what a strange day this is. i've tried to blog forever and nothing posts. i thought it was just me but i checked with c.i. and found out the problem is blogger. something about the servers needing to be reset or something.
let me start by highlighting the third estate sunday review because i told myself i'd do that each day this week. so from 3rd estate, i'll highlight their blog spotlight ... joking! i'm the blog spotlight (my post on air america). but i will highlight their editorial:
That was the game plan. And on the left, people did tremendous work in exposing the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership, no question. But as the media continued to focus on it (all forms of media), the Republicans got what they wanted: one story dominating and drowning out all else.
You had a school shooting that was largely ignored which offended some people (including Native Americans). And while the story was spared the feeding frenzy and false reportingof Columbine, it also left many feeling that media interest depended on skin color.
When the efforts of Stephanie Tubbs-Jones were ignored, that also led some to raise the issue ofskin color.
Make no mistake, a lot of issues and stories got ignored. But also be aware that when you've covered, for instance, Ohio in relation to Barbara Boxer and you then ignore Stephanie Tubbs-Jones' continued fight on this important issue, people start to question why. And coming in the same week as the tragedy on the reservation, you begin to create even more questions in the minds of many.
Add in the voices of the disabled, voices that were not heard, and it often appeared the whole thing was intended to play to certain segment of the population, for a certain segment of the population and by a certain segment of the population.
The alternative media especially should be concerned because they are supposed to shed light to the stories that the mainstream doesn't touch. They are supposed to give voice to the subjects that otherwise would not be heard from. At a time when inclusion should be strived for, we went through a week of exclusion.
that's from "Editorial: There Must Have Been Nothing Else Going On In The World."
if you caught common ills community member keshawn's post this morning, you know that a lot of people did feel the focus on 1 story sidelined people of color:
I'm pissed off and so angry that when an African-American fights and keeps fighting, she gets ignored so the blog world can dog pile on one story.
She was fighting for you, she was fighting for me. She didn't have to be there. She had better things to do. If you think the damn hearing was going to be a white wash, don't you think she probably felt that too? Don't you think she might be a little more in the know since she's sitting in the Congress?
But she got her righteous self on down to the hearing. She kept fighting.
She didn't abandon us, we abandoned her. Kicked her to the side of the road without so much as a "good game."
Don't tell me this wasn't about skin color because I won't believe your words when your actions running up and down the court were all about passing to the teammates who looked just like you and ignoring the ones who didn't.
It's a white-white world and I'm starting to wonder if the blog world ain't the exact same as the mainstream and if the only people who matter enough for a dog pile story are the ones with white skins.
i'm not surprised by keshawn's feelings because i know a number of people who felt that way. a school shooting and a congress woman standing up for voting rights get no attention at all but
every 1 can go after the same story over and over.
did columbine get attention because it was a school shooting or because it involved a lot of white kids? that's a question a lot of people are wondering now.
i don't have a lot of hope for keshawn's post frankly. i think most in the blog world will ignore it. the people who covered the school shooting or stephanie tubbs-jones or both may think about it but they were already trying to be inclusive. the people who should be thinking about it are the 1s who will ignore it.
but i think every 1 should think about what keshawn is saying because he makes so many strong points. the web is supposed to be the alternative media. so why are they following what the corporate media follows?
if you're doing that and you're blogging, it's very easy to say 'i report on everything i hear or see or read.' you probably do. but the under-representation of people of color in the corporate media is nothing new. that's why, when you're looking for things to blog on, you need to go beyond just the obvious.
that includes me, by the way. don't think i exclude myself. i need to do a better job. i've highlighted democracy now but i could be doing a lot more.
so now's the time that we can take inventory of what stories we haven't noted and why that is?
it can be real easy to pat ourselves on the back or to ignore the points keshawn is making but i think we'd all benefit from an honest examination of ourselves.
i'm going to try to work towards being more inclusive here. that doesn't mean running or citing faux liberals like cynthia tucker who was 1 of the 1st to dog pile on cynthia mckinney. you'll see that keshawn's post had a large number running to cynthia mckinney. 'get me a black, pronto!'
but cynthia tucker is as mainstream as you can be. she knows she gets brownie points and pats on the back for turning her cannons on cynthia mckinney.
but i'm sure a number of people who linked to her today felt they were helping out. i hope leonard pitts didn't go after cynthia mckinney. he's a more centrist liberal but he's also a lot smarter than tucker. but it's about more than just linking to the same type of people that every 1 else links to.
so instead of being part of the crowd rushing to tucker, i went to davey d. over at davey's site i found this by adisa banjoko:
I’m tired of all these s-curl wearing, half baked Civil Rights leaders constantly blasting Hip Hop. They are like Black faced Bill Oreilly’s on Prozac spewing wackness constantly.
They spit venom at today’s youth and their reaction to being poor, uneducated and socially outcast. They don’t go after the BushAdministration. That is the COWARDS way out.
That has no trace of the courage, compassion or leadership ofthose before you. The Black Christian church, for whatever reason has always had it in for Hip Hop. Were it not for Michael Eric Dyson and Cornell West, REDEEMING the notions of the Black church and their approach to Hip Hop, virtually all would be lost.
[...]
Don’t tell me you don’t like 50, Dre, Em, Game, Lil John or whoever. Tell me who you do support?!? Whydon’t you champion Common, or Mos Def? I never hear you telling people to go get De La Soul or Zion I!! Don’t tell me the Hip Hop you hate, tell us the HipHop you are for!!!
maybe you agree, maybe you don't. maybe just the subject of hip-hop causes you to shut down.
but there's a point that's being made that we should all be able to relate to: don't just tell me who you don't like, tell me who you do like.
right or wrong, a lot of people felt that way about john kerry's campaign. they felt they knew what he stood against but not what he stood for. a lot of that has to do with the press but it also has to do with a cautious campaign. where was the message that we could all happily embrace?
that's a question we need to be asking.
i do sex & politics here as 'screeds' with 'attitude.' so looking at what adisa banjoko is saying and applying it just to what i write about, i can ask myself have i done enough to highlight what i like? (yes, i've raved over sexual partners but let's leave the sex aspect for now.)
i've noted and applauded janeane garofalo and randi rhodes and, more recently, laura flanders. i've attempted to warn everyone why the new republic is not a liberal magazine. but have i noted enough magazines that were liberal? i'm not sure that i have.
i will continue to address the issue of the new republic (and plan to do so tomorrow) but am i pointing people to magazines that might be speaking for them? i don't think i've honestly done a good job of that.
i'll pass on that the common ills has a post on the progressive today that outlines why it is a good magazine. i'll note that i enjoy the progressive too. but i don't know that i do enough about what i stand for as opposed to what i stand against? so that's something we all need to think about. i'll do it on this end and hopefully you will do it on your end.
but i'll close by saying i stand for peace and equality and that those used to be not just enlightened positions but also popular 1s. a great deal has been lost under the bully boy and maybe if we put our thinking caps on and work together we can find a way to turn back towards
a belief in community and public good. what do you think? let me know at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com.
