Stupid AP Reporter

…how could it not be seen as racially motivated?..

Weird thing to say.

McCain is saying that Johnson (the accused) was WRONGED by the conviction. IOW, he does not agree with the conviction and thinks Johnson was wrongly convicted.

The AP reporter is giving some background, most people are not familiar with the contents of the Mann Act off the top of their heads.

Other than that, I got nothing.

Yes. Did you think I thought otherwise?

The passage I quoted says the conviction was for sexual relations with a white woman. What more “background” do people need to understand that this would be a racially motivated conviction?

All I can imagine is the reporter felt it necessary to highlight the racial motivation somehow, but thought it would not be journalistically neutral simply to say the conviction was racially motivated.

I think the reporter should have just dropped the “racially motivated” line entirely, since as much is obvious from the nature of the conviction itself.

Here’s a link to the story.

The Mann Act, as explained later in the article, “outlawed transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes.” It didn’t apply specifically to interracial relationships, although that’s how it was used against Johnson. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it was used most of the time, but I don’t know one way or the other.

The story requires an explanation of why McCain and others are pushing for a pardon, and that’s what the “widely seen as racially motivated” bit provides. Johnson’s conviction was racially motivated and it would be hard to find anybody who would dispute that, but that part of the issue needed to be summed up near the beginning of the article.