Boycotts and Protests

Following the outrage in Ferguson, Missouri that occurred when a grand jury decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, numerous acts of civil disobedience and peaceful protests have taken place throughout the country.  These protests have persisted, gained many supporters, spread to more cities, and there is no indication that they will end any time soon.  They continue, in part, because more incidents of white police officers killing unarmed black men continue to occur, and such homicides continue to go unindicted.  

I think it is a very good thing that the protests have highlighted the issue of police violence and the racial inequities in which police “justice” is often meted out.  That said, I do have the following concerns.  Many attempts to bring about change through boycotts and protests fail because they lack two essential elements:  substantial planning and a preparedness by the participants to make significant, life-altering sacrifices.  For example, the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, which started following Rosa Parks arrest in December of 1955, was in the works for months prior to its initiation (although the planning aspect of it is often overlooked when the history of the event is recounted).  Furthermore, those who participated had to prepare themselves to walk to their destinations for an indefinite amount of days, until their demands were heard and the system changed.  It lasted for 381 days!!!

Though it was successful, that boycott required both the mental fortitude and the physical strength to make it a success.  Do we, as a nation today, have the moxie to follow through with such a protest, knowing that it may cost us physically, financially, mentally?

I am also concerned that there be goals.  I believe that it is crucial the current protests do more than disrupt traffic, hamper businesses and merely make public spectacles.  It is important to me that any boycotts, protests or other civil disobedient actions pursue clearly defined goals.  Those goals can either be symbolic (to raise awareness of an issue), or they can be transformative (to change the nature of a particular grievance).  The United States’ boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow was a symbolic gesture that expressed the USA’s displeasure with the Soviet Union’s actions in Afghanistan (the favor was returned by the USSR in 1984 when the Games were held in Los Angeles).  The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a transformative boycott, meant to change the rule that Blacks had to give up their seats to Whites, and that Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus in deference to Whites.  

I’m convinced that the current protesters want to do more than just give a symbolic gesture; they want to see change to a system that allows for inequities and injustices by law enforcement toward people of color for the betterment of all US citizens.  So a set of goals and a way to see those goals implemented should be prominently featured at the heart of all the protest rallies and media mentions.   

Because this is a national movement with similar issues in play, I think there are some goals that we should all be pursuing in light of the recent court rulings and subsequent protests:

1

      1.    The grand jury process needs to either have both sides of a case represented, or it needs to be done away with.  And it definitely needs to be a more transparent process.  It is not fair that a single prosecutor gets to decide what evidence is presented before a grand jury.  But this begs the question, why convene grand juries at all?!!

2.    The leeway and immunities that police are afforded need to be challenged.  It seems to me that police are legally allowed to mishandle some circumstances.  So those laws need to be changed.
 
3.    Police need to be better trained and/or held more accountable when they do not follow proper protocol.  If they can shoot indiscriminately when they have a “reasonable” fear for their life, then it should also be the case that they be prosecuted if they carry out an action (like murder) that could have been reasonably avoided had they followed proper protocol.  For example, it could be reasonably argued that the cop who killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio should not have driven into so close of a range that he put himself in danger.  Similarly Darren Wilson backed his police vehicle up to confront Michael Brown instead of creating distance.  In either instance both could have avoided confrontation by creating space.  Instead they both did the opposite, and thus a more hostile atmosphere was created due (at least in part) to their actions.  The hostile environment they created then gave way to their (perhaps now reasonable) fear for their life.  Because they started the chain of events that led to them killing Rice and Brown, respectively, they should be held accountable…this should be punishable!!!

4.    Some people need to be voted out of office.  Specifically, the prosecuting attorneys who have fought so vigorously to not indict the officers, and feckless public officials (Like Missouri Governor Jay Nixon) who could have aided in making these processes more fair and/or transparent.

I was delighted to finally hear that the protesters in New York City came forth with specific demands in regard to the police actions that caused the death of Eric Garner.  In the coming days, I sincerely hope that more specific goals are proposed and vigorously sought after to correct the injustices that have occurred.

-Maelstrom

Please Remove Whitlock

Though it is typically not my intent to disparage anyone, I have been so terribly disappointed by ESPN’s decision to continue to use Jason Whitlock in any capacity that I don’t mind in this case.  Indeed I often disagree with his take on sports, but I’m most disturbed by his ventures into social analysis; an area where he has often been demonstrated to be flat wrong, historically/factually incorrect and where his inaccurate and disparaging speculations have done tremendous damage to individuals as well as groups of people.  Instead of just venting in a column about it here at The Vortex, a few months back I wrote ESPN’s Ombudsman to express my displeasure.  Unfortunately ESPN seems bent on retaining Whitlock and, to the dismay of anyone who ever cared about facts and/or black people, letting Whitlock head up a “Black ESPN” site, similar to espnW, ESPN's site dedicated to women in sports (see the recent hire for the site: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/mike-wise-espn-jason-whitlock-washington-post).  Thus I’m posting the letter that I wrote the Ombudsman (see below).  

