Feature
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
(Page 2 of 3)
Not as far as the press was concerned.
Opinions that I had been expressing for more than a decade were now suddenly depicted as opportunistic statements echoing the Reagan Administration in order to get me a job in Washington. On January 31, 1981, the Pittsburgh Courier said: “Like flies chasing a garbage truck, opportunists of all stripes (and colors) are scrambling to align themselves with the new Reagan administration.” Among these were “Thomas Sowell of the notorious Hoover Institution.” Columnist Carl Rowan likewise said, “Sowell parrots the Reaganites,” and included me among the “supplicants” for Administration largesse. None of those who wrote this way ever found it necessary to show where I had ever gotten a dime from the Reagan Administration.
The most they could come up with was my unpaid position as a member of a committee that met occasionally, had no powers, and could only offer outside advice to the Administration. Even this position I gave up after one meeting, when it became clear that the combination of jet lag and long meetings created medical problems for me.
But some newspapers would not give up the idea that I was part of the Reagan Administration, even after it was public knowledge that I was not. The Baton Rouge Community Leader called me “the most prominent Black policy maker,” even though I never made a policy in my life. Lee Daniels in the New York Times called me “the Administration’s favored black spokesman,” even though I had never spoken a word for the Administration, had gone for months without saying anything publicly on any subject, and had turned down innumerable requests for interviews. How one can be a spokesman without speaking remains a mystery.
In a similar vein, a book reviewer in the New York Times called my Ethnic America a book “to be feared — as a signpost pointing to the probable future direction of the present national administration regarding minorities.” Not a single policy is recommended in Ethnic America, which is a history book. It was begun in 1978 and completed before the 1980 elections, which is to say, before there was a Reagan Administration. Even now, I have no hard information that anybody in the Administration has ever read it.
The really ugly insinuations concern money. A writer in the Sacramento Observer depicted an article of mine as showing a “soul sold for a little money.” What money was of course never specified. Money also figured prominently in the Washington Post story about my nonexistent organization — $100,000 which unnamed corporations and foundations had “promised” to contribute. I wish I knew who made those promises, because I have not seen a penny materialize.
There is an irony for me in the constant emphasis on money. As one who quit his job as an economic analyst for the world’s largest corporation to become an academic, I was hardly following a course of action likely to maximize my income. Moreover, even within the academic world, there was far more money to be made, over the past 20 years, saying the direct opposite of what I said. Large lecture fees, foundation grants, directorships of minority programs (and of major corporations) went to those who shouted and shook their fists and demanded special programs. Those of us who questioned that whole approach were at best tolerated. At more than one university during the 1960s, I lived in cramped, rented quarters while “militant” black academics owned spacious homes. And they drove Mercedes while I drove a Volkswagen. Yet innuendoes about selling out were directed toward me, but never toward them. The blatant facts of the situation seemed not to make the slightest difference. Nor did it seem to occur to critics that no one sells out to the lowest bidder.
Even in today’s changed climate of opinion, a number of blacks at the other end of the political spectrum make several times my income. Again, the media never question whether what they say might be influenced by what they receive from the very programs they champion.
Personal Attacks and Double Standards
For much of the decade of the 1970s, I engaged in research on
American ethnic groups. What I discovered often conflicted with
prevailing views in the media and among politicians and civil
rights leaders. For example, I discovered that group differences in
income had many causes, some of them with much greater impact than
employer discrimination. A close look at the data also showed that
school busing and “affirmative action” policies not only failed to
achieve their goals, but generally ended up making the
disadvantaged even more disadvantaged. Some of these facts were
surprising to me, and forced me to change some of my own thinking.
I expected them to be surprising to others, and probably, not very
popular.
What I did not expect was that the facts would be so widely and totally disregarded, and that so much of the response would consist of purely personal attacks on me — and that the press would apply a double standard in the controversies that followed.
For example, in December 1980, Washington Post reporter Herbert Denton told me that an NAACP official had called me by the vile epithet, “a house nigger.” When I threw the charge back in his face, the headline in Demon’s story proclaimed my attack on the NAACP as “house niggers.” You would have to dig quite a ways into the story to find out who attacked and who replied. A later story by Denton called me “vituperative” in my “attacks” on the civil rights organizations.
