Photo courtesy of Adobe
"The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer." Edward R. Murrow
For those who are unfamiliar with Edward R. Murrow he is the individual by which journalists, broadcast journalists in particular, have supposedly measured themselves for sixty to seventy years. Murrow who first came into prominence with his radio news broadcasts during World War II would later produce a series of TV news reports that ultimately led to the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the end of McCarthyism. He was noted for his eloquent, unapologetic, and fact based reporting. In his famed report from Buchenwald Concentration Camp (original broadcast) Murrow became the first to report of the atrocities surrounding the Nazi concentration camp. Murrow was the first reporter to arrive after the liberation of Buchenwald on April 12, 1945. At the end of his grotesquely factual account he stated:
"I pray you to believe what I have said about Buchenwald. I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words. If I've offended you by this rather mild account of Buchenwald, I'm not in the least sorry." Edward R. Murrow, CBS Radio Broadcast (15 April 1945)
Murrow never flinched from presenting the facts or from calling things as they were; no matter what the potential cost to him or his career. He never hesitated to report the facts, even if it meant potentially offending some of his audience or corporate sponsors.
In parts one and two of this four part series I pointed out the need for self-reflection and reflection on our society to understand the role we may play in the continued presence of racism and religious intolerance; due to action or inaction. In this piece I focus primarily on the role that local and network television journalists have played in maintaining and allowing the perpetuation of racism and religious intolerance in the United States. Whether Mr. Trump is a political genius, hatemonger, and/or racist himself arguably should not have been the major point of discussion over the past ten months. The point of discussion should have been "how" so many in the United States are still so easily rallied by racially charged and religiously intolerant statements. We should also be asking "why" those who know better, and have a voice, have refused to consistently tackle the issues of racism and religious intolerance following Mr. Trump's initial inaccurate and bigoted statements; statements that immediately catapulted him into the lead.
For months we have witnessed protestors being forcefully removed from Donald Trump rallies, White Trump supporters attacking Black protestors, Black Trump supporters attacking White protestors, among other racist and violent incidences. The question that must be asked is could this have been prevented? While there has been a decent amount of coverage in print news, local and network television news has been lacking in its willingness to consistently recognize the existence of, let alone tackle, racism and religious intolerance in the United States. While we might like to think that a large number of people read newspapers, which have consistently addressed these issues, it is simply not the case.
We know that the majority of United States citizens receive their news from television and the majority of those people get their news from local and network (ABC, CBS, and NBC) news sources. Therefore, a large portion of the blame for what we have seen escalate for the past ten months can be placed at the feet of those journalists who do not consistently challenge and fact check Mr. Trump, Senator Cruz, and members of all parties regarding racism and religious intolerance. Those journalists who have allowed the racially charged and religiously intolerant stances put forth by Mr. Trump and others to go virtually unchallenged in daily television news broadcasts, weekly news programs, and in debates for the past ten months are just as much to blame as Mr. Trump and the Republican Party. And, if we are totally honest with ourselves, this group of journalists has let this issue go unchallenged for years; especially following the election of President Barak Obama.
I will leave local and network news media (ABC, CBS, and NBC), their leading journalists, politicians and the like to examine their own consciences. I will let them examine their own integrity and "why" they choose or do not choose to consistently confront the most prevalent issues used to divide United States citizens; racism and religious intolerance. I will say, however, it is eerily reminiscent of how United States journalists gingerly covered Adolf Hitler in the 1920's. This was a point most recently brought up when journalist Jon Ostrower of the Wall Street Journal tweeted the New York Times coverage of Adolf Hitler in 1922; an article the New York Times has now made available on its website.
It is the same unwillingness to challenge authority and politicians with journalism 101 questions we saw regarding the proposed presence of weapons of mass destruction; an unwillingness that ultimately led to the destabilization of the Middle East and two wars resulting in:
Over 500,000 civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion that started Operation Iraqi Freedom
After ten months of Mr. Trump and other Republican candidates not being consistently confronted and fact checked by local and network television news media, we have more minorities being killed, increased interest in joining hate groups, increases in hate crimes, teenage girls groped and pepper sprayed at rallies and Anti-Muslim extremists planning armed rallies outside of state capitals. Although I am just a meager professor and blogger, I, like so many others who have a voice, failed to use my voice to condemn Mr. Trump's racist and religiously intolerant statements over the past ten months. I accept that I played a role in the escalation of hatred by not speaking out months ago and that I am partially responsible for "why" this atmosphere of hatred was allowed to escalate. In this piece I will focus on understanding "how" this could take place. The historical records and data needed to explain Mr. Trump's immediate popularity following his utilization of inaccurate and racist statements in June of 2015 were readily available to everyone.
The "how", of this can be answered by exploring four basic questions.
1)Given the modern Republican Party's history, should we be surprised that unsupported and racially charged statements helped immediately catapult Mr. Trump into the lead in the Republican primary?
