I love fake radio interviews: about Obama and race

by guest contributor Jen Chau, originally published at The time is always right

Over the last couple of months, I have begun to expect that every un-identified number that pops up on my cell phone is probably connected to a well-intentioned (most of the time) reporter wondering if I could offer my thoughts on Obama‘s mixed race identity. Asking me to comment because of my work with Swirl, they have all wondered how hot of a topic Obama has been amongst other mixed race people. Was everyone excited about it? Were people taking offense to the fact that he was identifying as an African-American man? And what does he mean for the future of mixed race people everywhere? These are just some of the questions that came up during the interviews in which I have taken part (I guess though, that I should at least mention my favorite of all, “What if Obama identified as a white man? What would people think of that?” The best rhetorical question I have heard in a while. If nothing else, these conversations surely have been entertaining).

Now, before I get into my answers to any of these questions, let me say (lest I sound ungrateful) that I am thrilled that Obama is getting a chance at the Presidency. I am also happy that people are feeling pushed to talk about race. I am very happy with how Obama himself handles the whole topic, and I am happy that I have been asked to comment in the midst of all of these national discussions. With all of that said, these conversations about race are just not cutting it. Nowhere even close. Now, I don’t expect us to all of a sudden get really adept at talking about race as a country just because we have a Presidential candidate who is pushing the envelope. We can‘t and shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security because he us getting this shot (it sounds like: “Oooooh, I think Racism is ending. Look! A black man is getting a chance to be President of the United States!” I have heard some rendition of this thought several times already). We have to remember that we are at a challenging place in this country and have been here for some time — where some care about these issues, some don’t. Some are terribly experienced with discussing, thinking and living these issues, others are more unfamiliar. This makes for a lot of the tension that exists. Those who are unfamiliar wonder why others have to talk about race so much and those who live it every day wonder why other people just don’t get it. Having a person of color lead this country doesn’t automatically make all of those tensions immediately go away.

Now I offer you a segment from my ideal interview — where whatever I want to say, I say because I am not worried about the interviewer thinking I am too much of a rabble-rouser and moving onto someone else who is low-key and doesn’t have opinions that are too strong (borrrring). On top of that, none of my statements are edited (oh the joy of interviewing yourself and then putting it on your own blog). J By the way, let’s also say that this is a radio interview with a guy named Bob. It just sounds right, doesn‘t it?

Today we are talking about race and Barack Obama, the democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America. Jen Chau here with us. Jen, thanks so much for being here. Jen Chau. An activist in the mixed community, the Founder and Executive Director of Swirl. Jen, obviously people in this country have a lot to say about Baracks’s racial identity. Mixed race people must be excited about him and the fact that he is mixed. Is everyone in the mixed community going to vote for him?

Well, I can’t really speak for the entire mixed community, because we are not one homogeneous mass of people who all think the same way, talk the same way, dress the same way, oh you get my drift there, Bob, don’t you? (fake radio laugh) I do know that a lot of people are excited about Obama because of what he stands for and how he deals with identity. He doesn’t approach race as if it’s merely a black and white issue. He is inclusive of the diversity that exists in this country. This is what people have been waiting to hear and are excited about. Give mixed people more credit and give Obama more credit. Not every mixed person is going to vote for Obama just because he comes from a mixed family; he also brings additional things to the table. Believe it or not, mixed people are just as discerning as any other voter out there. We are talking about voting for the President of the United States, not playing a round of point-to-the-candidate-who-looks-most-like-you-and-pull-the-lever-or-break-that-chad-yayyy-you-did-it!!! Is this what people really think of us, Bob?

What, that all mixed people are beautiful and dumb?

Oh Bob, no. No. We’re not going to do that today.

Well, I do think that people have that perception of mixed people.

