Racism vs. Journalism - When the News isn't Politically Correct
Factual Reporting of the News is Not Racism
By: Fat Lester
November 18, 2009
A man punches a woman in the face following a racially-charged argument. A journalist reports that the man was African American and the woman Caucasian when reporting the story. His rationale is that because the argument that led to the assault was racially-charged, and thus that the fact that the man and woman were of different races was a factual detail of relevance to the story. Despite reporting the facts in a completely objective manner without editorializing in the slightest, the reporter is accused of being a racist for reporting that the man accused of assaulting the woman was African American.
No, this is not a passage from George Orwell's 1984. This happened recently on a social media site called Mixx.
Here's how it all started. I submitted the news story and wrote out the headline in the most journalistically sound manner possible. One of the 120 or so comments to the story merited a response because the user was new and I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt, and work with her in hopes she would come to see the value of mutual respect in debate.
Here is the story that was the subject of so much controversy: http://www.mixx.com/stories/9180454/black_college_professor_punches_white_woman_in_the_face_following_racially_charged_argument
Haily's comment is as follows:
* Haily
* added 4 days ago
@FatLester
"Had it been a white man who punched a black woman in the face, I'd have written the same type of headline, but without all the controversy."
Really? Would there not be controversy regardless? If the races of those involved were perceived by the author (or submitter) to be important enough such that such information would be included in the headline, then it's basically telling the reader that race is an issue or a factor in the story. Are you suggesting that those provoked to comment by the title of this submission would not be provoked if the races were switched? If so, then I disagree. The fact that the races of the individuals were in the title to begin with is already enough to get attention or "controversy" as you put it.
And congrats, you got the "controversy" you were looking for. Look at all these comments!
Yet many of these comments are saying that race is indeed not a factor or relevant to the issue--which seems to be a direct response to the title you gave this submission.
I sure hope you had different intentions in changing the title than the ones I'm seeing here, because right now I am mildly disgusted by you. Please say I'm wrong.
My initial response to her was as follows:
@Haily
I don't understand what you're getting at, and quite frankly don't know you well enough to give a rat's ass if you're disgusted with me.
I know who I am and what's in my heart. What you all think about me doesn't really matter to me. I won't be losing any sleep if you don't approve of me.
Haily Responds:
I think you changed the title to something irrelevant and misleading just to get the attention you wanted. That's what I find disgusting. If it's not that, than you think race is relevant to the story even when it's not. There goes all your talk about the individual coming before the race, gender, etc.
My Response to Her Response:
Haily, almost everything I submit (or share for that matter) makes it to the front page. I don't need to incite controversy or do anything extra to "get attention". I am the most popular contributor on this whole site based upon the number of friends I have. I didn't get to be the #1 Mixxer by going for shock value or by inciting racial tension.
You should stop speculating until you get to know me better.
I've submitted a post related to this issue today that I personally authored and that summarizes how I feel regarding the whole issue.
Here it is if you care to read it: Why all the racial tension?
This one's not directly related, but if you care to read it, will give you a better idea of who I am than the baseless speculation that's been fueling your speculation in this thread: A Republican's Take on Same-Sex Marriage.
If you read through all my comments already posted in this thread as well as the other two articles listed in this comment, between it all you should find the answer to any questions you may have, and you'll also understand why I don't care to explain my rationale yet again for the headline.
When I said I don't care what you think about me, don't take it personally. I don't care what anyone thinks about me. I suspect that's why I get along with most everyone here. For lack of a better way to put it, I keep it real. I am who I am, and am comfortable knowing that some people will inevitably like me more than others. I can't please everyone, not will I make any attempt at doing so. I'm not going to spew a bunch of meaningless verbal diarrhea for the sake of anyone's appeasement.
I've got more than two years of history here at Mixx that you are free to research if it really interests you that much. If you really care to know what's inside my heart the information is right there at your fingertips if you're willing to put the time in.
Everyone else here that has known me for a while knows that the nefarious accusations and insinuations levied against me in this thread are totally and completely baseless. A less secure individual would likely have taken offense to a number of the comments directed towards me here in this thread. I choose not to let other people offend me. I also know what's in my heart, and I know that God knows what's in my heart, and those are the only two opinions that really matter.
Mixxers are a pretty good bunch. I wouldn't have 1320+ friends if I was a hateful person.
Lastly, I know that anyone who interacts with me long enough will figure out for themselves that I view all people as equals. When I read the headline for this post I see an individual doing harm to another individual.
The reality is that it is those who see the misguided actions of a single individual as being representative of an entire race who are the ones who should be defending themselves against accusations of racism, bigotry or other nefarious motives.
I never for one moment saw this one man's actions as any sort of reflection on his race. People are people first. Every individual is responsible for each of his or her own decisions. The person who fails to recognize this and jumps to a conclusion that the very mention of a person's race in a news story about racial violence must be an implicit suggestion that all members of that given race are prone to violence is the real racist here.
My headline was journalistically sound. The fact that the violence was racially motivated and that the two involved parties were of different races is a major part of the story and relevant enough to merit inclusion in the headline and lede.
As a journalist (I majored in Media Arts and also worked professionally as a reporter for a local newspaper in addition to my occasional journalistic reporting on the web) it is my opinion that the headlines chosen for that same story by many major media entities constituted nothing short of professional malfeasance, as facts were omitted for the sake of being "politically correct". A real journalist reports the facts regardless of who might be offended by them. The New York post chose to beat around the bush and omit important details in hopes of not offending anyone. That by definition is journalistic malpractice. It's certainly not a severe or malicious form of it, but it is a breach from the professional code of ethics real journalists adhere to.
Please take this thorough reply as a gesture of good-will on my part, and in a sense, my way of reaching out to you and investing more time than I would under almost any other circumstance because you are new to Mixx and I would like to do all I can to get off on the right foot with you.
Around The Web:
|
