Since posting on it earlier this morning, I have been thinking about Elisabeth Bumiller’s piece in the New York Times this morning. Is there any reason for describing Bishop T.D. Jakes as a “multimillionaire” other than to convey Ms. Bumiller’s message that he is not really representative of African-Americans and may not even be legit as a preacher?
Does the Times routinely –or ever– inject the economic status of Anglo religious leaders into its coverage? If as I suspect it does not, why did Bumiller do so in this piece, and why did her editors not catch it?
Born in Denmark, raised in Cinncy and educated at Northwestern, Bumiller, like John Roberts, probably didn’t have much interaction with African Americans, and her interest in Bishop Jakes’ wealth may simply reflect a papmpered elitist’s marvel at how a black man could accumulate such coin.
But didn’t anyone at the Times suggest that Bumiller’s rather obvious insinuation wasn’t relevant to her “story,” and might leave a reader wondering exactly what she was trying to say about Bishop Jakes?