Locked Out: The Lack of Gender and Ethnic Diversity on Cable News Continues
During the recent controversy over former radio and television host Don Imus' remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, some cable-news viewers may have noticed something unusual: the presence of significantly more African-Americans. The nature of the controversy led the cable networks to seek comment from a far more diverse group of people than they ordinarily do, which begs the question: To the extent these cable programs included a more diverse guest lineup during the Imus controversy, why do they provide such diversity only when issues of race are in the news cycle? Do cable-news producers view the guests added to the lineup during the Imus controversy as qualified to talk only about issues of race, and not other issues of national and political significance?
And did these guests have any lasting effect on the networks' booking practices, or did they return to their old ways as soon as the Imus issue disappeared? To begin to answer these questions, Media Matters for America analyzed the race/ethnicity and gender of the hosts and guests on the major prime-time cable-news programs. This study looks at the guests who appeared on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC during the weeknights before the Imus controversy (Monday, April 2, through Friday, April 6), the weeknights of the Imus controversy (Monday, April 9, through Friday, April 13), and the weeknights following the Imus controversy (Monday, April 23, through Friday, April 27). (We omitted the week immediately after the Imus controversy because it was consumed almost entirely by a single issue -- the Virginia Tech shootings -- and thus was atypical). Each guest appearing on the prime-time shows of the top three cable-news networks was recorded and categorized by race/ethnicity and gender. The shows included are:
- CNN's The Situation Room
- CNN's Paula Zahn Now
- CNN's Larry King Live
- Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor
- Fox News' Hannity & Colmes
- MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews
- MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann
- MSNBC's Scarborough Country
We chose these programs because they air during prime time, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. It should be noted that Fox News' Fox Report, which airs at 7 p.m., does not normally have guests and was therefore excluded from this study for purposes of guest analysis.
Cable-news hosts
In addition to the guests on the prime-time programs of the top three cable news networks, Media Matters compiled a list of all the regular hosts on cable-news programs between the hours of 4 p.m. and midnight. We chose this time frame because in addition to capturing all the prime-time shows, it also captures the cable networks' full lineups of high-profile shows hosted by identifiable personalities -- most of the shows during these hours have the host's name in the show's title. We also included CNN Headline News and CNBC in the data.
In total, there are 35 hosts and co-hosts of cable-news programs during these hours. All 35 are white, and 29 of the 35 are male.
Race/ethnicity of guests
Whites dominated the guest lists on all three networks in the weeks we examined. All three brought on substantially more African-American guests during the week of the Imus controversy, but largely went back to their white-dominated guest lists following the controversy.
Among the three networks, MSNBC performed the worst all three weeks -- 93 percent of the guests on the network were white the week prior to the controversy, 70 percent were white during the controversy, and 82 percent were white in the post-controversy week. In none of the three weeks did Latinos, Asian-Americans, or any ethnicity other than African-Americans make up more than 5 percent of the guests on any network. CNN had a slightly more racially/ethnically diverse guest lineup than the other networks, though its better performance the week prior to the Imus controversy can be partly attributed to Paula Zahn Now, which ran several segments that week focused on racial issues in America and also included a slightly higher number of African-Americans than other programs during the post-Imus week. Both Paula Zahn Now and The Situation Room on CNN hosted more African-Americans than whites during the week of the Imus controversy, as did Hardball on MSNBC.
The nearly complete absence of Latinos from the cable shows' guest lists is particularly notable. In 2004, the U.S. Census estimated that Hispanics made up 14 percent of the American population; given patterns of population growth, that number is undoubtedly higher today. Yet Hispanics made up less than 2 percent of the guests on these programs during these three weeks. In fact, this number represents a total of only 13 guest appearances, six of which were by Geraldo Rivera.
Simply put, the typical guest on a cable news show is white and male. This becomes stark when we compare the proportion of white men to the proportion of minority women:
Gender of guests
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC did not fare particularly well when it came to gender diversity in any of the three weeks. Among the individual programs, there was more variation. The most gender-diverse program was The O'Reilly Factor, with a nearly even split between male and female guests during all three weeks, increasing Fox News' overall proportion of female guests. Despite the fact that the remarks that touched off the controversy were not only racist but misogynistic, only Paula Zahn Now and The Situation Room increased their proportion of female guests substantially from the first week to the second. And three others, all of which air on MSNBC -- Scarborough Country, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and Hardball -- all hosted fewer women during the week of the Imus controversy than the week before.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that at least during the period we examined, cable news remains an overwhelmingly white and male preserve. The Don Imus controversy put a momentary dent in this pattern as a result of the increase in appearances by African-Americans over that week -- but only a dent, and not a particularly large one at that. When an issue involving gender and race/ethnicity dominates the news, the cable networks do bring on a more diverse lineup of guests than they ordinarily do. The question, then, is why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time.
Although our analysis of guest lists covered the relatively brief period of three weeks, the results suggest that if the cable-news networks want their guests to represent the full spectrum of Americans, they have a long way to go.
RSS Feeds
(in comes the first and minority po*nst*r.. I mean poster to weigh in on this piece)<--------
Do cable-news producers view the guests added to the lineup during the Imus controversy as qualified to talk only about issues of race, and not other issues of national and political significance?
Yes. Is it that hard to figure out? It's fairly obvious that some have no opinion on national issues until it directly affects them.
Unless you're subtly suggesting that this "white male preserve" indicates a conservative slant to these programs, thereby suggesting that women and minorites are being "locked out" because they represent the liberal point of view, when this study does not report specifically on any conservative misinformation, is puzzling and begs the question - "why this is here"?
Oh, what a surprise. You completely ignore the substance of the article in order to play topic cop again. The better question is, why are you here?
I read the entire article, thank you.
Speaking of ignore, if you find my presence here so reprehensible, feel free to ignore me. You offer nothing except rubberstamping every item here, and if that's the best you can do.......why are you here?
You read it and your only comment is, "Why is this here?" That's my point.
But just to answer your question, it's here to show the lack of gender and ethnic diversity on cable news. But of course somebody who read the article would know that, and they might even have an opinion or some other on-topic comment of substance to make about those findings.
What is there to have an opinion on? Are you looking for me or someone to say "No, we don't need anymore women or minorities on these shows!"
I realize you can't think for yourself and come here to lap up every item without criticism, but some of us read and offer up varying opinions and viewpoints as an intellectual challenge.........not merely a puppet to parrot the same conclusions as the piece itself. Try a little independent thinking if you're able - then you can wash it down with your kool-aid.
Interesting comment considering that you did nothing to actually address what the post was about.
If you actually think that trying to stifle conversation by arguing what MMFA can and cannot discuss makes you an independent thinker, continue deluding yourself.
Interesting comment considering that you did nothing to actually address what the post was about.
You didn't read his first post? Since then, how many of the other posts are on topic? NONE! Tommy hit a bullseye and clams gives the topic the undeniable rubber stamp of approval without even reading it or offering an opinion on the subject. Clams clearly is only posting to denigrate those who offer an opinion that differs.
PS, YOU are not on topic, either!
You could start by addressing the question posted at the end of the article: "The question, then, is why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time."
See Bruce's "math equation" below.......that is exactly the impression that is being purported by this piece.
Actually, that doesn't address the question at all. You're still playing the "meta-debate " game. Instead of giving your opinion, you (or rather, Bruce) is pretending to divine MMFA's "hidden message."
It most certainly addresses the meat of why this study is here, as it offers no misinformation whatsoever. You want to engage in some debate over what? It's truthfulness? Nobody is suggesting this study is untruthful. What exactly are you looking to discuss, exactly?
"It most certainly addresses the meat of why this study is here, as it offers no misinformation whatsoever."
If that's what you think the meat of the topic is, then you clearly haven't figured out the meaning of "meta-debate" yet. The rest of us, who aren't concerned with how closely MMFA adheres to their mission statement, can see that there is something other than "Why is this here?" to discuss.
If you can't answer my question, what is it exactly about this topic that you wish to engage in, specifically? What is this topic really saying about conservatives and white men, in your opinion?
If you won't answer, then move on.
Again:
"The question, then, is why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time."
Again;
Women and minorities would be a welcomed guest on any of these programs, nobody would argue the contrary.
Why do you believe they are being "locked out"?
I believe they're being locked out because the people who make those decisions are, overwhelmingly, white males.
Interesting, so you're saying that Larry King and Keith Olbermann (both included in this study) among others, who are very involved in the booking of their guests, especially Olbermann who writes all of his material, purposely avoid booking women and minorities? Why would that be?
You seem to be the only one dividing this along partisan lines. What I said applies across the board, but you're putting words in my mouth when you claim that I said everyone does this intentionally or with malice. By the way, Olbermann's regular guest host is a black woman.
I am very glad to hear you finally admit that racism and sexism does not exist along partisan lines, and that one's ideological makeup is in no way indicative of any racist or sexist feelings, one way or the other. That absolutely no correlation exists with those that exhibit racist or sexist feelings with their political or ideological affiliation.
Oh and by the way, Michelle Malkin regularly subs for O'Reilly......what's your point about Olbermann's guest host?
"That absolutely no correlation exists with those that exhibit racist or sexist feelings with their political or ideological affiliation."
I agreed with you up until that point (although I don't know what you mean by "finally admit"). Obviously a correlation exists. Do you honestly think that liberals are just as likely to be racist or sexist as conservatives?
I don't believe that one's ideology has any bearing whatsoever on whether they exhibit racism or not. There are liberal racists, there are conservative racists, there are decent liberals with no racist qualities, and there are decent conservatives with no racist qualitities.
Obviously you disagree, and that really is what this whole thread is about, isn't it?
"I don't believe that one's ideology has any bearing whatsoever on whether they exhibit racism or not."
That's absurd, and very plainly false. I don't know, maybe you just don't understand the definition of "ideology" or something, but your post is utter nonsense. You might as well say that one's beliefs don't have any bearing whatsoever on what one believes.
