by Andrea Comer. Ms. Comer is a journalist, mother, and respected community activist from Hartford to New Haven, Connecticut and she has successfully worked to empower youth and support educational services for families throughout Connecticut.
When I walked out to retrieve the paper from my porch Sunday morning, I already knew that Obama had won South Carolina. I also knew that Hillary planned a visit to my city (Hartford) for a town hall meeting. Makes sense I thought, since African Americans in particular and minorities in general are increasingly being seen as the lynchpin in the upcoming primary.
Despite that, let’s not forget that America is a mostly white country that is ill-equipped to look at any issue without throwing race into the mix. The ironic reality hit me as I grabbed the paper: Obama had a huge victory – his largest to date – yet The Courant chose not to put his photo on the front page but that of a newly elected, female White mayor of East Haven. His victory was mentioned below the fold, part of a packaged story on the importance of gender and race in the race for President.
From there I went to the very bottom of the front page, where an invitation to the Commentary section advised me that the paper had made its Democratic and GOP picks. Given the front page, I shouldn’t have been surprised: A brother couldn’t even get his full due. Yet, I had to laugh in disbelief when I saw the paper’s two choices – a White woman over a Black man and a White man whose religion, until just about 30 years ago believed being Black was a sin. Welcome to Connecticut, folks. Welcome to America.
Wait, it gets better. Hidden on the back page of the Courant’s commentary section was a piece penned by a syndicated writer from Chocolate City, or Washington DC as it’s more comfortably known. E.J. Dionne, Jr. chided the Clintons, Bill in particular, for going after Obama based on his pro-Reagan statement. Dionne reminded us that one of Bill’s attributes was his willingness to acknowledge Reagan’s contributions, and “willingness to defy his party’s Reaganphobia. ” What’s good for the goose evidently ain’t for the Black gander.
The hypocrisy of this race is astounding, but the hypocrisy of the media even more. As a former journalist, I am no longer willing to cut the paper some slack. True, they don’t know what they don’t know. But it doesn’t seem they’re willing to, either. The Courant has no African American on its editorial staff, so if it all comes down to race, who would fight for Obama? It’s editorial page editor is a woman, a clear advantage for Hillary if as the paper proclaims on its Sunday front page it’s all about “The Dilemma of Gender and Race.”
While Obama only won a quarter of overall white voters in South Carolina, he won 50 percent of young white voters. This is the same generation that gets its news by way of Youtube, and makes judgments based on their Myspace and Facebook interactions. The influence of the media on them is very, very different – and maybe that’s a good thing. Because if old suppositions can reign on the front page, if the media can change the face of criminal justice in Connecticut (don’t even get me started on THAT one), if the pot-calling-the-kettle-black stance of the Clintons can be simultaneously highlighted and rewarded in one paper on the same day, maybe we should kidnap a clue from our younger siblings. Because maybe they see what we’ve been raised not to: the media’s got an agenda of its own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Andrea, i realy liked your article. The best part of Barack's campaign is that he is publicly exposing so much of what society was trying to deny about itself. Racism is no longer an issue in America today.... For people in a workplace environment, you almost had to have a recording of someone speaking at a kkk rally before someone could be challenged and considered a racist. Well, not any more. Barack's campaign has given us a new bottom line in regards to race and racism and for that I am thankful. I guess I can thank Bill to...
Your article hit on so much of what was running through my mind as I sat and watched the coverage of the South Carolina primary. Much of the Clintons' strategy is banking on - and enabled by - entrenched racism: the more black folks support Obama, the more uncomfortable white folks will become with his candidacy. When black folk in South Carolina didn't march in step with their "first black President," Clinton showed his true color (pun intended) and quickly downplayed the significance of South Carolina, and by extension, rendered its black population insignificant.
For me, one of the most interesting parts of watching the media coverage has been that it's forcing white political pundits to talk about race in a really public way - they've never really had to do it before, and you can hear their awkwardness in how they stammer with certain words, waffle about whether or not to call Obama "too sensitive," flip flop using "Hispanic" and "Latino." They lament how the campaign has become "all about race," but then wait 2 hours and 45 minutes - two-thirds of the way through 4 hours of SC primary coverage to break down exit poll results by anything OTHER than race!
We live in a country where only 4% - FOUR PERCENT! - of news outlets are owned by people of color. This blog is so critical because it permits folks to discuss race, politics and organizing in a way that mainstream outlets refuse to.
I've been watching the commercials for Obama and Clinton in CT. What you are saying is soooo true. Clinton's commercials show mostly Black Men as her supporters. On the other hand Obama's commercials show a more diverse crowd.
People talk about the influence of the media to define their statements on Ghetto lifestyle, rap music, video hos, etc. Very rarely do people get honest about the media glazing over racist statements that are sly like Bill Clinton's about SC.
Post a Comment