Yes, they do. And that has got to change. We are not considered a highly politicized community and I hope that we can begin to shift that perception. Lots of the mixed people I know think about race and politics and the politics of race quite a bit. We have ideas and opinions, and a vision for what we want this world to be. Those who think we are just pretty faces clearly haven’t had the opportunity to meet many mixed race people. And that’s part of the problem in how we relate to each other in this country. We don’t consider or try to learn about the depth of each person. We see the surface and many times we stop there. Consider the depth.

Well what about the person who lives in middle America and doesn’t get to run into too many mixed race people? What do they do? And tell me this, shouldn’t it be Barack’s responsibility to identify as a mixed race man if that is what he really is, technically? I mean, isn’t the mixed community angry that he isn’t owning that identity? He’s not helping with mixed race consciousness at all.

Bob, part of the reason why I started Swirl was to help in the fight to have mixed race people identify in the ways that most fit them. I am not here – and Swirl is not here – to police mixed people everywhere to ensure that they are checking off multiple boxes each time they fill out a form. The most important thing to us has been the right to identify as we really are. If Barack feels most close to his African American identity, that is for him to say. And he shouldn’t be put in a position of having to defend that identification. It is his prerogative to identify as such. Others have taken responsibility for identifying us (for us) throughout history (see the One-Drop rule). Based on the phenotypes of mixed race people, others have felt justified in deciding who we are. Identity is more complex than that, as I said before. If you go past the surface and get to where values and traditions and beliefs and experiences lie, you find identity. Identity is not just your face. While your appearance may help to construct your identity, it typically isn’t the only thing that determines identity. Barack has every right to identify as he is identifying. Any mixed person who is mad at him for identifying as a black man is a serious hypocrit in my eyes. If we have had such a hard time with people demanding we pick ONE box in the past, we shouldn’t demand that others pick more than one box. Mixed people should understand better than anyone else that identity is a personal thing, and is a complicated thing. It isn’t as easy as color-coding each other.

So you think that we shouldn’t even be having this conversation?

No, Bob, I think it’s great that we are having this conversation because there is still a lot that has to be learned from talking about these issues. I am merely expressing my frustration with this country’s collective closed-mindedness when it comes to identity. I also think it’s somewhat ridiculous that we (the public) feel the need to pull apart and prod anyone who is mixed race. Others in the spotlight who are “monoracial” don’t have to deal with the same kind of scrutiny. Did we have debates about Hillary’s identity as a white woman? Now, I don’t think the dialogue about Barack’s identity is necessarily ill-intentioned — mixed identity is still largely misunderstood, so I think the public scrutiny is a way for our society to make sense of those who aren’t easily classified. Not to mention that it’s a big moment in history for a person of color to get this close to the White House. I just wonder if we shouldn’t really think about what race is and what it means to us here in 2008. We attribute so much importance to it, but at the end of the day, what does it all mean? Not much, I fear — aside from a pretty effective way to keep us all divided.

And that’s what people are hoping that Obama will help with, right? To bring people together and end the divisiveness? I mean, if we have a black man in the White House, doesn’t that mean that racism is over?

Bob, please. You’re smarter than this. We cannot put all of the responsibility for undoing generations of racism onto Barack’s shoulders. First, it sets him up for failure, and second, what about the rest of Americans? Does this mean that we have no responsibility? As you and I both know, there is more than enough work to do and Barack can’t do it alone. If he becomes our next President, that is an amazing step, don’t get me wrong. BUT there is enough that we need to fix that everything isn’t just going to change over night. We need to understand that we are not going to undo racism with a savior. It’s going to be years of hard work. Individuals looking at themselves and questioning their own biases, great organizations out there continuing to do the hard work of educating and bringing people together, fixing the inequality that shows up in our children’s earliest years in failing school systems. And it goes on. These are not things that are just going to go away once Barack sits down in the Oval Office for his first day of work. What remains are generations of us working for change. Many of us thought we would never see a person of color coming this close to the Presidency, and we are seeing it, so who knows? I feel hopeful, Bob. But we have to stay grounded and remember that the work needs to continue. Obama shouldn’t be expected to do it alone.

