The uncomprising journalistic standards of The New York Times

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

Am I the only one who finds this Bill-Clinton-has-black-cred story in today’s New York Times ridiculous?

While the blogosphere and commentariat rang this weekend with angry declarations that he had crossed a line in his criticism of Barack Obama, many in Harlem seemed to mull it over, shrug their shoulders and say they understood, even if they didn’t quite agree.

“What Bill Clinton said — well, his wife is running for office,” said Tonya Burnett, who was waiting outside the building to visit a city housing office. “He’s got to represent just like she represented when he was running. I don’t think it’s such a big deal.”

To be sure, interviews conducted on a single day, in front of a single building, are apt to produce a narrow point of view. Yet the building, at 55 West 125th Street, is an important piece of real estate in Mr. Clinton’s world.

To be sure, interviewing a handful of people is largely meaningless, but we’ll still go with the headline blaring “In Harlem, Backing Up Bill Clinton.”

Just in case the story was too subtle, and you didn’t quite get the Bill-Clinton-is-blacker-than-Obama subtext, they chose to end the story on this note, emphasis mine:

Bruce Gordon, 47, had visited a notary inside the building. He said the criticisms might even sharpen Mr. Obama.

“These questions have to come up. If Obama gets the nomination, folks will ask, ‘So who are you?’ So far, he’s a nice white middle-class guy,” said Mr. Gordon, acknowledging the cheekiness of his remark with a cagey little smile. “You try to pull a black thing on Bill Clinton, he’s going to say, ‘Now wait a minute now.’ ”

The blackness olympics are on!

It’s almost as bad as the story earlier this month in the Times about how Latinos won’t vote for a black man. Cause you know, Latino and black are mutually exclusive categories. Not like there are any black Latinos, or anything.

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez brilliantly broke down exactly what was wrong with that story:

The article quotes a random 20-year-old woman on the streets of Los Angeles as their only legitimate source for the headline screaming about Obama’s lack of support among Latinos, ostensibly because of his “blackness.” This is your source? Natasha Carrillo of East Los Angeles? Holy crap. Are you joking? Is this the best you can find? Why not go the CUNY, and talk to the Dominican and Puerto Rican studies experts there? Why send reporters to a freakin’ taco stand in East Los Angeles? I’ll tell you why: The story was written in the minds of the editors before it was reported; that’s why it WAS NEVER reported. It was made up. And because it was on the front of the NY Times, you are going to have pundits from coast to coast quoting it as the gospel truth, all because Natasha Carrillo, 20, of East Los Angeles, said so.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

All of Harlem Loves Bill Clinton! / Stereohyped on 29 Jan 2008 at 3:15 pm

[...] all blacks? Well, thanks to its geographical location, the New York Times has an easy solution. Just go to Harlem, stand outside of a Bill Clinton’s office building*, and ask the black peopl… That’s what they did to find out how black people really felt about Bill Clinton’s [...]
Very Important Links « Liberals Eat Canolis on 29 Jan 2008 at 8:13 pm

[...] of course we have the New York Times doing what it does best – non-journalism that promotes Hillary with the carefully chosen black opinion in Harlem. I’ve stopped [...]
bastard.logic on 29 Jan 2008 at 10:35 pm

Psst–Toni Morrison Was Being Ironic*…

by matttbastard

Shorter NY Times: ”A couple of black people standing in front of a building in Harlem are actually down with Bubba!”
h/t Racialicious
*Ok, read the “first black president” line in context, then check out Sh…
2008 January » Comments from Left Field on 29 Jan 2008 at 11:23 pm

[...] h/t Racialicious [...]

Comments

ColbyCheese wrote:

“Why send reporters to a freakin’ taco stand in East Los Angeles? I’ll tell you why: The story was written in the minds of the editors before it was reported; that’s why it WAS NEVER reported.”

That’s why I love this country! If you can squint your eyes…just…enough…You can pass it off as completely harmless. And zany even!

I also never thought I’d live to see the day that the “Sellout” and “House Negro” subtexts (that have been around FOREVER in the black community) would be played out in front of the whole world with the Presidental Election as the backdrop.

