During his online "Critiquing the Media" chat on Monday, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz agreed with criticism that today's story on immigrant "victims" of mortgage lenders didn't seem to assume that borrowers are in any way responsible for failing to make their mortgage payments. He even agreed with the online questioner's suggestion there was "subtle racism" in the tone of the story:
Northern Virginia: Howard, question regarding the headline and terminology used in today's Post story on foreclosures. In both the current washingtonpost.com headline and the lede the term "victim" is used. The word implies predation and an I see an implication that these people aren't smart enough to understand what they're signing when they apply for mortgages. Am I reading too much into this or is there a subtle racism to writing about immigrant "victims"?
Howard Kurtz: I couldn't agree more. I think it was a mistake to describe immigrants who are having their homes foreclosed upon as "victims" when there's no suggestion in the article that they were defrauded. We can have sympathy for them, sure, as we would for anyone losing his or her house. But don't they bear some responsibility for taking out high-interest loans for houses they could not really afford?
Just so people wouldn't think that Kurtz was lining up with Tom Tancredo or something, Kurtz also agreed with a questioner who was bothered by Fox News describing a guest as a "Democrat strategist" without the crucial tic at the end:
Fox News: Dear Howard: I love your chats -- enough so to skip my usual lunchtime gym workout!
Speaking of which, last week at the gym someone had on Fox News. They were asking Dem and Rep strategists about Gonzales. When introducing the Dem strategist, the anchorman gave his name and then described him as a "Democrat strategist." Putting aside why the strategist didn't object, my question is how can Fox be "fair and balanced" if it refers to the Democratic party by a perjorative only otherwise used by some conservative Republicans? Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Don't get flabby on my account! I didn't see the segment and don't know who said it, but the "Democrat" formulation really bugs me. Bush recently said he wasn't aware that he uses it and wasn't trying to needle the other party.
In the Monday political chat, Post reporter Dan Balz seemed a bit supportive of the Clintons, insisting that Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals aren't really "government-managed" solutions, as the questioner suggested:
Alxandria, Va.: Dan, Hillary Clinton said on ABC this morning that she's very eager to get the country back on the path to government-managed universal health care. Is it me, or when she talks about this, doesn't she sound like she's selling something that's not a lot different than the last time, the "fiasco"? Is it all about "same message, different tactics"?
Dan Balz: I've heard Sen. Clinton talk about health care a lot over the past few months, including Saturday in Las Vegas. I've not heard her make a case for a "government-managed" health care system. She and others say they want to see universal coverage, but she has talked about various ways to get there. One obviously is to piggyback on the Medicare system and expand it to cover all Americans, but Clinton has been careful to say that is something that could happen only if there is clear political support for it. Other options include employer mandates -- requiring all businesses either to provide insurance or pay into a pool to help subsidize the purchase of insurance by individuals -- or individual mandates -- requiring all individuals to buy or have insurance. She is quite focused on developing political consensus on this issue, in large part because of what happened to her and her husband in 1993-94.
And then there was this question on Gonzales vs. Janet Reno:
Haymarket, Va.: Do Democrats truly believe that Janet Reno was a more independent Attorney General than Gonzales? Her utter failure to name an independent counsel in the illegal-money-from-China case certainly looks like she knuckled under to White House pressure. And nobody in the media demanded her resignation after incidents like Waco, did they?
Dan Balz: Remember, however, there was an independent counsel in the Whitewater case, which ultimately led to impeachment because of Monica Lewinsky. President Bush is far closer to Alberto Gonzales than President Clinton was to Janet Reno.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
While certainly having no lov
March 26, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Darth DutchWhile certainly having no love in my heart for the sub-prime mortgage companies, it seems they are in a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation. They lend money to those with lower incomes or sub-par credit, then they run the risk of having those people foreclose on the property, and then are subjected to cries of "subtle racism", which is what is happening here. However, if they don't lend to these people, they would probably be accused of racism that is not so subtle.
It just proves the point that anyone can find racism in nearly absolutely anything if they look hard enough.
Dutch
True enough, but I think the
March 27, 2007 - 08:13 ET by Wineguy13True enough, but I think the 'subtle racism' comment was in reference to the 'victim' label being applied to these immigrants. This is similar to the racism charge leveled at those who support racial quotas on the basis that to support them is to assume the beneficiaries are not capable of helping themselves.
