Re: The Inflexible, Utterly Predictable Coverage of Race by the Press

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by [email protected], Nov 30, 2005.

  1. Falcon wrote:
    > Covering the 'Kwa: The Inflexible, Utterly Predictable
    > and Parody-Worthy Coverage of Race by the Press
    > by Douglas Wright
    > 26 November 2005
    > Memo
    > To: The Reporters, Photographers, Graphics Designers, Editors, Copy
    > Editors, Cameramen and other Producers of the American Media
    > From: The Management
    > Recently it has come to our attention that there may be some confusion
    > about how to cover race in America. This should not be a complicated
    > issue. However, to provide guidance, we have assembled the following
    > rules.
    > Blacks
    > 1. Anything a black person has to say is valid and understandable.
    > There are no exceptions to this rule. No matter how uninformed or
    > expressive of negative sentiment toward whites, anything that issues
    > from a black person's mouth is to be accorded the highest respect, and
    > the grammatical errors cleaned up. They are understandably reacting to
    > whatever situation is being reported on. You as the reporter are "on
    > their side" and there to help them get their message to the world. It
    > is your responsibility to make them look as good as possible.
    > 2. Anything a black person does is valid and understandable, if not
    > praiseworthy.
    > Blacks are noble individuals living day to day at the mercy of a white
    > racist system. Whatever they do to get by is to be viewed and reported
    > on as the most common-sense approach possible. If it is simply not
    > possible to put a positive spin on something, it can be jauntily
    > referred to as "having gotten into a few scrapes with the law." This
    > can be used for a triple homicide. Do not refer to the triple
    > homicide. Another way to salvage a life situation is to include the
    > black interviewee's acknowledgment that he "has a rough past." This
    > makes him appear down-to-earth and honest. If he does not offer this,
    > get him to agree to it. If blacks are burning, rioting or looting, it
    > is because they are oppressed. They are "responding" to white
    > "neglect" or "demanding justice." They may want to "send a message."
    > Or to simply let the white racist system know they're there. Still
    > another is to present criminal activity as increasing the authenticity
    > of the black person. But be sure to mind Rule 3, below.
    > 3. If a black person has done bad things, they are in the past. Future
    > bad things will not happen.
    > It is not possible for blacks to be looking forward to a bad or worse
    > future. Things are always looking up. Multiple children by multiple,
    > unknown fathers and a crack habit at the age of 17 is contrasted with
    > recent enrollment at community college. End story with quote about
    > this. No black aspiration is too far-fetched. Black desire to be
    > astronaut or brain surgeon is to be treated respectfully. Black males
    > just released from prison are "looking to put their life back
    > together." Contact with low-level executive for rap label is proof of
    > this. For general guidance on the issue, see Rules 4 and 5.
    > 4. When it would otherwise reflect poorly upon them, blacks take the
    > objective form.
    > In other words, blacks are never the source of bad things --- bad
    > things only happen to them. This rule applies to black neighborhoods,
    > as well. A black neighborhood is "neglected;" it is not populated with
    > individuals who are themselves neglectful. (Note that the presumptive
    > subjects here, whites, will not be interviewed or given a chance to
    > respond to the charge of neglect.) A black male is "bounced around in
    > the prison system;" he himself did not do anything to cause that to
    > happen. A young black male "finds himself in the clutches of the
    > criminal justice system;" he similarly did not do anything to bring
    > about the situation. Black politcians are "caught up" in a scandal, as
    > if they were just sitting there reading Proust with a glass of Merlot
    > when terrible scandal-monsters burst into the den and caught them up.
    > 5. On the occasions when it reflects well upon them, blacks take the
    > subjective form.
    > This is the converse of Rule 4. If a black person has graduated from
    > community college, it was by his own actions. And always against a
    > tide of white racism. Blacks "put themselves on the right track,"
    > "pull themselves up from the ghetto" or "fight for justice." A black
    > who accomplished almost nothing in life may still be referred to as
    > "proud." Nobody will call you asking to know what they're so proud of.
    > 6. Any black child killed in the inner city would have gone on to
    > greatness.
    > Because assertions of would-be greatness by black children can never
    > be tested, feel free to indulge even the wildest speculation about
    > what he or she would have achieved. Ask about interest in mathematics
    > or similarly brainy pursuits. Do not offer fact that statistically,
    > they would have gone on to welfare, prison or do-nothing civil service
    > job.
    > 7. If at all possible and when warranted, nobody is black.
    > Use geography, nationality or age, instead. Black Africans setting
    > fire to an entire country are "French youths," "Disaffected youths,"
    > "Teenagers," or simply "Rioters." Black Americans smashing out jewelry
    > store windows after a hurricane are "residents of New Orleans." The
    > "American" murder rate has gone up or down. "Minnesotans" are
    > responsible for a certain percentage of gun violence. "New York City
    > schoolchildren" cannot read. "Revelers" destroy resort town during
    > Hip-Hop Week.
    > 8. If someone must be black, they "happen to be African-American."
