,
14 tweets,
12 min read
Read on Twitter
Keith Woods is what @johnastoehr talks about when he discusses the press as being anti-moral.
Woods is basically arguing that we should ignore the garbage before us and call it something else. Which is the opposite of what journalism should do. @keithwoods
Woods is basically arguing that we should ignore the garbage before us and call it something else. Which is the opposite of what journalism should do. @keithwoods
Woods argue that reporters should "just do journalism". That's nice. But that argument assumes that readers can easily see bigotry without the help of journalists literally spelling it out for them. This is not so. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
For one thing, racism isn't merely about blatant words or acts. To think that is, as Richard Rubin once said in his essay on the Emmett Till jury, is to engage in binary thinking. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Racism is also about the consequences of words and actions, done with and without malice, that within a White Supremacist nation with legacies of slavery and Jim Crow embedded in its systems, lead to damage to Black and Brown people. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Because much of what racism is cannot be simply described or reported on, journalists have to call the results and disparate impacts out for what they are. As well as call out the blatant words and acts for what they are. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Keith is a Black man, and he should know this. Which makes his entire essay even more questionable. How do you, as a Black person, state that racism should not be called for what is when your people have been harmed by it? @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Keith should know that racism cannot be easily discussed just by pointing to things and reporting on them. Especially since a lot of White people don't agree that disparate impact is racism - even when facts show it is. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
So, basically, Keith is entitled to his opinion. But he is wrong on this count. Reporters should call racism exactly as it is. It is the factual thing to do. Because racism exists and we should say so. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
By the way: Woods argues that calling racism racism will somehow damage the credibility of the press. I would argue that media outlets lose credibility when they don't actually describe and call facts what they are. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Going further, as long as there has been a free press, there have been questions about the credibility of media outlets. Some of those questions have been well-deserved. Others, however, are just matters of bias in masquerade. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Partisans will always want something to be called something other than what it is. Others will complain about descriptions. For example, descriptions of public charter schools rankle supporters and foes. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
Trump supporters will always complain when someone points out his racist statements and actions. That's a given. This is no reason to not call those acts and words racists. @keithwoods @johnastoehr @alexanderrusso