It should be obvious that conservatism attracts those with racist/sexist beliefs and/or fosters those racist/sexist beliefs. The same cannot be said for liberalism. Yes, there are racists and sexists on both sides of the fence, but the right wing has the monopoly.
I like how you score points, irrefutable ones, and Tommy shuts up and fails to acknowledge that he was bested.
...Yes, there are racists and sexists on both sides of the fence, but the right wing has the monopoly.
So that is what is considered an excellent point? Sounds to me like somebody read "Animal Farm" and did not quite understand it.
Your implication being that left are just as racist/sexist as the right? Nonsense. Next you'll be telling me that there are just as many black Republicans as there are black Democrats.
To get into a serious racial discussion with you is futile, as I have already stated my opinions. And for you to bring up Democrats and Republicans just shows your ignorance, this has nothing to do with some silly political affiliation - it is far broader than who votes one way or the other, how absurd.
Your blanket condemnation of conservatives as more inherently racist than liberals highlights your very own bigotry. There is absolutely nothing racist about pure conservatism, or pure liberalism for that matter. Anyone who believes otherwise is too steeped in their ideological hatred to realize how incredibly foolish and prejudicial that is.
Believe what you want, but the anger and bitterness that cloud nearly all your posts when you engage in anyone who disagrees with you is quite revealing, and sad.
Have a nice day.
"There is absolutely nothing racist about pure conservatism, or pure liberalism for that matter."
Those are ideals, and they are ideals that don't address what I'm talking about. In the real world, most racists reside on the political right. It's as simple as that. And despite your transparent mischaracterizations, I'm not saying everyone on the right is a racist. I'm simply saying that there obviously is a correlation between one's politics and one's racial/sexual prejudices.
Just to draw another parallel for you, what you're saying is akin to claiming that one's religion has nothing to do with one's opinion on gay marriage. There's no denying the connection.
You're full of it, Clams. Check this out and get back to me. Also, since 75 percent of the U.S. population is white and only 12 percent black, the percentage of non-whites appearing on cable news does appear to fall in line with the percentage of the overall population.
If I had a dollar for every time somebody linked to that page as "proof" of liberal racism...well, I wouldn't be rich, but it's funny how often I've seen people pulling out that link. Yeah, Robert Byrd was in the KKK and Jesse Jackson used a racial slur once, so therefore liberals are just as racist as conservatives. Got it.
It says a lot more than that...did you read the whole thing?
Democrats brought up the rear on the civil rights movement and IMO only really got on board when they realized "Hey, these people can vote!!" They figured out they could give minorities freebies like welfare and other social programs and indirectly buy there votes. Many of those programs also made sure that the recipients could never get out of poverty and would therefore be a loyal democratic voter for a long, long time.
Prove it. How do social uplift programs create a dependent class?
And yes the Dems brought up the rear on the civil rights struggle but after social progressives took back the party all the southernDemocrats jumped ship and became Republicans.
It's a tired tale really and Clams was right on about conservatives retelling it and retelling it as if it has any relevance today.
According to most of the percentages demonstrated by MMFA above, whites are still largely over-represented on most of those shows most of the time...and that is not even taking into consideration that you are obviously avoiding mentioning gender completely. White males comprise less than 40% of the general population, but you would never notice it from watching these shows.
because only those evil right wingers put merit ahead of fairness
Precisely. That is why this administration apparently only made merit based appointments of Michael "You're doin' a great job, Browny!" Brown, Alberto "I know nothingk!" Gonzales and Dick "I choose myself!" Cheney. Anyone who says loyalty is often the bigger consideration by "rightwingers" must simply a complete nutjob kook!
Tommy instead of asking why this is here why don't you address the substance of the item?
If you don't think an item should be here then why don't you just refrain from posting "why is this here" to start with? You can follow the advice you gave CC and just ignore it.
he does a bit lower down, mostly in racist terms
Personally, I eat stuff like this up. This is the kind of stuff I would like to see more often from MMFA. It simply lays out the information and leaves it up to us to decide how to take it.
One thing to also look at, and I don't have the data... but the racial and gender make-up of local network affiliates across the country. If it's comparable then, we have to ask ourselves: Why aren't more minorities getting into journalism?
The question may not be the proverbial "cultural barrier" or "glass ceiling", but rather reason why this profession does not make a better effort to attract minorities.
The same constrast can be made for the: Disappearing White Athlete, or why aren't there many African-American baseball players. If the interest isn't cultivated at the lowest levels — once it reaches the top, the dispairity will be shown. These reports just open up the floor for these type of questions.
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
To back Tommy's statement of "what is this doing here" I'm just still looking where the "conservative misinformation" is in this article. I feel people like Clams are so cought up in getting their regurgitation, they forget why tools like MMFA were actually created.
Tommy great statement. Just because news media is mainly run or aired by white males has nothing to do with "conservative misinformation" especially since media tends to have a leftist slant.
Id like to see a follow up article of why Rap and hip hop is dominated by black males or why designer industries are dominated by homosexual males.
My opinion is that they are the ones that actually WANT to be in those inustries or share interest.
I think you and tommy are a little too hung up on the mission statement. It seems that when MMFA is only attacking conservatives, you guys deride them for being hypocrites, when they point out something that apparently applies to all or most of the talk shows (regardless of ideology), you say "why is this here". It is apparent that nothing MMFA could say or do will appease you or tommy to that degree, so you are relagating your arguments to a form of white noise.
You have made it quite clear that you do not care about gender or cultural diversity of opinions on the air. You are welcome to that opinion. It matters to me much more than that. IMO, it would be nice to see a wider array of demographic groups' opinions represented in the hopes that more ideological or philosophical ideas could broaden the public discourse.
When a service such as what MMFA comes out, makes a declaration that they are for pointing out flaws in conservative media and that they are NOT propoganda driven, I do expect their posts to actually reflect that. I find that most posts here have been more about conservative bashing with the occasional correction rather than the other way around.
I am all for more demographic groups having their opinions heard, thats why I'll watch news just not on NBC, ABC, etc. If you want to hear a latin perspective on things, look to your local spanish news, hell even BET and MTV offer some sort of news service. Granted Manstream, highly funded media is dominated by caucasian males, but this IS AMERICA and the majority of people are still caucasian and speak English.
I think one of the ''problems'' is that people who actually watch the news, trust professional white males rather than someone who is there just because they are popular i.e. Katie Couric or Jessie Jackson.
"Granted Manstream, highly funded media is dominated by caucasian males, but this IS AMERICA and the majority of people are still caucasian and speak English. " beanz
Is the majority population caucasian male? If no, why do they(white/male) dominate the media? Why is their(male/white) voice deemed more authoritative on race and gender issues like the Rutgers debacle?
This dynamic of white male opinionists weighing in more heavily on race/gender issues is akin to watching the Andy Griffith Show for its ethnic diversity.
Propaganda can be loosely defined as spreading information to help one side or injure another. In that sense, nearly anything can be seen as propaganda, so the word loses its meaning when it is loosened up to the degree to include MMFA.
You are welcome to view MMFA as some sort of instrument of propaganda. I choose to view is as a form of anti-propaganda. I don't see where MMFA makes a claim to be either, so I regard your argument as a worthless strawman.
I must admit, I have not looked up the actual demographic numbers but I would bet that there are similar breakup of our government as there is in the news industry. My main point of my argument was to suggest that yes it is dominatied by caucasian males but what is the point. No matter how much anyone denies their own racism or prejudice, people of certain ethnicities are perceived in defferent manners.
For instance a young well groomed caucasian male with eloquent speech is often associated as trustworthy, knowledgable and professional. In contrast a young black male wearing fresh ''hip-hop'' inspired clothing and speaking ''ghetto slang'' is seen as untrustworthy and uneducated.
My point is that people tend to associate their interests with people they associate with similar interests. How many times do you ask a high school kid for financial advice or an elderly person what the newest pop songs are. I think that viewer's associations bring them to demand who they beleive to give them their news are actually able to.
-open_mind-
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people (definition by Wikipedia)
True it can be pretty genera, that is why I dont use it as a derrogotory term like many here do. If you are not sure what MMFA stands for check out what they say about themselves [link to mediamatters.org] by their own words, they stand for propoganda AGAINST conservativism.
Back to Tommy's original point. This post is about an observation of the demographics in News Media. Where is the conservative misinformation? none? then why is the post here?
The suggestion is not that 'they' are locked out because 'they' are liberal... it is just a straight up comparison of hosts and guests by gender and race... and I can't speak for the other shows, but Shammity and Comely 'other' guests are either buffons propped up to give a dismal defense againgst something Shammity is for, or 'they' are on there to vigorously defend what he says...
Since when did the mission change to patrolling the airwaves for ethnic and gender diversity devoid of any conservative misinformation?
seeing that you have never been able to comprehend MMFA's mission statement, your comments are it are at best the flatulence of an idiot...
"your comments are it are at best the flatulence of an idiot"
And yet you call yourself a mutt and can't even write a coherent sentence. Go figure.
Could you post something other than the rantings of a troll for once?
I do wonder why so many fright-wing trolls do write like 2nd grad drop-outs...
Then you must be a first grade drop out, because most second graders at least know how to spell the word "grade."
Oh Rino, I've seen you drop letters, apostrophes, prepositions, even whole phrases from your comments. Let's not descend to typo-baiting. We all do it.
Oh Val, perhaps you should read mutts assertion that it's just "fright wing trolls" that write like 2nd grade drop outs.......considering the onslaught of name calling, childish, insulting posts he tosses out regularly, he deserved Rino's response.
I think you all are acting like a bunch of poopypants!
; )
ah, another off-topic troll from tommy...
Duh... cable news and politics are dominated by white males... so whats new? As far as this MMFA piece, Think of it as a special comment/Op-Ed. Why does MMFA HAVE to ALWAYS do mis-information/bias pieces to be valid to you, meta argument notwithstanding?
