Trackbacks & Pings

1. links for 2008-06-20 « andrew golis on 20 Jun 2008 at 6:33 pm

   [...] Quoted: Tim Russert on Diversity in the Media at Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop cul… Interesting. (tags: russert msm race gender inequality military) [...]

Comments

1. natthedem wrote:

   I’ve read or heard numerous anecdotes like this one about Tim Russert in the wake of his death (the tribute by Gwen Ifill on The Root was particularly moving), but I’m also left wondering how someone–who was, apparently, so committed to diversity–allowed MSNBC’s commentators to become so…um…white and male.

   Andrea Mitchell’s taken more of a prominent role recently, but otherwise the channel’s diversity is limited to guest appearances by MSNBC analysts Eugene Robinson and Rachel Maddow. Otherwise, under Russert’s leadership, the network was just a parade of old, straight white guys.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 7:37 am ¶

2. Erica M. wrote:

   I really enjoyed Tim Russert. He seemed like such a genuine, nice person. RIP.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 8:15 am ¶

3. sylvie wrote:

   @natthedem, could that be more reflective of NBC’s choice in commentators, rather than Russert’s?

   RIP.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶

4. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

   I never really understood why his death was such a big deal, but after reading articles about him, I now understand what a big loss he is to television broadcasting/journalism.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶

5. natthedem wrote:

   @sylvie: In addition to being the head of the Washington Bureau (i.e., chief of all things politics) at NBC, he also held the title of Senior Vice President of the network–I’m not sure how this couldn’t have been in his purview.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 1:21 pm ¶

6. Jenna wrote:

   And yet its so hard to get INTO broadcasting if you’re not a white male. (Not Russert’s fault, obviously.) Then? Once you’re there? You would not BELIEVE the sexism AND racism that exists in a newsroom and a news station.

   I miss the thrill of the live newscast. But I do not miss broadcasting politics. I never will.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶

7. Black Canseco wrote:

   Russert seemed like a nice guy.

   I was bugged by his need to jab at Obama until BO renounced, denounced, disavowed, distanced himself from, etc Louis Farrakahan who had the nerve to say he thought Obama would make a good president. This fact that Obama and Farrakhan had never met, don’t know each other, wasn’t important to Russert (and Clinton who was on stage at the time). All that mattered was that Obama be bullied into insulting a guy he had no ties to simply because certain folks don’t like him.

   That always rubbed me the wrong way about Russert.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶

8. marge twain wrote:

   Wha…Did he compare hiring other races to hiring people from “middling schools” Am I missing something?

   I watched Meet The Press most Sundays. It could have been renamed “Meet the Same White Males You See On Every Political Show” As for diversity of thought, with his panelists and with his chosen show topics, he usually focused his fire on the Democrats, often discussing rumors as if they were true. Sometimes every topic was the Democrat’s shortcomings, with the Republicans on his panel in attack mode the whole time. He was also soft on Bush. I remember him being one of the anti-critical cheerleaders for war. There’s an article about it here:

   http://www.opednews.com/articles/Tim-Russert—A-Good-Man-b-by-Steven-Leser-080614-336.html

   I really am sad for his family and I have been impressed hearing of his mentorship of Gwen Ifill. I would like to see her take over MTP, it could be a very different show.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 2:14 pm ¶

9. Black Canseco wrote:

   Also, I think diversity as Russert phrased it is precisely part of the problem:

   “I am for having women in the newsroom and minorities in the newsroom… But just as well… let’s have people from all walks of life, people from the top-echelon schools but also people from junior colleges and the so-called middling schools — that’s the pageantry of America . . .”

   There’s this sad desire among those who do the most damage to equal rights and equality to start conflating and diluting injustices of discrimination and disenfranchisement faced by minorities of color by injecting pretty much any pet group/trait/ ideology they chose into the discussion as if it’s all the same thing.

   I mean its as if Russert wrote “While were at it, let’s not leave out blondes, brunettes, and redheads and size 10 folks, smokers, people who hate sports…”

   I think that’s why the newsrooms, on air talent and corporate offices are still so overwhelmingly white male and white female–because diversity has replaced inclusion/equality and diversity can be whatever somebody wants it to be.

