I’ve been a member of the National Association of Black Journalists off and on since 1994. It’s about to be “off’ again when my membership lapses in a week, but this time I think it will be for good. Like many long term relationships that go sour, we don’t believe in the same thing anymore. There has always been a struggle between NABJ’s activist and party animal sides but lately it seems like the party animals are kicking the asses of the activists.
Salon columnist Joan Walsh took down a right-wing hatchet man, Tim Graham of the Media Research Center over his race-baiting of MSNBC (and NABJ member?) Karen Finney following the announcement she would be getting her own program on the liberal news network.
MSNBC just announced that Karen Finney, a network political analyst and former communications director of the Democratic National Committee, will host a new weekend show. MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham immediately Tweeted:
Finney is African-American, although MSNBC didn’t particularly “tout” that in its press release; it mentioned that she was the first African-American communications director of the DNC and is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. I’m not sure what would cause Graham to even muse about her racial bona fides, let alone share his idiocy publicly.
In a 2010 Huffington Post piece Finney wrote about being the descendant of slaves on her father’s side and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee on her mother’s side. Maybe it’s too much to ask that Graham inform himself about the biological and cultural diversity of African-Americans. It’s not too much to ask, though, that he shut up about his ignorance, but I won’t hold my breath.
On one hand, congratulations are due to Karen Finney for landing her own TV show on MSNBC. On the other, if it’s true that Finney is a NABJ member (She is. I checked) whose racial authenticity is being mocked by a right-wing media monitoring group, doesn’t that deserve a response from NABJ?
There was one response to my query (and it wasn’t from NABJ’s president or vice-president of broadcast to the e-mail I sent them). It came from an respected member who shrugged it off as follows:
Tim Graham’s idiocy is not worthy of an official response from NABJ.
However, the pundits among us should feel free to load our satire guns and plug him full of more holes.
Some right-wing hack/hitman for arch-conservative L. Brent Bozell pulls the brown paper bag test on a NABJ member and The Root, Jezebel, Huffington Post, Salon, Media Matters, The Daily Mail (UK), Talking Points Memo, Richard Prince’s Journal-isms, among other places do find it worthy of their notice, but it’s not worthy of a response from the National Association of Black Journalists?
Congratulations, Karen. Welcome to the media wars. NABJ’s got your back. Just don’t look behind you for them because they’re a ways off in the distance.
I’ve known for a while mine is a minority opinion in an organization of minority journalists. What I’m unsure of is when my views on how NABJ should advocate for journalists of color diverged so drastically from NABJ’s. I’ve read the mission statement for the group and this part jumps out at me.
Sensitizing all media to the importance of fairness in the workplace for black journalists…Fostering an exemplary group of professionals that honors excellence and outstanding achievements by black journalists, and outstanding achievement in the media industry as a whole, particularly when it comes to providing balanced coverage of the black community and society at large
Those are principles worth believing in and fighting for. I still do, but NABJ doesn’t seem to and if they don’t there isn’t enough of anything else they bring to the table worth me being part of it any more.
I don’t make policy for NABJ and I don’t know who does. Maybe no one does. Take this to the bank: If NABJ won’t defend its highest profile members, it sure won’t for those who are not and if that’s the case what do I need NABJ for?
Today the Cleveland Plain-Dealer announced it will cease daily publication and go to three days a week and Sunday. That is terrible news for any journalist. It’s even worse if you’re working for the Plain-Dealer because you might not be much longer. Any guesses on which staffers will be the first given a box to pack their junk and a last paycheck?
But later for that. There’s always another convention in another city most members can’t afford to attend. There’s always another old journalist to honor with an award even if young journalists coming up behind them are facing some hard times. There’s always another Black journalist ready to be dropped like a hot rock by their employer in the mainstream media only to find they won’t find much comfort coming from NABJ.
Finney will be fine. She has paid her dues and joins the MSNBC pool of personalities, but actually has journalistic credentials as a NABJ member. A week ago, nobody knew who Graham was a next week nobody will care what a race-baiting loser like Graham has to say. All Graham has is a small axe to grind and a smaller soapbox to preach to the ten or twelve other losers who read his bullshit.
For my part, I’ve got less than two week remaining on my NABJ membership and right about now, I’m fine about forgetting about NABJ the way NABJ forgets about anyone who isn’t part of the privileged few. The passivity and timidity of the nation’s largest organization of minority journalists on the issues that matter most has become too pervasive and too entrenched. There’s a difference between being cautious and picking your shot and being fearful that if NABJ stands up its corporate underwriters will slap it down.
- Republican Pundit Questions if MSNBC’s Karen Finney is “Black Enough” (clutchmagonline.com)
- Conservative Media Watchdog Asks If MSNBC Viewers Would Be Able To Tell That New Host Is Black (mediaite.com)
- Karen Finney Named New MSNBC Weekend Host, Black Enough Or NOT (theobamacrat.com)
- The First African-American Spokeswoman for DNC Isn’t Black Enough, Says Idiot White Guy (jezebel.com)
- Shocking Comments About New MSNBC Host Karen Finney (blackchristiannews.com)
Recently, I wrote that Dr. Ben Carson‘s 15 minutes of fame as a conservative superstar were ticking away. Maybe I need to check my watch because I may have overestimated how soon the Carson Flame-Out is coming.
Carson’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention was well received and he placed seventh in a presidential straw poll despite having no political experience. He says he may run for president if it is God’s will.
If he does, he’s going to have to learn Mitt Romney’s lesson and not say what he really thinks. Appearing on Hannity, the not-so-good doctor responded to a question about same-sex marriage:
HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I’ve asked you a lot of questions. I’ve never asked you that, what are your thoughts?
CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition. So he, it’s not something that is against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.