They can post whatever they want, even if it does stray far away from their "about us" mission. And makes one wonder what the agenda really is?
So your saying that any entities actvities must ONLY be limited to the exact words in their mission statement. Ok so corporations that give to charity but don't explicitly say it in their mission statement should just stop? Do they have a hidden agenda? Thats absurd Tommy.
I wonder how many corporations have it in their mission statement to bribe politician ...
DTrain said
"Thats absurd Tommy."
I think what he meant was "That is absurd, Tommy", but what he said is also accurate.
That (poster right there) is "Absurd Tommy"!
makes one wonder what the agenda really is?
Their mission is to annoyingly confuse conservative automatons until smoke billows from their ears.
If this bothers you, don't donate to M...errr...never mind...I'm guessing you don't donate to MMFA now. So, why are you complaining? Are you the the mission statement policeman?
damn... you guys are speed demons.
Lefties, Take note of Olbermann's numbers. "Liberal" does not mean "diverse."
I didn't see Rick Sanchez, a Cuban American, mentioned anywhere in the article. One of the now most prominent faces on CNN is, not only Latin, but someone previously strongly identified with Cuban American culture when he worked as a news anchor in Miami. I'm not debating the article, but this has to count for something.
Rick Sanchez, as far as I know, does not have a show in his name at CNN, but I know what your saying. It means something, no doubt.
MMFA clearly laid out the way this was counted, prime time regularly schedualed shows that have guests. I am just guessing that that does not cover the gentleman you are speaking of.
These organizations make decisions I believe mainly for ratings. Simply put the white males are home are too racist to watch a non-white doing the show.
My husband is black and we recently attended a funeral for his brother in Chicago. My in-laws had MSNBC on the TV at the house afterward. The juxtiposition of all white faces on the teevee and all the black faces in the room made me extemely aware of the obvious imbalance. I had an "aha" moment that day. But the one ray of sunshine is that we were talking about Barrack Obama.
how about talking about Condi Rice?
Condi has no credibility left outside of Dick Morris, who is still desperately trying to sell his old book.
Media Matters poses a question at the end of this study:
"Why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time."
Do any of the right-wingers want to try and answer that question? Do right-wingers approve of the current situation? Do they want to see more diversity, or are they content with white male domination, and if so--why?
Diversity will continue to come naturally to cable as it has to other forms of entertainment, sports & MSM news.
There are more minorities being represented today than even ten years ago on TV, in movies and in various other venues. As there should be.
The conservatives who overwhelmingly own the major media outlets aren't naturally going to do anything. They do what's in their best interest. That frequently involves keeping the status quo. The market doesn't cure anything.
Julia,
Are you seriously going to tell me you don't see more minorities on TV programming, commercials, movies, TV, movie & music award shows, MSM newscasts & morning shows, music, sports, and in many other venues?
Open your eyes, you're obviously got blinders on.
This will probably get me slammed here BUT, I would like to point out that there is little racial diversity in the NBA. Yet it remains popular among a large White audience. Should we bean count there too???
"This will probably get me slammed here BUT, I would like to point out that there is little racial diversity in the NBA. Yet it remains popular among a large White audience."
Before you get slammed, I'm going to take a deep breath and give you a chance to explain yourself. So, what exactly are you trying to point out here? Are you actually trying to pull the "reverse discrimination" card by using the NBA as an example?
Clams, having seen your "games" with Tommy, you'll excuse me if I pass on getting embroiled in any long drawn out [and usually fruitless] discussion with you here.
Read my post to Dave from Chicago for your answer.
My games? You mean when he says something ignorant and racist, and then I call him on it? Yeah, I can see why you wouldn't want to play that game.
"...there is little racial diversity in the NBA. Yet it remains popular among a large White audience. Should we bean count there too???"
Whites still like basketball, in spite of most players being black. Is that what you are saying?
As for "bean counting": the MM study raises the question (note that I said question--not accusation) of whether there is a preference for white "beans", or if there is some other reason.
Whites still like basketball, in spite of most players being black. Is that what you are saying?
Of course not. What I'm saying is that no one cares about the racial makeup of the NBA, it isn't an issue, nor are there any complaints that I know of. So WHY just zero in on diversity ONLY when it's seemingly White dominated?
As I wrote to Julia, and you...things change naturally over the course of time.
As they already have over the past 10-20 years.
"So WHY just zero in on diversity ONLY when it's seemingly White dominated?"
Are you seriously asking that question? Have you ever looked at a history book?
Nice try attempting to twist my thoughts & words..
Tommy may have patience with you.
I don't.
Jeter,
My patience has run out, good idea not to engage any further. You will probably just get called a racist, as I have many times by CC.....which is obviously where he likes to go with those that disagree with them.
You're smart.
I like my clams fried. Any other "forms" of mollusks doesn't interest me ;-)
Way to go Jeter2. Clams just won't come out and say what he really believes. It seems to me that Clams wants to force cable news to diverse itself. I guess the good ol' government should be the one to do this.
"Clams just won't come out and say what he really believes."
Since when? What I believe is that racial/cultural/sexual diversity is a great thing. If you disagree, that's fine too. That's what Idaho is for.
Noone said that it wasn't a good thing. My question for you is what should be done about it? If you believe that cable news locks out people of color along with gender bias, how would you fix it sir?
Let me answer you this way. I am a hiring manager in a regional retail chain. Each manager at each outlet does his own hiring. All of them are white males. My store is the only one in the entire chain that employs minorities. The diversity of the population is nearly identical for each location, and I have to assume that the diversity of job applicants reflects this, so why is my store the only one with minority employees? It may also be worth noting that my store has the lowest employee turnover rate, and the highest profits in the chain.
It's an ugly fact that minorities are often unfairly overlooked when it comes to retail positions. It seems fair to say that the same goes for cable news broadcasting. So, what would I do to solve this problem? If I were in a position to do so, I would begin by booking qualified minorities to provide commentary on issues other than race. To see this in practice, just watch Bill Maher's show. He's had panels made up entirely of black people for shows where race was never even mentioned. That shouldn't be seen as unusual.
That's rather interesting. don't you think that you have a responsibility, as a hiring manager, to bring unfair hiring practices of the company you work for to the attention of the authorities? In any event, now that we know what you would do, it begs the question of what should be done in the present. How can these news organizations be persuaded to act in a fashion that you would? Obviously, we can sit and have mundane debates as to what the problem is. Wouldn't it be prgressive to not only identify the problem, but to fashion a means to rectify the inequality that you abhore? If so, what should be done?
Oh, so now you get to take me to task for not doing enough? Unbelievable. I'm done playing your tired "If you were really a progressive..." game. Why don't you go do something about it, you hypocritical scold?
I don't need to do anything about it. It is not an issue to me. It is your comments that reveal that you believe that this is an injustice. I never indicated that YOU don't do enough. I merely related that if you are working for a company who engages in such practices, by not reporting them you are nothing but a part of the problem. How can you sit and tout your own accomplishments but continue to work for an organization which obviously engages in unfair hiring practices based on race. That is against the law. Obviously you know that lawbreaking is occuring but are doing nothing about it. What does that say about you? And you call me a hypocritical scold, after you take Tommy and Jeter2 to task all the while knowing that you essentially look the other way when the people who sign your paycheck do the same thing as these news organizations cited in the study? Furthermore, you are conveniently side stepping the issue. I am asking you to specifically state what should be done to rectify this injustice (as you see it)? Should news organizations be forced to put more minorities on? Should there be penalities for those who don't? I am merely asking not what would you do personally, but what should and can be done now to make this right.
Typical Right-Wing Authoritarian self-righteousness. I wonder who exactly we're supposed to report institutionalized racism to? The cops? The white male CEOs? I never said my company's hiring practices were illegal, just as nobody has implied that the hiring practices of cable news networks is illega. But like a good little soldier, you immediately look for somebody to report to.
I've already explained how I'm doing my part, and since you don't care about this issue one way or the other, it's pointless to discuss it with you any further.
The DOJ has 2 Black lawyer in their civil rights division out of ~100.
Blah, Blah, Blah. Typical side stepping, issue dodging rhetoric that you seem to utilize all too often. You can't answer the question. You don't even try. How should this issue be confronted? Who should take the lead and persuade these news organizations to do the right thing? Those are simple questions. Obviously you want this conversation to become venomous. That is not my intent. I just want you to back your suppositions with some concrete solutions. By saying something along the lines of 'I would try to have more minorities come n to talk abut issues other than race' does nothing to further the solution aspect of this issue. You seem to be quite passionate about this as evidenced by your comments toward Tommy and Jeter. If that is the case, then stop jabbering about the problem and tell us some viable solutions that could be used to stop cable news organizations from not having enough women and minorities on. How hard is that?
Anyway, you directly indicated that you work for a retail chain in which your store was the only one that hired minorities. That's a problem bud, I'm sure the state and federal Dept. of Labor would be very interested in that. the fact is that you are probably talking out of your ass and when you got called on it you resort to calling me names. Unless of course, you like working for a company who does not hire minorities. Which is it Einstein?
You've already tipped your hand on this one in your first post. "It seems to me that Clams wants to force cable news to diverse [sic] itself. I guess the good ol' government should be the one to do this." That's obviously the argument that you're fishing for, but since I'm not saying that, you're just going to pretend that I haven't already answered your question. I've offered an obvious and a practical solution. But you've already admitted that you don't care about solutions, so quit pretending that you do.
"Anyway, you directly indicated that you work for a retail chain in which your store was the only one that hired minorities. That's a problem bud, I'm sure the state and federal Dept. of Labor would be very interested in that."
Oh, sweet irony! You attack me by pretending that I'm calling for governmental intrusion (an obvious strawman), and then you turn around and chide me for not contacting the "state and federal" authorities about the racial makeup of the company I work for.
