Jim Crow Journalism:
Keeping candidates separate, making politics unequal
by
DC Larson
As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently told followers there that efforts to block him and other independent and third party candidates "can only be called Jim Crow-ism against candidates."
Nader's point is a valid one. Such anti-democratic ballot bannings have as their ambitions the same broadbrush citizen disenfranchisement and stifling of difference as their race-based civil code predecessors.
But those dirty electoral endeavors have an enabling complement in what might be termed, "Jim Crow Journalism."
Jim Crow Journalism honors a similar superior/inferior standard. But it is political bigotry that manifests itself in story selection, general coverage and editorial bias. News subjects's representations hinge not upon objective significance but rather location on the subjectively supposed Jim Crow Journalism scale.
No doubt, Jim Crow Journalism has long been taught by professors who were themselves trained in it. 'Construct simple articles, A/B conflicts. Avoid nuance or complexity.' Students so schooled become the reporters and editors whose prejudices impact our own thinking. (One recalls Alexander Cockburn's deriding of contemporary journalism schools as "feedlots of mediocrity.")
It is logical, of course, to focus on the two traditional major parties when covering upper-level incumbents, as most belong to one or the other. But the practice is illogical, contrary to the ideal of reporting truths objectively and revealing of prejudice when practiced in campaign coverage.
The decorating of electoral coverage with reproductions of Thomas Nasts's elephant and donkey symbols is so common as to go unnoticed by most readers. But it necessarily restricts coverage to two sides out of many, and by so doing denies to citizen-readers full accounting.
Jim Crow Journalism relegates third party and independent electoral competitors to 'three-fifths candidates' status. What scant coverage is accorded them is generally trivial and segregated from the more frequent and comprehensive attention given major party aspirants.
One result is the disserving of both citizens and the democratic process, itself. When the electorate isn't told of all candidate options available they are implicitly instructed against considering alternatives. Subsequent ballot choices (or citizen decisions to withdraw from an unrepresentative system) are products of this reportorial malpractice.
As Iowa Green Party Media Coordinator from 2001 to the summer of 2004, and later Iowa Coordinator for Nader/Camejo 2004, I wrote many press releases and submitted them to newspapers and TV and radio stations across the state.
Though these releases detailed events we held and articulated our philosophies and views, few were used. Genuinely existing as a news protagonist, I learned, is not enough when you're on the wrong end of the Jim Crow Journalism scale.
And I experienced first hand the arrogance of the politically bigoted: Not only did releases languish unused, but one editor hung up on us, others simply regurgitated myths rather than phoning party or campaign representatives and columnists breezily passed on to their trusting readers flat untruths.
(Among Iowa media's worst offenders is the state's largest paper, the Des Moines Register. To its credit, the Register interrupted its traditional ignoring of non-orthodox political subjects to run a 2007 op-ed on ballot access I'd written. But the Register thereafter resumed discriminating against independents and Third Parties.)
Standard ethical procedure entails contacting news subjects directly and giving them the chance to confirm or deny allegations. But to the Jim Crow Journalist, political entities outside the established two-party structure do not warrant ethical treatment.
A fresh example of Jim Crow Journalistic arrogance is presently on display at WashingtonPost.com:
During a May 29 discussion, a Maine participant asked Post reporter Paul Kane, "Any chance that one of the Post's political staff might do a piece on what the Green Party, for example, is up to? (I've asked this question during six earlier Post political chats and have gotten no response, a fact I find interesting in itself.)"
As the site relates, Kane attacked with relish: "I'll happily answer this one, and I'll be brutally honest. We don't have enough resources to cover your party. It's that simple, and if that infuriates you, I'm sorry. But that's life. The Green Party and Nader got plenty of coverage in '00 when, at the least, he had the chance to play a decisive role in some states. So far, there's little indication that the Greens will have any major impact on the '08 election. Until you can demonstrate that there is some level of support for your party, our paper isn't going to spend precious resources reporting on whatever it is you're doing. I'm sorry, but we're a business...We don't have the resources to cover you guys."
Note Kane's arrogant deployment of belittling, arms-length terminology: "if that infuriates you, I'm sorry...whatever it is you're doing." His assertion that, "We don't have the resources to cover you guys" reflects Jim Crow Journalistic priorities.
Nor does he concede that most 2000 coverage of Nader and the Greens was either trivializing or hostile. And his "we're a business" defense illustrates the devolution of the journalistic ideal from noble truth-telling to superficial commercial hustling.
How much more interesting and conducive to citizen-guided government mainstream reporting could be if it asked the questions Jim Crow Journalism avoids:
* Why do many voters feel the Republican and Democratic Parties do not meet their needs?
* How many citizens who declare political independence continue to select traditional party candidates and how many choose alternatives?
* What are independent and Third Party philosophies and how do they differ from those espoused by Republicans and Democrats?
* What practical challenges do independent and Third Party candidates face in organizing and campaigning?
* What systemic barriers to free participation have elected Republicans and Democrats erected? How do they justify ensuring difficulty for citizens seeking involvement in democratic government?
Ideally, a democratic election presents a snapshot of contemporary public sentiment on political direction. But it fails to reflect that when not all legitimate parties and candidates have been fairly and respectfully presented to voting news consumers.
Like its race-based predecessor, Jim Crow Journalism corrupts democracy. And there is no reason for it, save for the cherished and traditional political bigotry of its newsroom practitioners.