Jen, you have raised some important points today and I think I did a good job of not being too frustrating. I let you talk for long stretches of time and I am tired of the effort that it takes not to interrupt you, so let’s end here! Jen Chau. Activist and community organizer. A lot of things to say. This is Bob, signing off. Thanks Jen.

Bob, thanks so much. Happy to do it.

Bob’s re-cap:

1. Give more credit to mixed race people and to Obama.

2. Mixed race people should not have to defend the way that they identify. Those who are mixed are always up for public scrutiny, and this is problematic.

3. One-person solutions to racism are not reasonable or realistic. We all have a lot of work to do together (whether Obama is our next President or not).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. All-Encompassing Mixed Race and Multi-Racial Body of Literature and Multi-Media « Memory, Learning, Culture, Networks, Spaces, Ecology, Expertises on 05 Oct 2009 at 1:27 pm

    [...] http://www.racialicious.com/2008/09/25/i-love-fake-radio-interviews-about-obama-and-race/ [...]

Comments

  1. Mimi wrote:

    This was great. The worst of it was I have heard questions like that a lot. It makes me wonder if people actually ever stop to think about what they are asking.

  2. summer wrote:

    wait, jen & bob, you have a caller.

    summer: you say that mixed race people should not have to defend how they identify. i agree. however, many do not. it is certainly obama’s choice to identify as black, and yet i can’t help but believe that people in general are way more comfortable with him identifying as black than any other way. (i don’t think i have to spell out the scenarios.)

    as the black mother of a bi-racial child, it’s disheartening for me because i plan to raise my son to embrace both of his cultures (black american and yugoslavian), but i can’t help but feel that he’ll be met with anger (esp. from the black community) if/when he identifies as anything other than black.

    hearing the way many blacks and others discuss obama’s race has made me more pessmistic than ever regarding any real progress towards acceptance of identity choice of mixed race people.

    are you hearing the same? if not, please share another outlook.

  3. Jess wrote:

    Ms. Chau:

    I don’t doubt you hear all kinds of idiocy from some reporters, but frankly these aren’t the kinds of questions I would be asking were I in “Bob’s” place, and I am a reporter myself.

    I think there are two issues you bring up. One is the whole discussion about race to begin with. That’s a big one and most of us in “the media” aren’t going to be able to tackle it well in 500 words or five minutes. I’m sorry, we aren’t super-people and perfect writers and editors. I don’t know if you have ever worked in the media as a reporter, but I always get this sense that nobody really knows what we do all day, and we get chided for things we have zero control over.

    But the other issue might be dealing with reporters who might not be hip to the kinds of discussions you are talking about. Speaking as one, I have to say that the reason we do this (or at least, the reason I and a lot of people I know like the job, which pays little and is hell on your personal life sometimes) is the chance to learn something we diodn’t know before. Otherwise we’d be PR people.

    Not everyone has read Fanon, Wright, Baldwin, et. al. In fact, a lot of reporters still tend to come from working class backgrounds, and aren’t always ivy leaguers. The sense I get is that you expect all of us to be ethnic studies scholars. We’re not, and we aren’t all going to become such in the next week, month or year. But wouldn’t you rather have a dumb question you can answer (or redirect) than someone who doesn’t ask?

    I mean, I never thought of mixed-race people as dumb, I don’t think, and as stereotypes go that one seems to have escaped me. The beauty thing yeah, and the tragic mulatto stories. That I got, but the beautfiul-and-dumb thing was new to me.

    But more importantly, I can certainly think of other quesitons to ask that I think might be more illuminating for those folks who aren’t making a study of this stuff. Remember– the audience may be made up of people who never took an ethnic studies class.

    For instance. what do you think is the difference between the way black perceptions /experience of mixed-race people and other ethnic groups?

    Realistically, do most Americans who think about Barack Obama’s race really plug him into the mixed-race category? (I get the sense most folks file him under “black” but a poll or something would help here). What would that mean?

