Media fail: Sloppy reporting takes a bite out of Rand Paul

[mello]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...takes-a-bite-out-of-rand-paul/article/2574162

 

[carlton]

And here is the actual text from the article:

Reporters created a false narrative this week about 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul, suggesting on social media that the Kentucky senator is dismissive of efforts to protect members of the LGBT community from workplace discrimination.

On Wednesday, during a campaign stop at Drake University, Paul took time to answer students' questions. One attendee asked the senator about discrimination in the workplace against members of the LGBT community.

"Do you think an employer should be able to fire an LGBT employee because that person is LGBT?" the attendee asked.


Paul responded, "I think, really, the things you do in your house, we could just leave those in your house and they wouldn't have to be part of the workplace, to tell you the truth."

"These are very difficult decisions on what you decide will be employers' decisions and not. And it really isn't so much about that question as it is about — it sets up a classification, or a class of people, who can now sue. You see what I mean? So what happens is, it sets up a whole industry for people who want to sue," he added. "So if you happen to be gay and you get fired, now you have a reason you can sue them. But it's almost impossible sometimes. People don't put up a sign and say, 'I'm firing you because you're gay.' It's something that's very much disputed. And so I don't know that we need to keep adding to different classifications to say the government needs to be involved in the hiring and firing."

He explained that although there are still big questions that need to be answered regarding the rights of employers and employees, society is moving quickly towards greater acceptance of the LGBT community. So rather than rely on the government to intercede on behalf of one group, evolving cultural norms could very well answer the question of anti-LGBT discrimination, Paul seemed to suggest.

"I think society is rapidly changing. If you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you. I would say the vast majority of corporations already privately have manuals, or work manuals, that say that they don't discriminate in any way," he said.


Reporters responded to Paul's remarks by tweeting out only fragments of his full answer, and focusing especially hard on his conclusion.

"Rand Paul, asked whether employers [should] be able to fire LGBT workers, says, 'If you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you,'" the Los Angeles Times' Seema Mehta tweeted, reducing the entirety of Paul's answer into something where he seemingly shrugged at the idea of workplace discrimination.

Her tweet appeared before any video or transcript of the Drake University event were made available. But the absence of the full context didn't stop other reporters from weighing in on what Paul supposedly said.

Fellow L.A. Times colleague Matt Pearce responded to Mehta's tweet by commenting, "Imagine replacing 'gay' with almost any other description of a person."
MSNBC's Benjy Sarlin was incredulous.

"So the Rand Paul solution to LGBT worker protections appears to be applying 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' to the entire economy," he said. "Look, straight people, just never mention your spouse at work ever and no one will have any problems. Leave your home life at home."

Time magazine's Phil Elliott did a better job than Mehta of reporting on the context of Paul's response, but he also contributed to the false narrative by focusing mostly on the "there are plenty of places that will hire you" line.

Out of all the quotes tweeted by Elliott, he led off with this: "Asked about anti-discrimination policies for LGBT workers, Rand Paul says if people kept their home life at home, it wouldn't be an issue." He immediately followed with a tweet that read, "Rand Paul on LGBT workers losing their jobs: 'If you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you.'"

Elliott sent out additional quotes from Paul's response, but only after he had highlighted the senator's remarks on employment and the LGBT community.

Unfortunately for the Kentucky senator, and despite that the event's footage has been made available online, it doesn't look like the storyline that he supposedly shrugged off workplace discrimination is going to go away.

The Hill followed Mehta's lead and published a story titled, "Paul: LGBT people should keep their private lives out of the workplace."

And the narrative had spread outside media circles. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's social media team saw an opportunity to boost her standing in the LGBT community, and they acted accordingly:

But not everyone in media felt the same about Paul's answer. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein, for example, conceded after he had watched the video that the senator's comments were not as nearly as controversial as initially claimed.

"Rand Paul's answer on LGBT protections in the workplace was much more thoughtful than what I [re-tweeted]," Stein said.

 

[Liberty74]

And that is how false crap spreads into the MSM and can take down a campaign. Not saying in this case put taking people out of context and running with a false narrative to shock and awe the voters to say no thank you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

"Imagine replacing 'gay' with almost any other description of a person."

