Mark, we look we can decry “selective moral outrage” all we like, but the fact
remains that Bill Clinton praising deceased segregationist William Fulbright
is not a big story. It would be a bigger story if there was a history of
Clinton having cozied up to Jim Crow type figures and then had this
fascination with Fulbright’s segregationist practices. But, with all
politicians — especially those caught in scandal — the past is prologue.
To continue the Clinton comparison: His reputation was a sleazy, moral
reprobate. He continued to do things in the White House that ended up
confirming that reputation. In other words, he did things repeatedly –
stupidly — that he knew that the media and his political opposition would
be on the lookout for. In other words, he exercise amazingly poor judgment.
That’s the better example with Lott. This is an easy story because it’s not
a one-time thing. It’s repeated statements and actions that become a pattern
easy enough for the media to follow.
To the extent that there is any “selectivity” in media moral outrage, it is
often supplied by the politicians that supply both the subject and the