Well, that’s awkward, but I can’t say I’m surprised by Carson’s intolerance. His egotism and vanity has already been well-established and now we can add cocky intolerance to the mix. It’s a trait I’ve seen in other doctors. They dislike being corrected because they dislike being told they got something wrong. Their yardstick of success is how often they are right. Carson was the first neurosurgeon to successful separate conjoined twins and if he had done nothing else, that would be a good enough reason to add some swagger in his step.
When accomplishing what seems impossible is what you specialize in, it must become easy to start believing even if you’re not God, you can handle his job when he takes a day off.
Carson wouldn’t be the first good Christian whose religious beliefs were overruled by his conservative beliefs. He certainly sounds like just another cowardly politician trying to spin away a brain fart as he backed away from his remarks with an apology qualified with the usual caveats of his remarks being “misunderstood” and “out of context.”
“I think in terms of what was said on Sean Hannity’s show, that was taken completely out of context and completely misunderstood in terms of what I was trying to say,” Carson told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “As a Christian, I have a duty to love all people and that includes people who have other sexual orientations, and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone… If anyone was offended, I apologize to you.”
This is the risk you take when you only talk to people who already agree with you. Carson is not as skilled in front of a camera and he is with a scalpel. He’s unprepared to talk about hot button topics where his disdain for “political correctness” allows him to fall into the trap of saying what he really believes even when what he believes is toxic to his political ambitions.
Don’t you love it when someone says they’re sorry (but not really) if you misunderstood what they said and you took offense? Doesn’t it make it your fault for being so darned thin-skinned. Carson knows what he means. Why’s everybody else got a problem with that? Oh, If only those homosexuals would stop agitating for the same rights heterosexuals have. You know, the same way interracial couples wanted their offensive to God and nature marriages to be legally recognized. Craziness!
Maybe I was slightly off on how long Carson’s time in the spotlight was going to last, but it seems I was really off about his future as a politician. Carson has already mastered the key skill to being a successful politician. He’s great at looking people in the eye and lying to their face.
- Hopkins’ Dr. Ben Carson – Embarrassing Baltimore With Dumbassery (sugarfreak.typepad.com)
- Hannity does no favors for new far-right darling (maddowblog.msnbc.com)
- Asshat Of The Day – Ben Carson (joemygod.blogspot.com)
- Dr. Ben Carson Fauxpologizes For Totally Not Comparing Gays With Child/Animal Rapists (mediaite.com)
Okay, that’s enough. Your prolonged temper tantrum has been quite amusing, disappointed Republicans, but it’s time to cut the crap.
It’s sad and tragic that some people are having such a hard time waking up to the realization that Obama is still president, but you’ve had a week to let that sink in. After a respectable amount of time to give you time to accept you’ve got four more years to suffer through, I don’t haven even one more minute to waste waiting on Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, Mary Matalin, Victoria Jackson, Fox News and pissed off wives that run down their husbands for not voting to get over their Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Some of us are pretty pleased with how last Tuesday turned out. Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest news personalities we have. Watching her makes me smarter than I was before I tuned in.
Maddow ran down a list of what wasn’t going to happen with Barack Obama safely back in the White House. It was quite a list and if anyone missed it, it bears repeating.
(1) “We are not going to have a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. There will be no more Antonin Scalias and Samuel Alitos added to this court.”
(2) “We’re not going to repeal health reform. Nobody’s going to kill Medicare and make old people in this generation — or any other generation — fight it out on the open market to try to get themselves health insurance. We’re not going to do that.”
(3) “We’re not going to give the 20% tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, and expect [cutting] programs like food stamps and kids’ health insurance to cover that tax cut.”
(4) “We’re not going to make you clear it with your boss if you want to get birth control with the insurance plan that you’re on.”
(5) “We are not going to redefine rape.”
(6) “We are not going to amend the constitution to stop gay people from getting married.”
(7) We’re not going to double down on Guantanamo.
(8) “We’re not eliminating the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, or Housing at the Federal level.”
(9) “We are not going to spend two trillion dollars on the military, that the military does not want.”
(10) “We are not scaling back on student loans because the country’s NEW plan is that you should borrow money from your parents.”
(11) “We are not vetoing the Dream Act, we are not ‘self-deporting.’”
(12) “We are not letting Detroit go bankrupt.”
(13) “We are not starting a trade war with China on Inauguration Day in January.”
(14) “We are not going to have — as a president — a man who once led a mob of friends to run down a scared gay kid to hold him down and forcibly cut his hair off with a pair of scissors while that kid cried and screamed for help. (And there was NO apology, not EVER.)”
(15) “We are not going to have a Secretary of State John Bolton. We are not going to bring Dick Cheney Back. We are not going to have a foreign policy shop stocked with architects of the Iraqi war, we are not going to do it … We had the choice to do that if we wanted to do that, as a country, and we said no, last night, loudly.”
Ah, Rachel, if television is the idiot box, it’s no wonder the idiots hate you for refusing to dumb down your show to make stupid people (like this moron in Cincinnati) feel better about themselves.
- Donald Trump, Victoria Jackson and Ted Nugent rant on Twitter after Obama victory (ontheredcarpet.com)
- Looking Forward: Rachel Maddow’s 15 Sucky Things Prevented By Obama Winning His 2nd Term (addictinginfo.org)
- “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?” (althouse.blogspot.com)
- What we won (bluejaysway.wordpress.com)
MSNBC finally had enough of their in-house Little Hitler and fired Pat Buchanan. The aging old bigot greased the pole himself with his Suicide of A Superpower book where he whined about the end of White America by 2025.
Following his exile from the supposedly “liberal” cable channel, Buchanan fumed that his left-wing enemies had finally claimed his scalp.
My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.
The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” claimed that my book espouses a “white supremacist ideology.” Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, “The End of White America.”
I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.
