mediaanalysis
5 Signs You’re Acting Like a White Guy (Or, How To Not Be Gene Marks)
0When I read Gene Marks’s Forbes piece, “If I Was A Poor Black Kid,” it literally made me woozy with anger. Actually that’s not true. That was how I felt when I read the title and saw Gene’s smiling (white) face shining back at me. I wanted to grab him and shake him like you would a victim of shock. I wanted to yell at him, “STOP ACTING LIKE A WHITE GUY!”
That’s what my friends and I call it when somebody sticks their nose in places where their nose doesn’t belong–annnnnnnnd thinks they have it all figured out. That expression started when I was on the road with Laughter Against The Machine and I was ranting about a (white) dude who exploded on my Facebook page, indicting the entire Occupy Wall Street movement for not doing it right. But what “Karl” (not his real name; I think he spells it with a “C”) didn’t do is offer any solutions…or advice…or cloying aphorisms…or even a cookie. I was at a loss for words as to how to explain to “Karl” that he wasn’t helping anything by just being shitty. All I could come up with was, “STOP ACTING LIKE A WHITE GUY!”
Now, I didn’t say that to “Karl.” I have enough experience on the Internet to know how that goes down. But with the Gene Marks nonsense, I have to put it out there to the world.
So, here are five signs that you or someone you know is acting like a white guy….
-
You criticize without giving alternatives, here forward known as “Karling.”
-
When others are having a discussion that doesn’t involve or interest you, you feel the need to butt in and say something along the lines of “Who cares?” This is known as “Yahoo-ing,” due to how often this occurs on Yahoo’s comment threads.
-
You regularly claim to be an unbiased bystander, and then you claim that your “lack of bias” gives you the ability to see things more clearly. That’s called “usaing”–as in, USA-ing. For example, last week the United States government decided to stop usaing in Iraq. This also includes passing judgment on things that you have no reason to think you should understand or to think that your opinion should matter. See: the Mormons and gay marriage.
-
You never seem to know when to shut up! When you are wrong and proven wrong by things like facts and logic, you just won’t let it go. You insist on taking up space when you would be–and probably have been–advised to sit back and listen. I once heard a male comedian eviscerating the Vagina Monologues and the entire time I kept wanting to scream out, “HEY! MAYBE IT WASN’T WRITTEN FOR YOU!” And in commemoration of the retirement and passing of the man who most specifically epitomized this, it will forever be called “Rooney-ing.” RIP.
- You pretend that you can know what a person who is different than you should do, could do, or what you would do if you were them. This will forever be known as “Getting Gene Marksy all up in here!” due to his RIDONCULOUS, MORONIC. COMMENT BAITING, UN-EVOLVED, STOMACH CHURNING piece on what he would do “If I Were A Poor Black Kid.” To call it distasteful is to have to reckon with tasting it in the first place.
Now of course, you don’t have to be white or a guy to act like a “white guy.” Politics in America proves that everyday. So please, if you can, help me help others to stop acting like white guys, and in the meantime, I’m gonna go learn how to act more like an angry feminist.
W. Kamau Bell is a stand-up comedian best known for his solo show The W. Kamau Bell Curve: Ending Racism in About an Hour. Kamau will be performing in San Francisco on Dec. 29, 30, and 31 at The Phoenix Theater. Use the discount code Colorlines. He is also a on the board of the Applied Research Center, which publishes Colorlines.com.
If I Were A White, Male Middle Aged Forbes Columnist…
0In a reaction to President Obama’s big, pragmatic, race-free economic inequality speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, “Forbes” tech writer Gene Marks crafted a recklessly condescending column called “If I Were a Poor Black Kid.” In just two days, this white, middle aged keyboard monkey madness has garnered 518 comments on the site and God knows how many page views. It’s officially Internet catnip.
Now Marks, who in his bio describes himself as “a short, balding and mediocre certified public accountant,” starts off well enough:
The President’s speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia. The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011.
But things start to fall apart when Marks takes on the rhetorical style of Miss Grant’s “You got big dreams” speech from “Fame” Season 1:
I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. … It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology.
Having established his alleged expertise, Marks goes on to negate the very privilege he’s stating and put the onus of hundreds of years of structural racism and decade after decade of class stratification on the shoulders of, drum roll, poor black kids:
If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have.
The assumption here, of course, is that poor black kids in West Philadelphia (the ‘hood I’m from, by the way) don’t like reading and writing, that they’re too busy hippidity hopping and bling-fixating to make their shitty schools work for them.