When former Cabinet member Patricia Roberts Harris proclaimed that I did not know what poverty was, no one questioned what basis she had for that statement, or what relevance it had to the facts about public policy. It so happened that I grew up in such poverty that I was eight years old before I lived in a home with hot running water. Patricia Roberts Harris, though black, grew up in a middle-class home and in college belonged to a sorority too snobbish to admit dark-skinned women. When I reported these facts, there was a storm of outrage in the press — and claims that I was attacking Mrs. Harris for being lightskinned! The lady herself played this theme to the hilt, saying that it was a “use of South African apartheid concepts of racial gradations, combined with an exotic infusion of Marxist class warfare notions.” By and large, the press bought her version.
The behind-the-scenes story of this controversy was more of the same double standard. Editor Meg Greenfield of the Washington Post tried repeatedly to get me to water down or eliminate various criticisms — including that of Patricia Harris — in a pair of articles I wrote for that paper. I challenged her to find a single misstatement of fact in my articles, but she complained instead of the harshness of what was said. After her many phone calls, weeks of delay, and heated words between us, Meg Greenfield finally agreed to print what I had said — but with a weary air of being much put upon.
No such standards applied to the many articles which the Post then printed denouncing my position. For one thing, they appeared much too quickly for Meg Greenfield to have engaged in weeks of agonized discussions and hand-wringing. Neither harshness, nor irrelevance, nor inaccuracy stopped them from being published. If someone wanted to refer to my “blackface sociology” or to my nonexistent castigation of Vernon Jordan, that was fine. If they had no specific facts but only vague innuendoes about “selling out,” that was fine. If later Carl Rowan wanted to say that I did more harm to blacks than Quisling did to his fellow-Norwegians under Nazi rule, the Post was ready to print it.
Apparently, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/1982/05/01/media-smears-one-mans-experien
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
OregonBuzz| 5.18.12 @ 9:51AM
As always, good deeds rarely go unpunished.
Alan Brooks| 5.18.12 @ 6:46PM
If Sowell is so good, why can't the GOP run him for POTUS? Because he is too old?
Abu Nudnik| 5.20.12 @ 12:26PM
Because he is an academic, not a politician. As stated in the article above which you didn't read, he has rejected more than one offer to be in government. He has, as stated above in the article you didn't read, opted to be an academic.
Dave Bowman| 5.28.12 @ 11:09AM
In light of your awesome debating skills have they considered next year letting you skip the 4th grade?
A. C. Santore| 5.18.12 @ 10:01AM
In a way, Professor Sowell, you might take a bow.
The more hysterical, ferocious, and blatantly false the left's attacks become, the more they fear you, your values, and your ideas.
You're in good company.
Alan Brooks| 5.19.12 @ 10:13AM
He'll be in good company at Forest Lawn too, in a few years.
Butch| 5.19.12 @ 6:43PM
So will we all, my friend, including you.
Abu Nudnik| 5.20.12 @ 12:31PM
Perhaps not the super-moral, who distinguish themselves by wishing for the deaths of men with whom they disagree. The jury is out. Wink.
Alan Brooks| 5.20.12 @ 6:10PM
Obama's death would not cause you to shed hot tears on your pillow.
One point on which Sowell is right is his saying if Germany and Japan could be defeated in '45, so can America. But I don't want America defeated, I want the GOP defeated, and if such should mean Sowell's death then so be it. I'll write this over 'n over: if Romney should be elected president-- and he has got a 50- 50 chance-- he will be treated as badly as Obama is being treated today; which is a guarantee not a promise.
Jay Dee| 5.20.12 @ 7:03PM
How odd you somehow work GOP defeat and the death of Dr. Sowell into one sentence.
We are also well aware Romney will be treated the same way Obama has been treated - you cut your teeth by making mincemeat of Bush.
Alan Brooks you really are a nasty man.
Alan Brooks| 5.21.12 @ 2:49AM
"you cut your teeth by making mincemeat of Bush."
no, after 9-11,
I got caught up in the anti-Arab, anti-Shiite frenzy; it wasn't until '08 I realized his administration (Bush was a figurehead) was a nothingburger.
Alan Brooks| 5.21.12 @ 2:51AM
...
"Obama's death would not cause you to shed hot tears on your pillow."
BTW, you didn't deny the above- it was totally predictable. You hate Obama and would not mind his death.
Lawrence| 5.21.12 @ 9:44AM
"But I don't want America defeated, I want the GOP defeated, and if such should mean Sowell's death then so be it."
And what if the GOP's defeat and our nation's salvation depends on your death? Maybe you should drop dead, just in case.
Or would you argue that the party's defeat and your demise are wholly unrelated events? So too is Sowell's eventual passing, and it takes a morbid and even a murderous mind to think that the death of an academic like Sowell is a necessary precondition for anything good.
