Site icon journal-isms.com

Obama Lets Media Mark His Place in History

richard

First African American Shies Away from Racial Context

The historic acceptance by Barack Obama of the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday came on the 45th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King‘s "I Have a Dream" speech, but by and large, Obama left it to others, including¬†the news media, to note the occasion’s historic dimensions.

The media grappled with how much Obama’s achievement was personal and how much should be credited to society in general or to African Americans.

Many newspapers picked headlines focusing on the speech itself or quoting from the Illinois senator’s 44-minute oration at Denver’s Invesco Field, which was delivered before 84,000 people and broadcast to the largest audience ever¬†– 38 million –¬†in the history of televised conventions.

"’Time to Change America,’" bannered the Syracuse (N.Y.) Post-Standard. "’Our Dreams Can Be One,’" said the Wilmington (Del.) News Journal. "The American Promise," wrote the Philadelphia Daily News. "Obama Grabs his Dream," wrote the Stamford (Conn.) Advocate. "Obama on Offense," said the Miami Herald.

A few newspapers did play up the historic significance and the tie to the 1963 "Dream" speech, most prominently the Cincinnati Enquirer, which bannered, "Obama Fulfilling MLK’s Dream."

"45 Years Later, senator accepts place in history," was the subheadline. A sidebar, "Blacks feel pride after nominee’s ascension," by Enquirer staffer Allen Howard, held up the left-hand column. The Enquirer’s executive editor, Hollis Towns, is African American.

Broadcast outlets seemed more forthright. On National Public Radio’s "Tell Me More," Charles Robinson of Maryland Public Television compared audience members’ journey to Invesco Field to a hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Robinson and host Michel Martin, who was also in Denver, noted that some had traveled from overseas or secured jobs in concession stands just so they could witness the moment.

Some evidenced unfamiliarity, if not discomfort, with the racial issues at play. The main convention story¬†in the Los Angeles Times, by Mark Z. Barabak, called Obama’s biracial background "exotic or distant."

"Obama salted his speech with he stories of people he met on the campaign trail, suggesting he is not as exotic or distant as his mixed-race background and cool demeanor sometimes suggest," Barabak wrote.

On his PBS show, Tavis Smiley and his guests discussed whether Obama failed to acknowledge the King connection sufficiently. Smiley’s "two favorite contributors, Princeton professor Cornel West and Bennett College president Julianne Malveaux," reported Katia Bachko Friday for the Columbia Journalism Review, "wonder why Obama referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as a ‘preacher from Georgia’ and never by name.

"’The brother dropped the historical baton,’ Malveaux said, disappointed that Obama didn’t delve deeper into the history of the civil rights movement and the significance of the anniversary of the ‘I have a dream’ speech. Hillary Clinton talked about Harriet Tubman, but Obama didn’t," Bachko wrote.¬†

In a follow-up posting, CJR’s Janice Kim wrote¬†that the Atlantic Monthly’s Ta-Nehisi Coates "rightly" took West and Malveaux to task "for failing to look past the ‘kissing of the ring’ outlook."

"Half the reason for having John Lewis, for having the film of MLK, for having MLK’s kids is so that Obama is free to focus on winning the election," Coates said in the piece. "I don’t think you do that by making the speech a paean to MLK – God bless him. How many votes is that going to get you? When you’re on the battlefield, you don’t pause put down your sword and shield to praise God for allowing you the privilege of being there. Do that after the battle’s won.’"

In France, Radio France Internationale’s Marco Chown Oved felt obliged to explain¬†how Americans view Obama’s racial background. "Despite being considered black in the US, in France there seems to be a lot of confusion over how to identify Obama," Oved wrote. "Many newspapers started out back in January calling him m?©tisse or mixed race. Then, after Obama began to emerge as a serious contender and journalists took a closer look, one by one all the newspapers and magazines switched to calling him black."

The piece explained that "back at home, Obama simply cannot present himself as The Black Candidate. It quoted Stephen Maynard Caliendo, associate professor of political science at North Central College in Chicago, explaining that Obama has to say, "it’s clear I’m black, but I’m not that kind of black person, meaning that I’m not the kind of black person that you think of when you think of black people, because of the way you’ve been socialized."

AP Accused of Offering Another Pro-McCain Analysis

"In an unusually heated attack on a veteran political reporter by a cable news host, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann laced into the Associated Press’s Charles Babington an hour after Barack Obama had concluded his speech in Denver on Thursday night," Greg Mitchell wrote Friday in Editor & Publisher.

"With rare exception, nearly all of the top commentators and reporters on the three cable news networks had hailed Obama’s speech as something new and powerful, and filled with specifics, and predicted it would have a positive effect on his chances vs. John McCain. This hallelujah chorus included conservatives such as Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan and the longtime Republican David Gergen, as well as Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. Buchanan called it the best and most important political convention speech he had ever heard, going back 48 years.