Within this frame, Marks offers a range of subpar-to-mediocre stopgaps. For instance, if he were a poor black kid, he would “visit study sites like SparkNotes and CliffsNotes to help me understand books.” (Right. Because nothing says “I’m prepared to compete in a global information economy” like CliffsNotes.)
Without giving any meaningful consideration to the new digital divide, Marks also says he’d “watch relevant teachings on Academic Earth, TED and the Khan Academy,” when possible “get my books for free at Project Gutenberg” and “learn how to do research at the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia to help me with my studies.”
Armed with what he describes as “cheap computers” from outlets like Tiger Direct and the Dell Outlet, Marks’s hypothetical black kid will get himself into “nationally recognized magnet schools like Central, Girls High and Masterman,” competitive public institutions that require high standardized test scores and stellar grades. And for the ones who don’t make the cut, says Marks, there’s the option of private school tokenism:
Most private schools I know are filled to the brim with the 1%. That’s because these schools are exclusive and expensive, costing anywhere between $20 and $50k per year. But there’s a secret about them. Most have scholarship programs. Most have boards of trustees that want to give opportunities to kids that can’t afford the tuition. Many would provide funding for not only tuition but also for transportation or even boarding. Trust me, they want to show diversity. They want to show smiling, smart kids of many different colors and races on their fundraising brochures. If I was a poor black kid I’d be using technology to research these schools on the internet, too, and making them know that I exist and that I get good grades and want to go to their school.
The irony of Marks’s vision is that it’s so thoroughly mediocre. He can flaunt his own “I don’t know much about much” ethos because he’s not a poor black kid. The reality is that to compete in earnest with the children of middle class, white male tech writers, poor black kids (and their brown, Asian and Native American sistren and brethren) have to be beyond excellent. And they still might not get the fucking scholarship. Hell, they might not even have a secure, safe place to live. (Thanks subprime housing market!)
Marks could have used technology himself and Googled to find a few of the structural barriers he glances past. In just the past couple of months we’ve seen news that black students get suspended at a far higher rate for the same infractions as white students; that all but four of the students NYPD arrested this summer and fall were black or Latino; and that those poor black kids who evade the police-state in their schools and make it to college aren’t finding Marks’s easy-grab scholarships, since one in three of them owe more than $38,000.
As only artists can, my friend Lekan Jeyifo has been posting Marks-style prose on Facebook over the past couple of days. (This Nigerian-born, bongo-loc’ed illustrator and architect is also using Marks’s photo as his profile picture, but that’s another story.) My two favorites:
If I Was Trying Out For Varsity Basketball At Your Highschool – Forbes
I know becoming a star athlete at even the high school level can be extremely difficult. But that doesn’t mean that a woefully uncoordinated and morbidly obese child that has been home-schooled since 3 years of age can’t become the next Lebron James in today’s society…
If I Was Married To Your Wife – Forbes
I know maintaining a marriage is hard, believe me. But that doesn’t mean that attaining a healthy passionate and companionable relationship is out of your grasp. And no, I am not married, I am actually single…and also a male prostitute. But if I were married to your wife, I would love her better than you. Heck. I would make love to her better than you. I would make use of all of the tantric materials available in our public libraries and would learn how to bring her to orgasm by glancing at her. If I was married to your wife…
Lek’s satirical paragraphs speak more truth about structural inequality than Marks’s entire column. Given the gravity of the topic, that’s scary as hell.
Black Website Shows Us the Right and Wrong Ways to Talk HIV
0
[UPDATE 3:32pm EST] Loop21.com just posted an exclusive first look at the trailer for “25 to Life,” the William “Reds” Brawner documentary the site covered on World AIDS Day. Predictably, the trailer centers on Brawner’s failure to disclose his HIV status to some of his sexual partners when he was in college. To me, what’s more compelling–and instructive–is Brawner’s take on his collegiate promiscuity: “Because things were a game to me, I was always looking for my next conquest. That’s how I expressed my manhood. That’s how I expressed my bravado.”
Juxtaposed with an image of Brawner and a friend literally laying their heads in a woman’s cleavage, this quote lays bare the danger of using sexual manipulation to define masculinity. I hope the filmmakers, who are raising funds to complete the film, explore this idea further.