But here’s the cool hollywood-style twist: It’s a WHITE Person who gets to imply that the “black candidate” (whatever THAT means) is the house negro.

Apparently, Bill and Hillary believe that, if it came down to it, Barack would SNITCH!

Maybe we should have convinced Natasha to run instead…

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 10:23 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

i saw this article this morning and it just added to my list of things i hate about the way race is being manipulated in such a superficial fashion in this election. i expressed my disgust of the trotting out of bill clinton as a surrogate black man in an article i did recently for the coup magazine’s blog page related to campaign coverage ( http://thecoupmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/americas-first-black-president-makes.html). i understand why bill clinton should be used in the campaign, sure, but this is about hillary at the end of the day, and i don’t understand why her advisers are letting her husband overshadow her, especially in terms of getting the black vote…because if SC said ANYTHING, it’s that black voters aren’t stupid and won’t just vote for you because your husband played the sax on arsenio hall.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 10:42 am ¶
David wrote:

The Times always does this – get people of color to say things that they can’t or don’t know how to say themselves. And then they pick quotes accordingly.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 11:09 am ¶
Paul wrote:

I’m sure that Bill Clinton had his “blackness” on display while working for ardent segregationist Fulbright.

Also, does anybody remember Bill’s vaunted Midnight Basketball program? He’d provide funding for gyms to stay all night so that gang violence would drop. That tells you all you need to know about his racial politics; black people are either shooting and robbing or dribbling and dunking in Bill’s world.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 11:35 am ¶
G.D. wrote:

Paul,

You’re oversimplifying the midnight basketball thing a great deal. The idea was that in inner-city communities where violence happens, the men who are the most likely perpetrators and victims of that violence could be plugged into something that, if not productive, could take them away from the hotspots of violence.

As someone who grew up in South Philly before moving to Bed-Stuy, it was a complaint always made by people who hated the violence outside their doors. Those cats are hugging the block, rain, sleet, or snow. If the violence is happening on the corners, get them off those corners. Giuliani’s mayoralty decided to yank those dudes off the basketball courts where they’d congregate by shutting off the lights on the playgrounds. But where did those dudes go?

I’m no Clinton fan, but let’s not paint dude as some hardened racist. That overstates the case.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶
gandalf mantooth wrote:

I don’t find it ridiculous that an editorial staff that had just endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primary would look for a contrarian angle against the wave of stories that are critical of Bill Clinton and document the perception fact that his support in the African American community is on shaky ground ATM. If I were trying to keep the Grey Lady from looking foolish on Super Tuesday that’s one thing I’d do.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
Paul wrote:

If he’s not racist, he’s sure as Hell indulged in racist imagery. From the execution of a mentally-challenged black man to the ambushing of Jesse Jackson over Sista Souljah’s inane comments to his welfare rhetoric to his treatment of Elders and Guinier, WJBC has almost managed to out-Atwater the Republicans.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶
Orville wrote:

This is classic journalism 101. The NY TIMES is a white run newspaper they are going to get people of colour to do their dirty work for them. So in order for the NY TIMES to not look racist they get people of colour to make the kinds of comments they want to hear.

Also, if the NY TIMES knew anything they would know there are people that are black latinos. In countries such as the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and of course Brazil have large black populations. So yes, there are Latinos that may vote for Senator Obama.

The race baiting of the NY TIMES and The Clintons is pathetic it seems like they are desperate to make Senator Obama appear to be the “other”.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 2:34 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

I’m glad to see the decontruction of the black myth.

My thing is what will folks do if/when HRC gets the nod? Reward the “lesser” of two evils?

They know, or at least think they do.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
G.D. wrote:

To Carmen:

So the words of the dude whose quote ended the story aren’t valid? Bill Clinton is and has been a very popular figure in Harlem. Why *shouldn’t* they interview black people who are chilling in the shadow of his foundation’s headquarters a week after he made comments that alienated large swaths of black people?