Subtle
March 26, 2007 - 14:00 ET by iveseenitallWhat the hell is "subtle racism" anyway? And this crap about "tic". It seems the liberals have nothing better to do with their time than to make things up just so they can complain about them. P.C. and Liberalism are assinine. So is Howard K.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
From the WaPo story: Many of
March 26, 2007 - 14:06 ET by ding7777From the WaPo story:
Howie says:
WaPo says:
Howie says:
Yesiree ding7777
March 26, 2007 - 14:16 ET by SportPoliticsYesirree there dingbat , people with foreign tongues have no idea what prices are, and by golly they can't watch the hispanic channel, or talk to one of the hundreds of thousands of their spic speaking compardes here. No doubt the salesperson speaks spanish as well, you dingbat. Yeah I've been in foreign nations for years building up enough to buy a home, and even then I have no idea that prices go up or, they go down, because it's only been blasted on the news for 6 months everysix months, with the hispanic TV textchip running 24/7365....CC3 moron.
Ignorance may always be your excuse, but to claim a whole race of people are incompetent illiterate fools is even below you, isn't it ?
Oh, since they can't handle the USA - because they've refused to learn the language, they had better get their loser butts back where they came from, before everything they slaved for is gone and then some. Right lib ? Ain't that right there you little whiner.
You libs are pathetic.
ignorance
March 26, 2007 - 14:43 ET by iveseenitallLet's buy this argument for a second. These poor "ignorant" people are being taken advantage of by others who should know better. Why that's exactly what's happening in high schools and colleges across the country every day of the week.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I aggree with all of what you
March 27, 2007 - 15:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI aggree with all of what you said and would like to add that when one goes to buy a house, they use an agent (or make the decision to not use an agent), they work with the loan officer, and they have the right to bring an attorney (at their own expense) into the proceedings if they so choose. I cannot honestly view anyone that has purchased a house or land as a "victim"...there are just too many people involved in the process and too many decisions the buyer makes (with an entitlement to full explanation prior to the decision) to become a victim of an "evil" sub-prime company or market.
Plus, the whole "victim" implies predation notion is ridiculous...are natural disasters predators?...they have thousands of victims every year. Were "victims" of past stock market crashes the prey of the markets? One can be a "victim" without any "predation" whatsoever.
I loathe the culture of victimization...it is just another ploy to shrug off personal responsibility and accountability.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
This independentic soul thinks..
March 26, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Gary HallThis independentic soul thinks.. that if the mortgage lenders were to tighten up the financial qualifying requirements for the folks that just happen to make up this story, that the lenders would be the ones getting labled by the media as racist.
On the subject of "Dem
March 26, 2007 - 16:36 ET by motherbeltOn the subject of "Democrat" party vs. "Democratic" Here's my take in a nutshell:
Republican Party = Party of Republicans
Democrat Party = Party of Democrats
What on earth is wrong with that?????
Or should we start referring to the "Republicanic Party"??
Liberals
March 26, 2007 - 17:21 ET by iveseenitallDon't give it any credence, Motherbelt. Liberals just make this stuff up. It's P.C. ignorance. No one should be concerned about it. It's all b.s. Liberals are disingenuous hypocrites who do this just to get under your skin. They don't even believe what they say themselves. Remember the "feminists" who supported Clinton, even though they were so against sexual harassment? That's it in a nutshell.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Victim?
March 26, 2007 - 16:38 ET by nkviking75Questioner: Am I reading too much into this or is there a subtle racism to writing about immigrant "victims"?
Since "victim" is a word that connotes sympathy, how is it racist?
I think the questioner mig
March 26, 2007 - 16:50 ET by motherbeltI think the questioner might be charging the WaPo with racism for pointing out that many of the defaulters are immigrants (implying that they are ignorant foreigners.)
This Democrat/Democratic bu
March 26, 2007 - 19:52 ET by Christopher FotosThis Democrat/Democratic business is so ridiculous. I've been a news and political junkie since high school, and it's only recently that I became aware there was some supposed insult in saying "Democrat." (or did I get that backwards--see?). I swear at this point some folks are intentionally getting it wrong because this is such nitpicking.
Christopher Fotos/
PostWatch
Condescending would be closer
March 26, 2007 - 21:30 ET by botgCondescending would be closer to reality in this story. The liberal thought is to save the world. WHY? Because they're better and smarter than everyone else.
Look at the reaction to private retirement plans as part of SSI (can't do that--- people are too stupid, we must protect them from themselves)
Look at the reaction to Indian tribes voting that they endorse school mascots named after them (can't do that it demeans them)
Look at support for affirmative action (they need our help)
Institutional Enablers, the whole sorry lot
This non-story is another so-
March 27, 2007 - 08:25 ET by Right Wing Attack DogThis non-story is another so-called news article to help welcome illegals into our country without them being required to go through the legal steps to become citizens. Billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted every year for the health and education of these criminals and thugs that walk into our country like it's their personal birthright. It's past time that they should be rounded up and thrown out with a warning in what ever their native language that should they try to return they will be shot, dead. I'm past tired of being forced to kiss their ass by the federal government and having money stolen from me to benefit aliens that should not even be here.