could we say, “research on much of the media ignoring…”
(Emphasis mine.)
After Salon obtained the e-mail, and contacted Levin for comment, the group sent out a revised version without her editorial comments. But the question of whether the media’s really “disappear[ed]” Sessions’ history remains. So does, unfortunately, a common practice among media critics of complaining that the press is ignoring a story — and then quoting mainstream coverage of that story in order to prove their point.
In this case, Media Matters focused on five newspapers — the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal — and noted that in their July 14 coverage of Sessions’ opening statement at the Sotomayor hearings, none mentioned his past.
That’s true — but it’s not true that those papers have ignored Sessions’ own history in front of the committee, or failed to inform their readers about it. In fact, according to a search of Lexis-Nexis, four out of the five had previously covered the issue in some detail; two of those published profiles of him that focused on the episode. The only paper not to mention it, according to a search of its Web site, was the Journal.
Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon. More Alex Koppelman.




Tensions Brew Inside White House Over Counsel's Role
House May Launch Hearings Over Justice Department Media Spying Scandal
Is This The Face Of A New Global Human Rights Movement?
Anthony Weiner's First Campaign Began With An Apology For "Race-Baiting"
The Time Lois Lerner Failed To Investigate A Major Al Gore Fundraiser At The FEC
Comments
23 Comments