Missing white female alert Why won't the media cover missing minority women? By Douglas MacKinnon, press secretary to former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole from 1998 to 2003 May 8, 2005 Note to the news media--with an emphasis on the cable networks: Enough is enough. Your continual focus on, and reporting of, missing, young, attractive white women not only demeans your profession but is a televised slap in the face to minority mothers and parents the nation over who search for their own missing children with little or no assistance or notice from anyone. The latest missing woman to dominate the airtime of the cable networks was Jennifer Wilbanks, from Duluth, Ga. Like Dru Sjodin, Chandra Levy and Elizabeth Smart all before her, Wilbanks is young, white and attractive. Wilbanks, as it turned out, ran away of her own volition from her impending marriage. As a Maryland police official told me after Wilbanks turned up in New Mexico, "the media's non-stop focus on the possible abduction of Wilbanks forced the local officials and police departments to spend thousands of dollars they would not otherwise have spent." Define racism. One could certainly make the argument that the cable networks that continually focus on these missing white women, to the virtual exclusion of minority women, are practicing a form of racism. The racism in this case, however, while predicated on color, does not concern itself with the color of one's skin. Rather, it is based on the color of money, ratings points and competition. Would an African-American woman who went missing days before her wedding receive the same (or any) coverage as that of Wilbanks? Not likely. The cable networks, which can certainly be considered centers of journalism, are also business centers with a harsh bottom line. The ratings for the cable networks are generally measured in the hundreds of thousands of viewers rather than the millions of viewers the major networks attract. Therefore, cable stations are constantly on the lookout for any story that may spike and then hold the ratings. Stories like those of Wilbanks, Sjodin, Levy or Smart seem to fit those requirements. A number of people who know me know I grew up on welfare and was homeless a number of times as a child. A few have asked an interesting question: "Was there any benefit to growing up so poor?" My answer, as Pollyannaish as it might sound, has always been, "Yes, there was. Because of our lack of money, many times we lived in minority neighborhoods, and I attended schools in which I was one of the few white children in class. To me, that was a gift and an experience that I would not trade for a childhood of wealth." Today, when I see these non-stop stories of missing, young white women, I think back to the African-American and Hispanic girls with whom I went to school, and I wonder if any of them have children missing, and how they might reconcile the fact that their children do not matter to the cable networks because they won't spike the ratings. No parent should ever have to entertain such hideous thoughts. One of the ironies of journalism that most bothers me is that when you want to ask a news organization to explain its mistakes, or a reporter, more often than not, you will get a "no comment" in response. It's truly a disgraceful answer from those who live to get answers from their targets--almost at any cost. I have a number of friends at the cable networks (or at least I did), and I have spoken to some about this very subject. While all professed disgust with the underreporting of missing minority women and young adults, most were very uneasy with the thought of shining a spotlight on their own management to ascertain an answer. "Besides," one of them told me, "you've already figured it out. We showcase missing, young, white, attractive women because our research shows we get more viewers. It's about beating the competition and ad dollars." Tragically, but not shockingly, in the spring of 2005, it seems the color of one's skin can determine the worth of that individual to some in the media. Journalism, as a profession, must be better than this. Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0505080347may08,1,1768148.story?ctrack=2&cset=true This really has gotten ridiculous. Maybe if enough people start speaking out, the networks will be embarassed enough to change their ways. But I doubt it.
The same is true of immigration and people who clamor of teaching only English in public schools. The minute men aren't patroling the Canadian border trying to stop illegals. Of course the Canadian border is where a terrorist was actually apprehended when attempting to enter the U.S. to blow up the LA airport. Still all the focus is on the Mexican border. In public schools in Texas for years there were classes taught in German, and Czech. There were parents who wanted their children to only speak those languages and didn't want to learn other languages themselves. There was never a big uproar about it. There is a double standard that has existed for a long time in regards to this kind of activity.
Not sure what this has to do with immigration or public schools but I agree with the basic premise of the article WRT the double standard. However, I think it has more to do with how rich (and therefore how powerful and 'important') the person is as opposed to what color the person is. Look at how the cable news channels handled the OJ trial.
