|
« How Bahrain's Elected Parliament Got Screwed |
Main
| Jebspam »
Coverage of Cosby Controversy: Update #4
May 24, 2004
As I predicted, Leonard Pitts steps up to the Cosby controversy. Also today, veteran Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg zeroes in on the media's timidity toward the story of Cosby's hard-nosed remarks on black self-responsibility, which he made last week at the NAACP's Brown vs. Board commemoration. I always thought of Bill Cosby as just an avuncular, low-key comedian in a fancy sweater. But he said some very sharp, very candid remarks last week at a celebration....marking the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education. So sharp that most newspapers and media outlets ignored them. But the Washington Post didn't, and I wanted to pass some of his words along to you, both for the sentiments he conveyed and as a reminder that black leaders do actually say these things. It's we, the media, apparently, who tend to miss them. As for all of what Cosby actually said, and just who in print media HAS had the nerve to report the news or comment so far, see my previous posts here, here and here. The last link (from my post yesterday), includes more from the tape-recording of Cosby's speech, as reported by WaPo columnist Richard Leiby. He originally broke the story. In the comment string of the first Rosenblog link above, note the frank and lengthy response to Cosby's message from Larry Evans, a 46-year-old African-American from Seattle. A week later, STILL no coverage of Cosby's shot across the bow in any West Coast dailies, according to my search on Google News. (Let me know if you discover something). We really ARE The Left Coast, huh? Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 24, 2004 07:14 AM Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Coverage of Cosby Controversy: Update #4:
» Bill Cosby on Tavis Smiley's TV Show Tonight from Move the Crowd Tracked on May 26, 2004 10:37 AM Comments:
Mr. Pitts points out in his article on the Cosby speech that racism is still alive and well in America and that "it isn't something black people can cure through self-improvement." If that were true, we would still refer to the Irish in America as "the dangerous classes" and regard every form of Asian immigration as an incursion of "the Yellow Peril." Obviously, racial stereotypes do change over time, sometimes for the better, and this is not unrelated to the disadvantaged groups' efforts at self-improvement. "Racism," Mr. Pitts continues, doesn't care how educated, wealthy or decent you are. It will still call you ignorant, deny you a loan and throw you in jail. It will still give white people unearned advantages on the basis of their whiteness." That is a good definition of "racism"; it is not an accurate description of the public policies most white Americans would support, nor of the racial attitudes most of them have. To the extent that such prejudices do survive--and it would be impossible to deny that to some extent they do--they are to be regretted. But this kind of bias is not grounds for the kind of moral outrage that slavery and de jure segregation once evoked. The Declaration of Independence does not guarantee anyone a moral right to be respected, admired, accepted, loved, or even treated fairly, apart from what the law requires. These must be obtained through the exercise of the only rights it does promise: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How one pursues that happiness will inevitably reflect upon one's own character and upon that of every group to which we are fairly or unfairly assigned. That is not a matter for either regret or celebration; it is just a fact of life. Posted by: Tom Rekdal at May 24, 2004 10:53 AMExcellent counter-points, Tom. Thanks. Posted by: Matt Rosenberg at May 24, 2004 11:18 AMTHe best I"ve read is a point/counterpoint at the URL posted above. Covers both sides very well. http://www.g21.net/radio30.html Posted by: Hal Albert at July 19, 2004 04:44 PMPost a comment
|
|
| Site design by Mystic Sludge Design© | |