Recently, the suggestion has been made that the media is having a “love fest” with Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for president. During the 20th and final Democratic debate last night, Sen. Clinton referred to a Saturday Night Live skit when suggesting that in the last several debates, it has been she, rather than her opponent, who gets pitched the first question. For some, this is an argument of merit. For others, this is a ludicrous statement–an oxymoron of sorts. The media going easy on a person of African descent with an Arabic name? Are they serious?

First of all, contrary to what Sen. Clinton suggested in the last debate, she does not always get the first question. According to ABC news, she has received the first debate question in 14 rounds, and Sen. Obama has received the first question in 11 rounds. I appreciate the witty humor of SNL like the next person, but Sen. Clinton’s decision to use a skit to support her feeling of vulnerability in this campaign was not lighthearted or funny. It just sounded desperate.

Print, radio, web and television media–like the rest of the nation–are responding to the significance of this historic moment. Beyond the significance of race and gender in this election, this is the first significant grassroots campaign that nation has seen in years, making it a true sea tide for change, rather than just another spin on administrative approaches that have been part and parcel to a corrosive political climate generating high gas prices, growing poverty, polarized access to wealth, the lack of affordable health care, and an increasingly pervasive criminal justice system. Is the media going easy on Barack Obama? Let’s see, in the last week, there have been questions raised about his (and his wife’s) patriotism, suggestions that he is inexperienced in foreign policy, and attacks against him for not be “forceful enough” against Louis Farrakhan. Easy? I don’t think so.

Frankly, I don’t think it is the media at all–it is society. Media, in all of its forms, have been vessels through which analysts have been highly critical of Barack Obama and every other candidate, making for a rigorous discussion of who is most fit to be the next leader of this nation. But because of the way in which the public has been conditioned to see the media berate or mock people of African descent, positive news coverage might be seen as preference. Perhaps Sen. Clinton and her supporters should examine their own biases where “fairness” is concerned.

To her credit, Sen. Clinton has weathered a storm of gender-based innuendo suggesting that she is unfit to lead. But is the media being unfair to her, and covering the election in ways that are favorable to Barack Obama? Hardly. This is politics, and according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, Sen. Obama is now preferred over Sen.Clinton among Democratic voters 48 percent to 42 percent, so he may very well become John McCain’s opponent in this presidential race. If that happens, we’ll have plenty of opportunites to gauge the degree to which the media present objective and fair coverage of this election, and the degree to which we (as consumers of news) are able to interpret fairness not as preference; but rather, as a first step in balancing media portrayals of people of African descent.

Given the racist rhetoric spewing from the McCain campaign (despite his lifeless and unbelievable apology), tougher roads are ahead.

The popular culture of racism on the radio has hit a new low. During the February 19th edition of his nationally-syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, Bill O’Reilly made the following statement in response to an anonymous caller’s suggestion that Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, is a “militant” and “very angry” woman:

“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels…” – Bill O’Reilly

Sigh…as if the “nappy headed ho” comment from Don Imus wasn’t enough, now we have to listen to another radio personality verbally assault women of African descent. Anyone who stayed awake long enough in a middle school social studies class knows that lynching was a heinous and barbaric practice to subjugate and control the behaviors of people of African descent. Beyond the effigy of burned and disfigured bodies hanging from trees, lynchings were tools to 1) threaten the general African American population, and 2) send the message that Black people needed to “know their place.” As a message supporting the notion of white supremacy, lynching is one of the most overtly racist practices in American history.

The fact that Bill O’Reilly used this framework in reference to Michelle Obama is a blatant attempt to resurrect this message. His choice to frame the circumstances under which he would be willing to “lynch” Michelle Obama is beyond offensive. It is racist, plain and simple. Racism is a power relationship–a political, economic, and structural manifestation of white privilege and control. And, once again, Bill O’Reilly is championing this cause. His rhetoric is filled with the kind of desperate, racist pedagogy that doesn’t know what to do with itself in a modern era of multiculturalism, where racist radio is neither logical, provocative, nor tolerable. It’s just wack…and it has to go.

For years, Bill O’Reilly has managed to retain his national platform for spewing this type of rhetoric. When he expressed surprise that African Americans possess restaurant etiquette, many of us just shook our heads and dismissed him as a silly, old man. When he went on a tirade against hip hop culture, again, we expressed strong dissatisfaction; but no strong collective action was taken. It’s time to change that.

Understanding the conservative thrust of the Fox network, and understanding that Bill O’Reilly obviously has a significant audience that actually listens to and agrees with the animal dung that falls from his lips, I don’t suggest censorship. Of course, the man is free to think and say whatever he wants, but we should call it what it is. Racist radio rhetoric is obsolete in a modern, civilized society underscored by values that emphasize freedom, equal justice, and the absence of discrimination. Even those who openly seek to dismantle public policy tools (e.g. affirmative action) that provide remedy for discrimination agree that the popular culture of racism is antithetical to the professed norms of this society. So, if society is the greatest consumer of this ridiculous pandering to racist ideology, then we are also free to reject it and its messenger.

Call to Action! If you agree that it is time to pull the plug on racist rhetoric, send a note to David Tabacoff, Executive Producer of “The O’Reilly Factor” and “The Radio Factor.” Let your voice of reason be heard over O’Reilly’s persistent voice of hatred.

Peace!

Okay…I know what you’re thinking. Just breathe….breathe deeply and try, for a moment, to process this question: Do African people (Tanzanians, at least) really believe that President Bush is Africa’s best friend? Okay, try not to choke…once you get over your fit of laughter, take a peek at the recent New York Times article describing the attitudes of Tanzanians toward President Bush. Of course, a great deal of the East African positive energy toward America stems from excitement about the prospect of Sen. Barack Obama becoming the United States’ first African American president. However, one simply cannot get over the degree to which it appears that George W. Bush is milking this positive reception for his own benefit, ignoring his own historical link to slavery and ignoring the plight of people of African descent in America who continue to reel from the impact of his politics of domestic neglect—and I’m not only talking about those families in the Gulf Coast who are still trying to repair their lives from the incompetent responses of the federal government to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Given these realities, it might be hard to take seriously the idea that, contrary to what Kanye West declared, George Bush really does care about Black people. While the New York Times article takes a simplistic view toward the extremely complicated politics of Africa toward the United States and its leaders, and vise-versa, this is still very interesting. Yes, the plight of Africa (and its people in the Diaspora) has typically been ignored by the leadership of the United States; and yes, under George W. Bush’s administration, there has been attention to the growing health and ethnic conflict crises that threaten the safety of millions. But to suggest that this makes George W. Bush a friend to Africans is a stretch. The increased aid to Africa under the current Bush administration is less a statement about Bush’s friendliness toward Africa, and more a statement about the priorities of paternalistic politics. Upon careful examination, one will find that some of the policies designed to help Africa include clauses which promote conservative strategies to cement political and social control over African countries and are, in many ways, a mere extension of imperialist politics that are at the root of the conflict we are witnessing today. The lesson here? Take it all with a grain of salt…and pay attention to the details.

Resource:

The Transafrica Forum

« Previous entries