These cable news are not interested in news, they are only interested in what they believe will keep their rating high. God how can you keep showing those stupid missing person stories day after day after day after day. After that keep talk about these stupid celebrity trials. I wish there were a REAL cable news channel out there.
I should have made more clear that I was expanding the eurocentric double standard to education. There was a clamor when some classes might be taught in Spanish, but classes were taught for years in German or Czech in Texas public schools, with no serious uproar. I also see your point about it being a rich thing. Either way the double standard is bad whether it be minority vs. white, or rich vs. poor.
There are. NPR, PBS and CBC are three. Of course, I'm sure the conservatives here will bash me for that because these stations actually report alternative perspectives...which apparently is unAmerican. But I'm sick of the Fox/Radio "news" that overtly finds stories to support their agent while portraying themselves journalists. What a crock. I'm even MORE sick of mainstream media that turns "news" into the equivalent of day-time soap operas by following every nuance of one story to the detriment of everything else.
Nobody said it's "unAmerican" but you can't deny that those 3 stations are just as biased as Fox if not more. Sorry, but there is no such thing as unbiased news anymore. Not anywhere.
Rich doesn't enter into it. Wilbanks/Levy/etc weren't famous or rich. Covering OJ, a famous black man facing the death panalty, isn't equivilant to Wilbanks. Apples/oranges to a missing person story. Wilbanks got pre-emptive sympathy by the public (presumabely because she's white/attractive). OJ got no sympathy from the public outside of the black community. Name me the last time there was coverage when a black/brown person turned up missing? Can't think of any? Me either. That's the point. Money and fame don't seem to be factors.
Everybody is biased. It is human nature. I'm not debating bias. Now lets talk about journalism. Here was what I like about NPR and CBC: 1. They actively try not to express opinions. They only present verifiable facts. You may not agree with their selection of the facts...but facts are facts. And that is what is nice, as a listener, you should draw your own conclusions...not simply agree with what was said...as in Fox. (Yes, they have opinion sections but it is advertised as such) 2. They almost always provide at least two points of view on any topic. They give contrasting opinions to their stories even if it is "silly" to do so. If they quote a Dem, they'll quote a Rebub as well. 3. They cover world news. Not American news as it relates to the world. As Americans, we are getting more and more biased because we so rarely see what happens elsewhere. The ironic part, is W's entire presidency is about world politics...yet as Americans we don't value world opinion. How backward is that?
I can deny it. Fox is easily the most biased "news" source there is. They are unabashedly pro-GOP to the extreme where PBS and NPR at least show both sides of an issue without the editorial flavor that Fox puts in every single story.
Bingo. Anyone who thinks that PBS and NPR are as biased as Fox News doesn't watch PBS or listen to NPR. They simply aren't. But, then again, PBS and NPR aren't run by Roger Ailes!
I did not know NPR had a TV program, I listen to their radio shows. PBS and CBS are not news networks, they show news only in segments. I am looking for a CNN style channel without all the junk.
So, on the topic of missing white female....... I don't think it's so much racism as it is targeting your audience. Though immigrants make up a huge portion of this country, 65% is still white. The media always carry stories that the audience want. Like, why aren't there any alerts on missing UGLY women. It's because people care less about ugly people (it's true). That said, there are underlying currents of racism in the mix.
NPR is way less biased than FOX news. They present stories that show different sides to an issue, as well as featuring stories that cover different sides to issues as well.
Exactly. I listen to that show, Left, Right, and Center, as well as Morning Edition/Weekend edition. All of them present many sides to issues, and none of them with an editorial slant, unless it is matched by an opposing editorial slant.
To me, CNN style is junk. So to ask for CNN style without all the junk is a contradiction in terms. If you want real news, buy a Tivo and record CBC. Then you can replay it 24/7 if you like. Yea, it'll be the same thing over and over...but how is that different than CNN? Then you won't have to hear about "Summer of Sharks," or "Terry Schaivo," or whatever is the latest pointless story.
LOL, so if a show/station/network supports your views, then it's not biased. Hell, at least I can admit that Fox News is biased. That's why I don't watch it. krosfyah, forgive my ignorance, but what is CBC? And do they have any news-babes as hot as Rudi Bakhtiar?
