XX Factor: the blog

How Not To Cover the Desirée Rogers Story

I've rolled it over and over in my head, and I cannot avoid the conclusion that this New York Times article on White House social secretary Desirée Rogers is irresponsible at best and inexcusable pandering at worst. While I think that the whole party-crashers story is being blown way out of proportion, I'll accept that there's an argument for the obsessive coverage of it and for looking into Rogers' potential liability for what happened. But I fail to see what her larger-than-life personality, strong self-esteem, and love of fashion has to do with this story. When taken in along with the shaming of Rogers for falling down on the job, this kind of coverage stinks of smacking down a black woman for the crime of being "uppity."

Conservative pundits have a long tradition of looking for scalps to collect in Democratic administrations, and they far prefer to take the scalps of nonwhite, nonmale, or nonstraight folks above all others. Taking out a black female administration employee would be exactly the sort of thing that the pundits could use to drum up white male crowing in their base, even if she's just a social secretary. In fact, one could argue that the scalp of a social secretary who works so closely with the First Lady might even be a bigger prize, as it would function as a symbolic strike at Michelle Obama, an object of fear and loathing for many on the right.

The media should not pander to racist, sexist right-wingers like this. If they must hammer this party-crashers story endlessly, they could at least do it without indulging narratives about how black women who live the high life are stepping out of their station. But of course, responsible coverage of this story would be missing the point for those beating this story to death. Even Howard Kurtz had to admit that the story reigns in the news because of the "gossipy aspects." Unfortunately, if you start to cover news stories as if they were tabloid stories, then you will slip into indulging in all the racist, sexist pandering that we're so used to seeing in the supermarket stands. Burying this story in the fashion pages of the Times doesn't excuse the general slant of the story; it's still a swipe at a black woman for behaving in a way we indulge when it's wealthy white women.

Tags: Desiree Rogers, White House party crashers

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Amanda Marcotte recently moved from her home state of Texas to Brooklyn, NY. She blogs at pandagon.net and rhrealitycheck.org.

Comments

"Either way, the author

By: Dausuul | Tue, 12/08/2009 - 16:34

"Either way, the author missed the real story, which is that the Obama administration is using a separation of powers defense to keep Rogers from an inquiry."

Why is this the real story? This seems to me like exactly the sort of thing separation of powers is *supposed* to be about. It's purely internal to the executive branch; as long as he's not breaking the law or exceeding his budget, how the President manages his personal security and his social affairs is his business. It's not like Ms. Rogers is holding dinner parties in a CIA black ops prison.

Logical connection status: missing

By: cathy | Mon, 12/07/2009 - 19:55

How do you get from what a New York Times journalist wrote to what conservative pundits think?

Either way, the author missed the real story, which is that the Obama administration is using a separation of powers defense to keep Rogers from an inquiry. Here's a TIME article on it. What a terrible precedent -- under that logic Watergate shouldn't have been investigated -- and for what? For a president that promised unprecedented transparency, things are looking foggier and foggier.

Talk about inexcusable

By: lolwhat | Mon, 12/07/2009 - 15:33

You write: Conservative pundits have a long tradition of looking for scalps to collect in Democratic administrations, and they far prefer to take the scalps of nonwhite, nonmale, or nonstraight folks above all others. Taking out a black female administration employee would be exactly the sort of thing that the pundits could use to drum up white male crowing in their base, even if she's just a social secretary.

I notice there's no justification for such an absurdly baseless and offensive charge, but you could at least attempt to provide some traces of support. I think it's a little rich to be calling actual journalists irresponsible if you're going to print drivel like this.

It's so odd how people can

By: Mayah | Mon, 12/07/2009 - 15:19

It's so odd how people can have completely different takes on a story. I read the piece here, read the story, and then went back here and it's like she linked the wrong story.

The NYT piece I read was about a position and women who have been in the news who I am not familiar with. It gave some background on her and discussed what her position entails. I thought it was interesting.

And my overall impression was that the writer of the piece liked and supported the secretary. It talked about how hard her job was and how hard she works at it. It had 2 flattering pictures of her. It mentioned how the administration supported her. So, yeah, not any racist pandering. At all. I actually feel MORE on her side after reading the piece although I can still see why some would question her making herself an invited guest.

colleteral damage

By: GingerR | Mon, 12/07/2009 - 14:19

It's hard to tell if the security snafu is really Ms. Roger's part. The guards were "social engineered" and whoever she'd sent to the desk probably would have been also.

What she does seem guilty of is upstaging the guests.

She's not the star, the one whose dress is supposed to make the headlines. She's the organizer who is supposed to be running about in a blue blazer, rubber-soled shoes, talking into her radio hand-set and collecting priceless stories about the real guests for her future book.

I'd say the moral of this story is that if you wear a pink dress any do-do that flies is hard to avoid. The blue blazer and the rubber shoes are like teflon.

false view

By: phpeter | Mon, 12/07/2009 - 14:01

I think there is a difference between going after somebody and chewing on the bones of what is thrown at you. In this instance, Ms. Rogers is being thrown to the dogs as a scape goat. You could take your same approach and apply it to the following question, Why is she being made the scape goat here?