Von Mises Jr| 5.18.12 @ 10:34AM
I have read two-dozen tomes by Dr. Sowell and wish to thank him for being the most influential person in my thinking after the Bible and my family. I have learned more from his diverse books than any other writer by far.
Great men such as Dr. Sowell always enrage socialist. Von Mises and Hayek both fled the Nazi's for their lives. It speaks to the greatness of America that both found refuge in America to continue their brilliant economic work. America also made it possible for the world to know and love Dr. Thomas Sowell. God blesses you good Doctor.
spike59| 5.18.12 @ 12:13PM
30 years later, the MSM has, if anything, become even more brazen
Dropping By| 5.18.12 @ 2:23PM
I have a signed copy of one of Dr. Sowell's books, and have read 4 of them. He is a national treasure.
podbaydoors| 5.18.12 @ 3:12PM
Dr. Sowell's Basic Economics remains a most treasured book of mine. I have greatly admired his steadfast commitment to intellectual rigor in the face of such vile hatred. Interesting how the attack dogs have never changed. The yapping has become somewhat more hysterical, though.
Mike| 5.19.12 @ 1:18AM
I worked with a black man who refused to discuss any writings of Dr. Sowell. His justification was that Dr. Sowell is not an "authentic black man" and did not understand black poverty. This man had grown up the child of a corporate vice-president in the automotive business thus he had no first hand experience, yet he dismissed Dr. Sowell's background.
I pointed out to this black man that his bigotry toward Dr. Sowell had little to distinguish it from the white bigotry of the Ku Klux Klan. He became enraged that anyone would point out his bigotry since he was on the company's diversity committee.
In a fit of anger he later quit after being passed over for promotion since it was in his mind due to his color rather than his inability to work with people of differing opinions.
Suzyqpie | 5.19.12 @ 8:40AM
Dear Dr. Sowell, Make sure that you never remove the tags on a new mattress or pillow. Suddenly that infraction would become a felony. Seems the bullseye on your back is a permanent feature that you continue to manage with great skill.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.19.12 @ 9:43AM
Dr. Sowell's piece from 30 years ago tends to support the notion that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Concurrently, though, one also sees a significant shift in the position of the race industry in America. At the time of the 1982 article, Derrick Bell is listed as one of Dr. Sowell's fellow academics outside the accepted mainstream. He went on to Harvard, was embraced by Obama, and his critical race theory seems to be the mainstream of thought for many in the administration.
Dr. Sowell continues to put forth his wisdom, though, in a way that undermines the race baiters.
Abu Nudnik| 5.20.12 @ 12:24PM
It is wryly amusing that you have been accused of these things by people who call themselves "liberal," "tolerant" and "inclusive" when your words above are almost the definition of liberalism:
"No single individual or set of "leaders" has a monopoly on understanding. Even the truth may be an incomplete truth, and need additional perspectives that lie beyond one person's vision. In short, the process of airing different perspectives is even more important than the question of which is closest to the truth."
Pelleas| 5.20.12 @ 5:32PM
"Actually, I have not been hospitalized in more than a decade, and do not even know the location of a hospital in Palo Alto."
YOU ARE "A senior FLLOW at The Hoover Institute, (located at the CENTER of Stanford University, IN PALO ALTO.. and YET-- "You don't know the location" of ANY hospital, in a city that has more then its fair share of Medical Facilities?
That wins, hands down, for lamest statement , of the hour....!!
Jay Dee| 5.20.12 @ 7:07PM
Hey Ding Dong - the article was written in 1982. He wasn't at the Hoover Institute then.
Pelleas| 5.20.12 @ 7:13PM
Hey, cupcake-- he clearly states he was living on the WEST COAST, at the time...!!-HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS?, EH?
Pelleas| 5.20.12 @ 7:40PM
Sowell has also worked at The Hoover Institute SINCE 1980, BTW....
Peregrin Took| 5.21.12 @ 12:25PM
Wait wait. A three page article, and this is the only thing you find worthy of comment? Wow.
Pelleas| 5.21.12 @ 12:36PM
It is the ONLY thing of interest, that I could muster up, in this (Sowell) blow-hards horrible writing-- if this is the BEST the Right -Wing can produce-- the Left surely has no worries...!
Sacramento Observer staff| 5.28.12 @ 11:05AM
Hey, we were wondering whatever happened to you! How's your life been the past 3 decades?
Dave Bowman| 5.28.12 @ 11:03AM
The greatest thing about this column is that Sowell's still here, while these random careerists he puts on blast--Carter's HUD sorority sister, that hack in Pittsburgh--have all long since slipped into easy oblivion. In fact I just finished reading it now and already can't remember their names...