Liberal Hypocrisy / Media Bias: NY Times on Byrd vs. Thurmond

Aaron Goldstein at American Spectator can’t help but notice the two blatantly distinct tones of two obituaries in the New York Times:

Of Senators and Segregation
By Aaron Goldstein on 6.30.10 @ 6:08AM

Shortly after I had learned of the passing of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia I came across his obituary in the New York Times. The headline read:

Robert Byrd, Respected Voice of the Senate, Dies at 92

It is worth noting that Byrd died almost seven years to the day when Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina passed away. Naturally, I was curious as to what the headline in the New York Times read when he left this mortal coil:

Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100

It is also worth noting that both obituaries were written by Adam Clymer. Now in fairness to Mr. Clymer, it was very likely not he who chose those headlines. But the fact that Byrd and Thurmond were described so very differently in death strongly reflects the liberal bias of the Times. Had Thurmond remained a Democrat, would the Times have summed him up as a foe of integration?

Now there is no dispute that Thurmond was a foe of integration. Indeed, Thurmond once spoke on the floor of the Senate for more than 24 hours in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 late in August of that year. Among many other things, Thurmond railed against Brown v. Board of Education; the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision which desegregated public schools. Thurmond described Brown as “the outstanding judicial blunder of all time.” Understandably, this would deservedly earn Thurmond the enmity of African Americans.

Yet Robert Byrd could equally be described as a foe of integration. During the early 1940s, Byrd was not only a member of the Ku Klux Klan he recruited others to join their cause. Say what you will about Thurmond, but he never joined the Klan. In 1938, when Thurmond served in the South Carolina State Senate, he spoke out against lynching and said that the Klan stood for “the most abominable type of lawlessness.”

Byrd would later oppose President Truman’s integration of the Armed Forces. He made it clear he would not fight for his country “with a Negro by my side.” But there was more:

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Although it was the integration of the Armed Forces that would in part prompt Thurmond to run against Truman in the 1948 Presidential election, he was never known to have uttered the vicious kind of language Byrd used to describe African Americans.

Seven years after Thurmond’s filibuster, Byrd stood up and spoke on the Senate floor for fourteen straight hours against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now Byrd might not have gone on the whole day like Thurmond did, but it was a filibuster against civil rights just the same. …

Read the rest at American Spectator.

Henry Percy at American Thinker comments on Arizona Republic’s fawning whitewashed Byrd obit.

Don’t misunderstand. I'm not apologizing for Strom Thurmond. I’m simply pointing out, as Goldstein is, that if Robert Byrd were held up to the same standard as Thurmond, his obit in the lefty MSM would be far from glowing.