Greg Sargent who blogs at The Washington Post has been the single greatest blogospheric force in going after Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, nitpicking their every word, and ascribing the worst motivations to ambiguous or out of context statements to portray them as dangerous extremists, liars, and worse. Sargent almost single-handedly has pushed the nonsense about O’Donnell’s Linked-In page into the media.
But for liberal Rick Sanchez, and his swipe at the Jews who run CNN and the rest of the media, Sargent demanded context:
“If Sanchez meant that everybody who runs the networks is a lot like Stewart in that they’re Jewish, that’s obviously very, very bad, and portends serious trouble for him. I wonder, though, if that’s what he really meant. Here’s the full context of what Sanchez said about Stewart — most of his complaint is directed at white liberals who, Sanchez complains, don’t understand minorities despite their best intentions…”
I’m not knocking Sargent for demanding that words be viewed in context, including for Rick Sanchez. Read Sargent’s “update” to his post, in which he pulls back and notes that Sanchez’s comments were not very defensible even in context.
Next time you read one of Sargent’s slams against Angle and O’Donnell, though, keep it in mind that context can be important, and sometimes people say things which do not come out the way they meant. I hope Sargent will give Angle and O’Donnell the same benefits of the doubt that he was ready to extend to Sanchez.
In the meantime, to prove that Sanchez can be a uniter, not just a divider, I agree with Paul Campos of Lawyers, Guns & Money blog:
“It’s unfortunate that a CNN pooh bah once said something tactless to you, but if that’s your best example of what sort of things you’ve had to overcome as a “minority” in America, then I suggest you might ask yourself why your last name is still Sanchez while Jon Stuart Leibowitz’s is now Stewart.”