I should point out that I’m far from the only person who has expressed their disgust concerning Whitlock.  For greater context, you can find some other columns concerning Whitlock by following these links:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1066390-jason-whitlock-shows-true-colors-on-twitter-with-lame-jeremy-lin-tweet

http://deadspin.com/can-jason-whitlock-save-espns-black-grantland-from-hi-1586606960

https://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/marcellus-wiley-response-to-jason-whitlocks-black-kkk-piece/

Dear ESPN Ombudsman, Mr. Robert Lipsyte,

I was delighted to see that ESPN hired someone with your credentials as Ombudsman.  Your many decades of journalism, particularly as it pertains to issues of race, I think lend great credibility to the station; especially because race and sports often meet in both good and bad ways.  Back in March I read your column “Give fans what they want, or should have?”  In the column, you mention ESPN’s “The N-Word” special that featured Michael Wilbon and Jason Whitlock as panelists.  You also ended your column by stating “I look forward to Whitlock’s new site, which he sees as a home for black journalists and fans.”  I would like you to know that I do not look forward to anything Whitlock ever has to say, especially on the issue of race, and I hope this letter makes it clear to you why.  Although it’s been several months since I read your column, and I thought to write you then, I have been, and continued to be, deeply disturbed by ESPN’s insistence on using commentator Jason Whitlock.  So I’m writing you now. 

I am bothered by Jason Whitlock’s presence as a substitute host for Pardon The Interruption (PTI) and as a writer for the network because he has an incredibly horrible track record of making insensitive racial and social comments.  Not only has he been insensitive in these arenas, he is also often factually false when expressing his views on these topics.  Given that ESPN dismissed Rob Parker last year on the basis (at least in part) that he made racially tinged comments directed at NFL player Robert Griffin III (RG3), I would have thought as a matter of consistency that ESPN would not hire someone like Whitlock given his long, extensive and egregious track record of racially insensitive and inaccurate statements.

Let me say at the outset, although I do draw the Rob Parker comparison several times in this letter, please don’t miss my point.  Whether or not there was ever a Rob Parker (whom I was aware of and saw on the network numerous times, but never cared to follow), Jason Whitlock is not a credible writer or commentator on the merits of what he’s said and written in the past.  This is about Whitlock’s deplorable track-record, not simply a lowest-common denominator comparison.

I could list numerous times when Whitlock has made ginormous missteps.  I won’t even get into the over-the-top and out of bounds and on its face wrong racially incendiary comments he made concerning the circumstances that caused the death of NFL player Sean Taylor in 2007 – a circumstance in which he violated every rule of human decency and compassion, while violating every basic rule of journalism, like getting your facts straight.  But for simplicity sake, I'll focus this letter on his 2013 comments aimed at NBA player Jeremy Lin.  Following a superb performance that added to the so-called 'Linsanity,' Whitlock tweeted the following:

'Some lucky lady in NYC is gonna feel a couple inches of pain tonight.'

This statement was an obvious reference to the stereotype that Asian men have small penises (Lin is of Asian descent).

Instead of apologizing for this insensitive infraction, Whitlock responded with a very convoluted response that raised numerous other problems. In part, he said

'...I then gave in to another part of my personality — my immature, sophomoric, comedic nature. It's been with me since birth, a gift from my mother and honed as a child listening to my godmother's Richard Pryor albums. I still want to be a standup comedian...'

Apparently that’s what qualifies as an apology in Whitlock’s mind (you can find his full “apology” online with a simple google search).  Again, I point out that Rob Parker was dismissed from ESPN with the racially charged statements directed at RG3 specifically cited as part of the rationale for his dismissal.  Yet, several months later, Jason Whitlock was re-hired despite his racial stereotype comment directed at Asian-American NBA player Jeremy Lin?  How in the world are those two realities reconcilable?? I fail to see how Whitlock's comment directed at Lin (and the disconcerting non-apology that followed) is somehow more desirable than Parker's comments to RG3.

Part of the irony in Whitlock’s non-apology is his apparent admiration for Richard Pryor who is THE GUY who made the use of the ‘n-word’ prolific amongst black people as a term of endearment through his comedy sketches. 

