MAINSTREAM MEDIA likes to see itself as the Public Watchdog, the Fourth Estate and enjoys "exposing" corruption, malfeasance, government officials, and the like but they most enjoy exposing hypocrisy. But who watches the watchdog?
The choice of words is important. See the difference how how the media handled Ferguson and the violence that broke out during a pumpkin festival in Keene, New Hampshire held last weekend (Oct. 18). The difference is - of course - the protesters in Ferguson were black "thugs." The rioters in Keene were "rowdy" white college students.
Don't think it wasn't noticed. The Twitterverse was ... uh, ... atwitter at the obvious discrepancies in how the two events were reported.
News.Mic collected a lot of the tweets about the Keene pumpkin riot. Most were of the sarcastic variety:
The above photo looks more than harmless kids just being kids.
The article pointed out the obvious:
"They deftly point out a sad truth: The media discusses acts of violence and vandalism by primarily white college students in a starkly different manner than black youths."
"Michael Brown — the unarmed black teenager killed by a police officer in August — was 'no angel.' He was a 'criminal and a thug.' He flashed gang signs. But the white teenagers involved in Saturday's riots? They were just a "rowdy crowd." They were 'unruly.' People simply 'got too drunk.'"
In Keene there were few arrests. Police referred the kids to their parents. The police - who were mocked on national TV by John Oliver for purchasing an armored vehicle - overreacted. But they did get to use their armored truck and other cool stuff they got from the military.
The media is not solely to blame. The public itself showed their true colors (pun intended) as described in this article from Salon, which also referred to tweeters.
The problem with the boys-will-be-boys news coverage is the editors, reporters and publishers were blind to their own inherent bias. Some might call that "institutional racism," a buzz word sure to generate a defensive response. What say you, media folks?
The media is not solely to blame. The public itself showed their true colors (pun intended) as described in this article from Salon, which also referred to tweeters.
The problem with the boys-will-be-boys news coverage is the editors, reporters and publishers were blind to their own inherent bias. Some might call that "institutional racism," a buzz word sure to generate a defensive response. What say you, media folks?
The the long term solution is a bit more daunting. It's well known about the diversity problem in our country's newsrooms. It is more prevalent in the print media since TV is a visual medium, in areas where there is great diversity, it only makes sense to have your anchors and reporters look like the people they are reporting on.
Harried reporters, pressured to produce more and more stories, find it easier and faster to do the majority of their work on the Internet or the phone. Most of the time, their readers don't know what they look like.
Harried reporters, pressured to produce more and more stories, find it easier and faster to do the majority of their work on the Internet or the phone. Most of the time, their readers don't know what they look like.
When I worked for the Bob Maynard-owned Oakland Tribune, the news staff was truly integrated, from the copy kids to upper management. Maynard hired the best reporters and editors, no matter what color. Men and women of color had management positions, their concerns were taken seriously and they reflected the people of Oakland. It was my first experience in mainstream media and for a journalist of color, it was the best and most stimulating working experience I had ever had. Little did I know that the diverse newsroom was an aberration, not the norm.
For the few years he owned the Trib before his death, Maynard's conviction on hiring the best and brightest demonstrated that the quality of the staff. They were as good as any in the country - eventually resulting in a Pulitzer for their coverage of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
Publishers are well aware of the diversity problem and for years have talked a good game about their concern, but any progress towards achieving a more diverse news staff seem to be moving backwards. Unfortunately, as the country grows more diverse, the newsrooms are cutting their news staff because of the economic woes caused by the growth of the Interenet. And so it goes: the most recently hired - you know the reporters and editors of color - are the first to be fired. So the problem gets even worse.
As the news coverage of Ferguson and Keene shows, it's one step forward and two steps back. It is disturbing that the editors didn't catch the double standard themselves. Instead, it took tweeters to expose the mainstream media's shortcomings.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment