My brethren in the news and entertainment industries deserve at least half of the blame by ignoring and omitting the president's statement in context: "...in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
The news conference was about health care reform. It is sad and problematic that, in emphasizing the last few minutes of the event, the journalism comes off as irresponsible and poor.
President Barack Obama had already acknowledged that he knew only some of the facts and the context. I know that his candor probably shocked viewers, because politicians and executives rarely lay their thoughts or opinions out like that. Viewers are used to executives' and politicians' typical and chronic fear of candor or bluntness, as they fear a public misunderstanding and even wrath.
The president’s declaration was newsworthy, but it was a little less important than the purpose of news conference. It is old, frustrating, and problematic to have my brethren, or future brethren, in the news and entertainment professions choose either easy or lazy options. Those options emphasized what is “sexy” and sensational over what is substance, well-informed, and well-reported This may be the most pleasant way to describe.
From what I noticed from three and even four different news room TVs, the talk program producers and print editors conspicuously chose voices that admonished the president's candor; some doing so in subtle voices, others in blunt ones, and others in voices that force one to ask oneself if they were watching a whole other show. It has been bizarre to see and hear those dominate the conversations as they have.
The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell, a woman of color, admonished, "...how does the same man who spent his campaign running away from racial issues jump into this convoluted incident when he clearly has much bigger fish to fry?"
In a comment section at the Detroit Free Press, Eddie Johnson of Royal Oak, wrote, "President Barack Obama acted stupidly when he stated on national television that while he did not have all of the facts in the case he still accused the police of acting stupidly. The police acted on an eyewitness report from a concerned neighbor. They had no choice but to bring him in when he would not cooperate and became abusive."
Also in the Free Press, someone who identifies themself outside of the "racial" binary, with which North Americans are most comfortable, thinks that Sgt. Crowley was wrong. "I am neither black nor white but outraged all the same. The officer should have apologized, at least after knowing the facts."
"My next-door interracial couple met with the same treatment...The man investigated a noise in the back of his house and was arrested. The man told the officer, "This is my house," to which the officer responded, 'I have heard that before.' Later, when facts were clarified, he was released, but without an apology."
That I only found the pro-Obama tack being taken on the Addicted to Race podcast, that the Manhattan diversity training firm, New Demographic, produces, might be telling. One must wonder if it's simply too bold and too unpopular, even heretical, to speak from the pro-Obama corner of this heated-up soapbox? (It's very disappointing that, the podcast's sound quality is meager. But that does not taint the insights or wisdom.)
The president's declaration did not stir the tumult.
Editors' and producers' decisions to emphasize one striking and off-topic part of the healthcare reform news conference played a pivotal part. I am convinced that the incessant coverage, analysis, and over-analysis stirred more of the tumult; at least, they kept the embers of the story from losing their glow. Please, someone kindly and cogently explain why "everyone" has hopped upon this one corner of the soapbox!
04 August, 2009
18 January, 2009
NYT's Dargis and Scott on Black men in film leading to Obama.
The mainstream press is comparing icons, events or phenomena of African-American history to Barack Obama's meaning, real or symbolic, to North American culture. Each outlet is doing so in their individual ways, so that they can remind their audiences about President Barack Obama's meaning and relevance. It is rarely simple, or easy, or forgiving to try to compare the history of a people to a record of the films which were made about, for, or by them. The New York Times' film critics Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott wrote a column that attempted this. It's also to forecast Obama's ripple effect.
Writing this kind of a column is rarely wise because is it so hard to do it well - with skill and style. This was well-written, providing vital and compelling cultural, historical and political context. In acknowledging only the titanic and iconic filmmakers and actors they omit many of the distinctive and unconventional talents. But Dargis and Scott wrote it very well, demonstrating a deep knowledge of their subjects and the critical, though conventional, players. I must level one criticism to the part that made me wince.
Referring to Obama as "only half-black" is strange and awkward. Why would you make a point of that? I doubt that I am the only multi-ethnic man of color or multiracial person who winces at that concession or quiescence. I imagine that to speculate on their reasons why they emphasized his bicultural heritage would only blow an even bigger hole in the large can of worms that that point has already opened.
A bigger question come from the proverbial left field: In the face of this fascination, it is interesting...even sobering, to have to acknowledge a morose and frightening story that reminds us of how far behind the audacity, promise and hope of which Pres. Obama is a new American symbol.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a story about a documentary film that is at the Sundance Film Festival; it is vital and relevant because actor Morgan Freeman is paying for an integrated high school prom...in a Sundance documentary.
Somehow Charleston, Mississippi, where Freeman lives, has not kept pace with the rest of the United States' attitudes about people of different colors and different cultures finding friends and love among one another. The best way to summarize the crisis is to provide this excerpt from The Journal Constitution: "The heart of the film is candid interviews with black and white Charleston students, who speak passionately about the racism that lingers in their town. The filmmakers follow a core of students, among them a black boy and white girl who date despite her father's objections, a white couple whose friendship with a black youth causes them grief, and a black girl who suspects racism cost her the class valedictorian honor."
That out-dated attitude, that bizarre fear of miscegenation, must remind us of a critical - and chronic - lesson. North American culture is still immature.
Writing a well-intended, but arbitrarily organized analysis of how African-American men have been portrayed in American films in the last 50 years is interesting. Trying to connect that to Barack Obama's assent is a stretch - an interesting one.
It is morose that with a brown and biethnic man becoming the the president of the United States, that this remains.
What - or how does Dargis' and Scott's film analysis contribute to knocking down the fear and ignorance of which cultural divisions and prejudice are made? That is neither the New York Times' duty, nor Dargis', or Scott's duties. It's too important to simply be their duty. When you want the answer to the question of the ultimate responsibility, please go into your hallway, into your bedroom or into your bathroom. Look into the mirror.
Writing this kind of a column is rarely wise because is it so hard to do it well - with skill and style. This was well-written, providing vital and compelling cultural, historical and political context. In acknowledging only the titanic and iconic filmmakers and actors they omit many of the distinctive and unconventional talents. But Dargis and Scott wrote it very well, demonstrating a deep knowledge of their subjects and the critical, though conventional, players. I must level one criticism to the part that made me wince.
Referring to Obama as "only half-black" is strange and awkward. Why would you make a point of that? I doubt that I am the only multi-ethnic man of color or multiracial person who winces at that concession or quiescence. I imagine that to speculate on their reasons why they emphasized his bicultural heritage would only blow an even bigger hole in the large can of worms that that point has already opened.
A bigger question come from the proverbial left field: In the face of this fascination, it is interesting...even sobering, to have to acknowledge a morose and frightening story that reminds us of how far behind the audacity, promise and hope of which Pres. Obama is a new American symbol.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a story about a documentary film that is at the Sundance Film Festival; it is vital and relevant because actor Morgan Freeman is paying for an integrated high school prom...in a Sundance documentary.
Somehow Charleston, Mississippi, where Freeman lives, has not kept pace with the rest of the United States' attitudes about people of different colors and different cultures finding friends and love among one another. The best way to summarize the crisis is to provide this excerpt from The Journal Constitution: "The heart of the film is candid interviews with black and white Charleston students, who speak passionately about the racism that lingers in their town. The filmmakers follow a core of students, among them a black boy and white girl who date despite her father's objections, a white couple whose friendship with a black youth causes them grief, and a black girl who suspects racism cost her the class valedictorian honor."
That out-dated attitude, that bizarre fear of miscegenation, must remind us of a critical - and chronic - lesson. North American culture is still immature.
Writing a well-intended, but arbitrarily organized analysis of how African-American men have been portrayed in American films in the last 50 years is interesting. Trying to connect that to Barack Obama's assent is a stretch - an interesting one.
It is morose that with a brown and biethnic man becoming the the president of the United States, that this remains.
What - or how does Dargis' and Scott's film analysis contribute to knocking down the fear and ignorance of which cultural divisions and prejudice are made? That is neither the New York Times' duty, nor Dargis', or Scott's duties. It's too important to simply be their duty. When you want the answer to the question of the ultimate responsibility, please go into your hallway, into your bedroom or into your bathroom. Look into the mirror.
12 January, 2009
A response to Sun. NYT's "Black directors look beyond their niche"
The Sunday New York Times ran a story which updated readers about the world of or progress of films made by people of African descent.
This story basically recycled the facts of how we have the same old story of snail-paced progress, which accomplishes too little and not nearly soon enough; it's like our artistic communities are jogging in place. It also begs the routine questions of when people of color are going to have enough clout and cash to consider white money as an after thought!
I don't understand why The New York Times ran the story; there is no information or news that advances this story which runs at an every-so-often frequency. The chronic questions about access and clout, about the politics of boldness or aggression vs patience, and about compelling talent pools remain.
The institutional Hollywood mentality and attitude.
Why must niche be interpreted in an ignorant and discriminating narrow way? I think this issue rests chiefly in which assumption the Hollywood's power people make about what their mainstream viewers want and will accept.
The filmmakers in the Times' article said that they have to hustle as much as their predecessors, but they hustle toward those doors that those predecessors knocked or charmed open. There's a tiny bit more access.