No one is being “blacklisted” here. Certainly not Buchanan. He’s still free to write his shitty books and columns and appear on whatever TV show that wants to air his rancid views. CNN and MSNBC have said, “no mas” so he’s free to continue polluting PBS and The McLaughlin Group or Fox News if they need another Glenn Beck type.
No surprise that Buchanan accepted no responsibility for his downfall. He’s not the self-reflective type. What was a slight surprise was how Buchanan’s bouncing triggered an onslaught of hand-wringing weeping and wailing from useful idiots like The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan, the gay neo-conservative whose soft spot for bigots includes Ron Paul.
Sullivan wrote, “Sixteen years ago, when I came out as HIV-positive and quit TNR’s editorship, Buchanan, who had sparred relentlessly in public with me over gay equality, wrote me a personal hand-written note. He wrote he was saddened by what he heard – which was then regarded as an imminent death sentence – and wanted to say how he would pray that I would survive, if only so we could continue to argue and fight and debate for many more years. He was one of only two Washingtonians who did such a thing. I was moved beyond words. But he knew I loved a good argument as well. Over a gulf of ideological and philosophical difference, we could debate reasonably…He’s a complicated man and I will not defend for a second his views on many things. But he is also a compassionate and decent man in private and an honest intellectual in public.”
I particularly found this passage by Sullivan interesting, “He truly believes what he says and has read and researched a huge amount and has thought carefully about his extreme out-of-the-mainstream views. He is a serious figure in that respect. Compared with Al Sharpton or Ed Schultz, he is a paragon of intellectual integrity. He is not a propagandist. He is a passionate writer who loves nothing more than a good argument with a worthy opponent – and he has a serious sense of humor to boot.”
As far as Sullivan concerned it’s all good to be a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Nazi slurping, sexist bigot just so long as you have thought carefully out your extreme out-of-the-mainstream views and you have a sense of humor.
Sullivan extols Buchanan’s compassion and decency while ignoring how it does not extend to other gay men. This is the same “honest intellectual” who said AIDS was “nature’s revenge” and history of denouncing homosexuality includes remarks such as:
The gays may counter that the American Psychiatric Association has, of late, dropped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. That, however, tells us less about the nature of homosexuals than about the moral courage of the APA. If a covey of quacks voted tomorrow that masochism, bestiality, and incest were not signs of personality disorder, that don’t necessarily make it so. One need not be a doctor of philosophy to know that when some 40-year-old male paints his face with rouge and lipstick and prances around in women’s clothes, he ain’t playing with a full deck.
Homosexuality is not a civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family. Homosexuality involves sexual acts most men consider not only immoral, but filthy. The reason public men rarely say aloud what most say privately is they are fearful of being branded ‘bigots’ by an intolerant liberal orthodoxy that holds, against all evidence and experience, that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle.
There is no brief for police harassment or persecution of homosexuals. They have the same right to protection from exploitation as alcoholics, who are, likewise, sick people. As for putting practicing homosexuals in prison, as some state laws mandate, that is like throwing B’rer Rabbit into the briar patch.
As an openly gay man, Sullivan’s passionate defend of his buddy Buchanan is as indefensible as Jews that collaborated with the Nazis. What’s the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom?
Buchanan can take his tired act over to Fox News after burning out at CNN and MSNBC. Fox is the logical last step for this Angry Old White Man before Stormfront, Nobody ever got fired from Fox for being too prejudiced.
The tolerance for Buchanan’s hatred for everything non-White, non-heterosexual and non-Christian is legendary, documented and unlimited. Idiots like Andrew Sullivan can kiss his Irish ass all they like, but for anyone who doesn’t fit into the Wonderful White World of Pat Buchanan, you’re on his enemies list.
I’m extremely pleased to consider myself as an enemy to all things Pat Buchanan. Sullivan should smarten up and realize Buchanan’s America has no room for gays, even conservative British ones.
- We Don’t Really Need to Debate Pat Buchanan’s Ideas to Debunk Them (thinkprogress.org)
- Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
- MSNBC and Pat Buchanan part ways. He blames everyone else. (dailykos.com)
- Pat Buchanan: Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish (themoderatevoice.com)
History will be made Saturday morning when Melissa Harris-Perry, a professor of political science at Tulane University, hosts a morning political talk show on MSNBC. Asked what her show will be about Harris-Perry told The Amsterdam News, “Although it’s not a show about race-look, I’m a professor of African-American politics, so we’re going to be talking about race. I’m a feminist, so we’re going to be talking about gender. I’m a parent, so we’re going to be talking about kids and young people. I live in the South, so we’re going to talk about politics beyond the D.C.-to-New-York corridor. It’s a political show but it definitely has a point of view.”
Those are points of view absent from the Sunday morning talking heads shows where Black women are non-existent. I welcome Harris-Perry and wish her well. But there’s no news that someone can’t find a way to receive it as bad. Enter Cornel “the ‘Fro” West and his Mini-Me, Boyce Watkins.
In an interview, West unloaded on Harris-Perry, his former colleague at Princeton. “I have a love for the sister, but she is a liar, and I hate lying,’ says West. . . . She’s become the momentary darling of the liberals, but I pray for her because she’s in over her head. She’s a fake and a fraud. I was so surprised how treacherous the sister was.’
Yet before West heated up a clothes hanger to whip on Harris-Perry with, Watkins had scribbled his own bit of character assassination with a piece, “5 Reasons Melissa Harris-Perry is Perfect for MSNBC.”
If I end up sounding like a hater, it’s because I probably am. White people, as a collective, have never like (sic) me very much and advocating for black folks has never been an easy way to pay the bills. Also, my gripe with Melissa is the same I’d have with any black person who allows herself to be propped up by the Democrats to do their dirty work against Cornel West as he spoke on behalf of black, brown and poor people. Harris never proved that Dr. West was wrong – she only sought to discredit him and dismantle his voice. In that regard, she was no different from a slave using the master’s gun to kill the leader of the negro rebellion.
