John McQuaid

Jay Rosen flagged this analysis of the Sotomayor confirmation fight as something the AP should do less of, because it’s not working. And I have to agree. It’s a vague piece of writing that doesn’t really say anything – and, I think, unintentionally reveals the odd biases that shape political coverage.

The ostensible theme of the piece is that Sonia Sotomayor’s life and career are more complex than her supporters are saying, and that the complexities may pose political problems for the nomination. As a topic for analysis this is classic dog bites man: politicians oversimplify reality for political purposes. And in this case it’s faintly absurd. The piece’s nut graph says the White House talks about Sotomayor’s rags-to-riches story but “plays down the riches.” But merely saying “rags-to-riches” indicates the story ends with, well, riches. You don’t need her annual income to know that a federal appeals court judge is successful and reasonably well off.

Then the piece takes a stranger turn, dispensing advice to politicians:

Discussions about Sotomayor and her ethnicity, gender and tax bracket carry risks for supporters and detractors. Unartful criticism by Republicans risks offending voters they’d like to win. Democrats, likewise, need to be cautious about how they conduct the debate in a nation uncomfortable talking about matters of race and gender.

The real issue, I think, is that race and gender also “carry risks” for the AP.

Strip away the faux-analysis frame and the piece contains some interesting information on Sotomayor’s background. Setting her judicial philosophy aside, to me this seems like a typical American success story. But it’s presented here as unconventional and politically dangerous.

Sotomayor didn’t live her whole life in a housing project, makes $200,000 a year and lives in Greenwich Village. That opens her to charges of elitism, the AP implies. She once objected to a lawyer’s job interview questions that implied she owed her success to affirmative action – something the AP puzzlingly treats as contradicting her political activism and pride in her ethnic identity. Finally, the piece raises some murky questions about whether her work on behalf of various Puerto Rican groups might conflict with New York City posts she held, but doesn’t resolve them.

Sotomayor’s career obviously doesn’t fit the binary political world reporters think they live in. In that world, the practice of identity politics is viewed quite negatively. It’s an artifact of the culture wars, one that Republicans playing to middle America have successfully demonized (when not using it themselves). So Sotomayor won’t play in Peoria. At least, the notion that one person can have a record of minority political activism, mainstream professional success and broad national support seems pretty shaky to the AP.

The piece concludes by approvingly quoting Newt Gingrich’s absurd attacks calling Sotomayor a racist. The AP has this upside down: the White House’s presentation of Sotomayor is of course selectively positive. But at least it’s not demagogic.