Seems like if they employed a few non-white folks in positions of power, they would be able to explain that whether or not identity is in the spotlight is, unfortunately, not up to the non-white person whose identity in question.
Does the headline writer even understand the analogy they're employing? I often think that much of the problem with the current crop of folks in journalism is that they're not well read.
The headline was click bait but the article was actually quite good. Its point was Harris does not want (or need) to define or clarify her identity. I thought it was quite refreshing and admirable on her part. But the headline was extremely misleading
I've figured it out: Politico is employing these social media people as a philanthropic gesture, these dumb assholes as too stupid to survive otherwise.
The question wasn't about her identity, the question was about Trump questioning her identity. She had responded to that. She referenced Trump using "the same old play book," and everyone knows what playbook that is. Then the interviewer wanted her to say more and she declined.
What does it mean to "sidestep the spotlight"? Is that some expression I'm unaware of?
It's important that they didn't say she sidestepped the question.
And it's true that she doesn't particularly want her racial identity to hog the spotlight.
Shouldn't we be expecting the worst from the media at this point? Will it really be a surprise when it keeps propping him up after he uses the forbidden n-word?
It's not even accurate to what she did. Her response was just a less rude way of telling the interviewer to fuck off with their racist slander disguised with a question mark.
It's not great wording, but it gets at something important. Harris is acting like a Democratic nominee for President. Not a Black nominee or a woman nominee or a South Asian nominee. She's campaigning as if she belongs there and owes no explanations.
No it isn't better. She didn't "sidestep the spotlight" about her "racial identity", she refused to engage with Donald Trump's racist lies when offered the opportunity.
She just had a goddamned nationally televised convention a lot of which was spent introducing her biography and her family!
I don't think so? I think it has exactly the same problem, it describes the exchange as Harris being evasive about a live issue, when it was Harris very politely telling the interviewer to fuck off with a non-issue.
Maybe it makes the same mistake in less offensive terms. Not a big improvement.
One says she's "evading questions" and the other says she's "sidestepping the spotlight." I don't see how you can possibly think the former doesn't sound worse.
One says she's avoiding legitimate questions, the other says she's trying to put the focus on other things. The latter still isn't good, but it's clearly less bad and less thumb on the scale than the former.
Both headlines put the burden on Harris
As if Trump had a legitimate point
Dana Bash can ask whatever she wants
I think she wasted precious time with frivolous questions
Politico is worse because both heds judged Harris negatively
Thus rewarding Trump’s juvenile racism
I think it's essentially the same. It also casts Harris as avoiding (negative). Evading and sidestepping--both cast her as *not addressing* the issue. More accurate to say she refuses to dignify it with a response.
They could’ve just used the first sentence of the article. Evades and sidesteps aren’t anywhere in the piece. And yeah I cringed so much when Bash asked this nonsense.
Comments
Politico is owned by Axel Springer SE which publishes right-leaning (Welt) and yellow press papers (Bild) over here.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/politico-owner-pray-for-trump-mathias-dopfner-axel-springer-1234587243/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg_Kravis_Roberts#Fossil_industry_investments_and_lobbying
"Same old playbook"
"Next question"
Just because they didn't like her answer doesn't mean she sidestepped it
There's little more to say
It’s gross
...and that change will be.... well maybe not *worse* but most certainly not *better*"
It's important that they didn't say she sidestepped the question.
And it's true that she doesn't particularly want her racial identity to hog the spotlight.
I prefer "Harris declines be baited when media hack tries to insist she respond to her opponent's racist comment about her."
As well as being true, it's pretty smart.
She just had a goddamned nationally televised convention a lot of which was spent introducing her biography and her family!
Maybe it makes the same mistake in less offensive terms. Not a big improvement.
Both headlines put the burden on Harris
As if Trump had a legitimate point
Dana Bash can ask whatever she wants
I think she wasted precious time with frivolous questions
Politico is worse because both heds judged Harris negatively
Thus rewarding Trump’s juvenile racism
We’ll never know thanks to obtuse verbiage