Today’s Los Angeles Times puts a new twist on the practice in an article entitled “Mississippi in limbo over high-court’s same-sex marriage ruling”: “Mississippi’s attorney general, Jim Hood, declared that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right would not be observed in the Magnolia State” until the Fifth Circuit “gives gay weddings the go-ahead.”
It’s unclear in what form, or whether, this legal housekeeping will take place, and the article doesn’t hesitate to cite the state’s religious leanings, shameful historical record on everything, etc.
But it never mentions that Attorney General Hood is . . . a Democrat.
The phrasing “in limbo” suggests a sympathy to the legal conundrum. On the other hand, we don’t need much of an imagination to speculate that if Hood were a Republican, the headline would read something like “Republican A.G. defies Supreme Court on same-sex marriage.” We have plenty of examples in MSM outlets, including the Los Angeles Times itself, that prominently identify such rogue state and local officials as Republicans, usually in the first sentence.
*We can actually defend this practice to some extent. When a Democrat politician is corrupt, it’s sort of a “dog bites man” story, so perhaps the party of the crook can go without saying. On the other hand, we see the identity of a dirty pol as Republican as legitimately newsworthy. Tu quoque, MSM?