    > If the story you are writing is such that the race of a black person
    > is unavoidable, put this information in a clause following a comma
    > after their name. Example: "Randall Robinson, who happens to be
    > African-American, said that as an African-American, he disputes the
    > notion that whites shouldn't pay reparations." The felicitous "happens
    > to be" reminds readers that race is a mere happenstance of such little
    > relevance that anyone who would suggest otherwise by cruelly using any
    > other grammatical formation is a bad person. Bad.
    > 9. When it is to their advantage, blacks are a collective.
    > Blacks suffered and continue to suffer injustice as a group. They
    > deserve curative attention as a group. They deserve representation as
    > a group. It will not be inquired whether an individual black merits
    > inclusion in the general group of aggrieved blacks. Blacks not only
    > regularly receive unjust treatment, they always do so as a group. You
    > must remember to acknowledge both.
    > 10. When it is to their advantage, blacks are individuals.
    > The disproportionate commission of crime by blacks is not be
    > associated with any individual black. The disporportionate social
    > pathology in practically every other area of human existence displayed
    > by blacks is not to be associated with any individual black and
    > especially not blamed on them, as individuals. See rules 3 and 4.
    > Thus, consistent with rules 9 and 10, it is perfectly acceptable to
    > dole out goodies on the basis of group blackness, but not to issue
    > restrictions or criticism.
    > Whites
    > 1. Whites do not exist as a group with legitimate aspirations.
    > This rule should not need expounding. The possibility of this is not
    > even to be put forward for questioning, as in, "Are whites a group?"
    > "Do they have legitimate group aspirations?" This is because the mere
    > question would be enough to suggest that one legitimate answer is
    > "yes." This cannot happen. You are to address this as a member of the
    > media by simply not writing or reporting a story that would touch on
    > this topic.
    > 2. Nothing a white person has to say is valid or understandable, if
    > they are expressing white group interests.
    > Therefore, do not dignify what they say. Helpful phrases include
    > "racist ranting," "ignorant outpouring of hatred" and "message of
    > hate." If you are a columnist, please restrict yourself to the phrases
    > "(John Smith) should crawl back under his rock" or "(John Smith)'s
    > message of hate is not welcome here." When responding to "racism," it
    > is not necessary to be creative or think too hard about your response.
    > Certainly, addressing any of the points is not necessary. In fact, it
    > is discouraged, because the last thing we want is discussion of the
    > merits of white nationalism or other forms of white group interest
    > expression. If fliers or newspapers containing messages of white group
    > interest are distributed in the area, overlook the obvious irony of a
    > newspaper journalist covering the distribution of a newspaper as
    > Armageddon and proceed first to a police official, whereupon you
    > should pose a question about the legality of distributing a newspaper.
    > As you are aware, the First Amendment does not apply to hate. Do not
    > address the contents of the flier or publication, no matter how
    > factual or reasonable. It should be easy to find a person to quote
    > about how the paper is "unwelcome," because everyone will be expected
    > to denounce the flier or paper. Round out with quote from Southern
    > Poverty Law Center, which as you know is a mainstream, unbiased group
    > fighting for justice.
    > 3. A white person who expresses white group interests shall be
    > referred to as a "white supremacist."
    > There are no white activists or advocates for whites. The supremacist
    > tag must be used in order to foster a sense of fear that a person who
    > thinks whites have a right to self-determination necessarily also
    > seeks to kill or imprison all other racial groups. It is simply not
    > possible that a person who advocates for white interests would be
    > smart or sincere, so make sure your coverage reflects that. You as a
    > journalist are under an ethical obligation to present all sides of a
    > story, even the ones you personally dislike, except in the case of
    > white racists. This is an official proclamation from The Management.
    > 4. When it reflects well on them, whites are to be presented in the
    > objective form, or not at all.
    > If whites have paid large sums of taxes and spent many administrative
    > hours in an attempt to boost black scores by one percentage point, no
    > mention will be made of them. This simply came out of nowhere. When
    > whites work to deliver the goods and services that keep America
    > running, this is simply taken for granted. If a neighborhood comes
    > back to life because whites have moved in, you may use the
    > increasingly controversial term "gentrification," but consult with
    > your editor before doing this. By no means should you mention that
    > this means whites.
    > 5. When it reflects poorly on them, whites are fully guilty, as a
    > group and as all white individuals within that group, for whatever the
    > bad thing was.
    > An obvious example is slavery. Despite the common-sense observation
    > from even mainstream conservatives that no white living today is
    > personally responsible for slavery, coverage of this should accept the
    > reparations view of white guilt that is collective by race and across
    > the span of time, as well as black victimization that is likewise.
    > Thank you for your attention. Now get back to reporting!

    To view Blacks in the sports news:

    click on sports


  2. how do you feel about cheating in school?