—-
Loop21.com, an African American news and lifestyle site, devoted lots of energy and real estate to HIV/AIDS last week. In the run-up and on World AIDS Day, the site ran a three-part series about the disease’s effect on ball culture (“Underground Gay Dance Culture Keeps ‘Voguing’ Legacy Alive”); covered Obama’s remarks at a ONE Campaign event (“President Obama Talks ‘The Beginning of the End of AIDS’”); and debunked down-low mythology in a statistics-laden piece about HIV risk among young black men who have sex with men (“Young Gay Black Men Are Most at Risk for HIV Transmission”).
But two pieces, which appeared side by side on World AIDS Day, crystallized the challenges of talking about sex, responsibility and HIV, 30 years and millions of words into the epidemic.
The first focuses on “25 to Life,” an upcoming documentary about Philadelphia AIDS activist William Brawner. It’s a heartbreaking story: As an 18-month-old under the care of a family friend, Brawner was scalded with boiling water. While undergoing a skin graft, he received a transfusion of HIV-infected blood. It being 1981, a time when the virus was considered an automatic death sentence and overt discrimination was rampant, Brawner’s mother chose to keep her baby’s diagnosis a secret. And Brawner, who grew up to be a magnetic, popular young man, carried that secret with him to Howard University, where he became sexually active at 18. He admits that he didn’t disclose his status to several of his partners and that he sometimes skipped condoms. To Brawner’s knowledge, none of his former partners have tested positive for HIV. Today, at 32, Brawner is married to an HIV-negative woman, has a son and he runs a residence for HIV-positive teens.
Through quotes from college friend and documentary filmmaker Michael Brown, the article attempts balance and nuance:
“We try not to villify him, and at the same time we don’t want to make him a martyr, either,” Brown says of his treatment of Brawner in 25 to LIFE. “This is not some type of an apology piece. We just tried to present a piece where viewers can answer some of the tough questions about Will’s life within themselves. And I think it kind of humanizes the experience of being HIV positive or having AIDS. You will wish that Will made some better choices. And seeing him work through some of these issues, you’ll feel for him, too.”
Unfortunately, key elements of the story render balance and nuance DOA.
The salacious headline,
“25 To Life: In New Film, Man With AIDS Confesses Unprotected Past”
the deck,
“Infected as a child, William Brawner practiced unsafe sex at Howard University”
and even the URL
http://loop21.com/life/coming-clean-hiv-postive-man-confronts-lives-he-destroyed,
essentially brand Brawner an AIDS predator and his partners duped damsels with no choice in the matter. [Editor's note: Research shows that the overwhelming majority of people who test positive take steps to protect themselves and their sex partners, according to federal health officials, who have identified undiagnosed infections as the key driver of the epidemic's spread.]
In addition, the opening paragraph sets up Brawner as a campus player and assigns a “boys will be boys” playfulness to romantic deceit:
Howard University campus heartthrob William “Reds” Brawner was a hot commodity. His former roommate and friend Mike Brown recalls an incident from their junior year.
“I didn’t know that Reds had a female guest in his room when another girl showed up unannounced,” says Brown, who was left to answer the door. “Will liked the girls and the girls liked Will,” Brown says with a chuckle. They were young men in their college prime. This was a simpler time.
Interestingly, the piece doesn’t hold Brawner accountable for this behavior. It makes HIV the sole consequence of his disrespectful promiscuity, and it even negates Brawner’s own explanation for withholding the truth about his health status. Take a look at the following paragraph:
Brawner simply convinced himself it simply did not exist.
“Imagine being at a party and everyone knows that you’re HIV-positive or have AIDS,” Brawner explains. “No one’s going to want to dance with you.”
No one would want to have sex with you, either.
And so Brawner had girlfriends. He had sex. Some of it was unprotected.
What I see in this passage is a missed opportunity. To me, Brawner’s quote doesn’t suggest denial. It very plainly states that as a young adult he feared rejection and social stigma–two of the most visceral realities of living with and preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly if you buy into the player-player version of black masculinity.
Sadly, by painting Brawner with an AIDS predator brush, the piece and many of the inevitable comments reinforce what he feared as a young adult. Orlando Bagwell, the director of the Ford Foundation’s JustFilms initiative and a supporter of the Brawner documentary, reveals a more productive approach:
“One of the essential parts of the equation for arresting HIV and AIDS is honesty and disclosure and getting rid of the stigma as well. How we think about treatment, and how we think about how a new way to address those who are sick with this disease is really important.”
