The Media Needs to Fess Up to Its Mess and Its Responsibility: Time for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Take a Look

Yesterday's speech by Barack Obama was extraordinary. Yet there are those who believe it will cost Obama the presidency, if not the nomination. And if the media continues to have its way, I fear it will.

In my 20 years in political life I have never quite seen, much less read, a speech by a political figure less calculated to please or pander. It was a tour de force in passion, but passion from within not designed to evoke passion from without. It was somber, uplifting, scolding, challenging, and defiant, all at the same time.

As a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a federal agency whose mission in recent years has been largely forgotten (if news coverage of these issues is any measure), it was an eye-opening moment not only about the future of our politics, but about the need to sternly examine the role of the 4th estate in helping achieve "a more perfect union."

In its 50 year history the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has never questioned the role of the news media on the journalistic equivalent of the who, what, where, why, when, and how in terms of choosing to report on race. We have questioned, sometimes under subpoena, officials partaking in corrupt voter schemes; officials out of compliance with the mandates of Brown and federal civil rights laws. But never, in our 50 years, have we asked the media what they believe their role has been and continues to be in shaping the entire question of race in this country for their audience, the American people.

Make no mistake; race was always the elephant in the room in American politics. And in this election, it is a mega-elephant. Until Obama's candidacy became viable, it was easy to ignore, pretend that it wasn't there, a non-factor until he became a factor. Then slowly, inexorably, perhaps even spurred on by parodies on "SNL", the media began to rise up and chip away at him on issues or race. News media began worrying about the "racial divide," exit polls tracked black-brown-white voting patterns, and experts were brought in to analyze what it all meant.

Now how the media covers race is the 45-foot long raptor sitting next to the elephant in the room. Will the raptor simply slash away at the elephant for the political equivalent of a cage match? Will there be thoughtful discussion, or will You Tube tapes of Pastor Wright available to serve as "video wallpaper" simply be used to re-fuel the issue on slow news days?

It's quite a crowded and noisy room. And the today's media provides all the filters.

As we see in the few Commission hearings that the Bush administration wishes wouldn't happen, race is, and continues to be, an issue that will not go away. Any understanding of the plight of migrant field hands, sweatshop workers, and drop-out rates of inner-city kids, continuing efforts to suppress minority voting, and the growing racial and class divide between the boardrooms and the mailroom shows just how much our nation has failed in achieving a truly "equal" society. But don't just trust my word on this. A quick perusal of the blog comments made in reaction to Obama's speech is enough to validate the notion that racism is alive and well in our country.

But Obama is running for President, and the cardinal rule of Presidential politics is that victory is an additive, not subtractive process, and race is a four-letter word that loses votes. Yet, despite this maxim, his speech was not overtly calculated to stop white flight from his campaign. There were no pandering lines, such as "I am not, and never will be, a card-carrying Muslim" or "Pastor Wright is no longer a friend, I reject his support, and I hope that the devil carries him away." To the contrary, Obama stayed true to his message of inclusiveness. More importantly -- and perhaps most dangerously -- Obama challenged the American public about his candidacy, and essentially said, "I'm black, you can get over it and join me because many others have voted for me because I'm the best leader for America, or you can choose not to get over it and vote against me because I'm black. You can choose to listen to me and understand that who I am, what I am, is part of the black American experience, but it does not solely define what I stand for and what I want to accomplish for America. Or, because I'm black, you can tune me out. Now let me tell you what I want to do for America, and let your hand on the "mute" button determine whether you have an open or closed mind."

That is what made this speech an extraordinary profile in courage and relegates people like Pennsylvania Governor Rendell (who said that 5% of his victory over Lynn Swann was attributable to people "whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate") to, well, just a profile.

Ultimately the success of this speech will be measured by whether Obama wins or loses, whether he is able to move on and get his message out or whether he his opponents and the media succeed in miring him in the issue of race. As he said in his speech, "[w]e can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism . . . . Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."

As noted, I think it is time for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to hold a first hearing on the role of the media with respect to race relations, coverage of race, and, ultimately, its responsibility on the issue of race.

