I don’t think the media should tell be people what to think, exactly, but would it be so hard for them to kind of intimate what people ought not to think? To take an obvious example, the cable news programs are discussing Michelle Obama’s speech. That’s appropriate. She gave a speech; it should be discussed. But what they really want to know without coming right out and saying it, is whether her speech is going to be effective in calming the nerves of white racists that ‘don’t really know who she is’ and are maybe a little concerned about a ‘couple of things she has said in the past’.
And, to be fair, maybe the people the pundits have in mind are not what we’d call classic racists. Maybe they just need to overcome a feeling of alienation or a jarring sense of newness. Whatever you want to call it. The soft bigotry of entrenched expectations?
My point here is that I think racism and lazy bigotry are nearly universally seen as illegitimate and unworthy points of view (even by the majority of people that hold those views and feelings). We’ve reached that point in our ethical evolution where I think it is permissible for media pundits to come right out and say that anyone who isn’t going to consider voting for Obama because of his race or his wife’s race or the fact that Obama comes from Hawaii and lived for a time in Indonesia, is a stupid, close-minded person.
I don’t think that media pundits should lecture people but it is unseemly to sit up there in front of the cameras and debate whether or not people are too racist to vote for Obama and whether this or that speech or video may have converted enough racists to make the election winnable. It’s doubly unseemly when those pundits tiptoe around the subject rather than tackling it directly. Obama has been consistently up in the polls all year. If the election had been held on any day this summer it is likely that Obama would have won. That, in itself, should defuse this notion that Obama needs to do something dramatic to win over racist voters. But, it’s true that Obama could still lose this election and that there are millions of people he still has not won over.
So, the subject of racism and prejudice is a legitimate topic for discussion. But it should be tackled directly and there is nothing wrong with saying, pretty consistently, that insofar as racism and prejudice are playing a role, it is unfortunate and illegitimate. What the media is doing now is making it seem like the ‘I won’t vote for the black guy’ vote is legitimate and persuadable, and that it is Obama’s responsibility to persuade them. That’s not objectivity…it’s moral degeneracy.
Perhaps part of what’s going on here is that the media’s afraid that there’s a slippery slope involved. After all, most if not all positions that appeal to right-wingers and which are advocated by Republicans are “stupid” and “close-minded”.
If the media starts criticizing people who are racists, what is to stop them from criticizing people who are homophobes and/or sexually up tight for example, or even worse, corporations for being greedy and harmful to the public good (that’s you, pharmaceuticals and health insurance companies).
You hit on something that’s been pissing me off a lot, yet that I couldn’t quite define. You got it exactly: way too much commentary has been based on the assumption that it’s Obama’s job to overcome the racist and bigoted reactions, and that that’s OK.
The professional windbags wouldn’t even have to confront the racial aspect very directly if that would sully their image as reliably zero. They could broach the issue and then say, No, I don’t believe there are still significant numbers of Americans who are going to vote based on racial stereotyping — I think we’re finally past that flaw in our national character.
Positive reinforcement. But of course that’s not what our “thought leaders” are about.
.
Blunt and in the open, incredible!
KING: Does the panel — does anyone on the panel think race will have any issue in this at all?
STEIN: Sure, absolutely.
REAGAN: It’s really interesting because all during the primaries race was on the side of the Democrats. Bill Clinton was a racist. Everyone was a racist.
KING: The question is, will people vote against Obama because he’s black?
REAGAN: Yes. Yes. Larry? Larry?
STEIN: Larry, there are people that will vote against Obama because of his race.
KING: That’s terrible.
REAGAN: People don’t like me because my last name is Reagan. I mean, people have different reasons not to vote for people — who are racists.
KING: You went into a booth and say I will not vote for this man…
REAGAN: You’re never going to end that, Larry. You’re never going to that.
KING: Well, if you keep saying that then you’re not.
LARSON: No, you’re not.
REAGAN: But you’re never going to end it.
Video Larry King Live
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I recalled the exact same discussion, but just after where you left off…
Good for Larry. They had the frank discussion and he called it out for what it is “abhorrent.”
Well said Boo. But keep in mind, ladies and gents, this is the same media that has made it possible for a candidate like McCain (and you can fill in all the STELLAR qualities he possesses) to be nearly tied and in some cases even beating Obama. Only in America. sigh
Actually last night I was amazed — shocked, really — that Chris Matthews pretty much did ream what I think he called "a kook," someone who was saying Obama was Muslim and therefore dangerous. I didn’t see the remark itself, just the reaction, but Matthews was quite clear in denouncing it.
the media’s whiteness on display. Firmly on side with McWar.