"Unless of course, you like working for a company who does not hire minorities."
As I've already pointed out to you, I have done something about that. My company DOES hire minorities, because I'VE HIRED THEM. In case you haven't noticed, it's not just the rest of the stores in my chain and cable news. This lack of diversity occurs in all fields. You can't call your daddy at the Department of Labor everytime a white man hires another white man. And as you've already pointed out, you like it the way it is anyway.
I twisted your thoughts and words by quoting you directly? If you wish to correct what I wrote, then please go ahead. I asked you to elaborate, so if you choose not to, then don't get upset when your words are taken at face value. I think your meaning was clear, but you're more than welcome to explain if you like.
And I told you to read my post to Dave from Chicago.
My anwser to him should have satisfied your question.
If not Clams, then tough.
"And I told you to read my post to Dave from Chicago."
-----
So you believe you are in a position to issue orders now?
isn't little jeter cute! stmaping his widdle feetsies and throwing a tantrum about his own words being examined! LOL widdle frighted-wing babies are funny :)
Jeter, you and your little yes man Tommy really have CC on the ropes (rolls eyes)
Just because you and Tommy state something doesn't make it so, we can all read the exchanges between Tommy and CC just fine without your interpretation or recap. I really had to laugh at the part about the "games" that CC plays as if Tommy doesn't engage in "games" on a regular basis. I know you wouldn't want to bite the hand that periodically pats you on the head.
Actually I get patted on the head here by quite a few Liberals as well. Guess I'm not afraid of biting their hands...Mmmmmm?
Tommy & Clams posts are legendary here...mostly for taking up an extraordinary amount of bandwidth.
Column-width, too... by the time you get a chance to weigh in, you can only fit like one word per line.
Column-width, too
Ah so true Val. The last time I got involved in one of those posts-a-thons that became so skinny it could barely fit more than 2-3 words per sentence was a very long time ago. There used to be this really evil poster here [I'll refrain from mentioning HER name] but she fought with everybody, Libs & Cons, and it wasn't unusual to find these skinny posts on every thread.
"And I told you to read my post to Dave from Chicago. My anwser to him should have satisfied your question."
Well, no, your answer to him doesn't satisfy my question at all. In fact, it only reinforces my original take on what you wrote. So thanks for clarifying, I guess.
There has been talks in regards to the "Disappearing White Athlete", but you're correct these issues only come up when someone cares or they would like to draw some attention to the issue at hand. Other than that... no one cares. No one cares that there are less Caucasians playing pro basketball now, than in previous years, but there has been concern in regards to the lack of representation by African-Americans in the front office of professional sports teams.
If no one cares, it's not reported.
"things change naturally over the course of time."
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that minority representation in the fields you mentioned happened "naturally".
I'm no historian, but I think it took a great deal of pushing by a great many people against a fair amount of resistance.
Dave the time period I mentioned [in my posts] dealt with the past 10-20 years. Of course there was a long struggle before that ...however, once changes began to take place, it did seem to flow more naturally.
Empirically, you are wrong, about both women's and minorities' entry into fields in which they are traditionally underrepresented. There is a huge body of research that shows that, while some progress has been made, much of this is attributable to legal changes (including affirmative action), hardly what most people would call a "natural" flow. More importantly, the research is largely consistent in showing that they continue to be grossly underrepresented in most prestigious occupations.
Don't take my word for it--look up the research yourself.
I think this is a common theme among people who feel that racism is over-emphasised in our society (correct me Jeter if I am unfairly lumping you into that group).
Ther perception is that race struggles are something that happened in the 60s (or at latest into the 70s), and that they were resolved then. Since that time, in this formulation, racism has ceased to be a central issue in our society, though some retrograde elements may exist. By and large, as I understand the argument, those that claim they are victims of institutionalised racism are hustlers or at best lazy, looking for others to blame their problems on.
There is absolute disdain for the idea that racism largely just changed its face since the 60s - eschewing Jim Crow laws and the N word - but that it still plays a huge role in hiring and salary decisions, in the enforcement of certain laws and in the harshness of sentences.
Very good, a question. So when MFMFA highlights a question posed by the media such as: Are the Democrats weak on defense?, it's just a question. Nothing leading or anything about that. Sure they won't point it out, you wouldn't think twice about it.
"So when MFMFA highlights a question..."
Do correct me if I am wrong. But I believe they are almost always assertions ---not questions--- that are highlighted by MM.
If you can point to MM griping all the time about questions being asked--rather than assertions-- please do list all the many examples here.
As I recall--having read items here for three years---usually something on the order of Brit Hume's (paraphrasing here) flat-out statement, "Democrats have always been weak on defense". Or 'Democrats are not strong on national security', etc.
Those aren't questions.
I don't personally think there's anything wrong with asking the question, "Are Dems weak?" or "Are Republicans weak?". So long as the answers present some facts in their arguments pro or con.
I don't want to support the trolls, but I seem to recall an article on MMFA about the transformation of assertions into "questions" by FoxLies (primary offender) and others. The device involved only adding a "?" at the end of the assertion, as though it were truly a question, but performing the subsequent lying as though a clear-cut decision had been by God or Flying Spaghetti Monster, pre-ordained in favor of the Repugnants. So, yes and no.
I understand your point. However, we're not talking about the viewing habits of those that watch cable news. If all they watch is FOX News, then that's about as diverse as a Ku Klux Klan spring picnic in Harrison, Ark.
However, if you watch various shows across various networks (on cable I watch SPIKE, USA, TNT, FX, Comedy Central and SCI-FI), listen to various forms of music (I tend to gravitate towards British Pop, Norwegian Goth Metal, with some Billy Joel sprinkled in for good measure), and take in a wide variety of movies (I love Asian and French films), then yeah! I'm going to see a bunch of diversity.
At the same time, I have family members that all they watch is the Outdoors Channel, whatever soft porn that shows up on HBO, listen to Lynyrd Skynyrd and Willie Nelson (there's nothing wrong with Willie Nelson), and watch reruns of John Wayne films, then you'll see the difference.
I'm probably the one millionth to say this, but you can't properly compare profesional athletics to other fields. In sports, achievement is much more based on skill level than other fields. And in basketball specifically Blacks have on average a lot more quick twitch muscles which allows quicker and more explosive movement---better quickness to get around the defense and to stay with your man when on defense. Also higher vertical leaps.
"Quick twitch muscles" is straight out of The Bell Curve. It was proven false years ago. But racists still believe it.
I had thought this was fairly common knowlege. I just googled it and found a ton of sites, and they refer to it as though it is common knowlege---accepted science. I would give links but can't copy/paste on my browser. Also The Bell Curve is about intelligence not athletic ability.
can't copy/paste on my browser
What are you using, Lynx? I couldn'r find anything.
I'm using Mozilla-Firefox. It doesn't allow copy/paste here. I'll transcribe a couple sites for you. But I suggest you google the following---- +("fast twitch" OR "quick twitch") +muscles +Blacks.
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17190/article_detail.asp
Try Google Scholar rather than a full-web search when you're looking for scientific studies...
Architectural characteristics of muscle in black and white college football players.
Also: try ctrl-C / ctrl-V rather than the icons when using Firefox.
I can't find a scientic study to back up or refute the quick-twitch assertion. However the study you cite refers to the outward form of the muscles, not the differences in the fibers which make them up.
Jeter, we are talking about "news" media but I give ya credit for trying to change the subject. Are you seriously telling me that the people on TV news are not white and male for the lmost part? Maybe you have blinders on.
Me, I watch figure skating and nary a black face do I see. I see some women selling bathroom cleaner, etc. on the few commercials I watch. Maybe a more pertinent question would be why is there a paucity of minorities in sports management positions? That's if you want to change the subject.
Julia,
Apparently you missed [or ignored] what I wrote to you in my other post . Here's an instant replay:
Diversity will continue to come naturally to cable as it has to other forms of entertainment, sports & MSM news.
It's happening in other venues, it will eventually happen in cable news.
and it has been shown that your definition of 'natually' differs 100% from the dictionaries
Could you please define "naturally" in this particular senario?
You make it sound like one day our country just decided that giving minorities equal rights and access to opportunites just happened all on its lonesome without people having to fight for it.
Yeah, it was only what - 100 years? - between the emancipation proclamation and when they actually stopped forcing blacks to keep to the back end of the bus. Maybe Jeter is ok with it, but MOST people prefer to not go to their graves assuming that change is coming...
Already covered that on another post. K?
"Of course there was a long struggle before that"- jeter2 / Monday May 7, 2007 03:59:41 PM EST
No, you didn't really cover it, because there is still that long struggle going on.
There is no "long struggle" that happened in the past. That struggle is not done, it is ongoing. The fact that you think that struggle happened in the past is very telling.
Jeter why are you having such a "hissy" fit about being questioned on this topic? Do you think your above being questioned on this issue and you can just dismiss follow up questions? (in a very arrogant manner I might add)
About Jeter's attempt to ignore the facts and derail the conversation...
Any player of any race or nationality has an equal chance of playing in the NBA if he's qualified.
That's clearly not true in the MSM. Whites are not more capable of doling out the news than blacks, yet they dominate the airwaves.
"People" in the USA want to watch good basketball players, regardless of their race. Most of the NBA caliber players happen to be black right now, but there are plenty of outstanding white players too.
"People" in the USA want to see qualified, capable Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities in the media too, and they are not yet fairly represented based upon the talent pool that is out there.
"People" in the USA want to see qualified, capable Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities in the media too, and they are not yet fairly represented based upon the talent pool that is out there.
How about we do it by demographics? The number of newscasters and guests each network would have to employ or present as guests must correspond to their percentages according to the census. No more, no less. They can fight among themselves on gender. Sounds like a liberal solution. Of course White still leads the pack, so I suppose the lefties will still fuss and whine? Sorry that's my best offer, take it or leave it.