2)What did we know before the primaries began about United States citizens' attitudes toward immigrants?
3)Where and with who does Mr. Trump's message seem to be the most effective?
4)Who lost followers when Mr. Trump announced he was entering the Republican primary utilizing unsupported and racially charged statements about immigrants and an advertisement that featured Nazi soldiers in the background?
Question 1:
The answer to the first question is "No". We should not be surprised at all that such statements helped to put Mr. Trump into the lead. He simply made blatant statements where politicians in the past were more passive in their support of such beliefs or simply allowed a large segment of voters to assume they believed in such perspectives. As Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post points out "Today's GOP is the party of Jefferson Davis, not of Lincoln". Does this mean that all Republicans are racist or religiously intolerant; absolutely not. What it does indicate is that at a minimum there is a large portion willing to turn a blind eye to racism and religious intolerance.
This is why you did not see any of the Republican candidates standing up and attacking Mr. Trump's stance on immigration and his comments about Hispanics directly. They knew they could not afford to lose the potential voters he wields in the Republican Party. Additionally, they knew they could not afford to lose the potential voters that support these beliefs from other parties when they reach the general election. It is also why you saw virtually all the candidates willing to perpetuate derogatory stereotypes and misleading information regarding a small group of refugees seeking refuge from violent oppressors; reminiscent of Jews seeking entry into the United States during World War II but being turned away. After all, the Syrian voting block is not that great, so why protect Syrian refugees fleeing mass genocide. It is why you only saw them timidly denounce Mr. Trump's comments regarding the ban of Muslims from entering the country. It is why you saw many of them attending anti-Muslim events. It is why Senator Cruz made his statements about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods, invoking imagery of the Jewish ghettos of Nazi-occupied Europe.
Mr. Trump has openly played on the underlying prejudices of certain segments of religions other than Islam, composed of many races, with his religiously intolerant rhetoric; a tactic we now see Senator Cruz utilizing as well. Mr. Trump has played on the prejudices of multiple races with his statements about Hispanics and illegal immigrants. Both, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz recognize this is a large voting block; a voting block that politicians have passively played to in the past but have never had to recognize the true nature of until Mr. Trump.
The fear of offending a large segment of the Republican base is why you still have key Republicans saying that they will support Mr. Trump as the Republican nominee if he wins. They still can't afford to offend a large portion of their base by denouncing racist and religiously intolerant views. And while you see Glen Beck quoting Dr. Martin Luther King on Meet the Press let us not forget he was the one behind the 9/12 movement, or as Joy-Ann Reid eloquently and timely stated following Becks statement :
Or when Speaker Paul Ryan releases commercials talking about coming together, let us not forget this is the same man caught up in disconnected, at best, racist comments regarding those living in the inner city. Further, as we hear of the Trump Campaign professionalizing or regrouping under Paul Manafort, it is important to realize that Manafort was brought into this position largely due to his former business partner Roger Stone. Stone who is an unofficial adviser for Trump has a long documented history of racism and sexism.
Question 2:
Prior to the primaries, we knew well the extent of United States citizens who would likely support such positions; be it about Hispanic immigrants, refugees, Muslims, or others entering from other countries. Pew research had revealed that when asked if "the growing number of newcomers threatened traditional American values," United States citizens, citizens from all parties, were split almost in half. Some 46 percent of United States citizens believed they did pose a threat and 48 percent did not believe they posed a threat.
The study found that race and education level played a major role in these numbers; but not as you might think. While 61 percent of African-Americans nationally felt that newcomers threaten American values, only 48 percent of Whites and 29 percent of Hispanics believed newcomers posed a threat. It should be noted that the concept of "posing a threat" may be interpreted in different ways. One group might see outsiders as a threat of crime or terrorist attacks (second source) while another group may simply see it as a threat in regards to taking jobs. In regards to education, the study revealed that 64 percent of those with at least a four year college-degree felt that immigrants do not pose a threat while 53 percent of those without a degree believed immigrants posed a threat.
Question 3:
So it is not that surprising that Mr. Trump's message seems to be the most effective among those without a high school education and or college education. To be fair, it should not be surprising that a candidate in either party finds the majority of their supporters not having a college education given that only approximately thirty percent of the United States population has a four year college degree or higher. It certainly should not be surprising that he is trending amongst Whites. Nor should we be surprised that Mr. Trump does have some African American supporters and that he wants to win even more African American supporters. Given Mr. Trumps remarks over the past ten months that characterize Hispanic's entering the United States as drug traffickers and rapists it is not surprising that he only has a 12% favorability rating amongst U.S. Hispanics.
While the media often emphasize the education level of Trump followers, they fail to address those without a college education that do not support Mr. Trump. Perhaps we should pay attention to that percentage mentioned above of those with at least a four-year college education and the high percentage of African Americans who fear outsiders. Here you have populations that may not traditionally vote Republican, but given their fears of outsiders, may waiver in this election cycle and vote Republican.
