The press was eager to cover a mysterious South Carolina house fire but neglected an obvious plot against conservative Supreme Court justices.
S omething peculiar happened recently.
There were two incidents a week ago of potentially politically motivated attacks on judges, one in Washington, D.C., and one in South Carolina.
The story from the nation’s capital involved a bomb maker with a stash of hundreds of “fully functioning” explosive devices. The story from South Carolina involved a house fire.
Curiously, only the story out of South Carolina has captured the full attention of the press, which has treated the matter as a deadly serious reminder of the dangers of political rhetoric. In contrast, the D.C. story has not been presented as a cautionary tale about the consequences of political demonization. In fact, the D.C. story has barely been covered at all.
It’s as if to say: All (potential) violence against judges is bad, but some is worse than others.
In South Carolina, Judge Diane Schafer Goodstein’s house burned down last weekend. Goodstein was out walking her dogs at the time of the fire. Her husband reportedly broke his legs jumping to safety. Investigators have not yet determined whether the fire was accidental or intentional.
That same weekend, in Washington, D.C., law enforcement officials arrested a New Jersey man who had set up camp outside St. Matthew’s Cathedral as it was preparing to celebrate a Mass traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices. At the time of his arrest, Louis Geri reportedly had 200 “fully functional” homemade explosive devices, whose compounds included a key ingredient used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, according to police records. He also had a manifesto in which he expressed hatred for Catholics, Jews, ICE, and the Supreme Court justices.
Luckily, none of the justices were in attendance at the Mass. They had been advised to forgo the occasion this year precisely because of recent attacks against the Court.
That Goodstein ruled against the Trump administration last month in a voter registration case, and that the White House has publicly criticized her, has led to widespread speculation that she is the victim of a politically motivated attack. There’s no evidence to support this, but members of the news and entertainment industries are making the connection all the same.
“When you’re starting to attack judges because of their rulings,” said NBC News legal analyst Mary McCord, “we’re in a very, very dangerous position in this country, and it makes judges fearful. . . . [Trump] needs to know the power of his voice and how people respond to that.”
“Elon Musk and Stephen Miller both tweeted against judges today,” said Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali. “A South Carolina judge’s house burned down and almost killed her family.”
Said ex-MSNBC host and current Hamas apologist Mehdi Hasan in response to the news, “She ruled against the Trump administration and the DOJ not long ago.”
There isn’t a person alive who is surprised to hear these people level such accusations despite a lack of evidence. It’s their bread and butter.
What’s more disturbing is that their evidence-free finger-pointing is echoed throughout the major media. It’d be easy and comforting to write off McCord and company merely as knee-jerk activists, which they are, but that their first thought is the shared first thought of hundreds of reporters, editors, and web teams is a detail that gives pause.
“Fire destroys home of South Carolina judge criticized by the Trump administration,” reads a leading Washington Post headline.
The New York Times, like The Guardian, made sure in its write-up to oh-so-subtly mention that “Goodstein temporarily blocked South Carolina from giving the Justice Department the state’s entire voter database.”
“MAGA Demanded ‘Holy Hell Fire’ Before Judge’s Home Exploded,” reads a Daily Beast headline.
Amazingly, Time magazine went with a headline that both insinuates responsibility while acknowledging a lack of evidence: “Investigation ‘Ongoing’ After House of South Carolina Judge Criticized by Trump Administration Burns Down.”
Outright left-wing publications, including the New Republic, placed responsibility for what happened in South Carolina squarely on the Trump White House: “Judge Who Ruled Against Trump Finds Her Home Burned to the Ground.”
As irresponsible as it is for the press to cast or suggest blame without any substantiating evidence, it’s also not new. A lack of evidence has never stopped newsmen from suggesting all manner of theories for all manner of stories.
What’s especially peculiar in this case is that the news coverage of the concurrent St. Matthew’s incident has included no similar context or asides noting the charged political rhetoric aimed at the justices. It’s equally peculiar that a literal bomb-thrower was arrested in the nation’s capital as he stalked members of the United States Supreme Court, and reports of a house fire in South Carolina have dwarfed news of his arrest.
The Washington Post, for example, did a fine, straightforward write-up of the St. Matthew’s incident. Yet, where it saw fit to tie the Goodstein fire to her ruling against the Trump administration, it found it unnecessary in a story about a thwarted attack on the justices to mention the recent history of attacks on the Supreme Court, including all the Democratic-sponsored nonsense alleging that it’s an illegitimate entity whose members are bought. No contextual asides about the mountain of conspiracy theories aimed at the Court, including entire news cycles dedicated to dissecting the supposed coded meanings behind the flags the Alito family flies at their home; no contextual details about the bogus accusations that Justice Clarence Thomas is a bribe magnet; no contextual details about the monthslong effort to convince the public that Justice Kavanaugh was an alcoholic teen gang-rapist.
Not even a word for the moment when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, on the steps of the Supreme Court, threatened Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, warning that any attempt to rule in favor of pro-life laws would release “the whirlwind,” that they “will pay the price,” and “you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Not even a mention of Justice Kavanaugh’s trans would-be assassin.
Then again, if you think the Washington Post’s selective view on when contextual information should and shouldn’t be included in a story is bad, it’s nothing compared to its competition: the New York Times hasn’t even covered the St. Matthew’s arrest.
Neither has Time magazine. Neither has the New Republic.
The Daily Beast’s coverage consists of a single, 182-word paragraph linking back to the Washington Post’s original reporting.
To recap: a house fire involving a judge you’ve never heard of earned wall-to-wall news coverage, much of which heavily hinted at the idea that the fire was actually a bombing and that the Trump White House inspired the supposed bombing. Meanwhile, a man with a stash of hundreds of actual, confirmed explosive devices was arrested in D.C. before a special Mass traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices, and not only has there not been anything close to the volume of contextual asides suggesting the attempted attack may have been inspired by Democratic rhetoric, but we also haven’t seen anything close to the volume of news coverage.
We’re going to speculate for the one but not the other — that is, if we even cover the other at all?
As has been said before, the real bias isn’t so much in what is said, but in what is not said.