Journalism Matters: Race

Keep a light shining on U.S. racism

May 31, 2008 04:30 AM

Timothy J. McNulty

Race always percolates just below the surface of American politics, but in this election year, it is bubbling up more and more.

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in the Chicago Tribune May 14 about "full-blooded Americans" and "bloodlines" among patriotic Americans. She insisted the political argument this season was not about race or ethnicity (or Barack Obama's Kenyan father) but about who "gets" America and who doesn't.

First, it seems to me, to write about bloodlines and claim it's not about race or ethnicity is nonsense. Those are code words in America. I suspect most readers understand that.

Parker went on in her not-so-veiled column: "It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots. Some run deeper than others. ... In a country that is rapidly changing demographically – and where new neighbours may have arrived last year, not last century – there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity."

The column incensed readers such as Mike Nielsen, who wrote that he was deeply disappointed in the Tribune for publishing it.

"I fully expect this to be a particularly ugly campaign, with race added to an already volatile mix," Nielsen wrote. "But to see, on the pages of the Tribune, a picture of John McCain captioned, `Will John McCain capture the votes of those looking for a "full-blooded American" candidate?' was a shock. It's true that Senator Obama is of mixed blood, as they say – or, one would have hoped, what they once said. He does have a mixed ancestry. And there will be those who will find a place for that in their decision-making. I find it outrageous, however, that it finds a place in the Tribune."

Another reader wrote that "blood quantum" laws have been used to discriminate against non-white people since at least 1705. "Using the term `full-blooded American' to describe John McCain smacks of nothing if not white supremacy."

A reader from Texas added, "the Tribune could do better by Chicago and the country. We deserve better and an apology."

Responding to readers, I wrote that as ridiculous and repugnant as that full-blooded sentiment is to many, if not most, Americans, I would rather see it on the op-ed page so that people can hold it to the light and repudiate the notion rather than deal with it as a whispering campaign.

Anyone who believes that the race issue will be dormant in the general election – presuming that Obama is the Democratic candidate – is hiding from reality. It remains a divisive issue and, as Parker noted, some fear that "their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative."

I think it is the news media's responsibility to highlight not just the political stratagems but the attitudes that help create them.

The aim of the Tribune's Commentary page is to display a wide range of subjective opinions, even those some may consider offensive. Printing a column is not the same as sanctioning it.

The same need to speak plainly but objectively is true in the news pages. An article by Tribune reporter Rex W. Huppke examined how residents in the rural Kentucky town of Munfordville felt about Obama versus Hillary Clinton.

"They won't vote for a black man," Huppke quoted one white Obama supporter talking about his neighbours. "That's all there is to it. They just can't bring themselves to do it."

Another resident explained bluntly why he wouldn't support Obama: "It's his colour."

Those statements reflect racist views, but does that mean the news media shouldn't report them?

Of course not; it is far better to honestly relate what people are saying and thinking – even if the sentiments expressed are racist – than to hide or pretend those attitudes don't exist.

To use the words of the late Southern writer Flannery O'Connor engraved on the wall of a Tribune lobby: "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."



Reprinted with permission of the Chicago Tribune©.



Timothy J. McNulty is public editor of the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/434477

who are these fools?

No one you ever see on commercial media [ the three clowns come to mind; McCain, Clinton and Obama ] are worthy for anything but criminal investigation and prison after trial and discovery.

Would the numbnuts who post this 'election' circus BS, please realize that it only makes the MSM look pathetic when they come in here to get some viewers. The MSM is dead, long live the IMC.

There is no valid vote or valid candidate. The election process is a grand and pernicious fraud.

Obama is another who has nothing to offer any of us below a very large income as he serves his real masters the princes of wealth like Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Rockefellers.

A Trilateral Stooge and a member of the elite's vomitorium attendants.

I don't believe that the LA IMC should allow this corporate crap to spoil real news.

Darn. I thought this was going to be about the rise of Fascism in Italy, Berlusconi, and racism against Roma and immigrants.