Perhaps it is time to recognize that the key to understanding Mr. Trump and the Republican base is not education level, race, or religion. Rather it is the thread of prejudices and or willingness to turn a blind eye to racism and religious intolerance that interconnects their base. Perhaps it is time to recognize that this trait can be found in all parties. Recent research has revealed that a strong predictor of Trump followers and membership in the Republican Party since the 1950's and 60's is that of authoritarianism; a variable that has been one of the most studied concepts since the rise of Nazi Germany. It is clear that Mr. Trump has revealed multiple types of prejudices and or apathy towards racism and religious intolerance by focusing on immigrants and refugees, specifically Hispanics and Muslims. Often we see this segment of our society framed by local and network news media as something new and unique, when, in fact, this part of our society has been here all along.
Question 4:
The New York Times reported that between May and August of 2015 the Republican candidates lost the following percentage of their followers to Mr. Trump following his racist and inaccurate comments during his announcement to run for President of the United States:
64% - Rick Perry (Spoke at function hosted by Anti-Muslim Funder David Horowitz)
57% - Chris Christie (#BlackLivesMatter movement encourages the murder of cops)
39% - Ted Cruz (Jesse Helms, the longtime segregationist, is his hero)
37% - Carly Fiorina(Courted fringe group behind Trump's Muslim ban)
32% - Ben Carson(Muslims- "schizophrenic" to follow their religion in U.S. (2))
32% - Mike Huckabee(Christians shouldn't rent to Muslims and much more)
26% - John Kasich(No food stamps unless you are white and more)
25% - Marco Rubio(Proud of high ranking by hate groups and more)
21% - Scott Walker(Claims only a handful of 1.6 Billion Muslims are reasonable or moderate)
21% - Rick Santorum(Too many to choose from for Rick Santorum)
17% - Rand Paul(Employed racists, would vote against Civil Rights Act, and more)
16% - Bobby Jindal(Minorities should denounce heritage and more)
14% - Jeb Bush(Praises White Nationalist's book that claims Blacks are genetically inferior.)
So, the answer to Question 4 is that all Republican candidates immediately lost a sizable percentage of their voters when Mr. Trump entered the race. Those who are classified as Trump followers did not just appear and should not be depicted as a unique group of voters that didn't exist beforehand. This group of people existed long before he entered the race, but were classified as followers of Perry, Christie, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, and the like. These followers would have never been so clearly exposed for their beliefs or willingness to ignore racist and religiously intolerant comments but rather grouped among other party members.
The point is, even if Mr. Trump were to drop out or lose the race, the topic of immigrants and Muslims will continue to distract. These topics will continue to distract from discussions of issues (e.g. Healthcare, Education, and Economic Disparity) that impact us every day due to the fact that the prejudices and apathetic nature of certain segments of our society will still remain. These prejudices and willingness to turn a blind eye to racism and religious intolerance will continue as long as those who do not believe in such bigotry remain silent.
While we do have local TV journalists like Dale Hansen who is willing to confront racism in local high schools and homophobia in the NFL, they appear to be few and far between.
I fear that the level of journalistic integrity we saw with Edward R. Murrow challenging Senator McCarthy, McCarthyism and the Red-Scare on network television (CBS) is a thing of the past.
Gone are the days of Morley Safer and CBS Nightly News Anchor Walter Cronkite showing Vietnamese homes burned by U.S. military forces during the Vietnam War and sparking outrage in the United States.
Gone are the days of a Walter Cronkite providing an editorial report from Vietnam and effectively shutting down a war, a sitting president, and the military industrial complex. All of this was accomplished by reporting factual observations, in one special report, by one respected journalist who was willing to challenge authority.
Gone are the days of a Tim Russert, the publics advocate, confronting politicians with facts and holding them in check until he received an actual answer, both on Meet the Press and in presidential debates. He was a lawyer who knew how to cross examine and give a closing argument.
At the end of his report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and the fear mongering surrounding communism, very similar to the fear mongering surrounding Islam (2) and immigrants we see today, Edward R. Murrow stated:
Today we could supplant "junior Senator from Wisconsin" with Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz. The fault today is still not in our stars, but in ourselves. Whether you are a journalist, politician, teacher, professor, blogger, or whatever, if you have a voice and you fail to speak out against racism and religious intolerance its continued presence lies within you.
I began this piece with the Edward R. Murrow quote "The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer". I believe this quote has never been more applicable. The fact is that the ability to distract by playing on underlying prejudices is allowed to exist due to a series of myths that go virtually unchecked by politicians and journalists. These are not obscure myths, but rather completely obvious myths and perhaps this is why it has taken local and network journalists so long to confront. These are myths that are easily denounced, but are rarely addressed, let alone regularly challenged. I will identify and debunk these myths in part four of this four part series.