She is clearly a liberal who happens to be a black woman, not a black woman who happens to be a liberal…The whole light-skinned black liberal thing works in her favor: I should start by noting that I’m a bit light-skinned myself and nearly all of my relatives are of the “high-yella” variety (I was adopted). So, this is not meant to offend anyone with light skin.
In one breath, Watkins says he doesn’t mean to offend light-skinned Blacks. Can you guess what he follows that caution with? If you guessed offending light-skinned Blacks, you win!
But, the emergence of Barack Obama has opened the door for quite a few light-skinned, non-threatening, black superstars of both politics and media: Cory Booker, Harold Ford, Don Lemon on CNN and a few others have been able to benefit from this wave. Harris-Perry is a perfect fit as the (in the words of cousin Pookie) “light-skinded-ded,” red-bone, highly educated liberal that white folks tend to love. Nothing militant will come out of her mouth, unless she’s angry about a new immigration law or some civil liberties violation in the National Defense Authorization Act. Not to say that there’s anything wrong with the “light-skinned liberal analyst” phenomenon, but I wonder how successful these folks might be if they looked like they were siblings of Wesley Snipes – darker skinned commentators and pundits deserve opportunities as well, and I argue that they are being put to the side (can you think of one dark-skinned person in prime time media? Me neither).
The cherry on top of Watkins talking out of both sides of his mouth comes with a slap at Harris-Perry for doing the exact same thing he does.
Black journalists have long complained about what Al Sharpton referred to as “All white, all night,” in which most of the major cable news outlets didn’t have any hosts of color on their nightly branded shows. The best way to shut down that criticism is to hire Al Sharpton himself, which is exactly what MSNBC did. But one challenge is that neither Sharpton, nor Harris-Perry, is a professionally-trained journalist, so there are still quite a few talented black journalists who are seething over the fact that MSNBC went after black scholars and activists, rather than seasoned media professionals.
For the record, I am not a real journalist either. I am one of those scholar/activists who’s been able to benefit from the bias of which I am speaking (I have more media appearances than nearly all of my journalist friends).
Nobody made more of an issue about Sharpton landing the MSNBC gig than I did, but Watkins has twisted the legitimate concerns of “real journalists” who would like to see Blacks who do this thing for a living a shot at these television gigs as well as Black scholars and activists.
Watkins doesn’t like Harris-Perry, he’s not happy for her and he even goes so far as to question her Blackness and commitment to Black people because she prefers Obama to West. It just comes off as that small-minded, crabs in a barrel mentality that keeps us busy squabbling over small stuff that isn’t worth squat.
Call me a cynic, but this “I won’t do cable TV ’cause I want to keep it real” rap is more than a little self-serving. There are too many Black folks who are doing cable TV and they aren’t running away from their Blackness by doing so. Watkins spew out a hit piece that is mean, petty, and it smacks of simple envy. If MSNBC offered Watkins a show he’d run over West to get it.
On his Facebook page, Watkins denied everything in response to my challenging him about Harris-Perry.
Brother, I can give you the real deal on the “smell test” – my goal is not to be objective about Melissa or to politely say “congratulations” to someone I think is bad for black America.
I make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that I am not appreciative of Melissa’s views. Her attacks on Cornel were uncalled for and unvalidated – I was very angry at the way she allowed white folks to prop her up on a platform so she could do the dirty work for the Democrats who were upset that Cornel was out speaking on behalf of poor, black and brown folks.
To answer any questions that might be asked about my remarks…no, I don’t want a f*cking job at MSNBC. I’ve been on all the networks numerous times and could have gotten quite a few gigs had I been a “good boy.” I’ve lost millions for speaking what I believe to be the truth and my only goal is to seek independence of thought and commerce for black America. In far too many cases, major black voices are controlled by white-owned media outlets and corporations – That’s why I put all my money and time into yourblackworld.com, which allows me to get my message to the public without having to ask for a white man’s permission. I don’t hate white folks, but the truth is that their agenda is almost always different from your own and they always view us as second-class citizens.
Someone who is “bad for Black America?” What is about Melissa Harris-Perry that is “bad for Black America?” What’s really bad for Black America are Black academics talking smack like winos on the corner.
Harris-Perry took issue with West when he whined to a WHITE guy (Chris Hedges) how hurt he was that he didn’t get a personal invitation to Obama’s inauguration.
West came off like a jilted girlfriend, not a preeminent Black intellectual. It was pompous, it was small and it was arrogant as hell. Cornel West wasn’t speaking out for poor, Black and brown folks. He was ticked off that “the dear brother” who brought his bags to his hotel room had a ticket to the Inauguration and he didn’t.
There is a cost for working in the mainstream (just ask Roland Martin), but I’m not buying the line only those out of it care about, protect the interests of, and love Black people. No one is required to watch MHP on MSNBC. Just don’t say you’re “happy” for her when you have made it crystal clear you are anything but.
Going after Harris-Perry for being “light-skinned” is as petty at it gets. By the Boyce Watkins standard, only folks as dark as Wesley Snipes (or Clarence Thomas!) can legitimately criticize other Blacks because they are “dark enough to decide who is really part of the club.
The weakest attack to make against someone is to cast doubts upon the content of the character based upon the color of their skin. Black academics love a good disagreement, but when the intellectual quality of the argument doesn’t rise to the level of a beef between second-rate rappers, that’s pathetic.
West and Watkins are too smart brothers. They should be smart enough to expend their brain power on a real problem facing Black folks. Harris-Perry getting a TV show isn’t one of them. Then again, maybe there’s another reason for Watkins and West’s “bros before hos” smackdown of MHP. Maybe it’s nothing more than sexism. Plain and simple, they are simply asserting their male prerogative to put an uppity sista in her place.
