A footnote on last week’s Dodd/Byrd comment controversy:

One mainstream

media reporter emailed, pointing out that (s)he contacted the Connecticut

and national NAACP the day after Dodd’s remarks started getting criticism

from the blogs.

The Connecticut NAACP’s listed phone number went straight to
voice mail most of the week, and the voice mailbox was full, so reporters
couldn’t even leave messages asking for comment. (Would they have answered
the phone, or checked their messages during the week if GOP Connecticut
governor John Rowland had made the same comments?) The national NAACP
initially didn’t want to comment because they hadn’t heard Dodd’s words
themselves. They were referred to the Congressional Record, and then didn’t
return phone calls on the subject for the rest of the week. (Their main
media relations number also goes straight to voice mail; guess they’re
screening their calls.)
Dodd’s comments may not have gotten much attention for a number of reasons,
but a key point is that it’s not just media bias. Part of it is that media
stories, particularly controversies, thrive on conflict — somebody had to
come out and call Dodd’s comment insensitive/bizarre/whatever, and then he
could respond, and everyone in the Connecticut delegation and Senate
leadership could comment on the controversy. Without any group — beyond a
bunch of bloggers — up in arms about Dodd’s words, the story could only
have been “SOME REPORTERS THINK DODD’S COMMENT REMINDS THEM OF LOTT’S”.