I ask this because the power of the press is still undeniably powerful. Publishers, editors, and advertisers decide how many minutes or column inches, whether it is buried on page A-25 or after the sports break. Polls show that white voters had more definite negative feelings about Obama immediately after the weekend Pastor Wright double features that ran all over the media. Katrina victims or the Jena 6 seem to get less coverage than OJ's latest Vegas adventures.

In the larger context of an African American presidential candidate, race becomes the chum for conflict to whip news desks into a frenzy. It makes one wonder whether if Governor Rendell were black, would his statement on white voters have gone as unnoticed as it has by the national media? Race, in this election more than any in my memory, seems to be the "gotcha" factor that creates news leads.

Perhaps the news media can realize that the quality of the candidate should be judged by his words, and his positions. Perhaps the news media can also say that on the issue of covering this Presidential election with a race angle - "not this time." Ultimately, the hearts of individual Americans will decide that issue. Does the media need to fan the flames with endless talking heads and extremists on all sides who don't represent the average American?

Dare I believe in the audacity of hope on this topic?

Michael Yaki, a lawyer, is a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Comments

[Pandababy]

I have watched in astonishment and disgust as the media has shortened the original and very short clip of Rev. Wright, where after the "G-d d-mn" part, he points down to the Bible in front of him and says that it "says right there in the Bible" that "G-d will d-mn" anyone who - (he follows with a list: people who kill the innocent, murder woman and children, etc.).

The first clip showed too much for our lying media. It showed that Rev. Wright was delivering a sermon chastising our country for the civilians who have been murdered in Iraq, etc.

The media have made that clip shorter, cutting off the part where he points to the Bible, to better stir up racial hatred. Surely that isn't legal anymore in America? Even worse, it is based on a distortion so great it is a lie. Even worse, they are using the government controlled airwaves to do it.

If the government does not step in with televised hearings showing the entire speech, asking the media moguls why they cut out the parts that would demonstrate Wright's Bible reference, etc. then we might as well not even have a U. S. commission on Civil Rights, because they are violating the rights of the society to NOT be fed LIES by distortion and omission by people purporting to report the news or comment on the news. They are violating my rights as a Christian to not be slandered in the public airwaves.

When H. G. Wells "War of the Worlds" was broadcast on the radio, without disclaimers that it was FICTION, it ended up causing widespread panic that caused injuries to people.

What the media is doing right now with their virtual lynching of Senator Obama, (and by extension, any person of color, and any Christian) is a hundred times worse. They are spreading lies that are causing a panic among American voters that could swing the election of our next President.

[betseyculp]

The San Francisco Examiner was obviously listening. It confirmed Yaki"s worst fears as it picked up the gauntlet in a story headlined ""Racial obsessions": Obama memoir details his tortuous personal journey," which warns: "Obama"s self-described 'racial obsessions' have been largely overlooked in the Democratic primary campaign, but they figure to get closer examination after his wide-ranging speech on race relations Tuesday."

One might ask whose "racial obsessions" are on parade here.

In the end, however, even the most negative media attention may be constructive. Remember the ancient story of the blind men and the elephant, where a group of people who have never encountered such a creature before explore its features? One, grasping the beast"s tail, announced that it must look like a rope. Another, running his fingers over its tusk, says no, it"s more like a spear. And so on. Each assessment, taken by itself, presents a rather distorted picture. But put them all together and voilà! One life-sized pachyderm, at your service!

May our elephants walk where a hundred flowers bloom.

[2351]

Speaking of the fox news, I totally agree. I've gotten to the point that I can't even watch that station anymore. To me, there is something so deep seeded going on with commentators who profess to the world that they are fair and balanced and trash people the way that they do. I was most appalled by their trip to Obama's church to question the church members. Then they put people on like Carl Rove and other naysayers to make their point. It just bothers me to see people just personally destroyed for the sake of politics. And the statements being made are made as if they are true. You are right, it is as if they don't give people credit for having any sense and the ability to look beyond all that negativity. But, I feel that the people that they are talking to are the people that really don't know the issues and defer to these people to tell them what to do. People need to get more informed, and learn their own decisions based on the issues.