    Does “identity politics” even mean the same thing for people who self-identify as mixed race? Ultimately is it a big enough demographic to matter in the election as a whole? (That is, if those votes split 50/50 then it wouldn’t make much difference in the overall count).

    Where would Latinos, who are mixed-race almost by definition, fit in here? Especially given what you are trying to do at Swirl?

    (I hadn’t even heard of Swirl before today, and were I interviewing you I’d take a look — i just did — but odds are I wouldnt have time to look at everything exhaustively).

    Now, if I can think of these questions, I bet a few other people could as well. In fact, there’s a long discussion I would love to have with you over lunch. But as a radio reporter for example, I have to edit it all down to like 5-10 minutes unless I work for NPR.

    I hope I don’t sound like I am ranting at you or anything. But I get het up a bit when I feel that me or my colleagues are being characterized a bit unfairly. And many of us are really trying to find ways to approach issues of race within a very narrow framework that we didn’t create.

    And no, we aren’t all going to be brave establishment-bucking souls, at least in our workplaces. We can’t be a lot of the time. Not everyone has the time or talent to be Hunter Thompson or James Baldwin and the kinds of places they wrote for (sadly) don’t exist anymore.

  4. G.K. wrote:

    @Jess

    You don’t have to be an Ivy Leaguer to know who these writers are—I’m from a working-class-to-middle-class background and my mother first gave me a copy of Wright’s BLACK BOY when I was 12 (I was all into black history at a young age). I read everything I could get my little hands on. It’s stereotypical to suggest that just because a reporter is from a working-class background that they’re automatically ignorant about certain subjects—that’s NO excuse for not educating themselves about the topics they’re reporting on—ESPECIALLY when it comes to race—it seems like everybody woudl rather fall back on the same old tired-ass stereotypes and trope as opposed to trying to look beyond that and seeing race for the complicated mess it always has been. I understand, though,that as a reporter you do have restrictions and deadlines and rules you have to follow, and so,naturally, it’s virtually impossible to get the big picture view of anything during newstime. Kudos to those who do make the effort,though.

  5. G.K. wrote:

    Oops–forgot to mention–great interview–Jen—wish I could actually hear something like more often on radio and T.V.

  6. Paz wrote:

    Even though I agree with the point that we shouldn’t force the “mixed” label onto Obama, I agree with Summer about how it is more comfortable for people to identify him as Black than as mixed. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been asked, “Do you feel you’re more Mexican or more White?” Ugh.
    One thing that annoys me with the election is that suddenly so many media outlets consider themselves so progressive in asking race based questions, such as “If Obama were white, would x happen? Would people view him like x?”
    My favorite is when they ask if Obama can transcend race to win over blue collar white voters. Did it ever occur to them that maybe some white voters don’t want to vote for him because they may be more conservative rather than racist? Where’s the article asking if McCain can win over the Black/Hispanic/Asian/Gay/Disabled/Whatever voters?

  7. Lyonside wrote:

    >My favorite is when they ask if Obama can transcend race to win over blue collar white voters.

    Or, you know, that “blue collar white voters” all need winning over to begin with. I mean, if I look around my family, those “blue collar white voters” have interracial families, multiracial family members, etc., and I’m NOT the only such family I know.

  8. magda wrote:

    Jess:

    I think it did sound like you were ranting at Jen. But that’s just my interpretation.

    What I understood Jen’s piece to be was not so much an attack on individual reporters as much as a critique of the general news media. Also, your defense of reporters as working class and thus unable to engage in an academic dialogue about race implies that all working class people are white and that all (working class) reporters are white. I hope that this is not the case, but if it is then, once again, the problem clearly does not lie with the individual reporters.