This brings me to the adjoining story, “Dating with HIV/AIDS: A Q&A with Hydeia Broadbent.”. Now 27, Broadbent was born with HIV and became a prominent face of the disease at age 12. In this excellent piece, she details how she navigates HIV in her romantic life:
Loop 21: If you’re HIV-positive, when do you disclose your status? On the date? Before a date? As soon as you meet? As soon as you’re interested?
Broadbent: I have a three-date rule. By the third date is when it’s time to let someone know–but a lot of people don’t start dating until after they have already had sex. You need to let your partner know before you take it that far. If the person rejects you, then look at the bright side–at least you find out sooner then later what type of person they really were.
She also gives the reader language to discuss very natural fears:
Loop 21: Once you’ve told someone you’re involved with (or hope to be involved with) that you are HIV-positive, what are the best questions he or she can ask to help things move forward?
Broadbent: The best question: “What are the ways I can stay negative?”
It’s important that people understand a person’s first reaction may be fear. Make sure you have all the answers to their questions and be willing to take that person with you to a doctor’s visit so they can ask other things themselves. I made such a point of taking my ex-boyfriend with me that my doctor would ask where he was if he didn’t see him by my side.
And finally, she points out the consequences of failing to protect yourself:
Loop 21: What’s the best way to encourage people to practice safe sex?
Broadbent: Be real with them about what can happen if they don’t. Simply by Googling pictures of STD outbreaks can be a wake-up. Or let people know there is no cure for AIDS and not everyone has access to the life-saving medications they may need. If you don’t have health insurance, it could cost almost $4000 a month for medications and that doesn’t include the cost for doctor’s visits, blood tests or other medications you may need. At the end of the day, safe sex or no sex is better then a positive test result. Please remember people are still dying–maybe not at an alarming rate, but some do lose their fight against AIDS.
Of course Broadbent is a professional speaker who has been telling the world about her disease since middle school. And the Q+A format allows her to give direct prevention and disclosure advice; it doesn’t delve into her mistakes or demand that the writer interpret her life story. But in a media landscape rife with confusing, unproductive messages about HIV/AIDS and black romantic life, I’d prefer the stigma-free, clear, empowering prevention messages over a juicy morality tale. As old folks say, the devil is in the details. With a less salacious headline, a neutral URL, a keener ear to what Brawner actually said, and a prevention paragraph as visceral as the rest of the tale, the Brawner piece might not have let him win.
5 of the Dumbest Things Said About the Occupy Wall Street Movement
0The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that started in New York City on Sept. 16 have now turned in to a national movement. There are more than 70 ongoing demonstrations across the country, with New York City, Los Angeles, Denver, Phoenix and Miami seeing some of the largest turnouts. Police and protestors have had heated confrontations, leading to hundreds of arrests in New York and Boston.
But some public personalities still refuse to take the movement seriously. From elected officials to TV news anchors, people who’ve invested in the status quo are up in arms to brush off the movement that’s trying to hold it accountable. Here are five of the demeaning cheap shots we’ve seen so far.
Fox & Friends: Occupy Wall Street is “full of felons and drug users.”
No big surprise here, but it’s still sort of fascinating to see just what Fox News will come up with next. This time around Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” presented a selective sampling of who they see out protesting: “convicted criminals, methadone felons and professional handcuff-lock-pickers.” And it gets better. According to the hosts, demonstrators are only showing up for the free food.
Newt Gingrich: Occupy Wall Street is full of “dumb ideas.”
Newt Gingrich was a guest on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this past weekend and called the protesters “dumb and uneducated.”
“We have had a strain of hostility to free enterprise and frankly, a strain of hostility to classic America starting in our academic institutions and spreading across this country and I regard the Wall Street protesters as a natural outcome of a bad education system teaching them really dumb ideas.”
He’s also called Occupy Wall Street demonstrators “stupid” on his radio show.
Rep. Peter King: “We must stop those ragtag mobs and anarchists before they actually change policy.”
Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) was a guest on The Laura Ingraham Show and talked about how he’s afraid that the growing number of Occupy Wall Street protesters,
along with the media coverage of the movement, may end up
shaping U.S. government policy — much like the anti-war protesters did in the
1960s and ’70s.
“The fact is these people are anarchists. They have no idea what they’re doing out there,” King said. “They have no sense of purpose other than a basically anti-American tone and anti-capitalist. It’s a ragtag mob basically.
“We have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy,” he said, adding “I’m taking this seriously in that I’m old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen.”