Sometimes its most obvious reasons that are the least considered.
The next time West and Smiley plan a road trip for self-serving publicity, they should pack a booster seat in the back and bring Boyce Watkins along for the ride.
- Al Sharpton defends Melissa Harris Perry from Cornel West attacks (thegrio.com)
- Intelligentsia Beef: Cornel West Calls Melissa Harris-Perry A Fake and a Fraud (clutchmagonline.com)
- Black Intellectuals Go At it Again (theroot.com)
- Melissa Harris-Perry becomes only black female to host a political talk show in cable news (thegrio.com)
We like to tell ourselves only stupid people are stupid enough to be openly racist these days. Things have changed and we’re all so much more enlightened and past all that tired old prejudice thing. Some of us even got ourselves believing its racism by Blacks against Whites that’s the real problem now.
Then there are the few and the proud who know better. They’re few because their old school brand of bigotry has diminished and dimmed over the passage of time. But they’re still proud to be White, Right and on top and they aren’t going to fade quietly away when they perceive their standing is being threatened.
MSNBC (y’know, the supposed “liberal” network) political commentator Pat Buchanan isn’t even pretending he’s not a ranting racist anymore.
He’s putting on his Paul Revere gear to warn of the dire consequences that will happen to America when Whites are no longer the majority race somewhere around 2041.
John Hope Franklin, the famed black historian at Duke University, once told the incoming freshmen, “The new America in the 21st century will be primarily non-white, a place George Washington would not recognize.”
In his June 1998 commencement address at Portland State, President Clinton affirmed it: “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.” The graduates cheered.
The Census Bureau has now fixed at 2041 the year when whites become a minority in a country where the Founding Fathers had restricted citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”
What are the seemingly inevitable consequences of an America where whites are a shrinking minority?
First, the end of a national Republican Party that routinely gets 90 percent of its presidential votes from white America.
California is the harbinger of what is to come.
Carried by Richard Nixon in all five presidential elections when he was on the ticket and by Ronald Reagan all four times he ran, California, where whites are now a shrinking minority, is a state where the GOP faces extinction. John McCain’s share of the California vote was down to the Barry Goldwater level of 1964.
When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP. Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, also critical to any victorious GOP coalition, are Hispanicizing as rapidly as Texas.
In every presidential election since Bush I in 1992, Hispanics have given 60-70 percent of their votes to the Democratic ticket.
For Hispanics, largely poor and working class, are beneficiaries of a cornucopia of government goods – from free education to food stamps to free health care. Few pay federal income taxes.
Why would they not vote for the Party of Government?
Second, the economic crisis of California, brought on by an outflow of taxpayers and a huge influx of tax consumers – i.e., millions of immigrants, legal and illegal – will be mirrored nationally.
For though the majority of immigrants and illegals comes to work, and work hard, most now come from Third World countries and do not bring the academic or professional skills of European-Americans.
Third, the decline in academic test scores here at home and in international competition is likely to continue, as more and more of the children taking those tests will be African-American and Hispanic. For though we have spent trillions over four decades, we have failed to close the racial gap in education. White and Asian children continue to outscore black and Hispanic children.
Can the test-score gap be closed? With the Hispanic illegitimacy rate at 51 percent and the black rate having risen to 71 percent, how can their children conceivably arrive at school ready to compete?
Should this continue for three decades, what will it mean for America if Asians and whites occupy the knowledge-industry jobs, while scores of millions of black and Hispanic workers are relegated to low-paying service-sector jobs? Will that make for social tranquility?
Affirmative action is one answer. But this is already causing a severe backlash, and the reason is obvious.
When affirmative action was first imposed, whites outnumbered blacks nine to one. The burden of reverse discrimination on the white community was thus relatively light. Today, however, not only blacks, but Hispanics and women – two-thirds of the entire population – qualify for affirmative action in hiring and school admissions.
Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind – slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide – may welcome its departure from history.
Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.
I’m not going to say I’m looking forward to the 72-year old Buchanan’s passing, but I won’t lie and say I’m going to be upset when it happens. Here we have a former Nixon speechwriter, failed presidential candidate, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Nazi sympathizing, Holocaust denying, racist, xenophobic scumbag who revels in being angry and outspoken about who he loves (White people) and who he hates (everybody else).
I’ve said it myself: Hitler comparisons are weak. Most of the time they are made in error and are applied inaccurately.
But not in the case of Patrick J. Buchanan. In this dude’s case you’d be hard pressed to find a mainstream commentator more likely to cut Hitler slack than Prejudiced Pat.
His anti-Semitism is well-established as well as his passionate defense of accused Nazi war criminals. Buchanan doesn’t apologize for it and he’s not going to run away from his racist and supremacist beliefs I’m not going to shy away from calling him out on it.
Here are more of Uncle Pat’s musings about what’s wrong with America.
Obama’s White House thus enlisted in the long and successful campaign to expel Christianity from the public square, diminish its presence in our public life, and reduce its role to that of just another religion.
The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear. Hispanics already comprise 42 percent of New Mexico’s population, 37 percent of California’s, 38 percent of Texas’s, and over half the population of Arizona under the age of twenty. ……. Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being overturned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution—to “insure domestic tranquility” and “make us a more perfect union”? Or has our passivity in the face of this invasion imperiled our union?
Not until the 1960s did courts begin to use the Fourteenth Amendment to impose a concept of equality that the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, and the Gettysburg Address never believed in. Before the 1960s, equality meant every citizen enjoyed the same constitutional rights and the equal protection of existing laws. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law mandated social, racial, or gender equality.