Yeah, that dude’s quote at the end is wild problematic. But he’s not alone in feeling that way.

Would you rather the Times had excised that quote as the kicker? Would that have been *more* honest?

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

G.D. What I take issue with is the whole premise of this article: sending a reporter to stand in front of Bill Clinton’s office and interview passers-by.

If NYT seriously wants to find out how Clinton’s recent remarks have affected how African-Americans perceive him, why not do an actual poll? With a random sampling from all over the country?

> Would you rather the Times had excised that quote as the kicker? Would that have been *more* honest?

No, but it would have been nice if they talked to more than 8 people and maybe even ventured off 125th St.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
MNC wrote:

G.D.,
I totally agree with Carmen. As someone who works with journalists everyday, I know for a fact that when they have their editorial meetings their editors/producers have, for lack of a better word, “themes.”

These themes inform the slant of the stories that make it into the evening edition or onto the TV screen that night. These themes also continue the laziest traditions of journalism like” if it bleeds, it leads.”

Also, on the point that Bill is not a hardened racist, I really have to say that some of the worst kinds of racists I’ve met in my travels are the ones who claim they aren’t racists at all or that they aren’t “like in the Klan or anything.”

In using his undisputed intelligence to cynically twist the poltricks game to his favor and throw millions of black people under the bus with his insane policies for his own ends, Bill Clinton is worse than a hardened racist.

Also, for a President to use all of the executive powers at his fingertips, powers that could technically help to overturn the bulk of the structural racism that created the violence and blight in places like South Philly and Bed-Stuy, is insulting and morally reprehensible.

Midnight basketball, dominoes at daybreak all that is some ‘ish’ a local official could do-frankly I would expect the President of the United States to go beyond that.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 4:50 pm ¶
ColbyCheese wrote:

‘ Also, on the point that Bill is not a hardened racist, I really have to say that some of the worst kinds of racists I’ve met in my travels are the ones who claim they aren’t racists at all or that they aren’t “like in the Klan or anything.” ‘

Very true. Because:

a) You can at least give a klan member credit for speaking their mind. Even if they are out in left field.

b)At least with a klan member, you know EXACTLY where you stand. With the more “closeted” racists, you never can tell if it’s “normal office politics” or if the knife is about to go through your back.

Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 5:57 pm ¶
Lolo wrote:

I do think that Bill and Hilary are unconscious? subconscious? racists. Meaning, they are those people who bristle when questioned, however gently, about how they view people of colour or frame the discussion or use key words that real, out of the closet racists do. It’s as though you dared to pee on their shoes and all questioning is completely shouted down with “I’m not a racist. These black people right here will tell you I’m not a racist, etc.”

It’s in the same vein of Rosie O’Donnell’s pointing to her asian makeup artist and saying “it didn’t offend HER when I ching chonged”. Excuse me but it’s precisely this sort of denial and almost hysterical reaction that people evince that prevents us from even questioning underlying assumptions. A woman just gets so tired of explaining bigotry/prejudice/sexism 101 that after a while you just turn away and leave it to continue festering.

Do I believe that Obamamania transcends racial politics and race identity and religious bigotry? No. I do believe that his hopeful nomination gives us all a chance to NAVIGATE some of the mines to a place that we can examine just how much it pervades our lives, all of us.

The Clintons, The NYT, old school feminists, old guard civil rights warriors … they did carry the flag for a long time and they did a lot of the heavy work but they all need to scooch on over some and let some new bodies up to the wheel. Maybe we can nudge that load on over to a slightly less worn track and make a little more progress is all, cuz this road? It’s a rut.

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 12:32 am ¶
Gregory A. Butler wrote:

Could somebody explain to me again how Bill Clinton is “Black”?

He’s a White man who was the governor of an ex Confederate former slave state – a place where they literally had to send the US Army to desegregate the high school in the state capitol.

He actually took a week off during his 1992 campaign to make sure the Arkansas Department of Corrections executed a brain damaged Black man.

Once elected, he made it harder for death row defendants to appeal their convictions, and made it easier for states to kill death row prisoners (even if the prisoners could PROVE THAT THEY WERE INNOCENT!!!!)

