Forty Years On: Kerner and the Liberal Media

It spawned the famous -- infamous? -- line: Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white -- separate and unequal. Its true name was the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Most people know it as the Kerner Report -- so called because it was chaired by Illinois governor Otto Kerner, Jr. -- and it was published forty years ago today.

The report was commissioned by President Johnson in an effort to determine and help quell the rising tide of urban violence in the middle 1960s. The Commission's main conclusion can be summed up in that oft-quoted line.

Forty years later the situation for black Americans is not by any means perfect, but it is much better.

However, for all the areas of society in which blacks -- and by extension all minorities -- have enjoyed some measure of parity, there is one glaring and ironic omission: the very media which is so often accused of having a liberal bias. It is, in fact, only liberal in its decades-long run of institutionalized discrimination.

Take a look back. The Kerner Report broke it down like this: The journalistic profession has been shockingly backward in seeking out, hiring, training and promoting Negroes.

The italics mine.

Fast forward ten years and the American Society of Newspaper Editors decided to make it their mission to have news rooms reflect the real world in their racial breakdown by calendar year 2000.

And it only took them ten years to come up with that bit of genius.

And they gave themselves twenty-two years to get the job done.

They didn't.

So they gave themselves another twenty-five years. And if they don't get it done by then, eventually the world'll end and that'll be that with that.

What's shocking is the blind spot the media has for its own failings. The exemplar prime is a recent op-ed piece by Frank Rich of the New York Times. Entitled "The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama," Rich wrote that the problem with John McCain's posse -- way to throw in a dated urbanism -- is not just its age but its demographic monotony: all white and nearly all male.

Really, Mr. Rich? You mean, like the Masthead of the New York Times? Like the Editorial Board of the New York Times? Do you mean such as the Corporate Officers of the New York Times Company?

It's not that Rich doesn't have a point regarding the Republicans. However, why waste ink -- or bytes -- hectoring a political party that risks its own demise when he would do better to take his bosses to task?

The New York Times and Frank Rich are, of course, not alone in their hypocrisy. However, as the self-styled standard bearer of liberalism they would do better to lead by example rather than rhetoric. It has, after all, been forty years.

Comments

[Jason Abdon]

Since when is any public owned media liberal? I think everybody has bought into the conservative rhetoric that defines the media as liberal when to supposed media is owned by some of the most conservative business men it the country. These men have taken two basic
approaches to reporting the news. First, a conservative and basically truthfull approach and second, we can report more conservatively than anybody else. This is why the billous blowhard buffoon known as Bill O'raly can say childfren are in love with their pedophillic rapists and it hardly raises an eyebrow on conservative network owners.

This country, under George "Nero" Bush has become the laughing stock of the whole planet. The American people have lost the high moral ground due to people like Coulter, Kristol, Limbaugh, Rove and line goes on and on ad nauseum.

So in the national discussion, in public and private, don't permit the conservatives to command the language discussion. We must "win the minds and hearts of the people", and a language of common sense to achieve victory for all.

[TonyForesta]

I feel your pain John Ridley. Tragically, the DNC has failed for what ever reason to honor it's platform, and it's core constituents. That said, democrats are a far superior choice to anything the fascists in the Bush government or the republican reich hoist upon us. Cast aspersions upon democrats if you must. And in truth we must accept, address, and redress these issues, and our candidates. "That 's what democracy looks like." However, you are wasting the peoples time focusing on the failings of the democrats, and ingoring the deceptions, failures, abuses, and wanton profiteering of the fascists in the Bush government, and the gop. The meager gains our disadvantaged sisters and brothers have gained over the years, are pure, and entirely the work of democratic leadership. Rebublicans defend, shield, advance, and favor oligarchs, not citizens.

Any cursory perusal of contemporary history will prove and vaildate this point.

For better or worse, and recognizing that the people must in fact choose the lesser of two evils, - by far the greater evil commandeers the WH, and the US government. Any creature bruting or parroting the Bush government propaganda, disinformation, slime, pathological lies, or partisan partyline, - is automatically suspect, and should not be afforded one nanoparticle of the peoples respect, goodwill, goodfaith, or trust - because the fascists in the Bush government are disinformation warriors and pathological liars.

"Deliver us from evil!"

[MsLiz]

Mr. Ridley, I think your sample is too small. Check out the local television news and newspapers. Here in the Birmingham area, we have had Black anchors, reporters, and writers for decades. I suspect 99% of journalists work at a local level. I'd like to hear some statistics including local papers, television stations and journalism schools.

No excuse for the national media though. Actually the state of the national media is terrible these days, regardless of who the reporters are. It is too homogenized.

[mdubbzz]

With the onset of the civil rights movement the mainstream hired off blacks from black newspapers to cover the occuring events. After the movement faded they seem to have been deemed extraneous in alot of situations except for instance covering race riots or journalists needed to go into non -Anglo communities or cultures. And the improvement of situation by Mr. Ridley seems to be an opinion. If you look at the demographic statistics the wide majority of blacks are socio-economically worse off percentage wise and in gross wealth than they were in 1972.