I would like to say also, that we should be able to boycott the advertisers of some of these media outlets, such as foxnews. I think that part of the problem with Fox News is that they are in fear, so they are really throwing out the kitchen sink at Obama. But the interesting thing is they are trashing Hillary too. I think that we need to send them a message and just stop listening to them.

[Poboy]

The starting place for such a hearing should be the FoxNews Network.

This Network is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party, with its leader Roger Ailes, that is breading racists by the thousands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes

[PLUMPLUM]

Thank you. I have so many questions. It has got to the point where I read the overseas newspapers because I know that the current administration has so much clout. Journalists have been forced into submission with real(as in Judith Miller)threats of jail and other forms of punishment. The media has resorted to just making profits and sensationalizing their offerings to maintain ratings. The election has been milked to the last drop. I have never seen so many commercials during an election coverage. Previously most people didn't even know that it was a Primary election day or that they could vote in a Primary. They thought a Primary was an election where special party activists voted. I know this has to do somewhat with the Obama/black factor and the Hillary/female curiosity but the media has not stopped.

The First Ammendment exists, but is it okay for SNL to interfere in an election and skew the results. I guess I am going to hear that there is no way of measuring SNL's influence.

Pundits are on TV making careers out of voicing their opinions.

I am seconding your idea that this warrants some investigation.

[KeithKamisugi]

HuffPost's Pick

Michael, very strong piece for your coming-out as a blogger.
I hope that as you pursue hearings on how media covers race that you will reach out to the journalists of color organizations, especially UNITY: Journalists of Color, which is holding its convention this year in Chicago.
Melissa Cornick and I are coordinating a panel on "Unconscious Bias and Media Coverage" at the convention with panelists such as Carole Simpson of ABC and Eva Paterson of the Equal Justice Society.
Regarding Sen. Obama's speech, it was not (as you already mentioned) designed to appease the naysayers and pander to those who want only to hear about easy solutions. I disagree with you that the success of his remarks will only by judged by his victory or defeat. Many articles and blog posts have already described scenes across America in which "A More Perfect Union" has changed hearts and minds.
Am looking forward to your next post!

[Ronp]

Unfortunately cable news media today encourages the public to suspend critical thinking with its biased panels of commentators, cleverly perpetuating their opinions as fact (without themselves performing any cursory research into the issues), along with increasing pressures to present the news in shorter and shorter time intervals. For example, the venom being hurled against Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and re-enforced by supposedly professional journalists emanate solely from the carefully created FOX News clips of incendiary remarks made by the pastor.
Have any of these commentators viewed any of the sermons in their entirety they are passing judgments on, or are we the public to continue to suffer from the results of this dishonest journalism?
Obviously anyone who has access to these sermons (i.e. Christmas day 2007 - the Hillary comment), which BTW can be acquired from Trinity Church of Christ had the opportunity to view the entire services or sermons. I remember that sermon, via the Internet from NJ and recently pulled down from Trinity"s web site to see again to verify what I had seen, with all the controversy created by FOX. A sermon entitled "The Message, The Messiah and The Manger," which was about the myth of the act of Christmas gift giving being divorced from the gift of Jesus Christ, through a story of his growing up in a bi-cultural setting. What I find most appalling is that had the clip included the twenty seconds prior to the Hillary clip, it would have been viewed in an entirely different context. Failing to review the whole sermon is bad enough, but after viewing it and then having the gall to create an unrepresentative caricature of the Rev. Wright is an insult to everything good and descent.
Since Barack Obama has represented those clips as being unrepresentative of Rev. Wright, doesn"t it seem logical for the other news media to validate FOX News concocted claim by attempting to understand who the pastor, the congregation and black churches at large? Recordings of these services go back many years. Fairness and simple decency demand the other News Media outlets, which are more representative of "fair and balanced" (unlike FOX News) to reveal to us the public results of that research and more importantly to encourage we the people to do a little of our own research and critical thinking instead of continuing to be spoon-fed like immature secondary school students " and we wonder why America continues to sink on all the global academic achievement lists.
If the other media outlets do not validate the substance of those clips, then they become complicit in a cover-up that will only exacerbate the racial issue in a larger way then you realize, while allowing the false assertion that Barack Obama made race an issue.

