When the Livingston Press & Argus began running notices on its web page asking for people to come forward with their recollections of the 1967 Detroit riots, the danger signs were obvious. What kind of recollections would come from people who live in a community that is nearly all white?
The answer came this morning (Sunday, July 22, 2007) in the form of a story titled, "Residents Reflect on Rioting -- 'It Was Hell.'" The article opens with the point of view of a white police officer and appears to focus on white people throughout, emphasizing their fear about being shot by black people.
There are a few redeeming paragraphs, as in the case of one person who says he defended black people against white relatives who wanted to bomb the city. The writer says he "pointed to television pictures showing white people engaged in looting as well, and told his relatives that it wasn't just blacks involved in the riot.
"His family ended up leaving Detroit in 1978, mainly because of declining property values. He said his father's home value went down so much that he ended up losing money on his investment.
"'It's something I'll go to my grave wondering,' he said. 'Why did property values go down just because someone with a different skin color was living by you?'"
But mostly the article is about looting and shooting. It lacks any discussion of the living conditions for poor African Americans that preceded the riots, including severe over-crowding in the small area of Detroit in which African Americans were allowed to live.
The article also assumes a "golden past" for Detroit preceding the summer of 1967, claiming the city's decline began at that point.
African American views of the riots are marginalized by being placed in a separate article alongside the main piece in the package, "Forty Years Later, Detroit Riots' Impact Persists." It's unclear why white and black experiences were separated in such fashion, but the message that sends is unpleasant.
The main piece in the package attempts a balanced discussion of the causes underlying the disturbance, while suggesting that the decline in the numbers of white residents in Detroit had begun much earlier.
That is a view borne out by historical research, including Thomas Sugrue's price-winning work, Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Sugrue also documents the brutality of white homeowners, organized in white citizen councils, toward African Americans who tried to buy homes in all-white neighborhoods in the 1950s and early 1960s. The Press & Argus would have done better to take a look at Sugrue's work before researching its package of articles since the white-on-black violence preceding the riot, including the 1942 white riot, is an important part of the context.
Overall, the package attempts balance in some areas, but falls short because of the assumptions on which it is built -- blacks rioted for no good reason and whites were scared.
2 comments:
Judy,
This is the second time, in the process of criticizing the Press & Argus, that you have assigned to me philosophies to which I do not subscribe.
The first time, you said I think we shouldn't do anything for poor people around the world until they're recruited to be terrorists. (It's in a post called "Press & Argus Column Suggests Dems Won't Fight Terror.")
I offered a response, which you apparently ignored.
This time, it's "subtle racism" and "assuming blacks rioted for no reason."
The main story of this package on the riots you said "attempts a balanced discussion." I'll take that as a compliment. It includes mention of police brutality, real estate "redlining," and employment opportunities — would we have included those factors if we were "subtle racists" and believed "blacks rioted for no reason?"
You take issue with one of the sidebars because it gives the impression that blacks were rioting for no reason. But the underlying causes of the unrest were addressed in the MAIN story. The sidebar was about remembrances of local residents — purely subjective recollections. I thought that was pretty clear.
You also interpret the separation of Pastor Williams' comments as a "marginalization." It could just as easily be seen as an "elevation" — do you notice his interview more or less because it is in a separate sidebar?
I welcome your blog as a potentially useful place to dialog — really enjoyed your thoughts on the prospect of a part-time legislature, for example. And I really believe your commentary could improve the political debate and the newspaper itself in Livingston County.
But if you continue to twist my writing to benefit your political agenda — which seems to include, for some reason, disparaging the Press & Argus at every opportunity — that prospect will continue to be distant.
Respectfully,
-Dan Meisler, reporter
Livingston County Daily Press & Argus
dmeisler@gannett.com
517-552-2857
Subtle racism doesn't have to be deliberate. In framing a story, reporters don't always question the assumptions on which the story and their questions are based. They can go on to write a seemingly balanced story but if it is based on assumptions that they never think about, the overall effect can be biased whether that was the intent or not. For example, while there was a package of stories remembering the 1967 violence, will there be one commemorating the 1942 white-on-black riot? Why remember one, and not the other?
The main story devotes one whole paragraph to a summary of the causes of the riot. And it does not mention white homeowners' violence toward black residents at all, although it does reference "police brutality." That one paragraph is not enough information to counter the image conveyed in the "subjective recollections" sidebar piece.
I see no reason to separate out people's comments based on their race. In our white-dominated society, that says there's the mainstream view and then there's the "other's" view. Separating people marks them as different, and in this society, different usually means inferior. Separating African American views sends an unpleasant message, regardless of whether that was intended or not.
And as for terrorism, the comment wishing Democrats would look the camera in the eye and say they were coming after terrorists was a cheap shot. It falsely represented Democratic candidates' positions on fighting terrorism and I'm not going to let statements like that pass unrebutted.
Post a Comment