How MLK beat #MeToo

Easy.  The press ignored the story.  Let's face it, if someone - celebrated biographer or not - had published an article finding that Ronald Reagan, or Nixon, or Eisenhower, or Washington, or Teddy Roosevelt, or anyone may have been involved in sexual assault, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be 24/7 coverage.  Heck, it would be 25/8.  We'd see outrage, protests, calls to pull down portraits or statues, demolish Mount Rushmore, pull books, take down art, you name it.  The press would be all over it, with series, special reports, round tables, documentaries.  That would be it.

But MLK?  Aside from a smattering of stories, mostly print, and generally of the 'greedy guy gunning for money' or 'FBI were racists making it up', there was scant little mentioned, if anything at all.  This one was a rare exception.  I've seen nothing on the network news shows.  I don't know if it's been covered on cable news, but I've not heard anything.

This is not, remember, bringing up the almost universally accepted notion that MLK was doing more than just planning marches in those hotel rooms.  This revelation is from a man who wrote one of the celebrated hagiographies of MLK at a time when he was fast becoming the new Jesus for a post-Christian America.  This is a revelation from a man who lamented what he revealed, wished it wasn't true.  Nonetheless he concluded that not only was MLK quite the fraternizer, but he was also involved in what any era would have considered sexual assault, much less our modern #MeToo era.

But no biggie.  The story is more or less fading already.  The press sat on it, as it does anything deemed non-beneficial to The Narrative.  Even Fox and other outlets didn't go there much that I'm aware of.  Perhaps they were afraid that accusations of racism would have abounded.  The rest of the MSM simply swept it under the rug.

Does that hurt the cause of women?  Does it hurt women who have been legitimately assaulted?  Does it matter?  Do we care?  We should know by now that the Left doesn't seem to care about victimized minorities as much as it cares to exploit them.  If their suffering hurts the cause?  Screw'em.

As for me, the story should be discussed, but it isn't a deal breaker. I think a person is measured by the sum total of all they are, not a single issue or even a single sin deemed unforgivable by the modern State.  As a Christian, I gladly proclaim that sins are forgivable, and thus we should never elevate one or another to the 'sin that should never be forgiven'.  Whatever MLK did would need to be balanced by the sum total of all he did and all he was.

But that's not even the argument the press made (how could they, since modern Identity Politics is predicated on a growing list of unforgivable sins based on skin color, gender, and other demographic qualifiers?).  The press simply ignored, suppressed, swept under and moved on.  A reminder that we have no clue what is really going on in the world.  Madagascar could sink into the ocean, and we'd only know it if the press decided to say something.  And that means the press would only mention it if it served the purposes of the press to begin with.