[PioneerKing]

Michael Yaki:

It's time for you and the members of your commission to come down from your loft reaches. Your commission has not been substantive in more than 30 years.
Sen. Obama"s speech has changed nothing. Bigots and racists of both political parties woke up this morning feeling the same as they did yesterday morning and the morning before that and they will awaken tomorrow morning feeling unchanged and without the slightest desire to change.
Sen. Obama never had a chance at becoming president. There is 20% of the electorate that will never vote for a black person, regardless of what they tell the pollsters, just asks former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. Sen. Obama never had a chance.

[MichaelYaki - Huffpost Blogger]

Pioneer King -
I only wish the reaches were as lofty as you seem. And I hope you are wrong about the 20% of the electorate. I do think that self-interest on the issues -- if the media deigns to cover them -- can change the minds of some of that 20%. But I do wish to point out that in the last 30 years the Commission reports on Americans with disabilities helped fuel the passage of ADA, and a report on violence against women helped create the legislative record for many communities' adoption of tougher laws on domestic violence. That being said, thanks for the comments -- this was my first blog on Huffpo, and hopefully not the last.

[knixphan]

PioneerKing: "Bigots and racists of both political parties woke up this morning feeling..."

So, if I'm to understand, PioneerKing was on a nationwide conference call with the bipartisan bigots coalition, (The BBC?) during which it was confirmed that all racists in the US felt the same as they had the night before Obama's address...

Crack kills, man.

Follow the delegates. Progress will happen without the Archie Bunkers among us.

Kudos, Mr. Yaki, from the 'sane' branch of HuffReaders.

[memoryaid]

Indeed, what is the point of having election if media, with no requirement to even report the truth, can tell 80% of the population whom to vote for?

I guess the current government found the ultimate recipe for success: keep people ignorant and uninformed enough that you can just tell them who to vote for.

[MichaelYaki - Huffpost Blogger]

Memoryaid, trapperj20, Hadok, JanetF, MadeinAmericaProud, BigRube, ruscle, dadw5boys, oracle99, PKSSK,bmora, and even Advocate123 :)
Thanks for the comments and feedback. I've been writing for years in the old media (NY Times, SF Chronicle), and this is my first venture into the world of on-line posting. I'm glad you found my piece interesting enough to comment on, and it was only after I responded to PioneerKing that I realized it would be difficult to respond to you all individually. All I can say is thank you, and I hope to see more of you (and you of me) in the future. FYI, I have a similar (but different) piece coming out in the Chronicle tomorrow, you can find it at www.sfgate.com in the morning.
Regards, Michael

[terriw]

there needs to be clear distinction between news and opinion, and there needs to be federal standards that determine what falls where.

I'M SICK OF PUNDITS. I'M SICK OF POLITICAL GOSSIP masquering as news, I'M SICK OF OPINION MASQUERADING AS NEWS, I'M SICK OF 'PANELS OF SO-CALLED EXPERTS' pontificating and forecasting and assasinating character based on their own stupid opinions I never cared about in the first place.

do i care WTF jacck cafferty thinks about anything??? no. do i care what wolf blitzer thinks about anything??? no.

what ever happened to telling people what happens, AFTER it happens. that's reporting.
i no longer watch ANY television news except PBS.

the media is DISGUSTING in it's hubris. cnn has given up reporting anything other than ad nauseum minute by minute coverage of the election like it's a college football game.

the bbc news however is GREAT. on a 15 sec blurb about obamas huuuuge race speech, the bbc was brilliant...the screen crawl said:

obama speech on race: damage control

then, next story...

what a relief.