   Blondes brunettes and redheads is diversity, but if they’re all white what’s the point? If white females continue to be the primary beneficiary of affirmitive action and diversity initiatives then why bother with it.

   I’m not laying this all at the foot of Tim Russert, but his quote articulates a prevailing mindset that continues to do more harm than good.

   Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 2:36 pm ¶

10. Karrie wrote:

    @Black Canseco
    I love the comment, but I think Russert had a point with including people from different walks of life in his definition of diversity. Diversity, basically, should be all encompassing, not just racial/ethnic diversity.

    Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶

11. Black Canseco wrote:

    Karrie,

    I agree that diversity should be and is by definition, if not in theory all encompassing. But the problem because when the need for ethnic inclusion/equal access gets co-opted by those who see diversity as “all encompassing.”

    For example the PGA (Pro Golfers Assoc and LPGA (Ladies Pro Golfers Assoc) are incredibly diverse. You have players from all over the world, different class, openly gay/lesbian and religious/non-religious backgrounds, different ages, etc.

    But between the 2 leagues Tiger Woods is the only Black (or even part black) professional on tour. The only one.

    What the LPGA would have people believe is that black women have no interess in playing golf at the highest level and the PGA would have us believe that Woods is the only one worth sponsoring.

    NASCAR is made up of hispanic, poor whites, rich whites, italians, international drivers, etc; but there’s not one black driver on the circuit. But NASCAR celebrates Danica Patrick at every turn as proof of NASCAR’s diversity and lack of glass ceilings.

    I could go on, but that’s my only issue here is who’s diversity are we to go by?

    I think Russert was well-meaning, but there’s a reason why the media still looks and sounds the way it does.

    Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 5:43 pm ¶

12. Elton wrote:

    Not that I don’t appreciate the sentiment, but good luck convincing the status quo that they “need” diversity.

    Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 6:29 pm ¶

13. Lyonside wrote:

    Black Canseco – minor nitpick: Patrick is Indy, not NASCAR… but as for the rest, very very very true.

    Tokenism is alive and well, and allows the majority to sit back and go, Mission accomplished, we can go back ot the status quo now.

    Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 9:52 pm ¶

14. Shimmy wrote:

    I remember Tim Russert always did his homework and asked the tough questions. Tim Russert was an American character right from Mark Twain.

    Posted 21 Jun 2008 at 11:30 am ¶

15. slappy wrote:

    NASCAR is made up of hispanic, poor whites, rich whites, italians, international drivers, etc; but there’s not one black driver on the circuit. But NASCAR celebrates Danica Patrick at every turn as proof of NASCAR’s diversity and lack of glass ceilings.

    Not true.
    I designed an article about this at my job.
    Bill Lester is a regular driver in NASCAR. There is also an African American NASCAR owner, Rick Clark.

    NASCAR is making a genuine effort to diversify.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_bowles/06/20/diversity/
    http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_7184.shtml

    They are even funding programs at HBCUs.
    http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_7606.shtml

    Posted 21 Jun 2008 at 11:41 pm ¶

16. Lyonside wrote:

    Slappy: the point is not mere presence (tokenism) but real effect and visability. This is coming from the wife of a NASCAR fan, who knows that the younger fans and drivers have nothing against diversity, but that THEY are not the ones calling the shots.

    >Bill Lester is a regular driver in NASCAR. There is also an African American NASCAR owner, Rick Clark.

    Sure – and where are their funny ads on TV, their big name sponserships, their McDonalds cup, their VISIBILITY?

    Yes, exactly.

    Posted 22 Jun 2008 at 5:53 am ¶

17. slappy wrote:

    Lyonside,
    I think you need to read the articles I linked before starting a knee-jerk reaction.

    Auto racing is an expensive and dangerous sport. You can’t just throw a bunch of brothers in cars in the name of diversity and VISIBILITY. You have to build roots, and the above linked articles clearly show NASCAR is dedicated to growing diverse.

    More on Rick Clark’s efforts …
    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/115655

    Posted 22 Jun 2008 at 5:46 pm ¶

18. Church of Shiskabob wrote:

    Marge,

    The one thing that women, minorities and graduates of “middling schools”–as well as those in the military–have in common is that their voices may not be represented in mainstream media. I think that’s the point Russert was making, and nothing beyond that.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 12:15 am ¶