If [conservative political commentator Heather] Mac Donald’s statistics are accurate, 49 of every 50 muggings and murders in New York are the work of minorities. That might explain why black folks have trouble getting a cab. Every New York cabby must know the odds, should he pick up a man of color at night.
Then there’s my favorite “OMG/WTF” quote.
Perhaps some of us misremember the past. But the racial, religious, cultural, social, political, and economic divides today seem greater than they seemed even in the segregation cities some of us grew up in.
Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans.
For some reason I have this sudden urge to start whistling “Dixie.” What a mind-boggling confessional of sheer paranoia, hatred and outright lunacy. When I read some delusional bullshit where a some Irish asshole like Buchanan longs for the days when the darkies knew their place and stayed there I wish I had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Buchanan so I could look him directly in the face and say, “Hey, Pat? Go to hell, you racist punk “
Buchanan is crazy as the day is long but he’s also well-paid and has a high-profile to air his bigotry against Blacks, Latinos, gays, Jews, women and anyone else who isn’t straight, White, male and Irish Catholic. He is Archie Bunker without the laugh track.
Shame on MSNBC for turning a blind eye to this evil old bastard’s hatred of everything that isn’t White, straight and Christian. These kinds of expressions of bias is nothing new from Buchanan, but MSNBC seems content to allow him to go on vomiting up his provincial Left to his own devices, Buchanan is nothing to get excited about. He might have another ten years of hate speech left in him and then he’s gone like a bad odor. His racism is indistinguishable from that of a David Duke, but because he has some credentials he has credibility Duke can only dream of.
It’s easy to dismiss Buchanan as an aging anachronism soon to disappear in the tar pits with all the other dinosaurs whose brains were too small to adapt to a brave new world. It’s a mistake to think what he says doesn’t resonate in the corridors of power where the decisions are made to support or oppose people
of color rising up to assume their rightful place in this country.
Forget about Occupy Wall Street. Let’s Occupy Pat Buchanan’s brain. We just have to find it first.
- Pat Buchanan: America is Disintegrating Because White America is an Endangered Species (crooksandliars.com)
- Msnbc Has a Problem (maboulette.wordpress.com)
- Pat Buchanan’s White-Power Obsession (theroot.com)
- Pat Buchanan Basically Wants a Race War [Racists] (gawker.com)
- Please join us in calling on MSNBC to fire Pat Buchanan …Gabriel Rey-Goodlatte, ColorOfChange.org (ynative77.wordpress.com)
This would still be just another non-journalist media “celebrity” receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent.
The National Association of Black Journalists invited the Reverend Al Sharpton to last week to speak at their convention. He accepted the invitation. Then he turned it down.
The Reverend Al Sharpton blew off the convention based upon his anger at statements made on the NABJ discussion board by two members. I am one of those two. I wonder if the other guy is feeling like events have swirled out of their control.
It’s not always fun being stuck in the eye of the storm. It’s even less fun when only half of what you say gets any notice.
There’s a saying that a lie can be half way around the world before truth puts on its shoes. The same thing applies to misinformation except in cyberspace it can be all the way around the world before truth even wakes up.
In my nearly 20 years as a reporter, editor, columnist and blogger, I have been at the center of controversy more than once. A syndicated radio show host called me a “Sambo.” I’ve had more than a few readers accuse me of being a “White-hating militant.” There is no need for me to declare who I am to anyone who doesn’t know me. When I write something I never declare it to be the definitive truth. It is simply my truth and truth is subjective. It can be accepted, rejected or ignored.
It’s regrettable Sharpton chose to blow off over a thousand Black journalists because in his words, he “would have been a distraction” by showing up. Sharpton was scheduled to be part of a discussion on presidential politics as part of a panel with Cornel West, former RNC chairman Michael Steele, author Sophia Nelson and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.
Sharpton said in an interview, “I was invited to come speak about politics and the upcoming presidential election. If they had invited me to talk about whether advocates and activist organizations should host talk shows, I would have considered coming to discuss those kinds of things. But to put me on a political panel and then for it to go into something else about MSNBC, that wouldn’t have been good.”
I have no idea what moderator Roland Martin would have asked Sharpton or what questions he would have gotten from attendees. But so what if the MSNBC question or my remarks would have come up. I know Sharpton wasn’t invited to talk about whether he was getting a show or not. By refusing to attend he made his absence the issue and a huge distraction. Or does he think Martin and NABJ president Kathy Times were calling to ask him to reconsider because they had nothing better to do?
The issue is not whether or not Sharpton should get a show. It never was the issue. Since so many seem to have missed out on what the subject actually was here is a reminder from Carole Simpson as reported by Richard Prince on his Journal-isms column.
Carole Simpson, the retired ABC News anchor, echoed Winbush in a telephone interview Wednesday with Mallary Jean Tenore of the Poynter Institute.
“[Sharpton] was not a journalist. It seems like having a name is more important than your credentials and the news you’ve covered, and how well you did as a reporter and how much you did as a thinker and writer about the issues of the day,” she said. “Who’s going to get the eyeballs? … That’s the bottom line. It’s all about eyeballs. It’s the drive for ratings.
“I have nothing against the Rev. Al. I’ve known him for years. I’ve covered him, but he doesn’t sound like a professional broadcaster. Somebody sounding like that wouldn’t typically be hired by any station. Yeah, as a pundit. He’s an intelligent man. I give him credit for that. But he doesn’t sound like a professional broadcaster.
“But he’s controversial, he’s provocative, he yells, and so they’re looking for personalities and not journalists. The problem that I have, as NABJ has, is fine — hire somebody of color — but how about a journalist? Not a reverend. I don’t get it.”
I don’t either. The point was never whether or not Sharpton should get the MSNBC gig. The point was why can’t a journalist even be considered?
