| Posted: 28 March 2008 at 10:54am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I think the first time I noticed "race" as a problem in relation to Obama in this campaign was when someone referred to him as "articulate" and it was interpreted as "articulate for a black guy." (Which I understand is because it's been used that way about other black people in the past, and certainly that makes it suspect, but still ... ) whereas the truth is that he's "articulate for a presidential candidate, regardless of race, gender or party."
I think race has been an issue since the beginning. Mostly because the press has been discussing whether race would be an issue since his memorable speech at the Democratic National Convention that brought him to a lot of people's attention.
What the press have been waiting for is an event or issue that would start polarizing people along racial lines. they've been anticipating it and practically begging for it, because they needed something to fill that vacant and "pregnant" spot in their pre-planned narrative. And now they've decided that the Reverend Wright issue is it. And they're making damn sure this is it. So that they can follow with a pre-planned narrative of "we weren't ready yet" which is more comfortable than "we were ready, and we went there" which is a continuing narrative that will require the press to change some of their fundamental assumptions about the Status Quo of America. It might require them to rethink what news are most important to Americans.
The press (and I'm probably grossly over-generalizing here) likes a multicolor america as long as its face is a comfortable , familar white. The press likes to think that america is less ready for change than they are, that the little nuggets of social issues, civil rights issues and racial and gender equality issues they cover is more than enough to cover the needs of their readers.
But if America actually elects a black president, then the perspectives of the press seem positively backwards.
(Okay, I know this whole bit is a lot of over generalizing, but I'm thinking in terms of theories of journalistic reality as a form of socially constructed narrative with certain "necessary" points that have to happen, politics and reality being forced into a sort of pre-determined "arc" without the participants necessarily planning it that way or being aware of it as it happens . A little "out there" , I know.)
|