"So Olbermann was outraged that the AP’s Babington had written, in his analysis of the speech, just off the wire, that Obama had tried nothing new and that his speech was lacking in specifics. He read the first few paragraphs on the air, lamented that it would be printed in hundred of newspapers on Friday, and concluded, ‘It is analysis that strikes me as having born no resemblance to the speech you and I just watched. None whatsoever. And for it to be distributed by the lone national news organization in terms of wire copy to newspapers around the country and web sites is a remarkable failure of that news organization.’

"Charles Babington, find a new line of work."

Fox News’s Brit Hume picked up¬†on Babington’s piece Friday, writing, "Even the Associated Press was not sold on the substance of Barack Obama’s Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech."

Olbermann wasn’t alone in differing with Babington, as blogger Jonathan Singer wrote¬†in a piece headlined, "The Associated Press Keeps Up its War Against Barack Obama." On washingtonpost.com, Chris Cilizza wrote, "Obama’s speech was more substance than style; more specifics than rhetorical flourish."

The Boston Globe’s Peter S. Canellos began his convention piece with, "In a setting that was both portentous and a little pretentious, Senator Barack Obama tonight offered an acceptance speech that was grounded and targeted."

The Babington analysis assumes added significance because Ron Fournier, who heads the AP’s Washington Bureau, where Babington works, is already under fire for a perceived tilt toward¬†McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

An AP spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, but this week defended a Fournier piece that had been criticized as pro-McCain by saying it was clearly labeled analysis.

McCain’s VP Pick Trashed in Early Commentary

The first commentators of color out of the box on Sen. John McCain’s selection Friday of running mate Sarah Palin, the little-known governor of Alaska, were negative.

It is "a stunt that is pandering for the gender vote, and that is insulting on so many levels," Marisa Trevi?±o wrote on her Latina Lista blog.

"Given McCain’s age and Palin’s documented limited experience in politics, it seems so obvious that all he wants is eye-candy."

Keith Boykin, the founder of thedailyvoice.com who served in the Bill Clinton administration, called the choice "the desperate ploy of a failing candidate trying to stay competitive in a losing race.

"After watching Palin today, she seems like a pleasant enough person, and she’s a self-described ‘hockey mom.’ But a pleasant personality and a few years in local government don’t make you qualified to be Vice President of the United States."

Marcus Mabry, a New York Times editor and author of "Twice as Good," a biography of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, compared Rice’s credentials with those of Palin. "Rice, objectively speaking, would be qualified to be president tomorrow," Mabry wrote on CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360" blog.

"On what planet is this pick not an example of a stunning — and galling — hypocrisy? By McCain’s own terms, Palin is an indefensible choice," Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press said, although his Free Press colleague Rochelle Riley was kinder.

Likewise, DeWayne Wickham of USA Today and Gannett News Service saw the positive: "the Obama campaign has been put on the defensive by McCain, whose selection of a female running mate proves that the old Navy pilot still knows how to take the fight to the enemy," he blogged.

In Alaska, Sean Cockerham and Wesley Loy of the Anchorage Daily News wrote that the selection "stunned and divided Alaska political leaders today. Supporters said she was a shrewd choice, but others argued Palin has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Clint Hendler of the Columbia Journalism Review tweaked the news organizations that failed to see that Palin was in McCain’s sights. He¬†noted, "Reporters writing about the Obama and McCain vice presidential nominations repeatedly mentioned that both camps’ processes were the most opaque ever conducted. That lack of information didn’t stop pundits from offering lists pulled from a combination of reporting, and informed speculation.

". . . today, how many journalists and readers are regretting the time they spent writing and reading about, well, nothing?"

Journalists Said to Applaud at Obama Speech

The issue of journalists applauding at political events, raised during the Unity: Journalists of Color convention last month, is back.

In the Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Robert Feder wrote Friday, "Chicago reporters covering the Democratic Convention in Denver were stunned to witness WGN-Channel 9’s Allison Payne cheering and applauding for speakers Wednesday night while she was seated with the Illinois delegation in the Pepsi Center.

"The veteran newswoman has been co-anchoring convention coverage for the Tribune Co.-owned station."

Fox News’ Brit Hume wrote¬†Friday, "Several members of the media were spotted cheering and clapping for Obama during the speech. The Hill newspaper online reports dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes were seen standing around the stage area at Invesco Field ‘chanting along with the crowd.’

"The report said that two members of the foreign press even snapped each other’s photos while wearing a Barack Obama hat and waving a flag. And several members of the press were also seen screaming during some of Obama’s biggest applause lines."

Payne did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

L.A. Times Loses Another Latino Writer

Miguel Bustillo, Houston bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, wrote to colleagues yesterday that he was leaving the paper after 15 years. He started with the newspaper in the Metpro training program for young journalists of color and, according to LAObserved, is heading for the Wall Street Journal.

