THE MEDIA AND OUR COUNTRY'S AGENDA
587
tualism. One explanation is that objective journalism has been replaced
with civic journalism, advocacy journalism, journalists who see them–
selves as the guardians of political correctness and the gatekeepers who
determine who is authentic and who is not. They influence and often–
times decide who gets quoted in the press and who does not, who gets
invited onto the TV talk shows and who does not, who gets on the radio
programs and who does not.
I was invited to give a talk at Columbia University School of Journal–
ism at a retreat for higher education reporters. The journalists hated me,
not just because of what I said to them, but because I was not, in their
eyes, an authentic black. No matter that I grew up in Harlem; no mat–
ter that I was, for much of my youth and adult life, poor. No matter that
I got educated and pulled myself up out of poverty. I did not have the
right views. I did not reflect mainstream black thought. I did not under–
stand that I was supposed to be reflective of their racial bias. Suffice it
to say, not one of those higher education journalists who work for some
of the best newspapers in the land has ever called me for background,
for a quote, for anything. Or just to say that they appreciated my shar–
ing my time and perspective. Their lack of objectivity, their lack of intel–
lectual rigor, their intolerance of unconventional thinking, reflected their
considered judgment that I was an embarrassment to my race.
This open contempt-this media bias-is manifested day in and day
out towards those who do not agree with these journalists' viewpoints
about public controversies and public issues. I cannot tell you how
many times I have been on the receiving end of a phone call, not from
higher education reporters, obviously, but from other reporters, who
called me up supposedly wanting my viewpoint, but before I could give
my viewpoint they tell me their own viewpoint. And then their only
question is, do you agree?
If
you agree, you get in their articles; if you
don't agree, then you don't. They go on to the next phone call. Believe
me, it is difficult to agree with people who don't know what they're
talking about.
It
is difficult to agree with people who don't do any basic
research other than a phone call to try to get an expert's opinion and
information while they're doing all the talking.
I was on CNN, in a good debate-that was on CNN's
Talk Back
Live-on
the issue of school busing for integration. I'm a liberal, I'm in
favor of busing, but that's neither here nor there. The other guy was
opposed to busing. We were in a New York studio, and there was a live
audience in Atlanta. These folks didn't know anything about the Con–
stitution; they didn't know anything about the role of judges; they did–
n't know anything about how you prove discrimination, or that judges