Where is the mass artistic and financial force that can propel bolder stories for and from communities of color? The ill economy only worsens the situation.
In pioneer African-American filmmaker Oscar Micheaux's era, the 1910's through 1940's, his conniving competitor's swindled enough money from the African-American community to trigger their suspicion and tight grips on money. That is probably the original the biggest obstacle. Even though more of our stories are being made, few of them are the kind that force viewers to think or to shift in their seats from uncomfortable thoughts.
Our media artists still fear the politio-economic consequences of making the stories and taking the stands that venture outside of easily assimilable ideas and portrayals. Those for which both Sidney Poitier and Will Smith are famous and often revered.
Where our power rests, but our aggressiveness and militancy is restless:
Will Smith, who has produced some delightful, highly-intelligent stories is simply one brother. He is also akin to the next generation of the Sidney Poitier type: neither he nor his best-loved characters make anglos shift in their seats. That's wonderful...sometimes.
When will we viewers be treated to someone whose vision, artistry, mission and style are as boldly, militant and aggressive as Spike Lee was when he came on the scene 23 years-ago? Other than Spike's 1992 "Malcolm X," Ken Burns' 2004 "Unforgiveable Blackness" provided the most high-profile presentation of a deviant and militant image of an African-American in recent memory.
This story basically recycled the facts of how we have the same old story of snail-paced progress, which accomplishes too little and not nearly soon enough; it's like our artistic communities are jogging in place. It also begs the routine questions of when people of color are going to have enough clout and cash to consider white money as an after thought!
I don't understand why The New York Times ran the story; there is no information or news that advances this story which runs at an every-so-often frequency. The chronic questions about access and clout, about the politics of boldness or aggression vs patience, and about compelling talent pools remain.
The institutional Hollywood mentality and attitude.
Why must niche be interpreted in an ignorant and discriminating narrow way? I think this issue rests chiefly in which assumption the Hollywood's power people make about what their mainstream viewers want and will accept.
The filmmakers in the Times' article said that they have to hustle as much as their predecessors, but they hustle toward those doors that those predecessors knocked or charmed open. There's a tiny bit more access.
Where is the mass artistic and financial force that can propel bolder stories for and from communities of color? The ill economy only worsens the situation.
In pioneer African-American filmmaker Oscar Micheaux's era, the 1910's through 1940's, his conniving competitor's swindled enough money from the African-American community to trigger their suspicion and tight grips on money. That is probably the original the biggest obstacle. Even though more of our stories are being made, few of them are the kind that force viewers to think or to shift in their seats from uncomfortable thoughts.
Our media artists still fear the politio-economic consequences of making the stories and taking the stands that venture outside of easily assimilable ideas and portrayals. Those for which both Sidney Poitier and Will Smith are famous and often revered.
Where our power rests, but our aggressiveness and militancy is restless:
Will Smith, who has produced some delightful, highly-intelligent stories is simply one brother. He is also akin to the next generation of the Sidney Poitier type: neither he nor his best-loved characters make anglos shift in their seats. That's wonderful...sometimes.
When will we viewers be treated to someone whose vision, artistry, mission and style are as boldly, militant and aggressive as Spike Lee was when he came on the scene 23 years-ago? Other than Spike's 1992 "Malcolm X," Ken Burns' 2004 "Unforgiveable Blackness" provided the most high-profile presentation of a deviant and militant image of an African-American in recent memory.
29 October, 2008
The newest, latest from a college radio student.
It's hard to write consistent journal entries while you're a full-time college student and you try to file a few public radio stories in the mean time.
In the last update, in the summer, I mentioned that I had applied to be a scholar at the Third Coast International Audio Festival. I got in. It was my first time. I earned brilliant kudos for some of my stories. It wasn't all great, but a lot of it was. I met one of my role models, Ira Glass; that was surreal!
Now I am in the middle of the first cycle of the Gordon Parks High public radio project; because of that I have created a separate journal for it. Are you interested in an experiment where the University of Minnesota shows "at-risk" high school students what public radio is and how to produce basic stories using sound? Well, here's the latest update.
In the last update, in the summer, I mentioned that I had applied to be a scholar at the Third Coast International Audio Festival. I got in. It was my first time. I earned brilliant kudos for some of my stories. It wasn't all great, but a lot of it was. I met one of my role models, Ira Glass; that was surreal!
Now I am in the middle of the first cycle of the Gordon Parks High public radio project; because of that I have created a separate journal for it. Are you interested in an experiment where the University of Minnesota shows "at-risk" high school students what public radio is and how to produce basic stories using sound? Well, here's the latest update.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