[trapperj20]

What really needs to happen is the Senate needs to reinstate the fairness doctrine or some version of it. I was not alive to experience the media with this law in place, but I see no issues of censorship in demanding that a television station must contact a political candidate when they are going to run an attack, and allowing the candidate to respond on the station. That was the law as far as I understand it. If anyone has more info or links I would love to hear them. I know that the main argument against this would be that it is difficult to define an attack, but we are smart, right? And our senators are elected to work hard on things like this, right? I'm so disgusted with all the major news outlets and their willingness to allow the candidates to drive the narrative of information.

[terriw]

i actually contacted the fcc by email asking about the fairness doctrine, which...had been neutered by reagan in the 1980s...

i got a reply in less than 24 hours, and they essentially told me the ONLY recourse is to complain to the individual television station. and we know what good that will do right?

the fairness doctrine was mainly to regulate and give equal time for political ads...but not content contained in programming.

[Hadok]

"I think it is time for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to hold a first hearing on the role of the media with respect to race relations, coverage of race, and, ultimately, its responsibility on the issue of race."

Yes. The Commission of Civil Rights should hold hearings. The Commission may "... issue subpoenas (within the state in which the hearing is being held and within a 100-mile radius of the site) for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses at such hearings." News moguls from the major broadcast network networks, cable news outlets, and influential blogs such at the Kos and Huffington Post should be compelled to appear before the commission and testify under oath, answering such questions as the comissioners want answered. Internal memos and records of editorial meetings, etc, should be subpoened and placed in the public record for scrutiny. Only by intense investigation and scrutiny by this government agency can we be assured that the press will meet the needs of the public at large.

[JanetF]

Thank you for posting this. I'm sending it to many friends and family. It is so obvious how destructive the media has become - for all candidates - and on most issues, especially hot-button ones like race.

[MadeinAmericaProud]

"WE the PEOPLE" can appreicate your comments for all of us have the knowledge and skills to stand united. As Senator Obama stated, the first step to become a nation united not just by title only, I think it is called "mind set".

MIND SET. the Bible says it took 40 years going around, around, around around, and around that mountain to make a 11 days trip, the people mind set did not help them with their attitude for change. Out of 6 million of the original group, only two of the original took the trip to the promised land.

Well American did put words on a page call the constitution stating " We the People", when many were known and counted on other pages as animals. So much for all the humans in the United States.

We have been going around the united states man=made mountain for over 300 years that the hole is now as deep as the grand canyon on the race divide.

Some people are looking up from the hole while some are looking down into the hole. (middle class and poor vs. rich and super rich.)

The people who respond with negative comments are truly those who are looking into the hole. Telling those in the hole to SHUT UP. Just keep fighting on the stories I put in front of you because I have not given you authority to think on your own or a group. Stay divided.

I pray you receive enough support from this to validate your follow through. Mind set is the golden key to becoming a great nation who wanted change and it that won't be just turn on TV for a 15 second distorted clipping.

We have not heard Senator Hillary Clinton clearly say "America is in such bad shape" we need Communist China to provide us daily bread called money loans. They own our debt. I should hope they don't call for all their money right now because of the dollar. We don't have it. How can we call our sell a super power.

We are so easly deceived. Can anyone with these negative Obama commentors who love Senator McCain, know just how much each american OWE to china for the cost of the war to include the interest on the loan. Those of your who still have jobs base on the war or future wars what would you do right now if your job was out-sourced today or with 1 year, will you be ready like 9 million plus had to do?

If the war is the only way you are making a living it called blood money. We need the MILITARY DRAFT NOW.

[BigRube]

This is good. Yes you need to bring this up to the media because they have really abused it this year. If the media ask you about it just ask them this question.
How wiil racism ever going to end unless it is just dropped?
Good luck because the media runs this country right now.

[ruscle]

In a way, there already is a commission. It's called the Internet. More people are turning off the TV and going to REAL trusted sources on the net. What you can do to help is spread great URLs to your friends and family. Send them links to good stories. Talk up what you heard on Huffingtonpost.com rather than on TV. WORD OF MOUTH.