Who Is the Big, Bad Media?
News Analysis: A missive from the 10,000 Men rally in Philadelphia.
October 31, 2007
|
|
Like any rally, "A Call to Action: 10,000 Men" in Philadelphia on October 21st was an event of inescapable group hugs, linked hands held aloft, effusive sloganeering, and endless chanting. "It's a new day" is clearly the chosen motto of this movement and it's good; too bad it isn't the one organizers should have chosen.
The only exhortation that mattered on October 21st wasn't shouted and didn't bring rounds of thundering applause. It wasn't offered by any of the attending reverends, bishops, Muhammads, or militant community group leaders. It was offered and repeated by only two men, one low key, the other ebullient: "This is a business meeting." The men who said it were Kenny Gamble and Charles "Charlie Mack" Alston.
It's not surprising that two black Philly boys made their fortunes in the music-Hollywood game or that now the movement they spearhead is on the brink of actual relevance, even though black America is littered with the carcasses of defunct calls to arms (Million Man March anyone?). 10,000 Men is a coalition headed by successful brothers who played the white man's game on the white man's terms and won. For too many activists, to achieve mainstream success means selling out. Okay, we all have our definitions of success, and you're welcome to yours; I'll take Gamble's and Alston's and it looks like Philly will too. So far, they're getting a lot of things right, especially the most important thing.
It must have been at an internal 10,000 Men "business meeting" that speakers (of whom there were far too many) got the memo counseling against denunciations of whites and racism. I never heard a single one though the rally started so late I had to leave before its end (shame on you Gamble and Alston; do you run your companies this way?). The focus remained on that which blacks can do for themselves, a tactic that forces blacks to take that hard look in the mirror and ask, "Who exactly was it who killed so many of Philadelphia's children so far this year, and what outside influence could possible justify it?" Keep that memo circulating, because the significance of this focus cannot be underestimated.
One criticism: 10,000 Men needs to reconcile its (pragmatically few) denunciations of "the media" with the fact that the on-site press scrum was perhaps 75 percent black. Whether or not that's typical I can't say, since I rarely cover such huge events. But I suspect that it is. I also suspect that, like me, most made the assignment happen for themselves. I decided not to ask my fellow journalists if "the media" sounded like code for "racist white people" to them also, given the 'tude with which the words were hurled. But what gives, Philly?
It's not hard to predict the nationalist explanation for all the black reporters present ("house negroes" doing the master's bidding). But for others it's unclear what an overwhelmingly black media presence means in a relationship as dysfunctional as this one. One thing is for sure: 10,000 Men needs to figure this out before it makes unintended enemies. Are black journalists Uncle Toms, economic prisoners forced to mouth lines they don't believe? Do they secretly agree that their profession is irredeemably racist and they must be forgiven for the lies they're forced to publish? Until the organization grapples with the issue of whether to suspect all journalists of racism or evaluate each by the worth of their work, they'll be at cross-purposes with themselves.
While "the media" may be code, I have no doubt that "business meeting" is, and a consciously chosen one. From two such as Gamble and Alston, it means, "Zeal will not take the place of pragmatism." That slogan may never catch on but that's okay. It's a message to the wider world that this is a movement focused on goals and the pragmatism required to achieve them. So given that interpretation, here's a suggestion to 10,000 Men: We know you're busy, but schedule in some time to do some thinking about exactly who and what the big, bad media is.
Debra Dickerson is a contributing writer and blogger for Mother Jones. She is the author of The End of Blackness and An American Story.
For conservatives and liberals alike the answer is clear: mainstream media.
But for different reasons.
If you're liberal, you probably perceive mainstream news as a tool for greedy corporate types who water down information to gain favor with the government.
If you are conservative, the mainstream TV and print news business--said to be a bastion for liberally-biased reporters--is indicative of liberal hegemonic control of information.