SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"The lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots," writes Janine Jackson. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)
Scrutiny for Supreme Court Pick Fails to Focus on Rights of Disabled
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Feb 18, 2017
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Another theme is Gorsuch's "eloquence" and his being "hard to pigeonhole" as conservative: One story said he "didn't skip a beat" when a friend came out to him as gay.
There are stories about concerns around Gorsuch's record on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: They focus on his justifiably concerning ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, where the chain store won the right to deny employees contraception coverage and in which he described birth control, falsely, as "destroying a fertilized human egg."
But the lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots. In this case, you could read all the elite press have to offer on Gorsuch and never hear about human rights for people with disabilities. You'd need to find ACLU attorney Claudia Center's piece on her group's website (2/3/17) to learn about Hwang vs. Kansas State University--a case brought by assistant professor Grace Hwang, who was returning to work after a leave of absence for cancer treatment when the campus broke out in a flu epidemic, leading her to request to work from home for a short period as her immune system was weakened.
Judge Gorsuch sided with the school that this request was unreasonable and he said that disability rights rules aren't meant to "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That call, which Center notes represented errors of both law and fact, went against every other circuit decision on the issue, as well as guidance from the EEOC and the Supreme Court. But a search of major media on "Gorsuch" and "Hwang" turns up zero stories.
Despite disabled people constituting, according to the Census Bureau, some 19 percent of the US population--that's nearly 1 in 5 people--how the highest court in the land may affect their ability to work and live just isn't that interesting to corporate media. With a president that openly mocks disabled people, that kind of disinterest is even more dangerous.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Another theme is Gorsuch's "eloquence" and his being "hard to pigeonhole" as conservative: One story said he "didn't skip a beat" when a friend came out to him as gay.
There are stories about concerns around Gorsuch's record on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: They focus on his justifiably concerning ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, where the chain store won the right to deny employees contraception coverage and in which he described birth control, falsely, as "destroying a fertilized human egg."
But the lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots. In this case, you could read all the elite press have to offer on Gorsuch and never hear about human rights for people with disabilities. You'd need to find ACLU attorney Claudia Center's piece on her group's website (2/3/17) to learn about Hwang vs. Kansas State University--a case brought by assistant professor Grace Hwang, who was returning to work after a leave of absence for cancer treatment when the campus broke out in a flu epidemic, leading her to request to work from home for a short period as her immune system was weakened.
Judge Gorsuch sided with the school that this request was unreasonable and he said that disability rights rules aren't meant to "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That call, which Center notes represented errors of both law and fact, went against every other circuit decision on the issue, as well as guidance from the EEOC and the Supreme Court. But a search of major media on "Gorsuch" and "Hwang" turns up zero stories.
Despite disabled people constituting, according to the Census Bureau, some 19 percent of the US population--that's nearly 1 in 5 people--how the highest court in the land may affect their ability to work and live just isn't that interesting to corporate media. With a president that openly mocks disabled people, that kind of disinterest is even more dangerous.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Another theme is Gorsuch's "eloquence" and his being "hard to pigeonhole" as conservative: One story said he "didn't skip a beat" when a friend came out to him as gay.
There are stories about concerns around Gorsuch's record on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: They focus on his justifiably concerning ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, where the chain store won the right to deny employees contraception coverage and in which he described birth control, falsely, as "destroying a fertilized human egg."
But the lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots. In this case, you could read all the elite press have to offer on Gorsuch and never hear about human rights for people with disabilities. You'd need to find ACLU attorney Claudia Center's piece on her group's website (2/3/17) to learn about Hwang vs. Kansas State University--a case brought by assistant professor Grace Hwang, who was returning to work after a leave of absence for cancer treatment when the campus broke out in a flu epidemic, leading her to request to work from home for a short period as her immune system was weakened.
Judge Gorsuch sided with the school that this request was unreasonable and he said that disability rights rules aren't meant to "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That call, which Center notes represented errors of both law and fact, went against every other circuit decision on the issue, as well as guidance from the EEOC and the Supreme Court. But a search of major media on "Gorsuch" and "Hwang" turns up zero stories.
Despite disabled people constituting, according to the Census Bureau, some 19 percent of the US population--that's nearly 1 in 5 people--how the highest court in the land may affect their ability to work and live just isn't that interesting to corporate media. With a president that openly mocks disabled people, that kind of disinterest is even more dangerous.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.