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?
Reply With Quote