White American, 74.7%
Hispanics of any race: 14.5%
Black or African American 12.1%
Asian American 4.3%
American Indian 0.8%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1%
Some other race 6%
You are apparently forgetting that the topic of this thread includes gender as well. And these people are "pundits" -- not "newscasters" in MMFA's study.
I would take your deal if you considered gender as well and replaced the current crop of morons with experts, who actually know what they are talking about.
Reducing an argument to absurdity is not a methodology for analyzing a proposition.
So far, I do not see even one right-winger coming here and deplored the absence of diversity shown in this study.
Not one.
And the study doesn't blame conservatives. It simply asks a question that everybody should ask: why is this so?
This issue ought to cross party and ideology lines. After all, why would anybody not be in favor of a diverse set of opinions -opinions that represent America- on cable news?
I'd really be interested in knowing what sort of person doesn't want more representation from women and minorities. And why
Seems to me that the only people who would not be in favor of diversity would be those who --for some reason-- would want to maintain a status quo of white male dominance.
Hey Jeter, So we should just wait our turn?
Hey Jeter, So we should just wait our turn?
Aw Pearlene did I say that? Or even suggest that's what I thought? Now I'm just being honest here.
Color & gender should have never been a roadblock...but it was. It's finally been changing esp. over the past 10-20 yrs. It's not perfect yet.
As far as I'm concerned anyone qualified should be considered for whatever position they are seeking. Race, gender or any other parameters should not be in play.
Well, gee whiz. That's egalitarian of you, Jeter.
Too bad your conservative brethren who control who gets access to money and power don't see things your way. If they did women in the work force on average would earn more than 25,000/yr and they wouldn't lose nearly a half million dollars over a lifetime because of pay inequities.
So. explain again how gender and race equality of access to fair wages occurs as organically as mushrooms in the spring.
While I agree that the difference between men and womens pay is partly due to bias in the workforce my hunch is there might be other factors at play. In general I think men define themselves more by their career. However I don't know how much of a factor this plays in the wage gap. Also women I believe are less likely to sacrifice family for higher pay.
Too bad your conservative brethren who control who gets access to money and power don't see things your way.
Newsflash!
Not only Conservatives wield power in this country.
Plenty of blame to go around. But I bet [somewhere deep down] you knew that.
Really? How many liberal/progressive CEO's are there?
Really? How many liberal/progressive CEO's are there?
Probably more than you'd imagine.
So how do you figure CEO's are automatically Conservative--data please!! [I suppose you figure they're all registered Republicans too? data please!]
Let me guess how you formulated this conclusion.
CEO=Rich=Conservative/Republican
Yeah, no wealthy Dem/Libs-eh? Don't you guys ever get tired of pretending Conservatives are the only ones with power & wealth. Ever hear of Limousine Liberals? That term didn't materialize for no reason...
Tell me do you figure [using the same formula] that Financial Advisors are automatically Conservative/Republicans too? After all they are in the business to make themselves & their clients wealthy. And we all know Wealth=Conservative/Republican [sigh]
Well my Financial Advisor is a Democrat/Liberal. Once was one of the tops guys running Gary Hart's campaign. He's wealthy...and he's doing his darnedest to make me wealthy too....God Bless His Liberal/Democratic Heart O:-)
"Ever hear of Limousine Liberals? That term didn't materialize for no reason..." J2
Yeah, I have heard that term and just like welfare queen, partial birth abortion, abortion on demand and death tax it materialized in some right wing think tank in an attempt to create misleading narratives.
Anyway, you answer my questions with anecdotal evidence and ask me for data! Whatever. Which party receives more corporate donations?
Also, you completely dodged the the main point: How does your theory of the natural progression of equity account for the gender and race based pay INequity, which exists today, after all these many decades since the civil rights struggles have been resolved?
Convince me how the free market has produced equal access to wealth through its level and fair competitive playing field.
Liberals and Democrats are obviously boycotting these shows as you all have encouraged them to do, since they just get shouted down or are outnumbered anyway. So you got your wish. Now I see it was a ploy, don't go on the shows so we can point out how non-diverse they are. Nice strategy.
Well said Bruce. How many times have I said that Hillary Clinton, for example, should go on these shows and immediately come the liberals exclaiming "why should she? She is just legitimizing Fox and the others!".
Now this study comes out and whines non-diversity. Incredible.
Ok now you 2 are just pullin sh*t out your a** and off your rockers. A vast "leftwing" conspiracy by liberals, democrats and minorities to guilt trip the media into hiring more minorities by boycotting shows? Do you think about what you type before you type it?
Just an FYI: Hillary Clinton is white. Her presence on cable news would not contribute any diversity. Just saying.
This piece is about gender diversity, is it not?
Ah, you got me. Tommy - 1, Clams - 873.
I thought women were considered a minority even though they are the majority. I'm all confused.
It's called moving the goal posts. Another Liberal tactic ;-)
As far as I can tell, the only one moving the goal post is you, Tommy and Bruce. This piece is about minorities in gender and/or race. Period.
Maybe it's time to admit that cable news is as diverse as the republican field of presidential candidates. Other than McCain who pants and wets himself whenever Cheney says "Heel!" who is running for them besides a bunch of white dudes?
Just curious. Are you implying McCain isn't White? Maybe your refering to his ancestry--whatever it is.
I thought by the way he acted he was more like a puppy dog. Now that would be diverse, but it would also be one ugly dog!
Don't think any African Americans are running for republican nominee, though I think condi might end up being chosen as vp running candidate. Alan Keyes has run before on the republican side I believe.
He had the best talk show evah on MSNBC, by the way. He would bring people on and talk over them for a hour.
It was awesome.
Only pick Condi if you know you are going to lose. It might insulate Republicans from charges of racism in the future, but she is a real boat anchor when it comes to winning independent votes.
Condi was a huge failure and her ties to the Bush Administration and the Iraq War would almost guarantee a big loss for the Republicans.
So what is the conclusion here? What is this piece really attempting to say?
The conclusion is...
if the cable-news networks want their guests to represent the full spectrum of Americans, they have a long way to go.
Perhaps you're not satisfied with that, but there it is. Does the author or MFFA have a theory as to the cause? Maybe or maybe not; maybe several. They don't say.
Maybe it's as another poster said...sometimes you don't even realize you're discriminating until someone points it out. Many will probably respond to that defensively and deny any descrimination. A humble person will at least take it under advisement - and I don't mean that euphamistically.
"I thought women were considered a minority even though they are the majority. I'm all confused."bruce
Keep being punks, Bruce, Tommy and Jeter:
A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant plurality of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is disadvantaged with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority".
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
I don't boycott these shows. They just have nothing of substance to offer. I quit watching a long time ago because I like prefer actual news, not spin and fluff.
just one of tommy-boy's many many misunderstandings of the real world. What he is clumsily trying to get across is that he thinks the GUESTS invite themselves onto TV programs. The depths of his ignorance is amusing and immense.
Just out of curiosity, if the Republican tent is as big as claimed, how come y'all don't have enough women or minorities that you consider worthy guests?
Exactly what evidence do you have about declined invitations vs. no invitations extended in the first place? And why would women and minorities decline opportunities to appear on the dastardly liberal Keith Olbermann's (and any other host that you guys consider "liberal") show?
It comes down to 1 thing Ratings ! The white racist men at home prefer to watch white men doing the shows. Otherwise they simply switch the channel. Why do you think Imus was kept around so long ? Ratings, Ratings, Ratings !
This is a disease of the media in general, NOT just rightwingers.
You'd think that Tommy would be proud of MMFA for calling out the media on its hypocrisy, feigning outrage over Imus comments but refusing to represent or honor the perspectives of minorities and women on their programs.
Or is your biggest problem that someone is pointing out the overwhelming imbalance?
I don't think it's a problem if MMFA highlights something like this. A little awareness never hurt anybody. When you're white, you just don't take much notice until it's pointed out to you sometimes. I think it's okay to be taken out of the comfort zone once in a while and nothing to get defensive about.
If a lib like Olbermann really cared about diversity he'd resign his chair to a minority. If you have to cheat, pass the fairness doctrine. Otherwise, just shut the f*ck up and compete in the marketplace.
and if you really were concerned about the 'war on terriers' you would sign-up and go fight them 'there'
there we go again. The fairness doctrine is cheating because it prevents you from letting your reich wing smears from going unanswered. You've certainly got Goebbel's Global News talking points down.
"feigning outrage over Imus comments but refusing to represent or honor the perspectives of minorities and women on their programs"
These 2 items, though symptoms of the same disease, are not related at all. Try again.
"symptoms of the same disease, but not related at all"
Wouldn't being symptoms of the same disease make them related?
NO, they are symptoms of the same disease (minority under-representation and exploitation), but they are not directly related to each other. Does that help?
Keith does have Alison Stewart stand in for him when he's gone. I think she's also a daytime anchor on MSNBC.
I don't really care if the're all White or non-White (I"m a white male) or all male or all female as long as they seem to be try to be fair, honest, and not a puppet of mangement or a party. The superficial stuff in a job so important to democracy is best ignored for our own good. That said, they are all puppets to a large extent or chosen because mangement knows how they think and agrees, so maybe it's fairer to spread the jobs around by proportion to the population.
White self-congradulation in the Media is definitely part of that problem. Everyone felt really good about criticizing big bad racist Imus, but as this survey proves, there is little broadcast media interested in the perspective of women and minorities.
What is not exploitative, if not the media having black guests to draw ratings during a race based controversy, and ignoring them the rest of the time?
Rush had a poll going for a while about which msnbc host show step aside to make room for a black host. I don't know who his audience ended up picking... I think Chris Matthews came out on top.
ok... I'm not really following the double negative on your last sentence.
Again, these things are not directly related to each other, but are a symptom of a common problem.
Imus had to go. He was past his expiration date. Sheesh. Most of these other dinosaurs can go as well. They have nothing to offer in the realm of ideas. They are the most vacant lot of stumbling idiots I have ever seen. Corporate media is a joke.
