Impunity (The White House Press Corps)"Last week's convention of minority journalists was the largest ever—7,000 strong. Kerry spoke: standing ovation. Bush spoke: no ovation. Traditionalists in the press said: unprofessional! Critics on the right cried foul. UNITY, coalition of minority voices, didn't know what to say. And group think appealed to all."Jay Rosen opens the scabrous wounds of several heated debates in that short paragraph, and
reactions to his posts explore responses given the Bush and Kerry Show at the
UNITY Convention, journalistic codes of behavior, and the standing of minority journalists.
I'm still wondering what the buzz is about. As far as I can make out,
seven thousand top-drawer journalists drawn from minorities
under-represented in U.S. newsrooms gathered in Washington to thrash out
issues concerning them and the media. They invited George W. Bush and John F. Kerry to address them. In a presidential election year, a refusal to speak would have been electoral suicide. Kerry spoke to a standing ovation and Bush to stony silence.
So what's the problem? The right, using every opening to perpetuate racism in the newsroom, used circular argument, vacuous definitions of professionalism, and hollow but vindictive rhetoric to slam delegates for 'unprofessional conduct'. This has inflamed debate around non-issues, strengthening the hold on editorial offices of those who shout, "See, there's good reason we don't allow spics, latinos, niggers, Koreans and Muslimoids in here."
If that's professional journalism, give me un-professional journalism every time.
And that's another problem. So-called progressive reaction to the right's interpretation of the receptions given Bush and Kerry has been potentially self-defeating. Those who address allegations of 'unprofessional conduct' as a debating point are wasting their time and energy. These red herrings are divisive non-issues.
As far as response to the speakers is concerned, I'd ask whether journalists at the
UNITY love fest were attending as delegates or as reporters. If they were delegates, they were private citizens first, journalists second. Just how does one expect minorities—who were abused to give Bush the 2000 election—to receive the smirking, ignorant and ill-prepared president of the U.S.A.? With open arms? And how does one expect them to receive a gregarious and forthcoming Kerry? With a stony silence?
Well, yes. I cannot understand why delegates gave Kerry a standing ovation. By the same token, I cannot understand why they allowed Bush attend at all. It would make some sense if Kerry's reception was engineered solely to highlight disdain felt for Bush. But Kerry is as much an enemy to minorities as any member of the Bush Gang. To preserve the white-male domination of government and business, Kerry would see minorities herded into cattle trucks, shipped off to Arizona and made to sew mailbags till Kingdom come. He is as different to Dubya as an apple is to an orange. While an apple doesn't have bastards, it's still a fruit.
Do UNITY members not see this?
One argument could be that Kerry was there as the representative of a political party that professes—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary—to stand for all that is good, right and just in the Constitution of the United States. For that reason, he might have been tolerated but, hell, everybody knows he's as much into bondage as the incumbent president.
Okay, so why was Bush, who is good only for gaffes, invited or allowed to speak? He represents the party (remember, he's there for himself and the GOP, not the presidency) openly standing for everything minorities loathe. I don't know. Ten years ago, in South Africa, you did not get members of an oppressive regime wandering in to such fora. On occasion, politicians would try to muscle their way in, but every attempt ended in violence. Why? Because those on the receiving end of discriminatory legislation refused to be mocked by those who sought their enslavement. They knew that, to be heard, they would need to send a strong message. So they locked down and told the state to go to hell.
Either the UNITY people, as Americans, are into civility in a big way or they've refined servility to an art. The
depth, scope and pragmatism of advertised convention workshops give the lie to the latter assumption, but the sooner UNITY realizes continuing to bow and scrape before the great white chief perpetuates oppression, the better.
Accommodation is comforting, but it's also delusional.
Another thing. Did the Bush-Kerry show demonstrate the power of UNITY? Yes and no. As said before, only a political suicide would ignore a captive audience of 7,000 journalists. It's a
powerful lobby in anybody's book. But while coverage given the event by the mainstream press drew attention to the movement's inherent strength, it highlighted its dependence on a media establishment that despises and turns on its members. We see this in media attribution of unethical or unprofessional conduct to delegates scorning Bush.
