'Fair and Balanced' goes south of the border

Fox News is branching out to the Latino media market. The Huffington Post reports the news channel will launch FoxNewsLatino this fall. According to the Fox News network, the website will "feature the latest breaking news, politics, economic and lifestyle stories that impact the Latino community." HuffPost reports the site will feature both English and Spanish-language videos, along with reports from Latin American countries.

While Fox News Senior Vice president for News-Editorial Michael Clemente said the network will not launch a companion Latino TV network, he stressed that the expansion is an "unprecedented opportunity" to broaden Fox News' reach and impact to a new audience.

I have to wonder just how smart a business decision this really is. From Arizona's new immigration law to a recent report showing a majority of Americans believe Latinos face the most discrimination, Latinos seem to take a lot of heat these days. How can the "Fair and Balanced" news network attract this new market when Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly wholeheartedly defends the Arizona law on his nightly O'Reilly Factor, or when pro-Arizona Sarah "Go Rogue" Palin is given her own show on the network?

Funny, also, that Obama was criticized recently by conservatives for reaching out to blacks, women, Hispanics and young people, and yet here Fox News takes a similar path. Hypocrisy much?

Something tells me FoxNewsLatino.com won't prove the unprecedented opportunity Clemente expects.

Photo Credit: FoxNews.com

Misplaced anger at Obama ignores white privilege, not to mention facts

The Washington Examiner called out President Obama yesterday, and not for what you may think. The paper did not take Obama to task for his handling of the mortgage crisis, health care reform or even the most recent immigration legislation in Arizona. No, they were angry at him for "leaving out white males" in his midterm election strategy.

Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason details the recently-released speech in which Obama encourages his 2008 supporters, as well as women, blacks, Hispanics and young people to rally together in the midterm election season.

What about the good ol' white folk, Mr. President?

Conservatives were upset by Obama's comments, Mason writes, and many argued that had a president called for unity among white voters, public outcry would spread like wildfire. Mason tempers this criticism with a dose of reality from Aubrey Jewett, political scientist at the University of Central Florida. Jewett says Obama's approval among white men is down and, "realistically the Democrats don't think they have a chance of getting them back between now and November." Phew. Whites can relax. It's based in fact.

Not so fast.

Jewett's inclusion is a paltry attempt at balance for the Examiner, especially when the cover of the April 27 issue reads, "Obama disses white guys: Rallies blacks, Latinos, women" (see above). When this is your front page story, and you choose the word "diss," you've got a bone to pick with our President.

The Huffington Post gives some context to the newspaper's position, arguing that the Examiner caters to the whitest geographic markets of the D.C. area. So can we chalk this whole thing up to merely cheap-shot reporting, another case of "giving the public what they want?"

Sorry, but this isn't another sensationalist piece of smut about John and Kate plus God knows how many. This is a case of whiteness feeling threatened.

First off, Obama is half white, so let's keep in mind that if Obama is ignoring white people, he's ignoring half his lineage too. Secondly, "young people" is not race-specific, so whites may have been implied in his speech.

Thirdly, I believe Obama's critics are right to insist that had the President only referred to whites, public outcry would mount strong and hard. But what if Obama's words were uttered by a white president? Would whites be upset at the lack of reference to people like them? Or would they think the president was progressive and committed to helping historically disadvantaged groups? How much of this is due to Obama's own skin color, and white fear of being dismantled from the most privileged pillar of society? I have no definitive answers here, but I can't help but think this is yet another race-based double standard.

Finally, and most importantly, let's look at what is really at issue here: Obama did not explicitly mention white people, instead choosing groups that have been explicitly excluded from social programs, economic and political opportunities and upward mobility. In doing so, the President made whites aware of their oft-taken-for-granted whiteness, and threatened by its absence from his speech. Funny that whites don't acknowledge the privileges of whiteness, but man do they jump when they feel that privilege compromised even superficially.

For whites to say their President is ignoring them is to yet again overlook the advantages bestowed on them throughout history and continuing today.

Blacks in the Jim Crow South know what it's like to be truly ignored by the government. Pre-19th Amendment women know what's it's like to be ignored. Migrant workers today know what it's like to be ignored. Those feeling dissed by our President in this case? Not so much.

Photo Credit: The Examiner

Arizona governor approves immigration bill

As a follow-up to a previous post on Arizona's proposed immigration bill, Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law yesterday, sparking protests across the nation. From Boston to California, protesters compared the bill to South African apartheid and Japanese-American internment during World War II.