Monica Crowley: Wall Street protestors are “useful idiots who probably haven’t paid much in taxes their whole life.”
On Monday, conservative radio and television commentator Monica Crowley was a guest on Fox News’ “Your World.” She got right down to business, generalizing the protesters as working class kids, aging hippies, and Obama supporters.
Herman Cain: Occupy Wall Street protesters are a bunch of ”jealous Americans” who “play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s Cadillac.”
Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain seems to have a daily insult for Occupy Wall Street. On CBS’s ”Face the Nation” Sunday Cain said called the protesters “jealous” Americans who “play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac.
Last week, he also told Wall Street demonstrators not to blame Wall Street, but to blame themselves: “Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a
job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!” Cain said. “It is not a
person’s fault if they succeeded, it is a person’s fault if they
failed.”
Iman: Italian Vogue ‘Might As Well Have Called Those’ Slave Earrings ‘N– Earrings’
0Italian Vogue editor Franca Sozzani has apologized for featuring hoop earrings dubbed “slave earrings” that were inspired by the black women brought to America during the slave trade.
The Italian Vogue website featured a white female model with the following caption:
Jewelry has always flirted with circular shapes, especially for use in making earrings. The most classic models are the slave and creole styles in gold hoops.
If the name brings to the mind the decorative traditions of the women of color who were brought to the southern United Stated during the slave trade, the latest interpretation is pure freedom.
“We apologise for the inconvenience. It is a matter of really bad traslation from Italian into English,” Sozzani told the Guardian.
“The Italian word, which defines those kind of earrings, should instead be translated into ‘ethnical style earrings’. Again, we are sorry about this mistake which we have just amended in the website.”
The article was edited on Monday to remove all references to the slave trade, and with the headline “Ethnic earrings”.
On Wednesday supermodel Iman shared her thoughts on the slave earrings with Fashionista.com:
You were one of the pioneering women of color in this industry. What’s your reaction to Vogue Italia running a feature titled “Slave Earrings”?
I’m a huge fan of Franca Sozzani and Vogue Italia’s website because they have a whole section on black models. Is it controversial? Yes. The naming of it, I don’t get it. I sometimes wonder in this age of reality shows has it become part of the language-the more controversy the more [buzz] it creates. But yeah, I didn’t like it. Slave does not make it ethnic. Mind you, it’s not lost in translation-the word slave, we know what it is. They might as well have called them “n* earrings.” For somebody like Franca Sozzani, who did that whole black issue for Vogue, somebody should have said something.
Three years ago Italian Vogue released their July issue featuring only black models.
Chicago CBS Affiliate Makes 4-yr.-old Sound Like a Thug, Says Sorry
0
Over the weekend, Chicago CBS-affiliate WBBM apologized for misquoting a black 4-year-old boy and making him out to be a future thug.
It all started out when a freelancer was shooting video interviews at a crime scene and met the child, who was standing nearby when a drive-by shooting took place. In the news segment, the child tells a reporter that such shootings don’t scare him and that, when he grows up, “I’m going to have me a gun.” But it turns out the station left out a key part of the story.
The Maynard Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to training journalists of color, transcribed the conversation between the cameraman and the boy as broadcasted by WBBM:
Boy: “I’m not scared of nothing.”
Reporter: “When you get older are you going to stay away from all these guns?”
Boy: “No.”
Reporter: “No?
What are you going to do when you get older?”
Boy: “I’m going to have me a gun!”
Bartelstein ended the story saying, “that was scary indeed.”
However, an unedited version of the interview shows the boy’s words
were taken completely out of context. It turns out he wants a gun because he wants to
become a police officer.
Gawker.com has published the station’s apology:
We accept responsibility for the mistakes that were made, both in the
reporting and editing of the story. The video of the child should not
have aired. As soon as news management identified the problem, they took
immediate steps to ensure that the video would not air in subsequent
newscasts. In addition, we have followed up with our employees to make
sure that we all have learned from the mistakes that were made.
Boyce D. Watkins, a professor and columnist, writes that it’s easy to dismiss this incident as a simple mistake, “but it’s much deeper than we might think” because of how black men are portrayed in the media already. Watkins goes provides another local black figure who’s famous for being misquoted:
Even more challenging is the frustration that millions of educated, hard working, law abiding black men feel when the world typecasts us as being less than human. This little boy is already growing up in a city, Chicago, where a brilliant and hard-working man by the name of Rev. Jeremiah Wright had his 40-year legacy crippled by a Fox News sound
bite that presented him to be the kind of unpatriotic, hateful black man that Fox News loves to present to its audience.