END
Keeping candidates separate, making politics unequal
by
DC Larson
As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently told followers there that efforts to block him and other independent and third party candidates "can only be called Jim Crow-ism against candidates."
Nader's point is a valid one. Such anti-democratic ballot bannings have as their ambitions the same broadbrush citizen disenfranchisement and stifling of difference as their race-based civil code predecessors.
But those dirty electoral endeavors have an enabling complement in what might be termed, "Jim Crow Journalism."
Jim Crow Journalism honors a similar superior/inferior standard. But it is political bigotry that manifests itself in story selection, general coverage and editorial bias. News subjects's representations hinge not upon objective significance but rather location on the subjectively supposed Jim Crow Journalism scale.
No doubt, Jim Crow Journalism has long been taught by professors who were themselves trained in it. 'Construct simple articles, A/B conflicts. Avoid nuance or complexity.' Students so schooled become the reporters and editors whose prejudices impact our own thinking. (One recalls Alexander Cockburn's deriding of contemporary journalism schools as "feedlots of mediocrity.")
It is logical, of course, to focus on the two traditional major parties when covering upper-level incumbents, as most belong to one or the other. But the practice is illogical, contrary to the ideal of reporting truths objectively and revealing of prejudice when practiced in campaign coverage.
The decorating of electoral coverage with reproductions of Thomas Nasts's elephant and donkey symbols is so common as to go unnoticed by most readers. But it necessarily restricts coverage to two sides out of many, and by so doing denies to citizen-readers full accounting.
Jim Crow Journalism relegates third party and independent electoral competitors to 'three-fifths candidates' status. What scant coverage is accorded them is generally trivial and segregated from the more frequent and comprehensive attention given major party aspirants.
One result is the disserving of both citizens and the democratic process, itself. When the electorate isn't told of all candidate options available they are implicitly instructed against considering alternatives. Subsequent ballot choices (or citizen decisions to withdraw from an unrepresentative system) are products of this reportorial malpractice.
As Iowa Green Party Media Coordinator from 2001 to the summer of 2004, and later Iowa Coordinator for Nader/Camejo 2004, I wrote many press releases and submitted them to newspapers and TV and radio stations across the state.
Though these releases detailed events we held and articulated our philosophies and views, few were used. Genuinely existing as a news protagonist, I learned, is not enough when you're on the wrong end of the Jim Crow Journalism scale.
And I experienced first hand the arrogance of the politically bigoted: Not only did releases languish unused, but one editor hung up on us, others simply regurgitated myths rather than phoning party or campaign representatives and columnists breezily passed on to their trusting readers flat untruths.
(Among Iowa media's worst offenders is the state's largest paper, the Des Moines Register. To its credit, the Register interrupted its traditional ignoring of non-orthodox political subjects to run a 2007 op-ed on ballot access I'd written. But the Register thereafter resumed discriminating against independents and Third Parties.)
Standard ethical procedure entails contacting news subjects directly and giving them the chance to confirm or deny allegations. But to the Jim Crow Journalist, political entities outside the established two-party structure do not warrant ethical treatment.
A fresh example of Jim Crow Journalistic arrogance is presently on display at WashingtonPost.com:
During a May 29 discussion, a Maine participant asked Post reporter Paul Kane, "Any chance that one of the Post's political staff might do a piece on what the Green Party, for example, is up to? (I've asked this question during six earlier Post political chats and have gotten no response, a fact I find interesting in itself.)"
As the site relates, Kane attacked with relish: "I'll happily answer this one, and I'll be brutally honest. We don't have enough resources to cover your party. It's that simple, and if that infuriates you, I'm sorry. But that's life. The Green Party and Nader got plenty of coverage in '00 when, at the least, he had the chance to play a decisive role in some states. So far, there's little indication that the Greens will have any major impact on the '08 election. Until you can demonstrate that there is some level of support for your party, our paper isn't going to spend precious resources reporting on whatever it is you're doing. I'm sorry, but we're a business...We don't have the resources to cover you guys."
Note Kane's arrogant deployment of belittling, arms-length terminology: "if that infuriates you, I'm sorry...whatever it is you're doing." His assertion that, "We don't have the resources to cover you guys" reflects Jim Crow Journalistic priorities.
Nor does he concede that most 2000 coverage of Nader and the Greens was either trivializing or hostile. And his "we're a business" defense illustrates the devolution of the journalistic ideal from noble truth-telling to superficial commercial hustling.
How much more interesting and conducive to citizen-guided government mainstream reporting could be if it asked the questions Jim Crow Journalism avoids:
* Why do many voters feel the Republican and Democratic Parties do not meet their needs?
* How many citizens who declare political independence continue to select traditional party candidates and how many choose alternatives?
* What are independent and Third Party philosophies and how do they differ from those espoused by Republicans and Democrats?
* What practical challenges do independent and Third Party candidates face in organizing and campaigning?
* What systemic barriers to free participation have elected Republicans and Democrats erected? How do they justify ensuring difficulty for citizens seeking involvement in democratic government?
Ideally, a democratic election presents a snapshot of contemporary public sentiment on political direction. But it fails to reflect that when not all legitimate parties and candidates have been fairly and respectfully presented to voting news consumers.
Like its race-based predecessor, Jim Crow Journalism corrupts democracy. And there is no reason for it, save for the cherished and traditional political bigotry of its newsroom practitioners.
END
posted by DC Larson at
June 03, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home