Brewer's response? According to The Boston Globe, the governor justified the bill saying, "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

The New York Times quoted the governor Friday, saying, "Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."

President Obama called the bill "misguided," and The Huffington Post says the Justice Department will examine its legality.

While I salute the White House's opposition to the bill, I'm not so sure immigration--legal or not--is the problem here. Rather, I think rampant racism and coded language are the bigger issues. "Murderous greed of drug cartels"? What about mothers and children escaping abusive husbands or unsafe working conditions? Husbands trying to reunite with their families? "Kidnappings and violence?" What about service workers and domestic help? Why must we equate immigration--more specifically Latinos--with violence, drugs and crime? And at issue in this particular case: Why did a head of state endorse this image?

Racism, pure and simple. We attack drug cartels and we let Goldman Sachs off comparably easy. We label all Mexicans as drug smugglers, yet we don't assume all white-collar workers are wracking up billions in bonuses while their company spirals downward into debt. We think of Mexicans as dirty job-thieves, yet we take a softer hand to sexually abusive priests. Skin color, it would seem, dictates the boxes you can fall into and the punishment you can receive.

Let's just hope the Justice Department does its job better than the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Another shining example of white-collar workers at their best)

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

Racism in a 'post-racial' America

It was the shot heard 'round the world: After President Obama's State of the Union address last Thursday, Chris Matthews remarked, "I forgot [Obama] was black tonight for an hour."

As soon as I heard this, I laughed at Matthews' gaff. His comment seems almost silly in today's world. At the same time, Matthews fell right into my stereotype of upper-class, white political commentators--looking down at minorities, the poor, the sick--basically anyone who doesn't play 18 holes at the country club and sip iced tea with lunch.

Then again, maybe we, myself and Matthews included, can learn from this blunder...

Matthews' comment highlights a truth we often overlook: As diversity lawyer Natalie Holder-Winfield reports on The Huffington Post, "There are well-meaning white men who do not associate intellectual greatness and leadership with people of color."

Like Holder-Winfield, I don't think Matthews is a racist. But his comment proves Holder-Winfield's point. That a black man could stand in a room of mostly white men and deliver an eloquent speech as the most powerful man in the world is an anomaly in the minds of many white people. Whether we blame the agenda setting function of the news media or ourselves or both, we feel the need to remark when a black person succeeds.

We saw this when Obama accepted the bid for President. A black man. For President. Did it matter that Obama was black? Are we acknowledging racism by even discussing his race? How much attention, if any, should we pay to Obama's skin color?

I don't think we can recognize the successes of any racial group as "the successes of the ____ race." Rather, these successes need to be those of individuals. As much as Matthews' words are deplorable, I'm glad he made them. In a world he dubs "post-racial," Matthews shows us how much work we have to do to overcome racism. Lynchings and school segregation may be a thing of the past, but they've given way to a more subconscious, some may say more dangerous form of racism. If Matthews forgetting Obama was black helps us recognize, and hopefully combat, this invisible racism, I'd say Matthews has done more good than harm.

Black, and female to boot

Last week, Newsweek reporter Raina Kelley wrote on the media coverage of Harry Reid's comments about President Obama. (Reid was quoted in a new book, saying he supported Obama because he was "light-skinned" and lacked a "Negro dialect).

Kelley praised the media for their recognition of three main points:

1. Harry Reid's gaffe is very different from Trent Lott's years ago. Whereas Lott attributed today's (well, 2002's) problems to racial integration and the end of segregation, Reid supported a black man for president.

2. Reid should not be forced to resign. This would only anger voters who support Reid and distract from the real issue: race relations in America.

3. Reid chose his words poorly, but there is some truth to his statements. Researchers, Kelley said, have found that people are more receptive to perceived threats when they see darker faces. Reid's stereotypes about black people are misguided, but there exists psychological backing as to why he holds these ideas.

So what do we make of this? If a black woman is pleased with coverage of the Reid race comments, that says something about progress in America. But beyond what Kelley argues, there is another element:

Why was this column written by a black woman?

There are a plethora of possible answers, from "she chose this topic and pitched it to her editors," to "she and Ellis Cose are the token race reporters here at Newsweek." I hope the latter is not the case.

Whenever I see Rev. Jesse Jackson lament racial profiling in urban areas, I wonder how much power his comments would have been were they echoed by a white person. In the same vein, I wonder if writing a column as a black woman--a column about race--dilutes the pool of receptive readers? Does it fail to fully integrate Newsweek's newsroom by giving "race" to the minority reporters? I would say so.

For the American Society of News Editors' most recent data on minorities in the newsroom, click here.