Missing: Minorities in Media

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (12)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  With all due respect to your considerable experience and expertise, madam, the problem, as this white writer has observed, is much deeper than “the numbers.” Calling for the number of persons of color working as prominent journalists to be proportionate with the census data on our melting pot’s ethnic stew insults, as we former and present mainstream journalists know, the intellectual threshold that should be journalism’s requisite credential. As a glance at the blacks holding prominent seats in mainstream journalism’s ranks reveals, there aren’t many Angela Davises among them and too many of the black males have iced their souls rather than lit the fire of burning spears that once marked a generation of young black men’s and women’s understanding of how the system was working to keep them from fully perceiving its pernicious racism. It would appear that the larger problem is how young, black writers are recognized as talented. I would guess that few journalism professors have observed a reminder of Bobby Seale or Huey Newton in their classrooms. During my brief but hugely enlightening experience with The Black Panthers of Oakland not long after the year that our cities were afire, I came to realize that fiery rage was not considered respectable and would not long be sanctioned by academia or the brokers of our information industries. Even forty years ago, when I would have called you “sister,” it was obvious that CBS and PBS weren’t going to hire Angela. We are lucky to have you; but Gwen Ifill taking on Imus is not that big a deal. When last did she update us on Mumia or Pelletier? It’s content, not politeness, that arouses movement. Stokely was brilliant, not well-educated. Token blacks mark our times. Token radical blacks are unheard of. In the mainstream, we swim the same or are swept aside. It’s a conforming race

  Posted by Bud Wizer on Feb 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM

  Why stop with only proportionate representation by race? There seems to be a distinct shortage in the media of Swedish decent. Does anyone care?

  Calls for quotas, group representation and diversity will do little for equality in the treatment of individuals. If we abide by percentages of population which minority athletes do we cut? Such continued fragmentation as affirmative action offers no long term aid in eliminating bad feelings toward each other.

  Posted by whattheheck on Feb 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM

  Surely you don’t mean to compare African-Americans, a group of Americans whose ancestors emigrated from Africa, to Swedish-Americans, a group of Americans whose ancestors emigrated from Sweden.To be consistent, you need to compare countries to countries and continents to continents (apples to apples and oranges to oranges).  Either way, I’m sure you’ll find proportionately more Swedish-Americans than, say, Moroccan-Americans employed in the media.  In other words, if Swedish-Americans represent x percent of the population and Moroccan-Americans represent y percent of the population, then you can be reasonably certain that Swedish-Americans and Moroccan-Americans represent w and z percent, respectively, of the population of people employed in the media, where w>>x and z<<y.  I don’t mean to needlessly confuse you with irrelevant appeals to logic.  Judging from the general vacuity of your comments, your confusion appears to be obvious regardless of any input I or anyone else might provide.  The author asserts that proportionately more European-Americans are employed by the media than are African-Americans.  Although you apparently agree with the statement, your final response is, nevertheless, “Who cares?” Well, of course, most of the rest of us do care. You can’t begin to rectify disparities of inequality until you actually see the people who experience the inequality.  To paraphrase your final, fatuous, unsubstantiated assertion, “calls for quotas, group representation and diversity will do a lot for inequality in the treatment of individuals.”

  Posted by Major Major on Feb 23, 2008 at 12:02 AM

  MajorMajor,

  Yes, you are right and I apologize. My comparison was more like one apple from the bushel to an entire basket. 

  Also, instead of Swedes — who are known for intelligence, compassion and a willingness to accept any and all regardless of ability, talent or other characteristics to help the their country maintain its socialist benefits — I should have compared Africans in general to Europeans in general.

  On the other hand, if as you assert, the fragmentation quotas benefit people, perhaps we should go a bit further and compare only those from each group who have large (or small) ears, or can sing, or have specific sexual preferences, or irritating voice qualities — we can go on...and on… and…

  I still say unity is better than diversity if individuals are important. Grouping only encourages an us/them attitude.

  Let’s compromise — we can subdivide until we get down to individuals — and both be happy :-)

  Posted by whattheheck on Feb 23, 2008 at 8:35 AM

  There’s a reason for instituting a policy of proportional minority representation among the members of the media, aside from eliciting the usual racist complaints from conservatives concerning politically correct displays of aberrant behavior.  If we can see members of minority groups who are intelligent, compassionate, talented and professionally capable (like journalists, newscasters, film directors--in short, us), then we become less likely to relegate them to the margins of social irrelevance (drug dealers, addicts, gangbangers, unwed mothers, welfare recipients--in short, them).  In fact, the boundary between us and them begins to erode to the extent that many of us may feel motivated to question its existence in the first place.  Who benefits from the disproportionate allocation of whites among us?  Who suffers from the disproportionate allocation of blacks among them?

  Posted by Major Major on Feb 23, 2008 at 2:38 PM

  Hmmm, come on, Major —

  So who among us has not seen or read of:

  • Martin Luther King • General and Secretary of State, Colin Powell • Sec. Rice • Bill Cosby • Jesse Jackson • Morgan Freeman • Gwen Ifill • Juan Williams • Ella Fitzgerald • James Earl Jones • Jackie Robinson •
  The Tuskegee Airmen • George Washington Carver • • The Harlem Globetrotters • Marian Anderson • Dred Scott .................

