Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounces sexism and racism in the media coverage of her last-minute appearance

R ep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Was the subject of two critics this week in the newsroom, claiming that the cover of her appearance in "Late Show" was both sexist and racist. The national press, which is usually Johnny on the spot with indignant responses to such criticism, responded with almost total silence.

Facilitator Stephen Colbert on Monday asked Representative Ocasio-Cortez if she was giving an "f-ck" about her senior Democratic colleagues who urged her to wait her turn.

"On a scale from zero to some," Colbert asked, "How many f-cks do you give?"

Politico describes what happened next: "Ocasio-Cortez was lying next to her, as if she was snarling imaginary bag, and pulled out her hand to make a circle. "I think it's zero," she said to the laughter and applause of the crowd. "

Here's how some newsrooms characterized the event in their headlines: [19659006TheHill: "Ocasio-Cortez: I give" zero "F-cks about the repression of other Democrats."

The cover goes clearly for what she pointed out. However, the congressman was not happy happy Tuesday morning, claiming that the press mocked him not only because she is a woman, but that she is a Latin woman .

"In fact, I did not say that. So, although I know that "cursed brown women" are generating clicks, you may be accurately quoting all the exchange instead of manipulating people into thinking that I've said that sentence to place of the word "zero". "She (or rather her office) tweeted .

His narrative continued, adding: "The shock of anyone, [Politico] also works with erroneous attribution. Here is what really happened: I was asked a question during a late night show to which I answered with the word "zero" … C & # 39; is so that the hysteria of the new develops from nothing. "

" This reinforces the lazy tropes of women leaders in the media: Older [and] seasoned, but inconceivable; Passionate, but angry; Intelligent, but crazy; Well intentioned, but naive; Attractive, but uninformed or subject to blunder. He is not original, he is lazy and men are not entitled to the same coverage.

She is not entirely wrong: these headlines made give the impression that the congressman had used the word F. There is a better way to write them . But the fact is that they have not committed any technical error of attribution. Note that everyone quoted the word "zero" and not the word-F.

What's fun is that its reaction is incredibly disproportionate to the alleged offense. To accuse the press of peddling racism, sexism and hysteria of the press is reminiscent of a certain republican president, who is not wrong either to have reproached the press for spoiling the cover of his government. The difference between Ocasio-Cortez and the president lies in the fact that the newsrooms silently accept the beatings inflicted by the congressman, while they say to themselves "I am Spartacus!" Whenever the Republican criticizes a media as hysterical as the Republican.

I know I've already said most of these things before, but that really deserves to be repeated.

If the coverage seems unflattering, Ocasio-Cortez, who, according to newsrooms, also predicted that the future of the Democratic Party would become so, would attack them, even if they were a small and trivial thing. And newsrooms usually take it with a smile. After all, she is well meaning but naive, is not it? Or maybe it's passionate but angry?

Whether it bans reporters from public events or qualifies legitimate reports of "birdcage veil", the new congressman is there to control dishonest media. The fact that the insupportably independent national press has so little to say is one of the funniest things about American politics at the moment.