  9. rebecca walker wrote:

    great post! I’ve done so many of these in the last six months sometimes I feel like I’m in some crazy groundhog day situation. good to read you—hope to see you and do something world changing together soon. xo

  10. Jess wrote:

    @GK/ magda

    I wasn’t saying that all working class people are ignorant or white. But if you walk up to someone on the street and say “Hey, what do you think of Franz Fanon’s class analysis” how many are going to be able to give a coherent answer? 20%? Less?

    In that sense, a lot of journalists are representative of the population. If you don’t expect the average person to be an ethnic studies major with a Master’s, why expect it of reporters? Maybe that’s a better way to state it. Remember, those of us who are even discussing this on this site are probably not terribly representative of the world at large almost by definition. I read my Fanon, but Harry Potter sold a lot more copies.

    Besides, even the journalism program I was in — which is considered pretty good (UC Berkeley) didn’t touch on a lot of the kind of stuff that gets discussed here. It’s a trade school, essentially. That’s pretty much par for the course, so any exposure to the kind of media criticism Chau is doing is hit or miss.

    This doesn’t mean everybody is unaware. Or that they are incapable of certain kinds of discussions. But when someone is doing a story that isn’t the discussion they are getting paid to have. And remember, you or I are interested in this stuff. A lot of folks just aren’t. I like baseball, you know, but I can’t expect everyone here to all be interested in it too.

    A reporter also isn’t writing an 80-page dissertation on the meaning of racially coded language. Nor are 99.99% of us writing for the Village Voice or the New York Times Magazine. The reporter has to write a news story, which someone who also isn’t a scholar is likely to read past the first sentence of. “Barack Obama is socially constructed as black by some voters” is not getting past any editor I know. And 800 words is considered long.

    Look at it this way — if you want a reporter to get past stereotypes, engage them. Don’t tell them “mainstream media is evil because (insert here).” Also, too often discussions get bogged down in terms that I think just confuse people.

    Rather, you might say, “This is a stereotypical attitude because X” or something along those lines. That’s simple enough that I can fit it into a paragraph. And a good reporter is interested enough to learn more. (If he isn’t there’s not much you can do, but hey, it happens). But this means offering a narrative that you can fit in the space allotted. It will lose nuance, yes. But I was never paid for that. Again, unfair, but we didn’t make it that way.

    Also, when people say “educate yourself about what you are reporting on” I can say, you have to understand that reporters get assigned stories they may or may not know anything about. Why? Because the guy who would usually do it is on vacation or out sick or quit last week. Or there just wasn’t anyone else free. Or you got the story because “Hey, you speak Spanish, you go talk to those folks.”

    That’s why a lot of us may sound stupid about issues of race or gender — we don’t all mean to be jerks, we’re just trying to get a story written and hope to hell we get something that makes sense. On good days I get to spend weeks on something. On most days I don’t.

    In TV it’s even worse. There are only four or five reporters for a station like New York One working on a given day, plus producers and cameramen. They can’t all be expected to know everything,

    GK– thanks for your understanding. Really. And magda, I know all this sounds worse than it is. What I am trying to do is explain a little about how the sausage is made, you know? Too many people have no idea. I’m sure there are people here that do, but most don’t (it isn’t like that many people work in the field, or know anyone who does.

  11. atlasien wrote:

    You don’t need to be an ethnic studies major to understand a lot of the stuff Jen is talking about, either.

    Look at Maria Root’s multiracial bill of rights. Short, simple and straight to the point.

    This is some basic research stuff, really.

    It’s not about “fancy-pants book learning”, as Jess is insinuating. These insights and concepts come from direct lived experience, raw suffering, flashes of liberation.

    Media failure in addressing racial issues shouldn’t be pegged to lack of formal education. I’d say most of it is due to squeamishness — a personal failing and a very widespread one.

  12. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Media failure in addressing racial issues shouldn’t be pegged to lack of formal education. I’d say most of it is due to squeamishness — a personal failing and a very widespread one.

    I cosign with atlasien.

    Much of the audience for Racialicious are people who work in media, and find themselves stymied in different ways from talking about racial issues. It’s occassionally ignorance, but it’s also the idea that some mythical person isn’t ready for real conversation about race.