  How far back do I need to go? Must I also list Hispanics, Asians or some other category?

  Anyone who still thinks in terms of the criminal minority person as typical or universal will only find the reverse discrimination we have fostered as an additional reason for hate. If they don’t recognize those who happen to be minorities and have played an significant socially relevant role they are beyond change. That goes as well, for the minorities who think of these people as “traitors to their race”.

  Posted by whattheheck on Feb 24, 2008 at 9:05 AM

  Wtf,Wth…

  You don’t complain about all those disproportionately positive representations of white, or male, or straight, or Christian, or conservative images which constantly reinforce our predisposition to include and tolerate the social dominance of whites, or males, or straights, or Christians or conservatives.  It’s only when non-whites, or women, or queers, or atheists and moslems, or liberals and socialists and anarchists are included among the ranks of social acceptance and political consensus that you begin the question the wisdom of liberal tolerance, and condemn blacks for their violence, women for their support for abortion, queers for their refusal to procreate, atheists and moslems for their rejection of a Christian god, and liberals, socialists and anarchists for their insistence upon social and communal responsibility.

  Nobody thinks of dominated people in terms of their criminal predispositions.  It’s a gut reaction reinforced by feelings of hatred, guilt and fear.  Northern Irish Protestants collaborated with the English in their invasion and occupation of Ireland.  With the withdrawal of English troops from Ireland to Northern Ireland, the Irish Protestants understood that outside of Northern Ireland they were outnumbered and despised for their support for and dependence upon the English conquest of Ireland, and that their dominant status could only be maintained in a state where they outnumbered the Catholics.  Not many people thought about the roots of sectarian violence, but most of them felt the hatred and fear which reinforced their feelings of guilt for the atrocities committed during the conquest and occupation and subsequent withdrawal from Ireland.  Until they recognize the guilt they share for the crimes committed by their government and act to resolve and rectify them, the violence will continue until one side or the other, or both, is exterminated.

  So, yes, reparations are required; and not the feeble reparations which masquerade as welfare handouts from the dominant rich to the dominated poor, but ones which include and accept the dominated among the ranks of the dominant.

  Bill Cosby?  Gimme a break.  He achieved his status from the exploitation of urban black male stereotypes, and currently maintains that status by...what?  All together now: exploiting urban black male stereotypes.  You need boots to lift yourself by the bootstraps, and people willing to let you keep them until you do.

  Posted by Major Major on Feb 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM

  MM,

  You’re way out of bounds in your assumptions.

  You know nothing much about me, but believe you can list what or who I complain about and do not complain about.

  You have slapped a bunch of labels on me β€” racist, sexist, religious bigot and yet you know notning more of my religious views than you do of my blood type. Apparently you reserve the right for yourself to determine what is just.

  Your rant covers just about all topics on which anyone may have an alternative opinion. Oh, you left out gun control. (How the hell did we end up in Ireland?)

  My contention is quite simple:

  I believe each person should be evaluated on his own behavior, ability and acceptance of responsibility for his speech and actions. I don’t think we should increase or limit the number of minorities (racial, gender, religious or sexual preference) in the media.

  You singled out Cosby and made no comment about anyone else, does that mean you would want to allow only those minorities you agree with to be included in the media?

  I must say your attitude is disappointing and I will grade you as unsatisfactory on this topic.

  Posted by whattheheck on Feb 26, 2008 at 3:02 PM

  Major Major, to say that black people’s ancestors “emigrated from Africa” sounds very civilized, but you know better: they were hunted, chained and sold and later exploited

  Posted by Maria on Feb 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM

  Technically, legalized assault, kidnapping and forced servitude can easily be construed as emigration, as people like Wolf and whattheheck, with tongues firmly planted in their chubby cheeks, will gleefully confirm.  Why else would they equate affirmative action to reverse discrimination?

  Posted by Major Major on Feb 28, 2008 at 8:53 AM

  Washingtons comments on the composition of the presscorp
  strike me as somewhat anacronistic.The complexity and vapidity
  of the media landscape seems to suggest that we need to do more than reflect ourselves in a mirror .The media needs to communicate a
  message that speaks to the richness and diversity of the country in which we live.

  Posted by headed on Feb 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM

  The media is the message.  Presently, the message is white, middle-class, male, straight, Christian and conservative, complaining about gangbangers, femianazis, AIDS, Islamofascists and the liberal drive-by media.

  Posted by Major Major on Feb 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Laura S. Washington

• Honest Abe and Honest Obe
  
• The Whole World Was Watching
  40 years ago this week, Chicago police battled protesters at the DNC. Two '60s radicals remember the madness, and look to Denver for change
• Gun-toters in La-La Land
  
• The Great Election Robbery of 2008?
  
• Obama Not Feelin’ the Love from Smiley
  
• Who Would Ida B. Wells Vote For?