My comment has appeared on Blackamericaweb.com, Beliefnet, the conservative Accuracy In Media website, three times on Prince’s column, the Tom Joyner Morning Show, read by Keith Olbermann on his newly revived Countdown program and last week Politco picked it up.
With the exception of Prince nobody has picked up the phone or dropped me an e-mail asking me why I wrote what I wrote. The comment is all that matters. The commentator is irrelevant.
Sharpton has run for president. He’s faced down angry White mobs in Howard Beach, Bensonhurst, and Crown Heights. He’s gone head-to-head with the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. He’s been in screaming matches with Cornel West. Sharpton has taken on professional back breakers and walked away with a big winning grin on his face.
Last week he got in a shouting match with that old Nazi sympathizing racist Pat Buchanan over his calling President Obama “your boy.”
Am I supposed to believe Sharpton is afraid to take on a freelance writer and blogger from Columbus, Ohio he’s never heard of? If Sharpton had shown up in Philadelphia and someone asked him a question about the NABJ list serve he didn’t want to answer there’s a simple two-word response, “no comment.”
The mind boggles at the suggestion, but it seems to be a reality.
Sharpton said, “People are making conclusions based off their assumptions. I’ve been guilty of this too in the past, so I understand it, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that people are rushing to judgment.”
No argument there, Reverend. Unfortunately, since you haven’t bothered to get the story, you are one of those people. What you believe I said was not necessarily what I meant.
The Germans, when they weren’t conquering Europe coined a word to describe the pleasure or satisfaction others receive from the misfortunes of others. Schadenfreude is the word and over the last two weeks I’ve given a lot of folks I’ve never met a lot of pleasure.
Jeff, I’m hearing your name everywhere. Even this morning on my drive in to work, I hear about your thoughts on the whole MSNBC thing. How is this newfound (or renewed) stardom treating you?
That was a message waiting for me when I signed on to Facebook the other day. I had no idea what my friend was talking about.
It turns out she was talking about me being talked about on The Tom Joyner Show. The fly jock was jockin’ my name regarding remarks I made about the Reverend Al Sharpton replacing Cenk Uygur on MSNBC.
Jeff Johnson, a contributor to Joyner’s morning radio show and a writer for Black America Web.com had some thoughts he wanted to share about what I had said on my blog and the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) discussion board that had been picked up by media reporter Richard Prince on his Journal-isms column and gone nationwide.
Prince wrote in his July 21 column: When rumors surfaced this week that Sharpton was under consideration for the MSNBC job, one NABJ member told colleagues without challenge, “This would still be just another non-journalist media ‘celebrity’ receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent.”
That observation became the centerpiece every critic and supporter of the Sharpton hire springboarded off of.
Johnson rolled up his pants legs and waded in on Blackamericaweb in an essay, “Don’t Hate on Sharpton-Congratulate Him”:
For years, there have been no black hosts in primetime cable news and fewer than a handful anywhere in cable news. Last week, that reality was served a blow when MSNBC decided to announce that Rev. Al Sharpton would become the network’s newest host, filling the 6 p.m. hour of the cable network’s programming. Now, MSNBC had been using Rev. Sharpton to fill in for Cenk Uygur and then seemingly opened space for him to continue to audition (if you will) for the spot. I heard my fair share of comments regarding his performance, from praise to reasonable critique, to straight-up hate. And when it was finally announced that he would get the spot, the naysayers came out of the woodwork.
Even Keith Olbermann, a former MSNBC host, weighed in, helping to spread one of the most reported quotes about Sharpton’s hiring from Ohio journalist Jeff Winbush. He stated, “This would still be just another non-journalist media ‘celebrity’ receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent.” It is important to state that Winbush went further to say that he did not have an issue with Sharpton, but wanted legitimate black journalists to get an honest shot at this type of opportunity.
I hope that we as a community pause, put this into perspective and make the most of this moment in time.
As a growing journalist myself, I want to see seasoned, tested and consistent black journalists get greater visibility as well. However, let us not allow others to use this moment to create division between us.
I guess I’m supposed to one of those “others” Johnson says is creating division. I always wanted to be an “other.”
This was apparently the quote heard round the world.
It showed up on Roland Martin’s website, The Poynter Institute which covers media-related issues, Blackamericaweb.com, Beliefnet, Media Bistro, the conservative Accuracy In Media site and places I never knew existed. When I learned Media Takeout, the Black-oriented celebrity and scandal site, had picked up on it with the headline, “Jealousy??? Black Journalists Criticize MSNBC…For Hiring Al Sharpton!!!”, I knew things had snowballed into something way beyond my control.
A quick Google search of “Al Sharpton, Jeff Winbush” found this article from EEW Magazine Buzz:
Is it the age old “crabs-in-the-barrel” syndrome among African Americans? Or does National Association of Black Journalists member, Jeff Winbush, have good reason to get all huffy about MSNBC’s rumored plans to hire Reverend Al Sharpton for a primetime nightly hosting gig?
Winbush’s written commentary about the decision to potentially hire Al Sharpton has made its rounds online. Said Winbush, “This would still be just another non-journalist media ‘celebrity’ receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent… “
On the one hand, black folks complain about not having a visible role on primetime cable news. On the other hand, once someone is chosen, complainers are not satisfied because they would like to see someone else get a shot.
Can anybody really win?
Although there is merit to Winbush’s argument that qualified journalists of color consistently get passed over for these type positions, should we allow that issue to cloud the fact that one of our own may be getting a nationwide platform to advance our causes and interests?
Then there was this from J.C. Brooks at EURWeb:
The National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and the NAACP have been asking for more faces of color at the news desks across the country, but for some reason when Al Sharpton was asked to consider a position at MSNBC’s news desk in the 6pm slot, he was met with strong words and, to make it simple, a little “hateration.”