"I was fortunate enough to work on a lot of memorable stories. But the one that will always resonate in my mind was the 1994 Northridge Earthquake," he wrote. "I was 22 at the time, just starting out. The Valley edition was treated like a minor league affiliate by some of the more pompous denizens of Times Mirror Square. But on that day, the Valley newsroom rose to that challenge like nothing I’ve seen before or since. It was magic, and as I played my small intern’s part in the reporting that day, I knew I had made a good career choice. That Pulitzer was richly deserved. Some of the stringers who contributed to that coverage are among this paper’s best reporters today.

"I will never understand why the LA Times pulled back from Ventura and the Valley. That was the biggest strategic mistake this paper ever made. I bet anyone who worked in those places, covering local news like I did, would agree."

[Bustillo, 38, told Journal-isms on Sept. 3 he would be covering Wal-Mart out of the Journal’s Houston bureau.¬† He said he did not understand why the Times did not expand, rather than contract, the Metpro program. "It’s a way to get cheap labor. You’d think newspapers would be ramping up minority internships," he said.]¬†

In July, the Los Angeles Times announced¬†plans to cut 250 positions across the company, including 150 positions in the news department, in a new effort to bring expenses into line with declining revenue.¬† In 2005, 35-year veteran Frank Sotomayor took a buyout offer. The previous year,¬† 33-year veteran Frank del Olmo collapsed¬†in his office. Javier J. Aldape, who edited three editions of the Tribune Co.’s Spanish-language Hoy newspapers from the L.A. Times, left this year to become vice president of niche products for the newspaper division of the E. W. Scripps Co.

L.A. Times Says It Should Have Included Suspects’ Race

How much detail is sufficient to warrant including in crime stories the race of suspects being sought?

That continuing question resurfaced after a story in Thursday’s Los Angeles Times about armed robberies¬†along Melrose Avenue. The story said, "All three of the robbers have been described as men in their early to late 20s, ranging from 5 feet 6 to 6 feet tall and weighing 150 to 200 pounds."

According to Jamie Gold, writing¬†Friday on her reader representative’s blog,¬†racial information "was originally included by reporter Andrew Blankstein, who had the handout from the local police and the group Melrose Action Neighborhood Watch. It said, ‘All three suspects have been described as African American males ranging in height of 5’6" – 6’0" tall, 150 ‚Äì200 pounds ‚Äì in their early to late 20s.’

"Says senior copy chief Mark McGonigle, ‘This was caused by a misunderstanding of our policy on using racial identification. The copy editor took out the racial description supplied by the reporter, thinking that there were not enough other descriptive elements to leave it in. In fact, the policy states that it’s all or nothing: Either there’s enough information to make for a meaningful description, which should include race, or there’s not enough of a description and all the elements of the description should be taken out of the story. I’ve talked to the copy editor and slot on the story to make sure they understand the policy."

Other newspapers have found such descriptions too vague, insisting that complexions and identifying marks be included.

Bill Ketter, a former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors who edits the Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle-Tribune, has told his staff, "Reporters should always press police for details that distinguish suspects from other persons of the same racial or ethnic group."

Last year, Ted Vaden, public editor of the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer, quoted John Drescher, managing editor of his paper, saying the N&O will identify race when there is enough additional detail to make a description useful — eye color, length of hair, texture of hair, complexion, height, weight, age, etc.

"But Drescher also makes the case that in an increasingly multi-ethnic community, race is less useful as a description. The Triangle is suffused with populations from other parts of the country, South and Central America, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East and other places. How do you distinguish between black, brown, white, dark complexion, light complexion and other?" Vaden asked.

The Syracuse (N.Y.) Post-Standard all but eliminated race as an identifier about 13 years ago, in favor of skin tone.

As examples, its guidelines list "pale, light tan, dark tan, olive, light brown, reddish brown, ruddy, fair-skinned and freckled."

British Paper Offers Sad Assessment of Michael Jackson

Britain’s Daily Mail wrote¬†Thursday that "King of Pop" Michael Jackson, who turned 50 on Friday, "cuts a frail figure these days" and¬†regrets having had plastic surgery.

The piece, by author J. Randy Taraborrelli, contrasts sharply with celebratory coverage of Jackson last year in Jet and Ebony magazines on the 25th anniversary of his record-setting "Thriller" album.

"As a journalist who has reported more on Jackson in the past 30 years than anyone else — including having written three best-selling books about him — I can’t help but be deeply saddened by the way his life has turned out," Taraborrelli wrote.¬†

"He has even begun to regret having plastic surgery and spends much of his time staring at his reflection in the mirror.

"’I don’t know what I was thinking back then,’ he recently said. ‘Everyone makes mistakes when they’re young, I guess. But I still look OK, don’t I? I mean, for 40?’

"When reminded that, in fact, he was about to turn 50, Jackson gave a sad, half smile.

"’It all went by so fast, didn’t it? I wish I could do it all over again, I really do.’"

The newspaper published an expert’s image of Jackson as he would have looked at 50 without plastic surgery.

Short Takes

Exit mobile version