I think Beck is pretty funny myself. You know the other day he went to a rally and stood side by side with Al Sharpton. He was the only white guy there according to him and they marched arm in arm ! Though you have to listen to Beck's radio show - it is better than his TV show. His childish humor is the best !
My bad. It is exploitative for the media to call on black voices to draw increased attention to their programs during a racial controversy, then ignore them the rest of time. How is the media's behavior in this circumstance different from larger issues of minority exploitation? Especially when the media spent so much time finger wagging at Imus and Hip-hop music?
Stop the presses!! How come no righties are holding Michelle Malkin up as an example of minority and gender diversity?
Personally I can't stand her, but it seems she's the obvious example.
That's because the right think they get to count her twice. They get soo confused when you point out that double count!
I don't know how much exposure it got around the country, but this week is the 15th "anniversary" of the L.A. riots. I turned 30 that week. Like most of us, when I was 20, I thought 30 was pretty old.As I hit 30, I realized I was going from a period in my teens and 20s when I thought I knew everything, to an age when I was starting to realize how little I knew about anything.
I live less than a 1/2 hour drive (on an imaginary non-trafficy day) from where the riots were, but isolated by living in a county that is home to about 10 Black people. A sizable Latino and Asian population, but I live among mostly White people.
I was working in the South Bay and L.A. quite a bit during the O.J. Simpson trial, as well as during the Rodney King case, remodeling homes. I was in the homes of many African Americans during this time, and it was pretty eye-opening, the difference in perception of these issues.
While I saw O.J. as a case of a rich guy skating where somebody without the money and fame would've been nailed, and I saw the King case as cops getting away with something civilians would not have, Being a white guy, I didn't put nearly as much emphasis on race as the Black people I spoke with at the time did.
Whether I agreed or not with the opinions of other people I talked with, I did have to realize that, right or wrong, the perceptions of justice and "the system" in general varied widely according to the observer's race.
I turned 45 today, and am learning every day how many millions of things I'm ignorant of. I'm trying to constantly do something about it.
I hope this doesn't seem too off-topic. My point is, as easy as it is for white guys like me to think matters like the number of minorities on TV are insignificant, I believe it's more important to realize that it is a very visible matter to others.Pointing it out at least gets a discussion going and keeps everybody honest, and that can't hurt.
Happy Birthday HBL, good post!
And since I'm going off topic, other reasons why today is important;
May 7th , importance of...1824 - World premiere of Beethovens 9th symphony in Vienna, Austria
1915, the German U-20 sank the British ocean liner Lusitania.
1945 - General Alfred Jodl signs unconditional surrender terms at Reims, France, ending Germany’s participation in WWII
Bulgaria - Radio and Television Day
BIRTHDAYS OF NOTE-
1833 - Johannes Brahms
1840 Peter Tchaikovsky
1885 - George "Gabby" Hayes,
1892- Archibald MacLeish, poet, dramatist, and ninth Librarian of Congress
1901 - Gary Cooper
1919 - Eva Peron
1930 - Totie Fields
1933 - Johnny Unitas
1945 - Christy Moore, Irish folk artist
1950 - Tim Russert
1955 - My stoopid brother, still unappreciative of the magnificence of the 7th birthday gift he received in my glorious birth.
1961 - Phil Campbell,British musician (Motörhead)1962 - Yours Truly, HuntingtonBeachLefty
1968 - Traci Lords, "actress"
1975 - Nicole Sheridan, American porn star
This should get deleted quick.Thanks, Wikipedia!
Happy Birthday, HBL. Your brother (and we) are lucky for the gift of you.
Har! He (my brother)says he got a raw deal.Unfortunately for him. my mom spilled the beans that he (having 3 sisters at the time) prayed to God for a brother. I get to rub that in every year.
I'll say it:
Why is this item here? :)
Because among other stated and unstated purposes, this is a comunity. Congrats HBL.
I think you maybe missed that I was joking with HBL.
Wait. it gets worse! Take it from an old guy.
Each year I find out how limited my understanding of the world gets. When I was young, I had it all figured out. There were few gray areas. There was black and there was white. Now I know that the world and we get grayer every day.
The hardest thing for anyone to do is to try to approach any subject as an outsider. It's the only way anyone can begin to understand the human condition.
Anyway, great post Birthday Boy. Many more to come. Don't stand too close to the candles.
Thank you, one and all, for indulging my thread derailment.Did I do that?
Happy (belated) Birthday, you old troll!
; )
I'm wishing we could address this issue in politics first. The Democrats are hardly making an effort to encourage growth of diversity in their ranks, although they're head and shoulders above the "We're White, and We're Right!" Republicans. Looking over the list of candidates from both parties is saddening. I do hope it improves in the future.
"Looking over the list of candidates from both parties is saddening." --blr
It should be pointed out that the two current "front-runners" in the Democratic Party Presidential campaign are a white woman and a black man. Don't poo-poo the Democrats too much, but there is always room for improvement.
The Dems are ahead of the Republicans, but two non-white-males in the field isn't necessarily something worthy of a pat on the back. The Democratic party is still heavily steeped in a white male status quo in terms of leadership and those serving in office. I'm glad to see this improving, but I would think we would have made more progress by now.
Perhaps I am spoiled by the last pick of candidates from the Democratic party.
It looks like Keith Olbermann is the 2nd worst offender for having predominently whites as guests. Whatever happened to liberals promoting diversity? I guess they can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
How about a little diversity in your use of tired cliches? I guess they can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Dude, that's about as played out as "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."
Okay. How about saying that LIBERALS ARE COMPLETE HYPOCRITES. Does that sound better.
Sure does. Almost as good as INTERNET TROLLS HAVE THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND.
Don't suffocate, now.
Actually, it doesn't sound like anything. This site is made up of pixels on a screen that form words, so there is no sound. And, in your case, they don't even form words, unless you can find "hypocrites" in the dictionary.
Here it is, genius.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrites
Whoa, I'd have to say you got him on that one Rhino. Easy, you gotta rephrase that one. I think I know what you were trying to say though.
I see what MMFA is getting at. We need more minorities, women, etc. reporting on Anna Nicole and other pressing cream filled twinky BS issues that pass for news these days. Why should they be left out of the systematic process of keeping us fat, dumb, and happy as their sponsors push prescription drugs to ward off any chance of reality leaking in, depressing us and making us think or exercise?
All we need now is an average educational and/or career background of the hosts and guests of these shows, and compare the racial and gender background of the population that meets that average with the percentages that are represented. Then we have something.
That would be relatively easy compared to doing it for all the producers and writers and others employed behind the scenes.
Diversity of the puppet masters (ownership and top management) would much more effectively allow more viewpoints to be represented. That's where the internet shines.
One day I hope that people have viewpoints that have nothing to do with physical characteristics. We'll have really advanced as a society by then.
This was a tired argument in the 1970s and ludicrous today. With the small number of guests on these shows it would be a simple matter to find many more qualified guests than needed, regardless of race or gender. The problem is that people doing the inviting are thinking of a small group of mostly white guys.
one day i wish for all property and wealth in the usa to be siezed by the govt and distributed equally among the races and genders.
you forgot your sarcasm html tag.
Everyone felt really good about criticizing big bad racist Imus,
because he deserved it.
but as this survey proves, there is little broadcast media interested in the perspective of women and minorities.
Thats the ONLY thing it proves. But to go even further: there is little broadcast media interested in the perspective of women and intelligent, successful and positive minorities.
I would argue that the media did seek the perspective of minorities in this case. The problem was the ones they choose are shallow and weak. The usual suspects. Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The main catalyst was all of the finger pointing at RAP MUSIC by Imus apologists in the media and (mainly) rightwing pundits.
Like I said, they are symptoms of a common problem, but I think you are trying to give Imus a free pass to bash the problems of the mainstream media. Imus made a racists comment, he was punished. Period.
Sorry, but I think your logic has a fallacy, as does the conclusion of the MMfA article. You are assuming that because certain minority groups seem underrepresented in the media, it's because the media are evaluating the selection of their journalists and guests based on race and gender. If their criteria are different, you have no case.
"but I think your logic has a fallacy"
Show me where the fallacy is. Put up or shut up.
I explained it once. You're assuming that the disparity is because the media sources cited are choosing one gender or race than another. If I argued that the criteria was different, than the racial makeup of the guests has nothing to do with racism or sexism OR a lack of "sensitivity" toward gender/race.
Try harder. That barely made any sense at all.
Simplified, and this is really the last time. Everyone else gets it already.
A 7pm news show focuses mainly on politics. Because of that focus, it prefers guests with at least 10 years of experience working with the government.
The news show's country is 50% blue people and 50% red people. However, only 20% of red people have worked 10 years or more in the gov., while 50% of the blue population has. The news show invites twice as many blue people on its show than red people.
DTRAIN says: That's not right, it's biased, racist, etc.
DEX says: The news show picks their guests on particular characteristics, none of which are whether they are blue or red. Therefore, they are not biased, racist, or culturally insensitive.
Get it? You don't have to like it, but it's right.
"Everyone else gets it already."
You sure? I don't see any comments that support that?
<pre-emptive comeback to a possible response>
Does everyone support mine? I don't know, I never claimed everyone did.
</pre-emptive comeback to a possible response>
"The news show's country is 50% blue people and 50% red people. However, only 20% of red people have worked 10 years or more in the gov., while 50% of the blue population has. The news show invites twice as many blue people on its show than red people.
DTRAIN says: That's not right, it's biased, racist, etc"
Your argument is way off base, nowhere in this article is population and corresponding representation (read- quotas) covered. This is not about that. Nobody is advocating to match the distribution of gender and race in the population. If you know anything about population, WOMEN outnumber men by a factor of at least 2.