In the video posted above, Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, called the edits in the video “disturbing.” Jealous, who’s also a former journalist, went on to say it’s important to tell the whole truth because “when you’re telling half the truth, you’re in effect lying.”
You Maaad!–How Fox News Uses Hip-Hop to Create Race Panics
0Nov. 12, 2003, was a momentous day for hip-hop. For the first time ever, a rapper sat down with Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly for what the host snidely introduced as an “intelligent conversation.”
The rapper: Cam’ron, the same guy who made purple mink coats and “no homo” fashionable.
The topic: Is gangsta rap hurting America’s children?
Cam’ron’s first words: “Pimpin’ and bitches.”
To be fair, Cam’ron was merely quoting O’Reilly, who was paraphrasing Cam’ron. The entire interview lasted all of 12 minutes, without a single conclusion drawn about whether gangsta rap had in fact hurt any of America’s children. Instead, the lasting element from the conversation was a soundbite that can still be heard in high school hallways across the nation. ”You maaad!” the rapper teased O’Reilly.
With Fox News’ parent company News Corp now facing conspiracy and bribery charges in the UK, and broader race-baiting accusations at home, O’Reilly’s questions about media and morality might have been better directed at Rupert Murdoch. But the show marked an important milestone for Fox News: The discovery of a brand new “track” for the taudry practice of tapping into America’s deeply held assumptions about and fears of black people. This new ploy transformed mild think-about-our-kids rants into direct allegations of hip-hop’s role in perpetuating American racism and terrorist sentiment. Over the years, we’ve seen rappers–particularly black male rappers–from throughout the genre’s political spectrum interrogated for the content of their lyrics, their relationships with President Obama, and (in a most meta development) their sentiments about Fox News itself.
|
In the most recent episode, we saw something very similar to Cam’ron’s 2003 appearance–except this time it was Lupe Fiasco sitting in O’Reilly’s hot seat. And it was in fact Fiasco who was calling Obama a terrorist and criticizing his policies, leaving O’Reilly to defend the president. This debate came shortly after Fox News created an uproar over rapper Common’s appearance at a White House poetry night, calling to attention the favorite Fox theme of fretting over a given rapper’s relationship with Obama–something to which Jay-Z, Ludacris, and Young Jeezy have all been subjected. |
So if Fox is mad when a rapper affiliates with Obama, and Fox is mad when a rapper criticizes Obama, what is Fox really mad about? Is Fox’s beef with hip-hop just another form of coded language used to indirectly criticize the black community? Or is there something still more cynical behind the network’s insistence on framing hip-hop as a culture of ho-slapping wall taggers, despite the fact that it has become an enterprise of business-owning White House guests?
Even Bad News Is Good News
Beyond Fox’s vendetta with Obama, its outlandish race-baiting, and even its staunch conservatism, is one top priority: ratings. But what happens when a network has developed a rigid narrative against one of the most globally influential departments of pop culture? To simply ignore hip-hop would counter Fox’s steadfast public image of being in tune with the common American. Yet to embrace it would be counter to the reactionary brand Fox News has built. So how do you ride and strangle a horse at the same time? In Fox’s case, you simply pick a fight.
Jay-Z, Nas, Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, and Lil Wayne are among pop music’s crème de la crème today. To imagine them all on a show’s lineup is enough for Carson Daly to envy. Yet Fox has managed to play these artists’ music, promote segments about them, and even have guest appearances from them without paying a single booking fee. Fox’s perverse-yet-genius method of riling rappers up until they feel tempted or obligated to make an appearance on the network has allowed for a unique balance of ushering top celebrities through the network’s rotating door while letting viewers wag their fingers at them. In the end, Fox’s narrative is intact, its core following is satisfied, and its opponents can’t resist making their show clips go viral (albeit through YouTube dislikes).
But the network isn’t the only one playing the game. Over the years Fox has provided hip-hop artists a platform to reach viewers who never paid them any mind before. For some, it’s an opportunity to promote an album–as demonstrated by Cam’ron’s plug for “Purple Haze” during his closing statement with O’Reilly. For someone like Lupe, it’s a chance to prove himself for hip-hop by demonstrating the intelligence and eloquence that earns a “Lupe OWNs O’Reilly” viral video title. Even an artist like Common–who remained intentionally aloof and declined to make an appearance on the network–benefits from having his name sloshed in the mouth of a public figure like Sean Hannity.
