I am wrestling
with the fact that The Plain Dealer has
apparently renamed former judge Lance Mason as the “disgraced former judge”.
I offer no
defense for Mason, who is properly being held on $5 million bail, charged with
the murder of his estranged wife in brutal fashion, four years after he viciously
assaulted her in almost incomprehensible anger in front of their children.
Following that
first assault, Mason fell from grace: he pleaded guilty to assault, was sentenced
to prison for two years, resigned his judgeship, and lost his law license.
It was a sudden
and complete fall from grace. In 2014. What he's accused of doing last month stands alone in its depravity, evidence of a frightening but unfortunately not rare state of mind. I suspect it has little if anything to do with any job or honor Mason ever had.
So, what’s my
issue? I have an uncomfortable sense that Mason’s status as a black man
may have subconsciously factored into editorial coverage decisions.
 |
| Headline, caption, and first sentence each refer to Mason as disgraced. |
I do not recall that former county commissioner and Democratic Party chair Jimmy Dimora was so regularly characterized, although he fell from the county’s top electoral spot in the county for his participation in ongoing public corruption schemes. Likewise for former county treasurer Frank Russo, former judge Bridget McCafferty, and a host of other once-respected public servants turned intentional malfeasants.
Is this over-sensitivity or hyper-vigilance on my part? Some may certainly think so. But when the term "disgraced" is pounded relentlessly via headline, photo caption and lead sentence, it seems more than mere click bait, reportorial laziness or editorial indifference.
Words have power. When repetitively combined with images of a black man in an orange jumpsuit in this highly politicized environment, it seems that intentionally or otherwise, a subliminal message is being sent.
I welcome your comments.
# # #
Read The Real Deal Press every week for reporting on the interplay of race, class and power in the civic, business and cultural spaces of Northeast Ohio and beyond.
5 comments:
Cold blooded murder ( presumed guilty ) is a far cry from the crimes of Dimora and Russo.Race has no role in this,in my opinion,and shouldn't be played.The man is disgratful( but may also be mentally ill )
Thanks for commenting. Please note there is no attempt to equate the crimes of Dimora and Russo with the murder of Aisha Fraser. The reference is purely to the fall from grace. [It could be argued, I suppose, that the words grace and Dimora were never previously associated; hence, a fall from grace sounds oxymoronic.]
I think cold-blooded murder implies, at least for me, the element of premeditation, which has not been established. Mental illness may get us closer to what happened in this tragic case.
Finally, your reference to race as something that "shouldn't be played" misses the mark entirely.
https://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/07/should_disgraced_ex-judge_brid.html
https://www.cleveland.com/countyincrisis/index.ssf/2011/07/disgraced_judge_bridget_mccaff.html
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/08/editorial_board_roundtable_sho.html
Thank you Anonymous. I don't know if you are the same Anonymous coming back for another bite at the apple or a cousin of the first commenter, whose curiosity was piqued by the initial exchange. In either event, I thank for being a part of the conversation and doing my homework.
At first blush the citations you offer suggest the PD is an equal opportunity labeler when it comes to calling ex-judges "disgraced". But I think a closer look at the citations you adduce reinforces my point. While McCafferty was in two of the pieces you cite called disgraced in the headline, that was it: No further use of the term in the two links. But your citations list in one instance several related stories in which McCafferty was not so described.
Compare that treatment with the article I cited pictured in the original post. Before you finish the first sentence, Mason has been labeled disgraced three times: Headline, photo caption and first sentence. The intensity is unmatched.
Should Lance Mason be convicted of taking his estranged wife's life, it may be that we should refer to him not as an ex-judge but as a a serial violent domestic partner abuser.
You seem bent on trying to refute my point. I detect an intense focus by PD on Mason's disgrace, which makes me ask why and what may be driving it. You don't see that same intensity. I accept that.
Post a Comment