In other words, publicity tells us the UNITY movement has numbers, but it allows its clout to be defined by media that refuse to include its members. That's not something about which it should boast. Dependence militates against independence. Just how far is the ever-accommodating UNITY prepared to go to see affirmative action implemented in the newsroom?
The right is laughing right now. I'd say that while UNITY cheers the likes of Kerry, conservatives have every reason to gloat. Their small victories are being mirrored everywhere, from Najaf to DC. They're certainly not political or ideological victories. We're seeing the triumph of rampant consumerism. Most of us are, at heart, Oliver Twists and all we really want is "...some more." Like manipulative drug lords, the U.S. administration allows sufficient consumer goods (and media are consumable goods) to trickle down to dependent markets and, whaddayaknow? Sniff, sniff...
Consumerism is the opiate of the masses. It keeps them satisfied and reins them in, whether in the newsroom, at the ballot box or on patrol. There is no longer room for idealists and revolutionaries in what has become the New American Century. Like it or not, black or white, rich or poor, journalists or otherwise, we are all neocons now—wired men in suits. Groupthink rules. It is, after all, the Bush and Kerry Show.
"We didn't come here to the nation's capital to celebrate." ... "You know why we're here. Too few blacks. Too few journalists of color are employed in America's newsroom."Herbert Lowe, President of the National Association of Black JournalistsNote The above is an ad hoc response (my day job demands I get some sleep) to
Jay Rosen's first two posts on the subject. He's posted
far more. I realise my comments might sound critical of him—for raising 'non-issues'—and
UNITY—for not setting fire to newsrooms across the U.S. And my observation of our newfound global neo-con status derives from sentiments better expressed by William Cook in
The Rape of Philomela at
Counterpunch. Yet, although I feel my language precludes nuance, my criticisms are not intended as barbs. Impatient by nature, I see them aligning themselves with incoming responses to Jay's initial post.
Ernest Sotomayor, UNITY's president, guest blogs on Jay's site and spells out his organisation's position on media response to delegates' reactions to
Bush and
Kerry. "Huh?" seems to sum it up. In other words, "What's the issue?" "Where's the story?" "What are you people talking about?" Etcetera. Importantly, Sotomayor details UNITY's reasons for bringing Bush and Kerry to the party:
"The reasons for having the candidates are simple and as journalistically sound as ever: to raise issues that are important to the people in the communities from where we came, but aren’t parts of the discussions on the campaign trail. They include questions about sovereignty on Indian reservations, media ownership, affirmative action, Filipino-American veterans getting their dues, immigration, etc. If we felt we had more people in the press corps who understood these issues, or understood that they are important to tens of millions of Americans, there wouldn’t have been a need for us to ask the candidates to appear before us and discuss them." ... "As for the charge that we’re activists, the plea is guilty. We advocate for fair, representative, accurate journalism, by changing the complexion of newsrooms, not just racially and ethnically, but through the natural diversity of thought that occurs when you bring in people with different backgrounds."
In his post, Sotomayor acknowledges important issues being given only "cursory examination". Appropriately, he seems to point out that while these issues may be important to UNITY, a refusal by the establishment to acknowledge their import leads to problems for society as a whole.
The social nature of the problem is highlighted by Jay following Sotomayor's post with a guest blog by
TV news veteran Terry Heaton. Heaton questions UNITY members' approach to managing diversity in the workplace and argues against some consequential typecasting. Doing so, he shows a signal lack of appreciation for what Sotomayor is aiming at in the italicised text above. In other words, he does not realise that the problem is
his or that
his view is, to put it kindly, anachronistic and of a type that leads to tokenism. The vacuity of Heaton's view is pointed out by
Andres Martinez, backed by a succinct comment from
Tim Porter, who examines entrenched, ass-about-face attitudes
here.
Hmm... I do tend to blog on the run. I see
Tim Porter covering the same ground more effectively and in greater depth than I'm able to. Happy in the knowledge that bloggers are not necessarily journalists, I urge you to read his
blog post for a clearer, journalistic perspective.
A last point. Given the failure of affirmative action to effect change in North American newsrooms and the mindsets of those occupying them, surely it's time minority journalists asked themselves whether they really want to go there? As new and alternative media take hold in increasingly fragmented societies, journalists are needed more than ever before. Why forsake UNITY for membership of old media? Why not jump ship and learn to swim before they do. Lead. Don't follow.