Indeed, imagine! It's a beautiful thing to imagine. And that is exactly what we as libertarians are striving for. A society that cannot discriminate is a society that is not free. A society that cannot discriminate is a society held hostage to by the lowest common denominators. A society that cannot discriminate is a society where people with differences cannot coexist in peace.

 

[JohnCifelli1]

He gave a crappy, mealymouthed answer. He gave the kind of answer that left himself totally exposed to exactly what happened in the media as a result. It could have been easily rehearsed and avoided.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Well, look at that: journalistic accountability. After the fact, but still there and more than would have been done for Paul's father in 2012, and so soon after the quote, too.

 

[Crashland]

"Imagine replacing 'gay' with almost any other description of a person."

Indeed, imagine! It's a beautiful thing to imagine. And that is exactly what we as libertarians are striving for. A society that cannot discriminate is a society that is not free. A society that cannot discriminate is a society held hostage to by the lowest common denominators. A society that cannot discriminate is a society where people with differences cannot coexist in peace.

Yes, but campaining on the "right to discriminate" would be a losing endeavor. Most people support having certain protected attributes that should not be permitted to be used as a basis for discrimination (unless a clear business reason can be demonstrated). Laws that create protected classes (race, gender, age, orientation,...etc) may be very difficult to enforce because proving discrimination due to a certain motive is not straightforward. But I think people in general overwhelmingly favor sacrificing some individual liberty in order to try to protect against oppression based on characteristics that are not in people's control.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes, but campaining on the "right to discriminate" would be a losing endeavor. Most people support having certain protected attributes that should not be permitted to be used as a basis for discrimination (unless a clear business reason can be demonstrated). Laws that create protected classes (race, gender, age, orientation,...etc) may be very difficult to enforce because proving discrimination due to a certain motive is not straightforward. But I think people in general overwhelmingly favor sacrificing some individual liberty in order to try to protect against oppression based on characteristics that are not in people's control.

I am not so sure. This seems to be the great moment for being anti-PC. Now is the time. The blowback has finally arrived. There seems to be a massive upwelling revolt across America against multiculturalism and diversity and PC. All three of these terms are essentially swear words for at least 50% of the population. The other group (30%? 10%?) for which they're beloved Core Values? Toss 'em. News Flash: they ain't coming on on board anyway. Let them scream "Racist!". It will only help you with the sensible 50%+.

The Rachel Maddow interview, and her subsequent smears of him as a "Racist!", did not hurt Rand in his Senate run. Believe me, to have these corrupt, evil leftists crying "Homophobe! Homophobe!" at Rand now will only help him. So Bring It. Rand should double down, triple down, on this statement! That's what Donald Trump would do. That is why Trump is winning (one reason anyway).

Toss PC overboard! PC is dead! Good riddance!

 

[georgiaboy]

I have no doubt that the next time Rand is presented with this issue he will knock it out of the park.

First pitch, caught him looking.
Second pitch - swing for the bleachers.

 

[WeTheVigilant]

I am not so sure. This seems to be the great moment for being anti-PC. Now is the time. The blowback has finally arrived. There seems to be a massive upwelling revolt across America against multiculturalism and diversity and PC. All three of these terms are essentially swear words for at least 50% of the population. The other group (30%? 10%?) for which they're beloved Core Values? Toss 'em. News Flash: they ain't coming on on board anyway. Let them scream "Racist!". It will only help you with the sensible 50%+.

The Rachel Maddow interview, and her subsequent smears of him as a "Racist!", did not hurt Rand in his Senate run. Believe me, to have these corrupt, evil leftists crying "Homophobe! Homophobe!" at Rand now will only help him. So Bring It. Rand should double down, triple down, on this statement! That's what Donald Trump would do. That is why Trump is winning (one reason anyway).

Toss PC overboard! PC is dead! Good riddance!

You are so right. Progressivism is dying and conservatism is becoming the new counter-culture.

