When the media does its job, it ensures that we have fewer instances when we look back and say, “What the heck happened?” Just take the case of New York Rep. George Santos. The media did not properly verify and vet his credentials until after he was elected to Congress. This was a “what-the-heck-happened” moment. Now his congressional district unfairly suffers a diminished presence in Congress as Santos defends himself in court against sweeping fraud charges.
How about another example of the media failing us?
It protected a man wearing a hoodie during most of his campaign for the Senate, following his stroke. With little media criticism they allowed Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman to participate in only a handful of debates and public appearances. The media refused to see that there was a problem here. Fetterman’s mental and physical health has been an issue even before he was sworn into the Senate. For a while he had spent more time in a hospital than on the Senate floor. While we pray for his full recovery, Pennsylvania’s presence in the Senate has suffered to a degree because of Fetterman’s absence.
Hopefully, what I saw this past weekend in the news is the start of a productive, informative, and aggressive media approach – and not an aberration.
CNN pointed out that the vast majority of the world is not backing U.S. sanctions against Russia due to the latter’s invasion of Ukraine last year. President Joe Biden’s foreign support for Russian sanctions is coincidently about the same as his job approval numbers at home – both are around a dismal 35%.
This was newsworthy and troubling because the Biden administration gave us a false impression that the world stood with us on sanctioning Russia. It explains why the sanctions have largely failed.
There are other questions the media has yet to ask about the war in Ukraine.
For example, the cost to America is also of concern. We need a quantifiable account of the dollars and military equipment that each NATO country and other allies have provided to Ukraine to date (and not merely pledged). Then we need to account for how these contributions compare to our own.
Question: Has there been an apparent reversal in U.S. policy with regard to Ukraine’s bombing and attacks in Russia’s interior? We have been led to believe that this escalation was “off the table.” The new policy would be a notable change in direction.
On another well-reported issue, CBS Sunday Morning featured a provocative analysis on continuing the practice of allowing race to be a factor in college admissions. It focused on a Supreme Court case featuring the oldest private and public schools in the land, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, respectively.
It took a deeper dive into the originator of the Harvard-UNC lawsuit before the court, Edward Blum, who professed his displeasure over quotas in the early 20th century. This seems to be the motivation behind his incessant targeting of Black people in education. Over the years Blum has used court cases/people, like he is using Asian Americans, as plaintiffs, to achieve results on race that potentially would reduce the presence of Black students at top universities.
Having briefly participated in the Old Parkland Conference in Dallas which featured those representing the Asian American plaintiffs, I have firsthand knowledge about the sentiments they voiced. They and their sympathizers feel Black people should attend Historically Black Colleges Universities (HBCUs) because they would be “better for Black people” and “Black people would feel more comfortable” in these institutions. And, yes, that is racist.
The CBS report pointed out that Asian Americans already represent nearly 30% of the students admitted to Harvard this year, even though Asian Americans comprise just 7% of the U.S. population. This begs the question: What are they complaining about?
The report also featured an Asian American woman who denounced the lawsuit and did not want to be associated with it.
Why not go after legacies or geographical placements as they too give so-called “advantages” to certain students. For geographic diversity reasons, it is easier to get into the top colleges if you live in Idaho or Wyoming, than if you are from California or New York. For a state school, it is harder to gain admission and more expensive to attend if you are an out-of-state student. Legacy candidates sometimes only compete against other legacy candidates. In short, there are many factors considered in admissions. It is an “imperfect” process.
As a child I vividly remember Alabama Governor George Wallace blocking the admissions door to Black people, as he did not want “any” Black person at the University of Alabama.
Sixty years later we have folks who want “fewer” Black people at the top schools in America. Sadly, this is truly a “Back to the Future” moment that would hurt America. It would widen an already large income and wealth gap between white and Black Americans.
CNN and CBS, thank you. But we need more forthright investigative reporting from many more news outlets. Americans are smart enough to know what and what not to believe. The public can better guide our nation when it has all the facts.
Gary Franks served three terms as U.S. representative for Connecticut’s 5th District. He was the first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years and New England’s first Black member of the House. Host: podcast “We Speak Frankly.” Author: “With God, For God, and For Country.” @GaryFranks/Tribune News Service