Cartoon by Sam Milai for the Pittsburgh Courier

In honor of Black History Month, The LAMP dedicates February’s Gaslight to African American pioneers in news media.

February 3, 1947: Percival Prattis becomes the first African American news correspondent admitted to the press galleries of both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition to his work as a journalist, Prattis was a civil rights leader working to advance the African American press. A veteran of World War I, Prattis joined the Pittsburgh Courier in 1935, became editor in 1956 and retired in 1962. He has been noted for his ability to unify black newsmen behind the fight against discrimination of African Americans in the press, particularly in the years around World War II. Prattis’ ability to directly observe Congress allowed him to report on government proceedings with firsthand knowledge of events, and he could apply his unique perspective as an African American veteran and leader of the early movement for civil rights.

February 8, 1944: Before Percival Prattis integrated the Congressional news galleries, Harry S. McAlpin integrated the Washington press corps when he became the first African American admitted to a White House press conference. McAlpin was advised against going to the press conference by Paul Wooten, reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and President of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA). Wooten informed McAlpin that he was not welcome in the press conference, that he would be given the notes taken by others in attendance for use in his reporting, and was told he could join the WHCA if he agreed to stay out of the press conferences. However, McAlpin attended the conference in the Oval Office anyway, and made a point of stopping by President Theodore Roosevelt’s desk. The President shook his hand and said, “I’m glad to see you McAlpin, and very happy to have you here.”

Malvin R. Goode

February 13, 1908: This is the birthday of Malvin R. Goode, who became the first African American television news correspondent for ABC in 1962. It happened that the lead ABC correspondent was on vacation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Goode was called upon to report in his absence. His 1995 obituary in the New York Times notes that Mal Goode was recommended to the position by his friend Jackie Robinson, and anchor Peter Jennings considered him a mentor. Before going on television, Goode worked at the Pittsburgh Courier while Percival Prattis was there, and continued the fight for civil rights long after his retirement from ABC in 1973.

However, using class relationship-therapy speak, the apology amounts to little more than a statement saying, “I’m sorry you were hurt.” In no way do the editors take responsibility for the fact that they made a gross oversight by not anticipating the reaction and offense that the cartoon would elicit from all the Americans who celebrate the destruction of a significant racial barrier. With that in mind, I don’t think the Post’s editors are stupid. Insensitive, yes, but also cunning. They got us to turn our heads in their direction. I believe in free speech, and while the cartoon infuriated me, they do have a right to print it–what really got to me was the so-called “apology,” which feels more to me like a slap in the face with their inclusion of the below statement:

“However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.”

The accusation that those who spoke out against the cartoon are vengeful opportunists is nothing short of petty and childish. Not knowing the inner thoughts and secrets of every public figure who issued a statement, I can’t say for sure that their response had nothing to do with a grudge against the paper, but this is neither the time nor place for the paper to make that claim. If just one person, or even a few, were leading a crusade against the Post as a result of this column, that would be one thing, but the feeling I get from people I speak with about this is one of genuine disgust. Political cartoons are often meant to rile, and I’m a huge fan of clever satire that exposes something new (see: Thomas Nast). But there’s nothing clever about Delonas’ cartoon. There’s nothing witty. He absolutely has a right to print it. But, the New York Post should understand that we are no longer grade schoolers fighting on the playground, and take seriously the response to their work.

Media are most usually barred from an event or place for political reasons, as they famously were during the Buddhist monk protests in Myanmar during the summer of 2007.  In this situation, news often comes from citizen journalists who somehow manage to break through established barriers. Even then, however, the number of people who can report are limited, as walls are made greater and stronger by officials charged with restricting media and press freedom. A tree falls in a forest, even if no one is there to see it, but the report that follows is vastly different from what can be provided by an eyewitness account. All we have left to look at is the event that already happened, forcing the reporter to act as a detective with only a few solid facts to use. Example: Almost any news story from Guantanamo.
As mentioned earlier, this is happening right now in the Gaza strip, with Israel barring journalists from entering the battleground. The international news is dominated by Gaza, and yet nobody is there to tell us what’s happening. Israel claims that some of this is tactical, as they fear the media would allow Hamas to see too much of their military operations, thus compromising their efforts. There is evidence to back this up, as the media spoiled rescue efforts of the Jewish hostages in the 1972 Munich Olympics, and television has been blamed for assisting terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks.

Freedom of press relies upon unfettered access. That is without debate. Nobody likes it when someone tells them that they just don’t get the right to know about something, like right now when we don’t get to know about Gaza. The question of whether or not the public needs to know, or has a right to know about everything that happens everywhere in the world, is a slippery one. But, it all comes back to the central point that when watching the news, we have to consider how we know what we know.

It’s true that you can’t trust everything you read online, and we at the LAMP encourage our students to ask questions rather than take something at face value.  However, you also shouldn’t trust something in print just because it’s in print.  In fact, I would argue that in some ways you should be less trusting of print news than of web news, all for a little thing called the hyperlink.  When I read a news story online, I love it when every claim made by the author is backed up with a hyperlink which brings me to the source of the information, because it helps me make my own decisions about what I’m reading.

Let’s make an example: Suppose Jimmy Journalist claims that yesterday the sky was green and the grass was blue in Boise, Idaho.  To me this sounds crazy, and I’m inclined to ignore it, until I click on the hyperlink attached to the claim and see for myself that the source he used is a highly respected professor who is able to explain, from a scientific perspective, how and why this phenomenon is possible.  I still don’t have to believe it, but I have respect for the fact that the journalist made his reporting transparent enough that I can check things out for myself.  Imagine if William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer had to use hyperlinks when writing about the destruction of the Maine.

Therein lies part of the problem–nobody is required to use hyperlinks today.  Most articles I read in online versions of print newspapers (like the New York Times) do not link back to their sources.  This makes sense sometimes, as not all sources are from the Internet, but in most cases there is something online that can be used to back up a claim.  As far as I know, it’s never been standard practice for newspapers to include complete bibliographies for every article I print, but I wish it was.  Until then, long live the hyperlink, and journalism that makes use of it.

With newspapers bearing headlines such as “Hooker Happy” and “Ho No!” being sold on every corner, lots of questions can come up in the mind of a kid. Ultimately, the most important thing is not to shun that conversation. Be an active listener. You don’t have to lie, but you don’t have to divulge every little detail if it’s not appropriate. Try to think of times like these as opportunities to get to know your son or daughter better, and to engage their sense of right and wrong.

For a great resource about talking with your kids about the news (and other things), check out PBS’s Talking With Kids series.

For examples of how some families discussed the Spitzer scandal, read this brief article from the New York Times.