Beans Wit Attitude: Minorities In The Media

Civil rights for minorities have come a long way over the years, but sometimes it seems society will never get over the “racial hill” and treat everyone equally.

It makes me angry, or should I say sickens me, to hear stories of discrimination and hate among groups based on race, gender, sexuality, or any other form of prejudice. While the blame for these empty-headed individuals can be placed on their parents and peers, some accountability must be given to the media.

For the record, I am not saying that the media is bigoted; but its inability to report on certain stories causes stereotypes among people and leads to their ignorance.
Carbondale Councilwoman Corene McDaniel brings the argument to a local level. She says regional media has not given proper coverage to the African American community in Carbondale.

“The main issue is African Americans and the relationship that we have with the police department,” McDaniel said. According to McDaniel, this has been the biggest dilemma facing the African American population in Carbondale for the last eight years, which she has had first-hand experience with.

McDaniel said her son, Leon, came out of an apartment building where a shooting had taken place and the police automatically thought he was the shooter. He was arrested on the spot.

“Leon didn’t do that! Leon didn’t do that!” a victim that had been shot said, but Leon was still taken to the police station.

So if this has been an issue in Carbondale for at least eight years, then the media has given it a fair amount of coverage, right?

Wrong.

“If you don’t want anybody to know about it, you just don’t have to put it on the news,” McDaniel said. “If you don’t have a relationship with somebody that can give you a tip or whatever, it may not ever get to the news, so you can’t blame the media for not covering it.”

McDaniel is being generous. I’m not.

If I am reading this quote correctly, McDaniel is saying that reporters do not cover important news because they are ignorant…and it is okay? Why are they ignorant? Because they do not care.

If reporters cared, they would mix it up with the community and learn these things on their own. Anonymous tips cannot be used for every story. Reporters need to talk to people on the street, go to local barbeques, or attend a church service; they have to understand the people they are writing about.

McDaniel does not give the media free passes for everything though. She is upset with how the media mentions whether a person is “black” or not when reporting a crime.

“It used to be that’s all that was done by the media. They always identified a black person,” McDaniel said. “I thought, ‘how come you said this was a black person?’”

One may argue that this is just part of the description.

“How come a white person isn’t part of the description?” McDaniel said.

McDaniel is right. Every time an African American is reported for a crime, his or her race will be mentioned. Will it happen every time for a white person? Probably not.

Again, I am not saying that the media is racist, but this shows that the little things make a difference. By mentioning a suspect is black and disregarding it for a white suspect, people will start to think of a black person when they hear the word “criminal.”

I recognize that reporters cannot cover every story, but I will not allow ignorance to be used as justification. Their job is to report on the community and they should treat it like a job. Along with reporting stories, a reporter’s job is to get into the community and learn what the real issues are.

Report the important stories. Show you care. No excuses.

Beans Wit Attitude: Reporter Relationships

My mom always told me to treat others like I would want to be treated. Apparently, some reporters and public officials missed that lesson.

The key to succeeding in the media is telling the truth. When a reporter lies to a source, or vice versa, it becomes hard to maintain a professional relationship.

This has been a problem in the past with Sergio Molina, the Executive Assistant to the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. He said that reporters have lied to him several times and it kills their credibility.

On the other side, it is also common for officials to not be truthful with the press. Sometimes a source may not flat-out lie, but also will not answer the question satisfactorily. In my opinion, this kills the credibility as well; if a source is not giving necessary information, the reporter will go to someone else.

So how do reporters and public officials build trust?

According to Molina, honesty is the key. He says that reporters will lie about talking to sources, which is a dumb mistake. All it takes is one phone call to that source to find the reporter was lying. Why lose a source over something so small? Telling the truth works.

Molina also relates that he must be honest with reporters to keep his job. When officials are exposed for lying, they lose integrity with the media and their communities. Losing both of these will ruin their career.

Another factor that is important to Molina is a reporter’s ability to explain their article. If a reporter can lay out what story they plan to tell, he can answer questions in a way to help the reporter. He says he also respects a reporter who asks a lot of questions because it shows that they did their homework.

This is a problem with many reporters: they don’t ask the right questions. They do not do research and settle for the quick quote. I say dig deeper. Find out something worth knowing and challenge officials to do better. Make the story worthwhile to your reader and ask the question no one else is asking.

This, unfortunately, leads to another problem. Some reporters think a scandal lies at the bottom of every story. Instead of asking the important questions that affect the community, they instead look for a deeper meaning behind simple stories.

This can also kill reporter-source relationships. If an official is constantly on the defensive, how will they ever be comfortable answering questions? While the official is obligated to answer questions, they should be questions that the readers care about.

Citizens care about how a new sewage system will affect their taxes. They do not care if the mayor is possibly helping out a friend in the sewage business. While it may be a plausible theory, it does not attack the readers’ main concern, which is a clean sewage system that will protect them and their family.

There is also a question of whether or not reporters and public officials can become friends while maintaining a business relationship.

It is possible. The only problem is knowing where to draw the line. If a reporter becomes too close with a source, they may be more resistant in asking the hard questions. But if a source is upset with a reporter, it may be hard to get any answers at all.

It all comes back to the golden rule. Being friendly is important, and it is possible to write encouraging stories instead of scandalous ones. Molina says reporters are beneficial when they write about a program that is helping the community. If you help out your source, they will likely help you in return.

Reporters and public officials are not enemies. But, by nature of their jobs, they tend to be competitors. While this may create bad blood, it also challenges them to do their jobs better. They do not have to get along, they just have to tolerate each other by being professional and helping one another.

My mom was always pretty smart.

Beans Wit Attitude: Earth Hour

In Sydney, Australia during 2007, 2.2 million homes and businesses turned off their lights as part of Earth Hour.