Now show me where I said: That's not right, it's biased, racist, etc... Stop trying to read my mind and create positions on subject matter that I never expressed.
women outnumber men by a factor of 2 ? where were all these women when I was single !
in college.
yeah - i should have went to college.
"... your logic has a fallacy, as does the conclusion of the MMfA article. You are assuming that because certain minority groups seem underrepresented in the media, it's because the media are evaluating the selection of their journalists and guests based on race and gender. If their criteria are different, you have no case."
The MMfA article --contrary to what you just claimed above-- does not reach the conclusion that "it's based on race and gender."
In fact, the MMfA article does not reach any conclusion about why there is a lack of diversity.
The article merely states facts and then asks questions.
[link to theadamsfactor.blogspot.com]
Um I'm not trying to give Imus a free pass. I'm pointing out that its hypocritical for the media to criticize Imus when they've shown such a blatant disregard for the perspectives of women and minorities. Having women and minorities on a show during a controversy about race or gender is exploitation but ignoring them otherwise is exploitation. It also suggests that the only issues women and minorities are fit to comment on are such "controversies".
Imus may be a racist, but the media has shown itself to be no less guilty of racism judging by the results of this survey. No one's trying to give Imus a pass, but YOU are trying to give the media a pass by suggesting this is any better from any other form of racial exploitation in the media.
CNN is over-representing the African-American race consistently, compared to US demographics. Racists.
now thats just stupid.
I don't think it's stupid, I was just towing the line. I don't care if there are a higher % of blacks on CNN than there are in the general population.
Where do you get those statistics?
"The media" is a large an infinite entity. You have to be more specific. With you guys its literally ALL or nothing. I tend to view things on a case by case basis.
But, the article made a broad-based assumption from its findings, didn't it?
I mean, would it make sense for the media to get "The Latino perspective on the VT shooter being an immigrant from South Korea?" I think, logically, you'd get South Koreans to opine about it. Since Imus's slur was pointed toward women and african-americans, shouldn't the major media ask more women and african-americans about the affect of the comment, instead of people unrelated to the slur?
This thread seems to have a lot of debate, but I think we can all agree on one thing: Media Matters completely misused the phrase "begs the question" in this article. Please, think of the linguists.
Haha. I agree. You're right.
But, the article made a broad-based assumption from its findings, didn't it?
NO, it ask a general question based on the findings.
I mean, would it make sense for the media to get "The Latino perspective on the VT shooter being an immigrant from South Korea?"
NO, now your going on a hypothetical tangent that didn't actually happen.
I think, logically, you'd get South Koreans to opine about it.
No kidding?... I think thats what happened. Latino's perspectives had nothing to do with it.
Since Imus's slur was pointed toward women and african-americans, shouldn't the major media ask more women and african-americans about the affect of the comment, instead of people unrelated to the slur?
They DID ask women and african-americans about the comment. But they didn't stop there. They also bashed Rap Lyrics as well. Like I said before, they only sought after the shallow and weak usual suspects, Al sharpton, Jesse Jackson and braindead rap artists who cannot properly defend their own music in a debate. Put someone like Mos Def up there or Lupe Fiasco or KRS 1.
I think my "tangent" was related, but ok. You seem to be arguing that the minority guests weren't "quality." The article was arguing that it wasn't right that the minority guest % to go up just because the story was related to minorities. Two different arguments.
No actually part of the same argument, EXPLOITATION. I've been over this before.
"'elp 'elp, I'm bein oh-pressed!"
Exploit and oppress are not the same. You are completely and utterly pathetic. You have no mind of your own, and you can't counter any of the arguments I have put forth.
This is total nonsense. If you have perfect make-up, blond hair, long legs and a rabid right wing agenda you too can become an authoritative political commentator. The camera can fix any imperfections between the head shot and the legs. Your handlers will hone your rabid right wing agenda.
I know I trust pink guys best.
Yes! Holly's back! Sweet... way too much testosterone on the boards today!
Yeah, it's pretty testy with all the testosterone.
Ohhhh... so that's where that expression came from! Never made any sense to me -- like, are they testy because they have to take a test?
I always wanted to believe in the urban legend that testimony derived from testicle. "Haven't got the balls to tell the truth, eh?"
I hate to admit it, but I find a strange attraction to a lot of wingnut hot women. Strange, whats happening....
(looks at pant)<------
waaahhhhh!
seeing these women talk about testicles and balls.... is kinda turnin me on....
wingnut women out---->
liberal women in<-----
You mean everyone's liberal hero Keith Olbermann is racist?He has less non whites on than FNC does.How can this be? How many non whites does media materrs have on staff?
Olby should quit his show and MSNBC show give the hour to Jesse or Al.
your kinda late to the party troll. Go back to your hole that you crawled out of cause this thread is dead.
The study was a glimpse and I would like to see the analysis continued over a longer controlled period of time. Or even looking back further over the past 6 months would be more credible just to see the lines drawn. I am an avid primetime viewer of the Oreilly, Hannity and Colmes, countdown watching the shows daily and tivo them if necessary. I think that the findings will stand up based off my recollection that the numbers for diversity and gender will support this studies finding. The commentary posts are equally hilarious by some posters who went to conspiracy theories of underlying messages of the study with possibly validity but the amazing part is that same rationale will not admit that there is an obvious disconnect representing the dynamic of this country. And it is a bit scary.
why would MM link to a racist?
who is racist?
The study was a glimpse and I would like to see the analysis continued over a longer controlled period of time. Or even looking back further over the past 6 months would be more credible just to see the lines drawn. I am an avid primetime viewer of the Oreilly, Hannity and Colmes, countdown watching the shows daily and tivo them if necessary. The amazing part is I was blessed to be Black American. I think that the findings will stand up based off my recollection that the numbers for diversity and gender will support this studies findings. Im curious to find out why some of the posters on this article are so threatened by it and immediately went to conspiracy theories of underlying messages of the study. There is possibly validity to that assessment but the amazing part is that the same rationale will not allow those dissenters to admit that there is an obvious disconnect representing the dynamic of this country. And it is a bit scary. Sometimes its best "Tommy" to check your political views at the door so you can be reasonable and rational in assessing the facts.
http://theadamsfactor.blogspot.com/I think a lot of folks here dont want to answer a key theme of "are journalist/contributors of an ethnic diverse backgrounds and of the female gender not newsworthy or capable to engage the debates that happen on these networks outside of racial issues. Why can't a latino contributor/guest speak on other issues in this country regardless of race. Are their not enough women and ethnic journalist/contributors? Are the ones that are available not competent enough to engage in these discussions. They do a bang up job finding people for the other issues. Why must black or latino contributions be limited to race. Many minorities are not ambassadors for their race. They possibly may be offer competent analysis, editorial, opinion, expertise on a vast number of issues.
http://theadamsfactor.blogspot.com/
Agree. It's as if white males are allowed to have expert opinions on pretty much everything. They can opine about any topic, whether it's the subject of Muslims, African-Americans, or abortion.
Whereas a Muslim will be called-upon only for their views on Muslims, a black for his/her views on race, etc.
All too often blacks are asked to come on these shows to discuss racial issues and very little else. They are not asked to comment on Iraq, monetary or fiscal policy, and other important and critical issues.
As well as Latino Americans, Asian Americans and so on. Thats where the disconnect lies. This is a diverse country and I don't feel that the networks have an obligation to make their programming diverse but I "beg for answers" on why?
Not sure if this was stated, but 80 percent is roughly the percent of 'whites' in America. Granted, that includes females which are way off here - Also I believe they include latino population in whites - So, it looks like latinos are the ones getting screwed - Caucasians make up around 67 percent after you take Hispanic origins out -
Adam they have an obligation to provide diverse programming because they are broadcasting over the public airwaves.
Cable networks, read the article!!! Cable networks do NOT broadcast over public airwaves. Oh, and airwaves aren't "public", but that's another discussion for another day (specifically the next "fairness doctrine" article).
I agree with M.Savage. Fairness doctrine is the the liberals "Final Solution" to talk radio and cable news.
This is all very interesting. I don't get my info from corporate media because I know it is BS, but I do read left leaning media and I'm not seeing how the "left" leaning media is all that diverse.
If you're a person of color you can only write about that.
From the Village Voice on up to the Nation. If you're a woman again same thing, though in some indy rags you can write funny quirky pieces on art and drinking...
PBS, NPR...hey doesn't look like any POC can play if they aren't playing the token ethnic person role, though I guess the "indy" press has more token spots than the "corporate" press so that makes it ok.
I'd like to see Media Matters do the same comparison with the left leaning and indy press.
Lo Fleming, Braless Living
NEWS FLASH:
ALARMING LACK OF ETHNIC DIVERSITY AT "BLACK COLLEGE SPRING BREAK"!!!!
THIS JUST IN:
DISTURBING GENDER INEQUALITIES AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE "NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN"
BREAKING STORY:
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA HAS A LARGE BLACK POPULATION. THIS BEGS THE QUESTION: "WHY DIDN'T ANY OF THEM SHOW UP TO WATCH LAST WEEKENDS NASCAR RACE AT THE RICHMOND SPEEDWAY?"
DISTURBING DEVELOPMENT:
BET (BLACK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK) AIRS OVERWHELMINGLY LARGE NUMBERS OF PROGRAMS GEARED TOWARD BLACK AUDIENCES!!!
SHOCKING STATISTICS:
THE ISLAMIC AR-RAHMAN MOSQUE IN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA REPORTS VERY LOW NUMBERS OF JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND BUDDHISTS ATTENDING SERVICES!!! AUTHORITIES BAFFLED!!!
PUZZLING SCENARIO:
COMPLETE LACK OF CATS, GUINEA PIGS, MARMOTS, AND HEDGEHOGS BEING BRED BY NASHVILLE AREA DOG BREEDERS!!!
Can you all see just how ridiculous this is? Hey MMFA, get a MF life!