    In addition, part of being a good journalist is doing a little research, even if you don’t have as much time as you like. It allows you to flesh out a full story. Jen’s piece gets at a larger issue in media – the need to plug a story into an existing narrative, rather than exploring the subject and finding the voice of the piece that way. Barack Obama has provided journalists with a fresh way to take on race and racial identity and people fall back into the same old stereotypes. It really doesn’t take too much time to listen to what someone is saying, rather than find a quote that fits into the story you are crafting.

  13. CVT wrote:

    Jess -
    Your defense of journalists sounds a bit too familiar – mainly, “that’s not my job,” “it’s not our fault it’s that way” and a list of reasons why “it’s hard” to be (even vaguely) knowledgeable about the subject-matter. It’s too reminiscent of the “I didn’t own slaves/put Native Indians on the res/intern Japanese-Americans/create the white power structure, so I’m not responsible for doing anything” creed of the defensive white person (or “assimilated” upper-class minority).

    I don’t doubt that being a reporter is a difficult and misunderstood profession – but it’s EVERYBODY’S job to get past excuses NOT TO learn about race (or try to understand it). White people, too. AND – as the means by which many of the white folks who are ALSO not willing to do the work will get their information – even more responsibility lies with journalists (because, at the end of the day, they did CHOOSE to do this job).

    Because the fact of the matter is this: I never took an “ethnic studies” class. I actually haven’t read Franz Fanon (all your references kind of make me feel guilty that that’s the case). I definitely didn’t go to an ivy league school. I don’t use fancy catch-phrases and other misunderstood speech when I talk about race. And I want more, too.

    As for the baseball reference – no reporter interviewing a baseball player is going to change their line of questioning to play to the lowest common denominator of people who don’t even like baseball. Obviously, the assumption if somebody even listens to (or reads) the interview is a certain level of knowledge about the topic. Couldn’t part of the problem be this general assumption that the “public” are too dumb to understand anything beyond a cursory, well-boxed interview (and aren’t willing to do the work to learn more about what they don’t understand)?

    I realize that you are on this site, that you are doing the research, etc. – so why are you making excuses for the rest of your colleagues NOT doing so?

  14. Jess wrote:

    Hm. Maybe I got a little bogged down myself, because looking at this I was thinking in terms of media strategy, and many here are thinking about the larger issue of how many journalists end up approaching the subject.

    But @ atlasien — I never said you must be an ethnic studies major to understand something, just that most people aren’t conversant with that kind of stuff on a day-to-day basis. Most people aren’t conversant with Quantum Physics either, but they aren’t incapable of understanding it if it’s explained to them. I know a load of scientists who get frustrated discussing their work with reporters because they feel it gets distorted, and I think the problem here is very similar.

    To extend the quantum physics example, even though it is something important to our lives (if you own a CD player or computer) it isn’t like most reporters can discuss it intelligently. In fact, most people can’t really discuss it intelligently. Because most of us were not physics majors (only a small percentage of students major in any science at all). And most people I have met aren’t all that interested in it either. If I go to a cocktail party and say “You hear about the new movie” or “You hear that the LHC picked up evidence for a higgs boson” which one will people glaze over on? What book are people you meet more likely to have read: Tom Clancy’s latest or Michiko Kaku’s book on hyperspaces?

    But I don’t expect that every person will have the same level of interest or knowledge about it that I do. I mean, look, I have written about finance for 10 years. i don’t expect that people will always ask me intelligent questions. Why would I? Not everybody cares what goes on on Wall Street. (Though they do now, I expect). I was paid to care. Most people aren’t.

    I don’t expect most questions I have about opera, hip-hop culture or basket weaving would be terribly intelligent either.

    That’s what gets me. It isn’t about “fancy book-learning” it’s about finding a way to engage without just saying that the mainstream media is screwed up. It is in so many ways, but those of us that work there didn’t ask for it, didn’t make it that way, and would love to change it if we could. But that’s a bit of a longer project.

