Race, gender, religion: What’s the relevance?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Several descriptives applied to candidates in recent campaign coverage have raised valid questions: What details are needed, and what is extraneous, in reporting on candidates? When does faith -- or race -- go from something reporters and editors try to strip out of the discourse, to a necessary fact?
Frank Natoli of Newton, N.J., started his e-mail by quoting a passage from a Jan. 16 campaign story: ‘[Mitt] Romney, 60, a Mormon multimillionaire venture capitalist....’ Asked Natoli: ‘What exactly is the L.A. Times’ criterion for identifying the religion of a political candidate? All of the other presidential candidates, of both parties, plus some ‘others,’ e.g., Sen. Joe Lieberman, are mentioned in this detailed article, but none has his or her religion identified. It is true, Romney’s religion is an issue for bigoted voters. But so is [Hillary] Clinton’s sex and [Barack] Obama’s race, yet neither of those attributes is mentioned in the article. If you mention Romney’s religion, but not Clinton’s sex and Obama’s race, then you are catering to bigoted voters, and even appear bigoted yourselves. Please either don’t mention it at all, or also mention ‘concerns’ about Clinton and Obama.’
When it’s appropriate to refer to a candidate’s religion or race depends on the scope of the story, say editors. The Jan. 16 article that prompted the reader’s e-mail focused on the former Massachusetts governor as the victor in the Michigan primary the day before. Similarly, an earlier article focused on a candidate’s race: The Jan. 4 story about Obama’s win in Iowa reported, ‘Voters in an overwhelmingly white state embraced an African American candidate.’
Scott Martelle is one of the reporters who has been following the candidates, and he helped write the story after the Michigan primary. In an e-mail discussing the reader’s point, he wrote: ‘The focus on the Jan. 16 piece was Romney’s win, which shines a brighter spotlight on him, and the Mormon reference can be read as a reminder that he triumphed over whatever bigotry might have existed among the Michigan voters.’
The story the day after Obama won Iowa was the same, says Martelle, who said that piece ‘pointed out that a black man had won in a white state, a fact that seemed to answer questions of whether he was politically palatable to white America.’
It’s an issue that is ever-present in this election, however. Martelle’s note back to the reader about the Jan. 16 piece said, ‘You raise a problematic point that we often wrestle with. All things being equal, you’re right, his religion should be of no consequence. But it has been an undercurrent in this campaign, such that he was moved to deliver a speech on his concept of faith in politics and the role his religion would play in his White House. And his faith is a nagging concern among the evangelicals, who as you know are a large part of the Republican base. So in this case I think it bears mentioning, simply because it has become part of his political persona. Same as we often (but didn’t in this article) refer to Clinton and Obama’s chances of becoming the first woman and first African American, respectively, to stand a real chance of winning a major party nomination.’