The 4th of July weekend reminds us once again of the great abolitionist and editor Frederick Douglass, whose 1852 speech, “What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?” is a classic.
Shortly before his death in 1895, Douglass was reported to have whispered to a young follower, “Agitate . . . agitate . . . agitate.”
For a workshop by that name at last summer’s convention of the National Association of Black Journalists, moderated by this columnist, veteran broadcast producer Tom Jacobs wrote these “Reflections, Observations and Suggestions From a Journalistic Dinosaur.”
The Media Respond to Only Two Things
By Tom Jacobs
There will be a test:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— George Santayana, American philosopher
|
|
|
Tom Jacobs |
For 32 years, I’ve worked as a journalist, primarily in television. But my educational background and training was not in journalism, but in history; hence my less- than-subtle use of Santayana’s famous quote. And because of my respect for history and how it can help us gain perspective on current events, I often find myself drawing on lessons of the past to deal with problems in the present.
This is probably an unusual tack to take in this day of instant communication, instant analysis and instant gratification. However, it has been my experience that for all our technological advancements as 21st-century journalists, we are still dealing with 20th-century slights. So I will ask you to indulge me as I present a brief history lesson.
1968
“Along with the community as a whole, the press has too long basked in a white world, looking out of it, if at all, with white men’s eyes and a white perspective. This is no longer good enough. The painful process of readjustment that is required of the American news media must begin now. They must make a reality of integration in both their product and personnel . . .”
— Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968
1979
After studying prime-time television programming from 1969 through 1977, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that racial and ethnic minorities are little more than “window dressing on the set.”
— Window Dressing on the Set: An Update (A report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, January 1979
1980-1990
Reagan-Bush Years/Deregulation
The Reagan-dominated Federal Communications Commission destroyed the ascertainment process, arguing that it was too much of an administrative burden on the stations and on the FCC.
Licensing renewal . . . (is now) . . . Accomplished with a postcard, certifying that the station can meet some stringent financial requirements, but that is about it. The Reagan-Bush FCC tried to destroy the affirmative action/EEO guidelines and the ownership diversity programs, but the Democrats in Congress prevented FCC action.
— Source: Communications Policy is a Civil Rights Issue by Mark Lloyd
1995
Congress Eliminates Minority Tax Certificates
1996
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The industry compromise that became the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was sold to the American public as a great consumer victory. Competition, it was reported, would reduce prices and provide more services. Despite the promise of greater competition, the effect of the Act has been an unprecedented wave of consolidation and partnerships of mutual interest among potential competitors.
Source: Communications Policy Is a Civil Rights Issue by Mark Lloyd
1998
EEO Rules Eliminated
The Federal Communications Commission’s requirements for equal opportunities at stations are struck down by a U.S. Court of Appeals.
1999
The Great Network Whitewash
“Primetime Network Programming Lacks Diversity!”
Not a single nonwhite leading character or theme could be found on any of the 26 new prime-time television series that will premiere on the four major networks . . . NAACP President Kweisi Mfume: “television is the most segregated industry in America.”
— USA Today, July 1999
2001
“Lack of progress is most evident in the news, public affairs and sports departments” of major networks.
— 2001 NAACP Report on Diversity on Television
2003
June
FCC votes to increase broadcast ownership cap from 35% to 45% – Reuters news service
August
Study Finds TV, Radio Newsrooms Lack Diversity
“America is becoming a more diverse nation every year, but you can’t tell that by the makeup of its local television and radio newsroom staffs . . . In television, minorities declined from 20.6 percent of the workforce last year to 18.1 percent in 2003, according to the Radio-Television News Directors Assn./Ball State University survey.” — Reuters news service
* * *
While you may think this little history lesson has little to do with the topic of “Agitate . . . Agitate . . . Agitate!!” I would ask that you bear with me just a while longer.
Some of you may have been aware of events of the recent past, but how many of you were aware of the conclusions of the Kerner Commission or of the 1979 Civil Rights Commission Report? I would submit that very few among you knew that much about the history of minorities in broadcasting. And it’s the not knowing that puts us at a disadvantage when confronting the “diversity spin” of the industry. It’s relatively easy to defend one or two incidents, as the industry has often done. But it is for more difficult to defend 30 years of lip service, lies and double-talk.
It has been my experience that the broadcast and print industries respond to only two things. If you can successfully attack those, you have a chance to effect change. So what are these twin Achilles heels? Simple: a corporation’s public image and its bottom line, the money. If you damage the former, you affect the latter.
So how do you embark on a campaign that will hopefully affect change? Although one must learn the lessons of history, one should also embrace the advances in communication that allow a small group to disseminate information to a potentially global audience.
I would offer two different cases where folks did their homework, formulated a new strategy and were able to control the spin, attack the image and affect the bottom line.
I would submit that we could take a page out of the playbook of the folks at Move On. If you’re unfamiliar with them, visit their Web site at www.MoveOn.org.
Move On, Democracy in Action, has, through creative use of the Internet, taken citizen participation in government to a whole new level. As one of the key players in the effort to get the word out on the consolidation rules being considered by the FCC, Move On was instrumental in helping mobilize a disparate and broadband coalition of groups to contact Congress and the FCC to oppose the rule changes. Although the Commission approved the rules, because of the efforts of Move On and others, what was once thought to be an industry victory is now being challenged by Congress and will soon be in the courts.
[On June 24, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia on ordered the FCC to reconsider the rules.]
On a smaller scale, we give you the example of MSNBC and hate-talk jock Michael Savage. As one who wrote several commentaries for trade Web sites and who traded information with others who were appalled that a respected news organization like NBC would turn over its airwaves to Savage, we took on the big guys and won. Again, a coalition of groups like GLAAD, NOW, NAHJ, NABJ and individuals researching and exposing the history of racism, homophobia and outright hate that was Savage’s stock in trade caused most advertisers to pull out of the show and [caused] MSNBC to be put in the uncomfortable position of defending a bigot. Bad for the image, worse for the bottom line.
Ultimately, Savage self-destructed on the air and MSNBC was forced not only to fire him, but also to reluctantly acknowledge that those in opposition had been right.
Can any of what I’ve written be useful in dealing with the problems facing minority journalists today? I would submit that if the admonition of Santayana is heeded, the answer is yes. However, if we chose to ignore it, one of you will probably be writing words similar to these, some 30 years hence.