    If you were asked to do a story about quantum physics when the last math class you took was 20 years ago, and you haven’t cracked a science book since then either, what would you do? What are the odds you’d get to all the right sources? Remember, you might have a week if you are lucky.

    I’m also not saying that people don’t get squeamish about talking about race. Lord knows, they do.

    But to say it’s a personal failing, in a group (here) of people that are by definition really interested in this stuff is like me sitting with all my science-major friends and saying how you have all personally failed by not getting through every one of Stephen Jay Gould’s books or being put off by dissecting fetal pigs. It would be deeply unfair and wrong, right?

    @Latoya —
    I agree that part of being a good reporter is doing research. But given the time constraints I worked under I never had the ability to be as thorough as many stories probably warranted. I need to sleep, y’know? My wife wants to see me once in a while. So I am probably going to miss huge things, even when I try my best.

    That’s the point I was making. I never had the perfect sources and nine out of ten times was piecing things together from fragments. I have to decide on a basic narrative before we even start typing. And it’s not easy figuring out what that is.

    And yeah, sometimes I have to shoehorn stuff in. It isn’t what I would like. If I write a book I can get deep the way you are saying. If i am not then I can’t, however much I might want to — and a lot of the time I do. Really.

    You have a tremendous freedom here to do what you want. Those of us working in the business for a paper or radio station do not.

    As to the failure of media outlets generally, though, that’s a bigger question. I think there are a couple of reasons and it isn’t because some mythical person doesn’t want to discuss it.

    It’s because some people have demonstrated that they don’t want to discuss it and no local paper wants to get angry phone calls from advertisers and readers. Among editors I know there is a real feeling of “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Since most of them have to live in the communities they cover I can sure understand why many — especially smaller ones — just avoid it or limit it to certain narratives. I don’t like that either, but individual editors and owners aren’t in a position to radically change that today.

  15. Anonymous wrote:

    Jess – great response — I think it’s really good to consider the realities of the constraints mainstream reports have to work within.

    I appreciate the post and understand that Jen’s trying to get beyond a lot of assumptions and stereotypes about Obama, the mixed race community, etc — still I think you can give reporters a little more credit! Maybe I’m a little ignorant of the degrees of idiocy out there but are journalists really asking “Are all mixed race people going to vote for Obama”? (Do they expect a “yes”??)

    And seeing as this is an *ideal* interview I really think you can still expand the conversation. Like Jess’s questions or Summer’s great point.

  16. cvalda wrote:

    Agreed with the point about research being crucial. There’s a similar problem with climate science, where certain reporters create a false balance by giving equal weight to unscientific arguments. It’s only since about 2006 that mainstream coverage has started to take sustainability seriously, after decades of well-tested theories being “balanced” by quotes from big oil think-tanks. You can’t expect the average person to be a polymath, but journalists are there to filter information.

    But yes, partly it’s down to tight schedules etc. Post-PR, political campaigns are particularly good at keeping reporters busy and therefore feeding certain lines to the public. So I think it’s a failing in the system, which isn’t always designed to present thoughtful, well-researched info.

    Don’t know what makes them distinct, but BBC and it’s sister-company Al Jazeera do pretty well at times. Al Jazeera’s coverage of the US has been fairly interesting.

  17. atlasien wrote:

    Jess, your analogy is really flawed. Particle physics would be like racial identity if:

    1) 33% of the population are aware and involved with the laws of particle physics since the age of 2 or so. And they have no choice in the matter. They may not understand particle physics at a college textbook level, but are reminded of the existence of the laws of particle physics on a daily or even hourly basis.

    2) the other 66% of the population has a vested interest in not discussing the laws of particle physics.

    3) A large percentage of the 66% and a small percentage of the 33% spend a lot of mental energy pretending that particle physics doesn’t exist. They don’t just ignore it, or leave it in some abstract, “doesn’t affect me” realm… it crosses their field of vision but gets explained away.

