In the article, columnist Frederic J. Frommer of the Associated Press, explained that McCain was rallying for a resolution that would redeem Jack Johnson's reputation and pardon him of a crime he was convicted for nearly a century ago. Johnson, who won the title as first black heavyweight boxing champion in 1908, was charged with violating the Mann Act, which made it illegal to transport women across state lines for immoral purposes. In the first paragraph, the author described Johnson's conviction as a result of his "romantic ties with a white woman."
I understood that Johnson's sentence came out of a place of racial injustice, but the author never fully clarified the connection between his relationship with a white woman and violating the Mann Act. Were interracial relationships and marriages prohibited in the early 1900's? I was cuirous as to how state prosecutors were able to target Johnson on a crime that said he transported a women across state lines for immoral purposes, especially if the woman in question was his wife or girlfriend. Even so, what were these so-called "immoral purposes" they accused Johnson of? All these questions were left unanswered in my mind.
Even more, later on in the story, the author delves into Johnson's triumph as a black athlete in a predominantly white sport and cites that his success led to "deadly riots." Frommer also points out that authorities first targeted Johnson's relationship with Lucille Cameron, who later became his wife, but when she refused to cooperate with them, they then found another white witness, Belle Schrieber, to testify against him. Again, what were the specific charges? Was Johnson's wife white? Did she have anything to do with the conviction and the charges brought upon her husband? And what happened in these "deadly riots"? Who was murdered? I believe the editor should have added these details in the story to make it more complete.
Moreover, Frommer focuses on McCain's role in passing the resolution and adds some quotes from the former GOP hopeful. " We need to erase racism which sent an American citizen to prison on a trumped-up charge," McCain said, adding, "I have great confidence that this president will be more eager to sign this legislation and pardon Jack Johnson." Frommer also adds another quote from McCain's friend and fellow republican senator, Peter King, " It certainly would be a great moment in history to have the first African-American president granting a pardon to the first African-American heavy-weight champion." To me, their statements made the story more comparable to a press release than a story about the vindication of a wrongly accused man. Did the author write the story to give a voice to a man who was wrongly accused? It was possible in my mind that the author fell for another scheme for politician's to get their name in the paper.
However, their sentiments contrast with Ken Burns's sentiments, civil rights advocate and filmaker of the 2005 documentary, "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson." Burns's statment, "It is just a question of justice, which is not only blind, but color-blind. I think it has absolutely does not have anything to do with the symbolism of an African-American president pardoning an African-American unjustly accused."
To me, the addition of Burns's statement justified Frommer's purpose for writing the story. However, if for not Burns's statements, the AJC could have risked credibility for running a story that seemed to have political leanings.
Above all, I would be careful to publish stories about bills a certain politician wants to pass. However, given the over-arching theme of racial equality and the voice the article gave to the deceased Johnson, I think the AJC mangaged to advocate Johnson's pardon in a fashion that wasn't biased to any political ideology one way or the other.
Robyn,
ReplyDeleteFirst, it's important to note that John McCain is a sitting U.S. senator, and, like all senators, has a great deal of influence on any issue he chooses to take a position on.
That said, journalists need to be careful not simply to be party to politicians' efforts at self-promotion and to consider officials' motives when they make proposals and pronouncements. At a very fundamental level, though, publishing stories about bills politicians want to pass is precisely what journalists should do.
All politics is some cross between policy and promotion, and journalists need to cover the policy while acknowledging the promotion.
I think the skepticism here is a bit of an over-read. McCain is one of the most prominent member of the Senate right now, and his opinion is of interest for a great number of readers. Maybe to make this article less partisan a Democrat could weigh in, but the subject matter itself isn't really controversial, so a Democrat opinion isn't necessary in an effort to be fair. I do think it's important for journalists to serve their guard dog function, and examining the motives of other journalists is part of that. So basically I admire your motives for going beneath the surface, but I don't think anything too shady is going on in this case.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is not a partisan issue, but a racial one. McCain championing a black boxer nearly 60 years dead is strange enough on its own to be news. I think the most interesting aspect of the story was the last graph which detailed the other recipients of postmortem pardons, also conspicuously non-white.
ReplyDeleteThe coverage of the story was interesting and I think you point out well the story's many vague aspects about the events that made Jack Johnson a criminal. I think the focus of the story should not be on McCain, who you're right is old news, and old, but Jack Johnson who's story is actually pretty neat.
Oh the AJC was really vague about the McMann act which "has since been heavily amended, but has not been repealed." Personally I did not know it could still be considered a crime to transfer a white woman across state lines for "immoral purposes" my question is how immoral?