In more recent years, Fox’s confrontations with rappers have increasingly been initiated by the artists themselves. Jay-Z, Nas, and Lupe Fiasco have all seen their latest album releases make headlines when talking heads at Fox got hot and bothered about being called out. Nas’ track “Sly Fox”–a response to the network’s racket over his controversial album title “Nigger”–was in all regards a traditional-style diss record, but the impact was much wider. Where a traditional battle track against another emcee might have earned you a spot on your local radio station, rappers have quickly learned that gunning for Fox will earn you much larger media hits.
Yvette Travillian of the Future of Music Coalition says that O’Reilly’s response to Lupe’s anti-Obama riff hints at this relationship becoming even more complex. “It appears that Fox/O’Reilly gets off from hearing a rapper publicly diss someone they are expected to support,” explains Travillian. “I think they figure since Obama is black, and Lupe Fiasco is black and a rapper, then naturally, he will support anything Obama says or does.”
But with O’Reilly going out of his way to praise Obama in order to oppose the rapper, one has to wonder just who Fox is fighting for, and why.
Protect the (White) Children
Watching Fox News cover hip-hop is like…well, it’s like listening to Sean Hannity rap–”decontextualization” doesn’t begin to describe the gear-grinding sound of Hannity attempting Common lyrics. But forget the offensive handling of a decidedly black vernacular, or the reduction of a career spanning nearly two decades into three bars, or even the transformation of a Gap-commercial rapping, “Just Wright” acting, PETA-endorsing vegan like Common into a militant cop killer.
What is most disturbing about Fox News’s developing coverage of hip hop is the subtle narrative staked at the end of each segment. The backdrop for every accusation made against someone from the hip-hop community is a story about moral virtue and an overwhelming concern for young listeners. Over the years we’ve seen rap icons transform from niche muses to household names, and their following looks more and more like the children of the white suburban demographic to which Fox caters. Hip-hop has become a convenient and likely resonant enemy for that audience.
“Hip-hop allows Fox News to play the race and the youth card at the same time,” explains Jeff Chang, author of the book “Can’t Stop Won’t Stop.” “These pseudo-controversies are modeled on the same narratives that have been used since the late 1980s.”
Truly, the demonizing of rap (or black youth culture in general) is nothing new. The aggregate of Fox’s strained relationship with people in the hip-hop community, however, is a growing narrative about upstanding moral character that is increasingly difficult to challenge. For the Hannity’s and O’Reilly’s of talk TV, the argument seems to go: I am a white person against using the N-word, and calling women the B-word.
Fundamentally, I can’t be against that. I am unequivocally for white people who markedly distance themselves from racism and misogyny. The danger, beyond inappropriately vilifying rappers who actively use the N-word, is continuing to outline a protracted culture war that relegates hip-hop specifically and black culture more broadly to bad-guy status.
A TIMELINE OF FOX’S BATTLE WITH HIP-HOP
For your viewing pleasure, I’ve compiled a brief list of some of the more memorable standoffs between hip-hop artists and Fox News over the last decade or so.
Jose Antonio Vargas Talks American Identity on Rachel Maddow Show
0
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who came out as undocumented in a moving New York Times Magazine essay last week, appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show last night. Vargas talked about how it felt when, at 16, he discovered that his grandfather had arranged for his emigration from the Philippines with false papers and that he was undocumented, and why he came forward at this point in his life.
Vargas noted the need for a credible conversation about immigration in this country, and how it connects to the broader question of American identity. Watch the insightful conversation in the clip above.
Jose Antonio Vargas Came Out as Undocumented, NOT "Illegal"
0Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas shares his moving story, “My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant” this week in New York Times Magazine. It’s a must-read for all, as he candidly walks us through the pain of family separation, offering a vivid and emotional description of his experiences with the broken immigration system, the guilt and risk that came with hiding his status, and the bravery required to come out first as gay and then as undocumented to people he describes as an “underground railroad” of friends and mentors, and finally even to employers.
Vargas’ story has drawn enormous media attention and drove “undocumented immigrant” up to a top-trending term on Twitter yesterday. But it’s a shame that in the dissection and retelling of his story, a fine point has been lost on many of Vargas’ colleagues: He came out specifically as an undocumented immigrant and not as “illegal.” The distinction is a central part of his story. He is rejecting a legally inaccurate, dehumanizing and racist label that helps to prop up an ignorant and limited immigration debate, along with all of the violence and unconstitutionality the concept of an “illegal” human being engenders.