In February, I watched ESPN’s Black History Month special about “The N-Word.”  Although I tuned in with intrigue, the show immediately lost credibility when I saw Whitlock was present as a part of the panel.  Once again, I don’t understand why or how someone with his track record was ever allowed into this discussion.  As I watched, I heard Whitlock literally fabricate a reality based on his position.  I am specifically referring to his insistence that (and this is a paraphrase) ‘the last word that a black man heard when he was killed by a white lynch mob last century is the same last word that he hears when he’s killed by another black man in the streets today.’ 

REALLY??? 

What an incredibly ridiculous simplification of reality.  That statement has so many flaws and it was completely unsubstantiated by Whitlock with any facts or evidence (mostly because it can’t be substantiated with any facts or evidence because the facts and evidence do not agree with this statement).  This very flawed statement (that Whitlock stated as matter of fact) ignores an enormous amount of tangible, documented data concerning circumstances in which black men have been killed in the last century up to today.  It also ignores the fact that white people use the term, often with hateful intent (e.g. NFL player Riley Cooper, comedian Michael Richards).  His view of the n-word makes it seem as though only ignorant, young, hip-hop generation black people use the term AND that the term can ONLY be used with maliciousness.  This is despite the fact that his friend, Michael Wilbon is not young or from the hip-hop generation, and he is not ignorant about the term and the ways it has been used, yet Wilbon uses the term ‘every day,’ including using it as a term of endearment.

Whitlock, who often speaks in a cavalier, 'I know it all' manner was also false in his characterization of the n-word's history. He said the history is rooted in hatred. It actually is not. The term was used for millennia as merely a word to describe someone who was of dark skinned African descent. For example, the word from whence it is derived is used in the Bible to describe Simeon the Niger (Acts 13:1). The term is Latin in origin and simply meant black. It was not until the turn of the 20th century that it began to be used by white people toward black people with hateful spite. (As a side note, I was also disappointed in Bob Ley and all the panelists for not knowing this fact prior to commencing the special).

In general I agree that anyone who wants to be respected should refrain from using the term.  However, I don’t need to make up scenarios in order to espouse that position.  The Sunday after “The N-Word” special aired, I heard John Saunders commentary on “The Sports Reporters” about how the word shouldn’t be used.  Why not use John Saunders as a panelist on “The N-Word” special?  Why not Chauncey Billups, who appeared briefly in the special and claimed that same position?  There are any number of other credible writers, athletes and journalists who could have represented the position Whitlock represented who don’t have the deplorable history of racial falsehoods and missteps in their background that Whitlock has, and who wouldn’t have made up scenarios to make the same point.  Why use Whitlock?

And I guess that’s the big mystery as well as the big point I want to make.  Whitlock is not necessary!  There are hundreds and hundreds of journalists who are credible and don’t have a terrible track record like Whitlock; many of them already work at ESPN, and there are many that don’t work there who would jump at the opportunity to be ESPN employees.  Whitlock brings nothing positive to the table that couldn’t be provided by other commentators.  Whitlock just brings discredit and dishonor to the station, as I hope I’ve outlined here.  I could continue discussing his disparaging comments about Scoop Jackson and Mike Lupica (which apparently got him fired from ESPN before), or his incredibly flawed, arrogant and condescending statements about DeSean Jackson when he appeared on PTI earlier this year following Jackson’s “gang-ties” controversy.  Whitlock’s journalistic ‘rap sheet’ is long and terrible!!!

And I'm certain all the things I've written about here are things that ESPN was cognizant of when the network decided to re-hire him. Which makes his hiring all the more disappointing (and confusing when considering the previous dismissal of Rob Parker).  I think ESPN really should consider the following questions:

1.       What are the standards for hiring someone and firing someone?  If Rob Parker can be suspended and then removed for questioning a player’s relationship to their race, can the station then hire someone who has specifically targeted a player with a demeaning stereotypical racial jab and who has a documented history of poor racial understanding?

2.       Knowing that issues of race, class and politics often intertwine with sports, teams and athletes, considering his record, is Jason Whitlock really the guy you want speaking on those topics when they collide with sports?

Finally, I have been an avid and ‘religious’ viewer of the PTI program since its inception, but I find his presence very disturbing.  And so, although my personal protests and objections will probably go unnoticed and seem insignificant to a station with the large following that ESPN has, ESPN loses this diligent viewer of PTI each time Whitlock appears on the program.  As the Ombudsman, I sincerely hope you give what I’ve written some time, some thought, research it, and discuss it with management there at the station.