    Again, as much as you want to make this about abstract, formal learning, it’s not. It’s about the majority of the media aligning their interests with whiteness and white supremacy. I don’t blame journalists any more than I blame any other segment of society, but they shouldn’t get a special excuse either.

  18. lxy wrote:

    I wouldn’t waste a whole lot of time expecting anything positive from the mainstream American media in general.

    There is a reason that people are turning their back on the establishment media and old media outlets like newspapers.

    They find that alternative media like blogs are more insightful (and often more truthful).

    The mainstream American media long ago discredited itself as an institution with its grand lies about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that it used to justify first the USA’s ruthless sanctions against Iraq and later the American aggression against that nation.

    So it’s not suprising that on issues of race the mainstream media would also be similarly “lacking.”

  19. Angela wrote:

    I think this point has been missed in all the posts–non-white people don’t have the choice to not be interested in race. It is hoisted on us. Race has infected much of the experience of those of us considered outside the “norm.” The question becomes why keep placing this burden on us without taking the time to be more knowledgeable about race…It’s not something we created…If we are to move into a “post-racial” era…Everyone should have some knowledge of race… Why not ask individualistic questions? I’m just annoyed…

  20. Luis wrote:

    The mixed-race thing for black/white is pretty simple. In a room full of black people, a biracial person will (usually) be identified as black. Not always, but very often.

    In a room full of white people they will never be seen as white. Ever.

    Some people embrace this, others want to push against it and identify as both. Neither is right or wrong considering the context mentioned above.

    And identifying as primarily white… is an especially lonely road.

  21. JayOVAH wrote:

    Jen’s article was very interesting to me and brought up a lot of issues and considerations that i have had myself.

    I am one black man who considers Obama to be a black man because thats how i’ve heard him identify himself. If, like Tiger Woods, Obama identified himself as “mixed” or “Cablanasian” or whatnot then i, like a lot of black people, would not consider him particularly black.

    I have wondered a few things since this Presidential race has heated up. IF Obama was married to a white woman (a la Cindy McCain) rather than a black woman would most still see him as a black man running for President or as a mixed race man running? If we saw Obama and Michelle walking down the street and we didn’t know who he was, would he/they be a black family or would folks know immediately that he/they were a multiracial family? IF Obama wasn’t running for President but was, perhaps, running from the cops, would we care about his racial make-up or would he be considered just another black male perp?

    We all agree that we need discourse and discussion about race in America(and abroad) but yet, we get upset when folks(white or black) bring up the subject and ask questions. As i’ll admit, there are some rude questions that require no responses but often those questions are necessary and come from people who admit to their own ignorance and really want to know.
    Nothing is wrong with that. If someone, even in “middle America” doesn’t know someone “of color” or “mixed”, though i’d be quite surprised, i wouldn’t disregard their questions. We can not expect there to be discourse on any subject without questions put forth and answers given.

  22. JayOVAH wrote:

    Summer:
    You shouldn’t be disheartened. If you raise your son to identify as both cultures then he’ll grow up identifying as such and he’ll know that he doesn’t have to chose. At the same time, i think it’s necessary that you remind him that he must stick to his guns and remain “neutral”. We’re all put is boxes as we grow, it’s up to us to step outside the box. A lot of mixed race people like to argue that they can’t be categorized even as they categorize everyone else. It’s considered okay to identify as one or the other only when it comes to positive taking on those traits they consider positive while the negative traits are tossed aside as some “strictly black” or “strictly white” flaw. Most black people expect “black mixed” people to identify with the race only when we see ourselves as integral to their success and they promoted into our consciousness…thus Halle Berry is expected to identify as “black” while Nicole Ritchie isn’t.
    Your son is going to be who he is and identify as he does, it’s up to you to remind him of what he’s mixed with and remain steadfast that he understands the good and bad of both cultures are there for him to accept and take on.