 

[WeTheVigilant]

Lefties have no idea how to have discussions without calling anyone and everything under the sun racist, sexist, or homophobic. Their opinions don't matter.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

i love to eat pussy. so if you dont hire me ill sue for "pus" eater discrimination!!!

 

[Crashland]

I am not so sure. This seems to be the great moment for being anti-PC. Now is the time. The blowback has finally arrived. There seems to be a massive upwelling revolt across America against multiculturalism and diversity and PC. All three of these terms are essentially swear words for at least 50% of the population. The other group (30%? 10%?) for which they're beloved Core Values? Toss 'em. News Flash: they ain't coming on on board anyway. Let them scream "Racist!". It will only help you with the sensible 50%+.

The Rachel Maddow interview, and her subsequent smears of him as a "Racist!", did not hurt Rand in his Senate run. Believe me, to have these corrupt, evil leftists crying "Homophobe! Homophobe!" at Rand now will only help him. So Bring It. Rand should double down, triple down, on this statement! That's what Donald Trump would do. That is why Trump is winning (one reason anyway).

Toss PC overboard! PC is dead! Good riddance!

I disagree. I think there is a dinstintion to be made between being "anti-PC", as in, "stop getting butthurt because someone took offense to something I said that's true by the way", versus being pro-"right to discriminate", as in, "I want to protect the right of people to refuse service because of race. Y u mad bro?"

 

[helmuth_hubener]

versus being pro-"right to discriminate", as in, "I want to protect the right of people to refuse service because of race. Y u mad bro?"

Well, that latter position is exactly the position Rand Paul took in an op-ed piece he wrote, and then again on a national TV interview during his campaign. A position which was widely and loudly publicized by one Rachel Maddow. And yet, he won his race. By a lot. It sure didn't seem to hurt him that much.

Look, no Republican is going to win New York anyway. No Republican is going to win Massachusetts. Nor any of these politically correct places. Toss 'em overboard and just speak your mind!

What Rand said is not even inflammatory in the least. It is eminently reasonable and was said in a soft-spoken, ambling way, I'm sure. That does not matter to these people. It's just the same as if he was totally bomb-throwing, calling them "Sodomites" and calling for stoning of all gays. So it really doesn't matter. He might as well be honest and straightforward and just speak the truth.

Well, what do I know? Rand is going to do whatever he thinks best. But I for one am happy that on this one particular in this one particular instance he was canidd, he was real, and he gave the correct libertarian answer. An answer, by the way, that is remarkably popular among social conservatives (who actually do not want to stone gays, they just don't want to have to bake cakes for them).

 

[Crashland]

Well, that latter position is exactly the position Rand Paul took in an op-ed piece he wrote, and then again on a national TV interview during his campaign. A position which was widely and loudly publicized by one Rachel Maddow. And yet, he won his race. By a lot. It sure didn't seem to hurt him that much.

Look, no Republican is going to win New York anyway. No Republican is going to win Massachusetts. Nor any of these politically correct places. Toss 'em overboard and just speak your mind!

What Rand said is not even inflammatory in the least. It is eminently reasonable and was said in a soft-spoken, ambling way, I'm sure. That does not matter to these people. It's just the same as if he was totally bomb-throwing, calling them "Sodomites" and calling for stoning of all gays. So it really doesn't matter. He might as well be honest and straightforward and just speak the truth.

Well, what do I know? Rand is going to do whatever he thinks best. But I for one am happy that on this one particular in this one particular instance he was canidd, he was real, and he gave the correct libertarian answer. An answer, by the way, that is remarkably popular among social conservatives (who actually do not want to stone gays, they just don't want to have to bake cakes for them).

I haven't really seen any Republicans come to Rand's defense about his CRA interview. I think you are using the term "politically correct" in two very different ways. The "anti-PC" libertarian views on things like the CRA are not the same thing as the popular anti-PC views in the Republican party.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I haven't really seen any Republicans come to Rand's defense about his CRA interview. I think you are using the term "politically correct" in two very different ways. The "anti-PC" libertarian views on things like the CRA are not the same thing as the popular anti-PC views in the Republican party.

That is true, you have a point.