More on the CBCI-Fox News debate mess

While packing for my trip to Chicago earlier tonight, I saw a video commentary by the ubiquitous media man, Roland S. Martin on TV One.

He spoke passionately about Blackfolk supporting the scheduled CBC Institute's presidential debate series, encouraging the A-List Democratic contenders to rejoin the first precariously scheduled debate on September 23rd, having chosen to withdraw from the prospective debate due to the CBCI's affiliation with the Fox News Channel (as vehemently criticized by a loosely-organized cohort of Black netroots activists).

In sum, Martin said that withdrawing from the debate was wrong, and that it would negatively impact the CBCI's goal of bringing important Black issues to the fore, and that they should not be pressured by the likes of MoveOn.org, white liberals, and "their Black companion group, ColorOfChange.org".

So, if my strong affiliation and respect for ColorOfChange.org automatically makes me a lackey of white liberals, what does the CBCI board's unwavering commitment to the Fox News Channel make it? Hmmm . . .

While, indeed, MoveOn.org does not have a strong track record or reputation for reaching, engaging or representing a racially diverse membership, neither does the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to cozy up to Senate Republicans, does it?

The fact of the matter is that while Blackfolk need to cast a critical eye on all broadcast/
corporate/mainstream/independent media, those outlets that are consistently, flagrantly and explicitly racist should be considered the low-hanging (poison) fruit in the eyes of enlightened Blackfolk and others who are committed to fighting racism and other institutional forms of bigotry. As such, we are called to speak out against and disempower such media outlets by choosing not to validate them -- as the CBCI has committed to doing -- as a so-called news-gathering organization.

The fact is, Fox News reaches a much smaller audience than ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS (regardless of their declining news and overall ratings). Fox News also has a much smaller audience than the Tom Joyner Morning show or Steve Harvey's radio show. Moreover, YouTube.com (owned by Google), Facebook.com and MySpace.com (yes, I know it's own by Fox News' parent company, NewsCorp) also dwarf all of Fox News' audiences combined. In fact, the top 5 so-called progressive political blogs reach far bigger (combined) audience than any of Fox News' most popular shows.

So, why then is the CBCI determined to turn a deaf ear to the hue and cry to the growing contingent of perceived pesky "white liberal"-venerating dilitantes seeking to keep Black institutions accountable to, well,  . . . their own mission statements?

Afro-Netizen doesn't have a magic crystal ball. And perhaps the reasons are varied and complicated. Regardless, one thing is clear: If those of us in the Black netroots community don't continue to raise hell (loudly, visibly and virally), who will?

While one can argue that the best leaders also know how to follow, in the final analysis, leaders lead, right?

Or perhaps we can reflect on this current debacle as a teachable moment, showing us how the arrogant and short-sighted "leadership" of some public servants in our community represent instructive misteps providing rich lessons for how such individuals ultimately fare who choose to serve others' more opaque interests over the clear best interests of their own constituents.

However the CBCI leadership comes out of this fracas, one thing we should all be able to agree on is this: "The revolution will not be televised" -- and certainly not by the Fox News Channel.

 

Comments

[HebrewHePour]

The only part of this comment that is slightly on-point is that as a well-off, city-dwelling, middle-aged Jewish-Atheist (not a contradiction) man, I have always felt that the CBC best represented MY issues and especially so on the issue most important to my physical being and ability to earn a living (the UIGEA).

My question for Obama Watch, however, is would you CONVINCE ME I'M RIGHT OR CONVINCE ME I'M WRONG on Obama? More to the point, I have always felt that somehow the more progressive and more talented U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., was jobbed out of a shot at that Senate seat by some Daley/Emmanuel/Durbin deal besting a Jesse Sr/H.Washington-machine in an internecine Democratic fight.

I sort of smelled a rat when I heard Obama's famous 2004 speech at the convention. Personally, I felt that Al Sharpton and Howard Dean devlivered the strongest speeches there and Obama came across as something of a religious scold. I immediately went to the RIGHT-WING blogosphere and there was much praise for Obama over there: "Right Man, Wrong Party."

Nothing Obama has done or said since has dissuaded me from believing he is something of a Trojan Horse in the Democratic Party: his close friendship with James Dobson, Rick Warren, and especially Joe Lieberman. His ducking his vote on Terry Schiavo. His votes with Bush on various economic issues. His willingness to concede to nearly any Republican argument so long as the basis of the Republican's position is "based upon religion." His weak Bush-lite plan for Iraq. His non-health plan, health-plan. And so forth...

I prefer Dennis Kucinich but as I am an expatriate and may only vote in the Presidential election, I realize that I will probably have to decide to vote for either of Clinton (whose views I don't find sufficiently progressive) or Obama against whichever Republican. Or give up the franchise and vote for the President of my adopted country whom I DO like if, say, Obama gets the nomination.

Is there ANYTHING real -- other than the pride thing, gee whiz, I'm not proud of Dianne Feinstein! -- about Obama that makes him somehow a worthy choice?

[Avedon]

MoveOn.Org is tediously middle-of-the-road - remember, they were originally formed to stump for censure of Bill Clinton (as opposed to impeachment or nothing - they basically represented the middle group of a country that was split into thirds on that issue). So I don't look for them to be all that strong on anything but the most easily accepted positions.

But they are right about Fox, who are indeed aggressively racist and sexist. Fox makes a point of belittling pretty much anyone who takes racism seriously as an issue. They have no problem with people who are genuinely racist.

[JP Smith]

Very well put!

The only thing the CBCI is doing is offering legitimacy to an otherwise illegitimate "news" outlet. Fox has shown its true "colors" when it comes to black folks (pardon the pun). I think Brother Roland needs to remember that black folks are smarter than that.

[DamonO]

I can't believe they actually considered going on Fox News in the first place. Fox is so blatantly biased it should've been a no-brainer to stay away from them.

[rikyrah]

I agree with you. We have to continue to press the issue on this. It's one thing to have benign neglect, it's another to have outright open disregard and hostility - which is Fox.