The Real Deal Show  

Show Notes

• Archived Blog Post

  Date / Time: 10/26/2007 7:33 AM UTC

  Media Bias vs. Media By Us
  

  Media Bias vs. Media By Us -- August 2005
  By James Clingman Jr.

  During an appearance on America’s Black Forum, which dealt with the sale of Black owned businesses to white companies, we discussed the recent sale of Essence Magazine to Time-Warner. I made the point that it is vital for conscious Black Americans to own and control media outlets in order to tell our own stories and to report the news from a Black perspective. We complain a lot about the portrayal of Black people by dominant media outlets, but we continue to support them, and we continue to sell ours or use them to perpetuate the stereotypical images of ourselves with daily (and nightly) buffoonery.

  A glaring example of this is the following observation by Frank W. Quillan in 1910: “When a Negro commits a crime the newspapers always emphasize his race connection by such headlines as ‘A Big Black Burly Brute of Negro’ does such and such, and the whole race gets a share of the blame; while if the crime is committed by a white man, race is not mentioned, and the individual gets the blame.” Have things changed from that scenario?

  Nearly 100 years later Black folks in this country are still subjected to the same treatment in dominant media. But we already know that, don’t we? The points I want to make in this article are two recent observations, which you may have also noticed, in USA Today.

  The first was a story on how folks in Lexington, Kentucky perceived George Bush titled, “Taking the Pulse of Bush’s America.” The writer interviewed several persons, and several photos accompanied the piece. The striking part of the article for me was the photo of a Black woman talking to her granddaughter in front of a housing project called Bluegrass-Aspendale. The caption under the photo of 2 year-old Amoni Price and her grandmother, Jackie Price, stated, “Drugs, Crime, Vacancies…”

  The subliminal and obvious messages in the article jumped off the page. I searched the article for comments from Jackie Price but found none; thus, they used a photo of a Black woman and associated that photo with the most negative aspects of the piece, and did not include comments from Ms. Price in the article. Some may think this is a minor concern, but the power of pictures cannot be overstated. Also, the article reminded me of Frank Quillan’s words in 1910 which, by the way were referring to my hometown newspapers in Cincinnati. No surprise there.

  The other observation I made is even more important. We have seen the accolades heaped upon John H. Johnson since his death; we have heard his story of starting with $500.00 in 1942 and creating the $500 million empire, Johnson Publishing Company. We know he was an icon in this country and his rise to the top was and still is one of the most significant in our history. Again, USA Today, on the same day it did a two-page feature on Peter Jennings, gave a relatively small space and, quite honestly, short shrift to John Johnson. We can debate the issue of who made the more significant contributions to this society; it’s a relative perspective anyway, but I think it’s incontrovertible that Johnson’s accomplishments exceeded those of Jennings especially when we consider the barriers Johnson faced.

  Nonetheless, the real issue is how the two were treated in the same issue of the paper and, I might add by the dominant media in general. That is why Black people must own and control our media and the messages that come from them. For this very reason, our children cannot read about the Tulsa Riots and other historically significant events that occurred to their relatives. It is why they do not read about the tremendous strides of Black business owners during the early existence of this country. An African saying is appropriate here: Until the lion writes history, the hunter will always be glorified.

  I am not suggesting that Jennings was not a good man, a good reporter and Journalist, and a good news anchor. What I am saying is the John Johnson story was an opportunity for dominant media to display what it always says it is: Unbiased, fair and balanced, and all that other nonsense. Where is Emerge Magazine and George Curry when we need them?

  What do I expect? Nothing. I do not expect dominant media to treat the images of Black folks any differently from the way it treated us in 1910. If they do, it will be a blessing, but I do not expect it. That is why we must support our own media, and I mean our own “conscious” Black media. Additionally, we must maintain what we have and capture even more outlets; we must grow those businesses by merging and forming strategic partnerships with one another; and we must resist the temptation to capitulate to offers from people who do not care about us when they come calling to take over what few media outlets we have. Quite frankly, were it not for a few radio stations, most Black newspapers, and a few magazines, positive Black images and fairness when it comes to Black news would be virtually nonexistent.

  Our children know very little, if anything, about A.G. Gaston, Annie Turbo-Malone, S.B. Fuller, Joe Dudley, Dr. Walter Lomax, Ken Bridges, and other Black men and women, living and deceased, who have made monumental strides in the business world. This is in large part due to the dominant media and their lack of attention to these kinds of role models. It seems that our images have been reduced to dunking basketballs and making music videos.

  Media bias can be overcome by one simple thing: Media by us

  • Permalink