And in case you have been too busy writing your “Global Warming is a Hoax” essay and missed the news, here is an update: over 4,000 cities in 88 countries participated on Saturday, and the number will likely continue to grow.

Over 60,000 people showed up for an Earth Hour festival in New Zealand, the stadiums used for the Olympics in China went black, and the world’s tallest tower in Dubai was lost in the darkness.

Yes, Earth Hour has hopped on the media train and is gaining speed and support.

Its popularity, however, has unfortunately garnered some criticism as well.

It is inevitable the cynics jump on anything that begins to unite people. How could someone have such contempt for a project with such heart?

Alas, I have heard their complaints and actually found one piece of constructive criticism: what is one hour going to do?

The World Worldlife Fund has recognized it cannot determine how much energy is saved during Earth Hour. To say it does nothing is ridiculous, but I cannot see how it has any significant effects on energy consumption.

During Earth Hour in 2008, I remember looking outside to see if anyone was participating; it looked as though nobody on campus knew anything of the campaign.

Environmental policy does not appear to be a prevalent issue among young people. In the 2008 presidential election, according to the Pew Research Center, energy policy ranked fifth as an issue among voters aged 18-29, right behind health care and terrorism.

While I believe that the new generation recognizes the environmental harm being done, I bet if you asked your average college student what the Kyoto Protocol was, he or she wouldn’t know.

So how do we make them care?

I would compare this dilemma to the 2008 presidential election. There was a big push for the young vote last year and Obama was at the forefront. He attended hip-hop concerts, spoke at college universities, and sent out mass e-mails to his supporters, catering to the new generation.

Why does my vote matter? This was a question many young voters probably asked themselves. I know I did. Rationally, especially in Illinois, it made no sense to bother voting in the presidential election. Obama was projected to win from the start and everybody knew it.

But still, 2.2 million more young voters showed up to vote in 2008 than in 2004, showing that America’s youth is finally starting to care. It has not become a question of "does my vote matter?" but instead a question of "does caring matter?"

This generation does care about the environment, and the young population must be mobilized into caring about energy policy.

Caring about energy policy may not put up any hard numbers in the short-term, but I believe this is only the beginning. As Earth Hour gains momentum, the young can jump on board. If it became a regular event, say monthly instead of yearly, it would have more of an effect.

2008 was the year young people finally had a say in the presidential election, so let us make 2009 the year they show support for energy policy.

Earth Hour may be over, but we can still help: turn off your lights if necessary, shut off your computer when it is not in use, and instead of watching television, read a book. Instead of making a change for an hour, we should be making life changes and doing our part to protect the environment.

Just by showing that we care, we can prove the critics wrong.

Beans Wit Attitude: Concealed Carry Part 1

As of March, 2009, I was totally against guns: owning them, buying them, whatever. I just wanted them off the street.

Then I read a sixteen-year study performed by John Lott. The study found that areas where concealed carry was allowed had lower rates of crime. In 1992, this was the first comprehensive, lengthy study done on the issue. I was totally convinced, did a 180, and started to think concealed carry was a good thing.

Then I ‘googled’ John Lott. He has been a huge NRA supporter his whole life.

Can I get someone to do a study that isn’t emotionally involved or politically tied?
This continued to happen as I searched other concealed carry studies, getting mixed results. But again, I continued to find that the only people performing these studies had ties to gun laws in the past. Doesn’t that affect what you will put in the study and what you leave out? I found no middle ground in any of the studies; guns were either good or bad.

Wanted: an old, grizzly, hard-nosed professor from some boring Ivy League university that will conduct an unbiased study and include anything and everything they find. Put it all into a big, fancy equation and give us an answer. You will receive a hefty salary.

Since we don’t have any legit studies with any uncompromising conclusions, I am forced to nit-pick and deal with crazy scenarios people dream up when debating concealed carry laws. And living in Illinois, where it has become a more pressing issue at the Capitol recently, the debate comes up a lot.

Even further, there is talk of concealed carry being allowed on university campuses. In my Public Relations Reporting class, where half of the students work at the school newspaper, it has become a hot-button issue of discussion.

First, let me start with concealed carry laws. I am in moderately in favor of concealed carry, but I am still very torn on the issue. I do believe, in most cases, that concealed carry would deter crime. Although John Lott is a gun-nut, there are facts from his study and others like his that cannot be ignored:

In states where concealed carry was allowed in 1992, an average of less than 2% actually obtained permits. In Florida, only 444,000 were granted in 10 years. By 1997, only half of those people were still licensed because they failed to renew their permit. Of those 444,000, only 84 lost their permits due to a felony of using a firearm.

This part of the study found that crime went down in Florida, but I see a deeper meaning to these numbers: if only a small number of people are actually taking advantage of the permits, then why not have them? The people getting these permits are not felons with a criminal record, for they cannot buy guns anyway. They are law-abiding citizens who feel they could benefit from having a weapon. How many of them actually used those guns to defend themselves? I would say not very many.

So let us say that 1 in 100 Florida citizens bought guns. That would mean that 1 out of 100 citizens that get mugged would have a gun in the rare occurrence, pending they bothered bringing their gun that day. Now, how many criminals do you think know that number? Again, very few.

The fact: we don’t add many more guns and still scare the criminals. People have this idea that there would be shoot-outs in the street every day. But the fact is that not many will actually buy a gun. Would you personally buy a gun if you could? I know I wouldn’t. I don’t have enough time or money to care that much, and I reside in a town a high rate of crime.

This is a limited amount of information, and without a sufficient study, I cannot come to an accurate conclusion.

The next part of this series will deal with hypothetical situations and all-out bans on guns.