Under his presidency, the average daily headcount of Black men in correctional facilities skyrocketed from 500,000 to over 1 million.

He also signed welfare reform into law, removing the federal requirement that 1 million single moms and their 4 million kids have public aid (and do I even need to tell you that a disproportionate number of those women are African American?)

He also supplied arms to the Uganda Defense Forces when they intervened in the Rwandan civil war, and participated in the murder of over 940,000 Rwandans (the French government were arming the other side, so he doesn’t have all of the blood on his hands there).

Somebody tell me how the hell Clinton was the “Black president”???

Because he was on a Black talk show?

Because he plays the saxophone?

Because he once cheated on his wife with a Black woman (Miss Arkansas 1984, I believe)?

Because he’s a big fat guy who likes greasy food?

Because he’s a skirt chaser who can’t keep it in his pants?

Again, somebody tell me how the hell Clinton was the “Black president”!

After all, he may have an office in Harlem, but he lives in Chappequa!

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 7:42 am ¶
G.D. wrote:

MNC:

I work with journalists every day too (I am one). But newsrooms and editorial page staffs rarely, if ever, overlap — especially at big organs like the NYT.

Part of the problem with midnight basketball was that there wasn’t often the capital to fund those programs in poor cities — and even less political will to fund them from state capitals.

Again, I have no interest in defending Clinton-era policy. But to dismiss the idea of midnight basketball is to miss the point that tons of young black men in inner-cities are targets of preventable violence and mostly at night; stemming that violence requires getting them off corners and guns out of play. It’s not an end-all solution, but it’s not a meritless one, either.

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 11:48 am ¶
Paul wrote:

G.D.
With the Clintons symbolism is what matters. Midnight Basketball was championed as a way to play directely to many whites racial markers of blackness, crime and basketball. The fact that the program might’ve had merits is beside the point. The point is that Clinton used racial imagery to signify that he knew how to deal with the “black problem.”

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 1:55 pm ¶
MNC wrote:

G.D.,
I meant editorial to mean what ever meeting the Editors of the news have to decide what goes in and what does not. The last time I checked, reporters whether they were in Features or Business did not have the authority to choose which of their stories they could file. Editors. i.e. their bossess (cuz everybody answers to somebody in this world) make those decisions in a very loaded manner.

Thus, we have the craptacular piece Carmen highlighted for us.

Again on the Clinton point, defending Clinton policy or not, have to echo what Paul is saying.

Midnight basketball was a cynical “triangulating” move on the part of Bill Clinton to cover his more regressive and devastating policies, like loading up the prisons with all the young men who did not seem to escape the clutches of the penal system through the miracle of evening athletics.

Again, I’m all for getting kids and guns off the streets, but when the best that the PRESIDENT can do is release some state funding for basketball at night-I think there’s a huge problem. Especially when he coulds so easily cut state funding for infrastructure, education and healthcare in these areas.

If that’s the best we can demand that our PRESIDENT do to save black lives,then we are all in some serious trouble.

That’s my problem G.D. not midnight basketball or programs like it.

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 3:29 pm ¶
Gregory A. Butler wrote:

GD

Midnight Basketball programs aren’t going to change the reality of the lack of jobs for inner city youth.

Or the fact that those jobless youth end up in the underground economy.

Or the fact that in the underground economy (in particular in the wonderful world of narcotics distribution) business disputes and labor problems are settled with bullets and gunsmoke, rather than injunctions and lawsuits.

As long as so many young men and women of color are locked out of regular jobs and forced into the drug world, and as long as drugs are illegal, you will have drug related homicides.

All the basketballs in the world aren’t going to solve that ugly social reality of American institutional racism.

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 4:18 pm ¶
Colin wrote:

“All the basketballs in the world aren’t going to solve that ugly social reality of American institutional racism.”

That’s true, but it doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t try something to at least make their community a little better. I would love to see him push Hillary to devote serious capital (in the billions) into a inner-city small business project, but I don’t think it’ll happen.

Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 8:49 pm ¶
G.D. wrote:

“All the basketballs in the world aren’t going to solve that ugly social reality of American institutional racism.”

I’d argue that there isn’t much a president can do to undo the ugly social reality of American institutional racism, in one or even several fell swoops.

Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 2:11 am ¶
Gregory A. Butler wrote:

I don’t think ANY American president will try and undo American insitutional racism.

I also don’t think that any of these reform measures (like midnight basketball, or inner city small business initiatives) will solve the problem.

They might enrich a handfull of Black people – the executives of the not for profits that administer the basketball program, or the handfull of folks who get small business grants and are able to successfully start local businesses.

Ironically, you could say that drug trafficking is a form of “inner city small business development” – some of those drug gangs are actually pretty sizable business enterprises… just look at how much the government seizes in civil forfeiture proceedings when they bust some of the local drug kingpins to see what I’m talking about.

To be real, none of these candidates are going to do a damned thing for the inner city poor of color – not Obama, not Clinton, not McCain, not Romney not any of them.

And lets be real – Obama’s only going to get elected by appealing to White suburban “swing voters” – and he’s going to appeal to them on the basis of pandering to their racism.

Last week, on Dr King’s birthday, the KKK marched in Jena, Louisiana.

There was a counterdemonstration – I was there, a whole lot of radicals were there (Revolutionary Communist Party, New Black Panther Party among others), even Al Sharpton’s National Action Network was there.

Where was Obama?

I didn’t see him – and I wonder why?

Reality Check – do you really want to deal with inner city poverty (or any of the other social ills of modern capitalism)?

Then we have to talk about struggle, we have to talk about fighting injustice in the streets, and quite frankly we have to talk about a revolution against this system.

None of these bought and paid for pro corporate politicians is going to do a damned thing for the poor in the ghettoes, or for any other of the victims of capitalism.

Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 11:04 am ¶
Colin wrote:

Well now I am agreement there. It’s almost circular logic — corporate is as corporate does.

My point was that while there is a long way to go, reforms of small and large measure are still reforms.

On the issue of inner city poverty, I was raised without an awareness of what the inner city is like, so I gotta ask you, are things like the income gap between the poor and rich symptoms or causes? Are issues brought up in the media like children born out of wedlock really a problem? Are schools in the inner cities crumbling or are they only marginally worse than schools in the suburbs?

Maybe I’m naive, but hopefully with some aid, I can become more wise. You sound like you have a lot more of an understanding than I do, so I ask you if you have time to educate me a bit.

Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶
Josephine wrote:

PAUL, you obviously do not know anything about Midnight Basketball and what the program has done for many kids lives. I worked on this program and find that your comment itself was racist as you find Midnight Basketball a credible reason to assume Clinton is racist because everyone would just assume Basketball & gangs = a black only thing. In most states in the US, crimes created by our youth occur from 10PM – 4AM. Midnight Basketball’s intention was to provide an activity, that was POSTIVE, yet still aggressive & a challenging environment for the youth to choose over violent activites, that were NEGATIVE, but aggressive & to them they felt challenged. Lot of choices the youth makes are due to peer pressure and the environment they are in. I’ve seen countless of kids who have used midnight basketball as an alternative to otherwise hanging out with friends, being bored, and hence, causing trouble and being peer pressured to do bad things; to finding other people in their community who want the same things: to be good kids and be a community instead of breaking away from it. Yes, midnight basketball has substantially reduced juvenile crime in areas where gang violence is high, is this a terrible thing? Is this a racist thing? No. It’s a great thing. Midnight basketball, isn’t an easy program to pass through our government. You will be surprised of how some people opposed of it because they felt it was a “waste of money” the arguments against it was that kids who commit crimes will just commit them with or without the positive, competitive environment MB provides; this not only comes from lack of understanding but that too is the REAL prejudice that stems from MB, the people who don’t believe in it or believe in grassroots change. It saddens me you would make a blatant, un-researched and trite statement and pass it off as fact.

Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 7:14 pm ¶