[BlackWidowPilot]

I think Mr. Ridley's point is more valid than you realize, mdubbzz; you're talking about your local news. Mr. Ridley is addressing the media as a *nationally.*

What Mr. Ridley is failing to identify in is article is not the main stream media's racial bias, or its "conservative" vesus "liberal" bias, but the *corporate* bias inherent in a for-profit operation such as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fake News, et al.

All of these media are only driven by one thing, their obsession with the bottom line. The truth looses every time to the profit margin, and the corporate "leadership" of these companies has determined that being "liberal" isn't profitable enough.

The truth of any matter doesn't enter into it.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[artsandminds]

its not about race, its about wealth.

[Zentomato]

Ridley says, "However, for all the areas of society in which blacks -- and by extension all minorities -- have enjoyed some measure of parity, there is one glaring and ironic omission: the very media which is so often accused of having a liberal bias. It is, in fact, only liberal in its decades-long run of institutionalized discrimination."
Actually the last sentence we could rewrite to read, " It is, in fact, only conservative in it's decades long run of institutionalized discrimination." Ridley needs to address the fact that the majority of the mainstream media outlets are under conservative ownership.

[RogerHWerner]

Whether Ridley cares to believe it or whether he chooses to maintain his conservative bias, what Rich wrote about McCain was correct. Of course, this must gall Ridley since he has elected to be a Republican. Perhaps he should re-evaluate his reasons for doing so: If he did that however he might not like what he sees. There might be some point to Ridley's screed against the Times and the media generally, if they honestly practiced a liberal bias. That they do not merely serves to demonstrate Ridley's own bias. Inasmuch as I have a mere 350 words to make a point, I can't explain to Ridley line and verse why his statement on bias is incorrect; not that this would do any good. Conservatives love to rant about liberal media bias, repeating tired a cliche without assessing the validity of their accusations. The media bias complaint is a useful for keeping the media off balance and to get them to publish whatever nonsensical conservative idea as long as it may be seen as a balance to a liberal idea: No thought about accuracy is given merely a concern for "balance" least the Ridley's of the word roll out the old cliche. There's hardly any reason to address Ridley's purported main complaint, which I presume is the lack of blacks in the media. I would however suggest to Ridley that he explore who actually owns the media and who calls the shots with respect to hiring. he may discover that this has less to do with bias in the newsroom and more to do with bias in the boardroom but then this might place the onus of racism where it belongs...with conservatives. In reality, I suspect there's blame to spread around.

If there is one thing that frosts my ass it is the accusation of liberal bias by any conservative.

[Harlemnyjazz]

During my 71 years of attempting to survive in the United States I have learned a thing or two. When it comes to electing a Black president there are Whites as well as Blacks that will allow ignorance, naivety, stereotyping, history, and misplaced humanism to prevent them from putting a Black man in the Oval Office.

No matter how qualified a Black, male presidential candidate may be in the eyes of the above electorate he will never ever be more qualified than a White man. You can analyze, debate, spin, theorize, lie, twist, make excuses, blame or rationalize but the fact is that White racism and Black self-loathing is alive and well in America.

And as old folks slowly pass away so goes pre-1968 notions of race, bigotry, segregation and supremacy. It brings joy to my heart to realize that my grandkids and their friends have become colorblind. Our youth have realized that every heart knows both pain and love --- that happiness is not about color, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or religious affiliation.

This election has shown that our great country is finally willing to turn the page. I, for one, cannot wait to read the next chapter.

Hatred is DEAD !!!!!

[LarBear]

JOHN RIDLEY: Some disagreement here... "Black America, the Black Community, Black People" in my deeply pondered observation, is basically failing because of deep rooted Beliefs... Please notice, I did NOT say Persons with black skin are Failing...
Example: I was in a Chat where Males were being attacked as Male Chauvinist Pigs... A group of Women were having a Field Day piling on the Criticism... I asked since Males were such Chauvinist's, did that mean women ended up spending the most time as caregivers raising the children... That set off another chain of Male bashing... So, I bluntly asked them why they were raising young Males to behave like Chauvinist Pigs... ALL chatting stopped! So, I (a Male) said I agreed with them about all to much Male behavior as Chauvinistic, but as long as WE did the blame game, and only Males were blamed, how would this situation change?
Having black skin does not compel any beliefs, or behaviors... Blaming Person's with white skin changes nothing for the Belief created, "Black Community"... The "Black Community is Real-ized Beliefs... Those Beliefs in my opinion, are badly failing the Belief created "Black Community"... School drop outs, drugs, incarceration, language, fatherless children, role models, single females, etc... Just like for people with white skin tones, Beliefs create Reality...
Belief in a "Black America, Black Community, Black People" is a Racial and skin color Segregation in my observation and pondering... Done from within, so to speak... Personhood is equally of Godly Nature... Is a "BLACK" Person a Fact of Godly Nature, or a Belief??? Is the Spirit animating the Body, Black, White, Yellow, Red, Brown, or any other color??? I asked ME, would I, do I, color Segregate Spirits??? Would a new born child with black skin raised in China, never exposed to a person with black skin, think, behave and Believe as an "American Black Person"??? Do African's think, behave and Believe as an "American Black Person"???