I thank you kindly for reading.

Sincerely,

Maelstrom

The Need To Be First

Editor’s Note:  This past week marked the 1-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing tragedy.  This column was written in the wake of the tragedy and the pursuit of the perpetrators. 

Somewhere in the make-up of human nature there must be a gene that tells us we need to be first. 

We need to be the first in line to get our concert tickets.  We need to be the first to get the next tech gadget.  We need to be the first among our friends to see the latest summer movie.  And if you are a traditional news agency, apparently you need to be the first to disseminate information about a tragedy, whether the information reported is right or wrong.  This was perhaps never more on display than in the past week when two bombs rocked the typically cheery Boston Marathon, and many media outlets rushed to report every detail and rumor in the aftermath.

As for specifics, one of the first erroneous bits of information reported by traditional news agencies, including Fox News and CNN, was that there was a bomb that exploded at the JFK library in Boston.  The New York Post also inaccurately reported that twelve people were killed during the bombing.  But the error that sticks out the most to me was the report by CNN, Fox News, the Associated Press and the Boston Globe that a suspect was in custody when indeed no suspect had been taken in by law enforcement.  This was particularly troubling to me because it led to individuals being misidentified as suspects, and it also led to delayed identification of the actual perpetrators.  Indeed there were people who actually could have called law enforcement to positively identify the perpetrators, but did not because there were erroneous news reports as to whether (the correct) suspects had been identified or not.  This latter point is significant because had the correct individuals been identified earlier, it is possible that the MIT patrol officer, who was killed several days after the bombings by the bombing perpetrators, might not have been killed.  Thus news reporting errors are sometimes more egregious than just poor journalism, they can have real life or death consequences as these errors demonstrate.

In this age of instant music and on-demand movies, it seems the ego-driven human creature feels the need to be the first to know and then the first to tell.   Ironically, there is often little benefit in either.  No doubt there is tremendous primacy in being the first to accomplish a great feat or overcome a previously insurmountable barrier.  Matthew Henson, Jackie Robinson, Roger Bannister, Neil Armstrong and Sally Ride come to mind.  But is there really a major benefit in being the first to report an event that, moments later, all news agencies will be reporting about anyhow?  And if the information reported is inaccurate is there any benefit at all?

As a scientist, the value of being the first to report a discovery is certainly a concept I can appreciate.  However, the process of obtaining accurate, reproducible scientific data is one that takes time and much scrutiny before it is actually published.  News outlets used to have a similar standard for reporting information to the public, but with the advent of social media this standard is increasingly scarce, at least in the early stages of any major news event. 

Though we’ve come to expect and accept errors in reporting as long as the correct story is eventually told, early inaccuracies in reporting can be incredibly damaging.  Misidentifying suspects can hinder investigations, reporting that an arrest was made when it hasn’t been can prevent eyewitnesses from coming forward, and innocent individuals can have their reputations ruined by such media releases.  Yes, the public has the right to know, but does the public need inaccurate, often speculative and potentially damaging second-by-second play-by-plays? 

The fact is no matter how hard the traditional news agencies try, their attempts to be the first to report an occurrence will fail.  This is because it is impossible for journalists to be ubiquitously dispersed at ground zero of every event the moment something happens.  They will therefore always be second place to the individuals at the event who can tweet, text-edit Reddit and post updates to their Facebook pages via the various media devices in the palms of their hands.  The moments immediately following the bombings at the Boston Marathon made this reality ever more clear.

The sad truth is each time traditional news organizations report inaccurate information, the need to return to that news outlet diminishes.  This is because in conjunction with being “late” in reporting the news, traditional news agencies are increasingly reporting as many falsehoods as amateurs in the “Twitterverse.”  By consistently reporting misinformation, traditional news outlets lose their most important advantage in comparison to non-vetted news and social media sources:  reliability and accuracy. 

Prior to releasing any news on real-time events, I would recommend that reputable news agencies be patient, and vet not just your sources, but fully establish the facts.  If that means the report debuts forty seven minutes after the first thousand tweets hit the airwaves, that’s fine because many of those tweets will undoubtedly be erroneous, and at 140 characters they will certainly lack depth.  Furthermore, if your concern as a news agency is to beat Twitter to the scoop then you have a very misguided focus, which should be to report the news and to report it accurately.

Since it is virtually impossible to beat the “citizen journalist” to the story, my advice to traditional news outlets is to stick to what you can do better than anyone with a Twitter account:  get the story right the first time.  It behooves you to do so. 

-Maelstrom