At the age of 12, Vargas said goodbye to his mother and the Philippines and moved to the San Francisco Bay to live with his grandparents–or, his Lolo and Lola, in Tagalog. He got rid of his accent and learned slang the way many immigrants and non-immigrants do: by watching sitcoms and making friends in school. In becoming American, he embraced a career in journalism. And he excelled. By age 26, he had already won a Pulitzer, as part of a team that covered the Virginia Tech shootings for the Washington Post.
Vargas says he’s lived the American Dream, but, “I am still an undocumented immigrant.” In this watershed moment, Vargas, understanding the power of language, chose his words carefully and thereby caused thousands to reflect on and model a humane way to describe immigrants that don’t have the proper documentation.
Yet, even as thousands of people and several responsible media outlets (and the author and subject of the story) adopt accurate and ethical language, several others still choose to use the i-word, most outrageously in headlines:
- CNN: Pulitzer Prize winner: I’m an illegal immigrant
- Slate: Jose Antonio Vargas reveals he is an illegal immigrant
- Fox: Journalist Announces He’s Illegal on ABC News
Despite some people re-tweeting these inaccurate and racially charged headlines, the term “undocumented immigrant” became a Twitter trending topic on Wednesday, even above Beyonce. Vargas tweeted from his @joseiswriting handle:
Undocumented Immigrant is trending. So let’s drop “illegal” and “alien.” No person is illegal or an alien. Follow us @defineamerican.
Vargas has launched the Define American project with the Tides Center, in order to open up the conversation on immigration and “[shine] a light on a growing 21st century Underground Railroad: American citizens who are forced to fill in where our broken immigration system fails.”
Vargas explains that there is no “line” for him to wait in. As we have covered here at Colorlines, our broken immigration system grows more out of control every year, and it is generating a human rights crisis, with 85 percent of immigrant households comprised of people with both undocumented and citizen status. So as the Obama administration sets new records for deportations, it is ripping families apart.
Of note, Filipinos have the longest wait time for family-based visa numbers. The January 2010 Visa Bulletin shows waiting time as follows:
- Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens: 16 years.
- Spouses and children of permanent residents: 4 years
- Unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents: 11 years
- Married sons and daughters (21 years or over) of citizens: 18 years
- Brothers and sisters of citizens: 22 years.
When we take the i-word out of the equation, we can start asking why this system is not working, and stop putting the blame for its failures on the people who are struggling to make sense of it–and who are then portrayed as not respecting laws that are inhumane in the first place.
The concept of a person as illegal is one that political operatives manufactured to shut down conversation and stoke racial fears. With the help of immigration attorney Dave Bennion, we compiled a Colorlines.com style guide for covering immigration. In the style guide, we address the i-word from political, journalistic and legal standpoints:
The i-word is not neutral. It is racially charged and has been promoted by restrictionist advocacy organizations like NumbersUSA 4 and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), founded by eugenicist John Tanton. Frank Luntz, a Republican Party strategist, recommended operatives promote use of the term “illegal immigrants” in a 2005 memo, explaining that it would encourage an understanding of immigrants as criminals and create politically useful division among voters. With clear direction to use “illegal immigrant,” the shorthand slur has become just as common among media pundits and political campaigns.
In regards to immigration law:
“Illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” are incoherent terms from the standpoint of immigration law. Immigration judges and ICE attorneys don’t use the terms because they are meaningless in the context of immigration proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, does not use them either.
The Associated Press Stylebook still supports the use of the term “illegal immigrant,” and is often cited by reporters to excuse the proliferation of this slur. Despite the AP’s i-word entry, however, some journalists are choosing to do the right thing. In 2007, Lawrence Downes, a member of the New York Times editorial board, wrote “What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand?.” In his piece, Downes makes the case that use of the word “illegal” pollutes the debate, blocks solutions and reduces a large and largely decent group of people to a criminality. And a crucial point: “as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.”
There is also a growing list of outlets that don’t use the term, including the San Antonio Express-News, the Miami Herald and organizations that have endorsed our campaign to Drop the I-Word. We implore all journalists, media outlets and social justice-minded individuals to join these leaders and take the pledge to Drop the I-Word today at droptheiword.com.
For more information on our style guide, go here.