[LarBear]

Continuation to JOHN RIDLEY:
My Ancestry is basically (Heinz 07, LOL).. I am of English, Irish, Dutch, Welsh, French, German and Cherokee Indian, Ancestry... My so called "roots" I am supposed to know... I speak American "English"... WE learn Language and much more by Osmosis (a usually effortless, often unconscious, assimilation )... I wanted to know if I learned Racism by Osmosis... (My High School had 1300 Students, one of which had black skin)... I wanted to know if I was unwittingly Racist in my thinking, Beliefs, etc...
Hence my deep pondering... Belief in a "Black America, Black Community, Black People" is a Racial and skin color Segregation in my observation and pondering... Done from within, so to speak... Personhood is equally of Godly Nature... Is a "BLACK" Person a Fact of Godly Nature, or a Belief??? Is the Spirit animating the Body, Black, White, Yellow, Red, Brown, or any other color??? I asked ME, would I, do I, color Segregate Spirits??? Did I unwittingly refer to a Character, Singer, etc on TV as a "Black" Person??? In other words, did skin color as a Label come first... Answer = YES!...... And I can speak from experience that changing that Mental Habit is not instant... I continue at times to catch me doing so... Because of Osmosis, Peer Pressure and being raised "Black," that could be a obvious challenge for Person's with black skin........
So my Question to America and Person's without regard, or Label of skin color... Do WE the People intend to continue to create a Belief in a "Black America, Black Community, Black People"??? You, JOHN RIDLEY are in a position to address this issue... ..

[trailblazer]

What I would like to know is, if I'm liberal, and the media is liberal, then why do they piss me off so much? Liberals call the media the "MSM," implying they are conservative. And conservatives say "the liberal media." If the media's attempts at impartiality are ticking off everybody, they must be doing something right. I wonder what the statistics are regarding African American journalism majors? Do you think they are discouraged from pursuing journalism as a career, or do you think they are discriminated against during the interview process? Just curious. I typically really like your column, John, but this one left me with more questions than answers.

[Oldtimer]

Tell it to the Fersh Prince of Bel Air.
He seems to be everywhere.

[jbeach]

Well, that pretty much proves the media isn't really liberal, doesn't it?

Most of us liberals have been telling everyone that for quite a while now.

[NABNYC]

Once we get past the initial point of admitting that some people are systematically excluded in our society, we then have to decide how can that be solved. The simple fact is that white men have always had the best jobs in this country: biggest pay, most fun, most status, biggest titles. They don't want to give that up.

So how to resolve this? If the people doing the hiring and promotion are all white males, they tend to continue hiring white men. They look at these younger white men and see themselves 20, 30 years ago. They feel an affinity, feel comfortable -- like they would enjoy mentoring this young person, watching them come up and rise through the organization.

Affirmative action was a remedy designed to redress the exclusion of some people from certain positions by mandating that those people be hired - that the institution seek out women, or minorities, and bring them into the inner circle.

White powerful men were so appalled at the idea that "their" institutions would be hiring women and minorities that they united against the entire concept of affirmative action. And when they appealed to the conservative old white men on the Supreme Court, they found some willing participants in reinstating segregation now, segregation forever. To the extent the courts ever were an agent for change, they are now an agent for oppression.

The only way to integrate the major institutions is for people to demand it, to pressure the institutions, for consumers to boycott those that are unresponsive. Because without affirmative action, the best jobs, the real opportunity, continues to be white men only.

Just look at the Senate: 16 women. Women are 50% of the country, so why only 16% of the Senate? And how many black senators? One? This will not change until people demand that it change. Stop giving money to the Democratic party or the Republican party until they pledge to bring women and minorities into equal positions in government.

And put pressure on the media to be more representative in their reporters and talking heads. msnbc is notable for bringing more women and minorities into their panels in the past year. I hope that continues after the election.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Do you agree with these tactics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27/civil-rights-icon-lewis-o_n_88757.html

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/16/black-superdelegates-threatened-pressured/

[HBeachbum]

They are like most elite liberals ... do as I say, not as I do.

[jbeach]

Well, the answer's easy: the bosses are white. And I say this as a white man.

Those at the top will always hire those who please them; and a man who pisses off his bosses by pointing out their flaws and even lies won't tend to last that long.

The other part to this is that bosses will hire people who superficially resemble those with other interests, and employ them as camouflage - both for those outside them, and also for themselves. Hence the Colin Powells, the Condaleeza Rices, the Uncle Justice Clarence Thomases of the world...and in the news media, I'd say just about any black self-labelled conservative you can mention.

What's the solution? I'd say the only one is new media. It's only in online blogging and the playfield-levelling that it's brought about, that you can have strong, uncompromising and *brilliant* writing like that of the late and lamented Steve Gilliard, and many other colored voices who are telling it like it really is.

I'm a honky, but that's my take on it. Those who run things are *incredibly* unlikely to ever hire and print things which make them uncomfortable, or that benefit other interests than their own. So all the socioeconomic classes under them better learn to look elsewhere for better information - as I believe they all already are.