No this just shows how ignorant and stupid you are. WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT MINORITIES. FOR EVERY ONE PRE-DOMINANTLY BLACK COLLEGE, THERE ARE 5 PRE-DOMINANTLY WHITE COLLEGES.
OK, we see how stoopid you are. Guess what. FOR EVERY TEN PREDOMINANTLY WHITE PEOPLE, THERE'S ONLY 1.4 PREDOMINANTLY BLACK PEOPLE.
So, looks to me like according to your math, black colleges proportionatly outnumber white colleges 2 to 1.
"no no but YOU are stoopid.... (insert idiotic rant here)"
You have got to be the most brain-dead, idiotic ditto-head I've seen on this website, by far. Pre-dominantly (insert color) people? Are you on crack? Population within a city, state, college campus etc.. can be pre-dominantly one color or another.
People is not the same as population genius.
Case in point, I was talking about campus POPULATION as being pre-dominantly one color or another. As in one campus may have MOSTLY BLACK STUDENTS and another campus may have MOSTLY WHITE STUDENTS. By far, there are more of the latter, than the former. There is NO such thing as a white minority in America's population overall. The college example was to highlight this point.
Your moronic, imbecilic comparison of animals to minorities isn't even up to the lowly standards of the most idiotic trolling wingnuts.
As the Germans say..."Und?"
Do you have a point?
"An Offer They Can't Refuse" [link to blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com]
As usual with right-wingers, the straw man argument. So easy, even a wingnut can do it!
1. Claim that Olbermann called Limbaugh a "racist".
Straw Man built.
2. Now attack Olbermann for what Olbermann in fact didn't say.
Straw Man knocked-down. Hooray.
This piece is clear and convicing evidence that Black, Latino and Asian men and women (who all identify as such) need to take whatever means necessary to position themselves as station managers and producers. This is especially important for Blacks and Latinos to the extent that the general white perception of them is generally less favorable. In other words, most white people know Blacks and Latinos through media, rather than on a personal level.
More Blacks and Latinos with say-so behind the scenes, and this is a non-story.
Not a news flash but troubling nevertheless. What can we do to change it?.... I am the most published social essayist in my neck of the woods but I cannot get any bites from our local tv outlets.... I am now broadcasting on a public access... I do what I can given the blackout situation it is tough..
I am amazed of the ignorance that seemingly intelligent people have. If you think Olbermann has more than a suggestion of content and our personnel on his show you are naive. As well as for Oreilly or any of the other shows. Some may have more pull than others but issue goes well above the news personalites we see. They in my opinion are no more worth the news that are fed to them through their teleprompter. Thats why the issue poses a more systemic issues. The corporations for some reason feel that a white male overwhelmingly should be the person to give us the news. Television is a very powerful medium. And the subconscious messages that send to all viewers is profounding.
Its not issue of Sean Hannity being a racist. I don't think most conservatives are racist. There ignorance is more social and class motivated to stop completely at a persons race. And I completely independent in my political views. I am one of the very view that stand right don't the middle on social and political issues for both parties.
You got it. It's not about the personalities in front of the camera. It's about the managers and producers behind the camera. When these managers become more Black and Brown--not just for face value, but representative of the vast majority of the ordinary--we'll see better TV and radio product.
Unfortunately, what we would see less of, is the kind of crap that depicts people of color poorly and negatively. And right now, that's what sells.
Gung fu. I think thats a fair assessment. We maybe able to assume that the reasons are purely ratings motivated. Maybe those who overwhelmingly view these shows are White. And blacks like myself make up two small of there target market so the news is an entertainment source the also reports the news. It still poses the question of women being shortchanged on the airwaves.
bring back Bernard Shaw!
I am more concerned that the TV media spends so much time covering fluff (celebraties and their messy divorces or custody cases) rather than more important news stories (Darfur, inner cities, justice department scandal)
Jalis... I agree too. Oreilly spends about 15 minutes atleast a night playing quizzes and analyzing body language of Alec Baldwin. I took 3 classes on that sort of stuff and its subjective at best and that expert is suspect.
The article though just posed a question that reasonable people should consider. I think its worth examining
I think I've got an idea so you libs can feel better, let's take all the surplus of black athletes in the nfl and nba and exchange a number of them to even out both sports (predominately black) and media (predominately white), think about it, we could have Allen Iverson doing the O'reilly factor while Bill tries to play guard for the nuggets. OMG! People in the news are predominately white! It must be a conspiracy! Or....the fact that white people are the majority of the people in America and that men outnumber women in the work place. Here's some more "shocking" truths, the majority of personalities on spanish tv speak mainly spanish. As for the disporportional number of blacks in jail that issue is multi-faceted, lack of funds for good attorneys, inner city culture, etc. That I can't answer, but to be somehow surprised that white males are more common in a particular field is laughable.
I think I've got an idea so you libs can feel better, let's take all the surplus of black athletes in the nfl and nba and exchange a number of them to even out both sports (predominately black) and media (predominately white), think about it, we could have Allen Iverson doing the O'reilly factor while Bill tries to play guard for the nuggets. OMG! People in the news are predominately white! It must be a conspiracy! Or....the fact that white people are the majority of the people in America and that men outnumber women in the work place. Here's some more "shocking" truths, the majority of personalities on spanish tv speak mainly spanish. As for the disporportional number of blacks in jail that issue is multi-faceted, lack of funds for good attorneys, inner city culture, etc. That I can't answer, but to be somehow surprised that white males are more common in a particular field is laughable.
- Sebastion Shaw
U are like most people who are so stuck in their politics that it restricts free and rational thought. Its almost like u didnt even read the article you saw the tone of the title and the possible hint of a political talking points that it put you in to campaign mode forcing you to put on your Coulter-esque mask. Consequentially you are unable to look at it with any level of reasonability and possible accountability. Your final conclusion in that satire filled hooplah showed not only your boxed thinking you missed the theme. Who said anything about the problems with white Anchors being more common in that particular field. Its not a Affirmative Action issue which is conservative pressure point. It poses a social question with in the media world. Have u looked at numbers of qualified people that could be guest and speak intelligently on a variety of topics that these shows discuss? Probaly not. Nor have I. However, I've noticed that if its an issue with a racial theme. The networks can find ambassadors of that racial make-up as quests/analysts. Does that infer that an Indian American that has a political career as a strategist in the private sector can't give dialogue in support of the second amendment. You can't argue that there isn't a short list of those sort of people because if an Indian American walked into a store and shot every one with a gun and killed them they could find 6 Indian Americans to share the screen and speak. So the question is why are minorities in "that work place" overwhelmingly used only with issues of there heritage or race. Could it not infer that they have no other value unless its issues of there race. Tonite for instance, surprisingly after this question was posed I see that Countdown were able to find a african american to speak on planets colliding or something. And Oreilly finds a black women to speak on the Queen of England. Oreilly didnt even see it fit to dispute or Soros-ify Media Matters for writing and performing the snap shot. I watch this networks consistently and that was shockingly disparaging from what normally happens with these topics.
I am a black man. And I don't jump to a big racial conspiracy on everything. I think the problem is systemic and cultural prevalent based off this country view and value of segments of its population.I think the networks add to this for a reason. I think its money motivated and who they they've assessed as there target market and viewership. But do they have a responsibility to step outside of there possible biases and offer a representative make up of this country. I am looking at the question rationally and not being caught up in politics. Its the ability that many on the left and right can't escape. And Mr Shaw you are a prisoner of your politics
Your argument ignores some pretty obvious history. White males have historically controlled the power structure of virtually every industry in the US, but apparently you seem to think all of that is wiped out by a few anecdotes. Not very convincing.
"Your argument ignores some pretty obvious history."
And this is the perspective from which so many conservatives argue on issues of race. We've seen this displayed here again and again. And again and again, this seemingly incomprehensible thing called history is explained to them, yet they keep coming back with the same arguments. Frankly, it's exhausting. And worse, it's awfully depressing to see how widespread and impenetrable this ignorance still is.
Can't Olbermann and Matthews be counted as women?
What about the poll the Rush Limbaugh recently conducted asking what anchor from MSNBC should resign to make way for a minority? Chris Matthews was the winner and thus should resign in order to make way for a minority host. Jesse Jackson was right, CNN, CBS, MSNBC are all white all night. Fox news has Wendell Goller.
Limbaugh is a recovering or practicing Crack Head so he shouldnt be taken seriously. Even the issues that I share and support on the right make me wonder when I find out his take on them. Then I remember that he is most likely hopped up on vicodin and coffee smoking cigarrettes in the booth so I give him a pass but I take him for the blubbering idiot that he is... The scary part is his ratings are off the chart and his support by those listeners are overwhelmingly supportive. Posing the question how many blubbering idiots are their in this country...
Now your just trying to make up issues. What about the lack of ethnic diversity on the BET?
Do cable-news producers view the guests added to the lineup during the Imus controversy as qualified to talk only about issues of race, and not other issues of national and political significance?
Obviously, a resounding and well earned...YES!!
Oh, so now you're just not even going to bother to pretend that you aren't a racist?
Most remarkable for me was the abysmal showing of MSNBC in general, and Keith Olbermann in particular. (it should be noted that Keith may have read this study --- his expert on the "exploding star" story was a black astronomer from Philadelphia's Franklin Institute.)
I personally think that MSNBC's problem is actually a symptom of the lack of diversity in the mainstream media. MSNBC has a deal with The Washington Post Co (including Newsweek) and (apparently) The Politico that provides that network (and Olbermann) with a specific stable of "talent" that is overwhelmingly white and male.
In other words, the lack of diversity at MSNBC is less the result of an "editorial" decision than a corporate one -- "synergy" and "cross-promotion" is the name of the game here. And when the partners you choose make little or no effort to employ a diverse workforce, you wind up with a bunch of white males to choose from.
Has anyone seen a demographic of the people that watch the news? is there a similar result as to who is giving the news to who is watching it?
thats what i would like to know...