One member of the NABJ took to his blog saying, “‘This would still be just another non-journalist media ‘celebrity’ receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent.”‘ Well, when Jeff Winbush made that comment, it took off across the Internet, columns, and even Keith Olbermann’s new “Countdown” show. Now he feels he should clarify his statements.
According to Journal-isms, Sharpton was asked how he felt about the controversy that stirred up with Winbush’s comments and he told the Root.com, “We can’t get into a crabs-in-the-barrel mentality,” Sharpton said. “We cannot let them play us off one another. There is a history here. Kweisi Mfume had a talk show. Jesse Jackson Jr. had a talk show. If someone can advocate nationwide, we need to do that given the pain of our people. We need to do that on television, in newspapers and magazines. And all of us need to be united.”
The Root’s Leslie Holloway further clarified that the position being offered to Sharpton is not one of news, but “opinions and advocacy.” Winbush contends that he didn’t want to stir anything up with Sharpton and that he has “no ill will” toward the community crusader, he just wants journalists to get a fair shake too.
They both make sense, but most journalists and everyone else were given the wrong impression. The media reported Sharpton’s position as one of a 6pm news format and in that capacity, Winbush and fellow journalists had reason for concern.
Concern? Yeah, you might say I was concerned. Mostly because my name was floating around as ripping Sharpton and had mutated from a pointed observation to a truncheon to bludgeon a non-journalist taking a gig away from somebody more deserving.
What surprises me most is how nobody ever asked me why I made the remarks about Sharpton in the first place. If anyone had bothered to ask I would have explained I’m not anti-Sharpton, I’m pro-Black journalists. All I did was point out Reverend Al is a man of the cloth, not the Associated Press style book.
Nobody wanted to hear that. I thought I had exposed an inconvenient truth. The truth is all these writers on these websites wanted was a juicy pull quote. Once they got it, it was time to whip up a controversy that all these Black journalists were upset over Sharpton beating them out of a gig when the only person who said jack was me.
Richard Prince’s Journal-isms column ran a follow-up where he identified me as the source of the controversial quote. I was glad Prince gave me a chance to clarify my remarks, but the follow-up never gets the kind of play as the original statement.
Freelance journalist Jeff Winbush wants it known that he is not hatin’ on the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Winbush is a blogger in Columbus, Ohio, a former editor of the black newspaper the Columbus Post and a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. More to the point, he was the source of a quote in Thursday’s “Journal-isms” about MSNBC’s reported readiness to hire Sharpton for its 6 p.m. slot.
“When rumors surfaced this week that Sharpton was under consideration for the MSNBC job, one NABJ member told colleagues without challenge, ‘This would still be just another non-journalist media “celebrity” receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent,’ ” the column read.
Winbush’s quote reverberated around the Internet and was even shown, with the column, on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” show on Current TV. Olbermann was fired by MSNBC, where his show was also called “Countdown,” in January. On Thursday, Olbermann gave a platform to Cenk Uygur, the former MSNBC host whose slot has been filed temporarily by Sharpton.
“MSNBC Set To Hire Sharpton; Black Journalists Slam Impending Hire,” one headline read.
” ‘Slam?’ I did no such thing. I said nothing of the sort,” Winbush told Journal-isms by email. “I was not attacking him personally. I bear him no ill will. I simply want to see Black journalists get a fair shot as well.”
There is no control when the Internet gets hold of something you say or do. If it’s caught by a camera it will soon be slapped on You Tube. If it’s a muttered racist remark everybody will hear it. There is no hiding place in cyberspace.
I’ve written several miles worth of columns and essays taking on and taking down politicians, celebrities and other pundits. Keith Olbermann and Sharpton are among the many subjects I’ve praised, slammed or damned, so I can’t really bitch about having my words thrown back in my face. My words are like my kids and they belong to me. I can’t distance myself from them and I can’t deny I said what I said.
After all the times I’ve bad-talked Michael Steele, I’m surprised he hasn’t called to say, “How it’s feel to get played, brother?”
It’s been an interesting experience. Next time though I would hope over something I said that was actually newsworthy instead of scandalous.
Next week I’ll be in Philadelphia attending the National Association of Black Journalists Convention. I’ll have more to say later about the convention, but a lot of my “friends” will be there. Sharpton will be there. So will Michael Steele, Cornel West, Roland Martin, Jeff Johnson, Melissa Harris-Perry, Joel Dreyfuss, editor of The Root, and Arianna Huffington among a cast of thousands.
For Black journalists next week is our Woodstock. There’s going to be far more partying, drinking, and over indulgence in four days than most folks will do in four months, but for me it will also be an opportunity to look some of the people who got my remarks wrong and set them right.
And if I get a chance to get close enough to Reverend Sharpton and shake his hand, I’ll introduce myself and tell him how sorry I am my name was used to scandalize his. Sharpton is taking heat not from his enemies on the Right, but from the Left as both The Daily Caller and The Huffington Post have blasted MSNBC for ousting Uygur and replacing a White liberal with a Black liberal.
I’m no fan of U2. Not even a bit, but I have to credit Bono and the boys this much. They came up with a song that perfectly captures the mixed emotions one experiences when something they say gets all mashed up into something unrecognizable as your original thought. When the media starts manipulating it is like being stuck in a moment you can’t get out of.
You’ve got to get yourself together
You’ve got stuck in a moment and you can’t get out of it
Don’t say that later will be better now
You’re stuck in a moment and you can’t get out of it
- Vibe and Vegas Show: Black Journalists Question Plans by Msnbc to Hire Al Sharpton (thevibeandvegasshow.wordpress.com)
- Exclusive: Sharpton on Black Journalists (theroot.com)
- Token Gestures and Table Scraps (jeffwinbush.com)
- Keith Olbermann Trashes MSNBC Over Rev. Sharpton Hire, Suggests Quid Pro Quo (mediaite.com)