The current British Prime Minister may be under fire from conservatives within the UK government over his handling of the current economic crisis, but it's a positive sign that he has become the first leader of a major Western Power to step forward and put his signature on the London Declaration against antisemitism.
On Wednesday the Anti Defamation League Website reported that 120 lawmakers from 40 countries came together at the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.
One of the most interesting goals of this ambitious effort to combat anti-Jewish bigotry is to form a coalition of Internet experts to track the metrics of online antisemitic activity.
Perhaps they could start by monitoring racist, antisemitic hate monger Ann Coulter, who openly expresses her hatred of Jews (and pretty much anyone who isn't blond, white, Christian, American and registered with the Republican party..) on mainstream media all the time. Take a look at the clip to the right. Achtung baby.
It's a great sign to see global initiatives like this take root as humanity seeks to step into a more evolved age of awareness and begin bringing hate and discrimination in all it's forms into the light of truth and knowledge.
My hope would be to see the White House follow suit with a similar pledge of support from President Obama and raise racial unity and the healing of the wounds of hate to it's rightful place at the top of the agenda.
It simply baffles me how mainstream media organizations continue to parade Ann Coulter onto podiums, panels and talk shows to feed from the trough of her offensive slew of pseudo-journalism and demented right-wing white supremacist ideology.
Back on January 5th I blogged about the successful grass-roots efforts of thousands of outraged Americans of all races who flooded NBC with calls of protest over a scheduled appearance on the Today Show to promote her latest book; which MediaMatteers.org described as filled with blatant inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Don't get me wrong, in this nation the First Amendment grants us the right to free speech.
But just as the Supreme Court has ruled that doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater, I consider it a mockery of the Constitution to permit this anti-Semitic, homophobe-racist liar to have a pulpit on the airwaves to pollute the nation's collective consciousness with hate.
Let's take a specifc example.
To hear right-wing extremist/media pundit/author Ann Coulter describe the Council of Conservative Citizens in her latest book, one might asume that the CCC is merely a group of patriotic Americans with an atypical conservative ideology.
According to a recent article posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch e-newsletter, Coulter describes the CCC as a group advocating “a strong national defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the traditional family, and an ‘America First’ trade policy.” Further, anyone who levels criticism against the CCC including the New York Times, she dismisses as liberals “who have no principles.”
But as is usually the case with Coulter, the actual truth is very different from what she says or writes. The CCC is a modernized version and the successor of what was once known in this country as the 'White Citizens' Council'.
It would be a disservice to call it a white supremacist hate group, because it's far more extensive and couches itself behind a cloak of legitimacy.
During the 30's, 40's and 50's when members of the NAACP, lawyers, human rights groups, journalists and other advocates of legal rights undertook massive grass roots campaigns across the southern United States to confront segregation and work to ensure that blacks in the south were able to exercise the right to vote, White Citizens' Councils chapters sprang up in communities across the south to defend segregationist policies and actively discourage and prevent blacks from voting - a right granted under the Constitution.
The "Councils" were typically made up of leading business and civic leaders of a given town or community and included judges, sheriffs, bank owners, real estate agents, store owners, farmers, lawyers and many newspapers publishers and editors.
"Advances its ideology by inflaming fears and resentments, among Southern whites particularly, with regard to black-on-white crime, non-white immigration, attacks on the public display of the Confederate flag, and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture."
Dime-store intellectuals like Coulter aren'the only ones who have spoken in front of and supported the CCC. Reublican Senator Trent Lott and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, both influential figures in the GOP, (take a wild guess as to how THESE guys feel about African-American Michael Steele being selected as the Republican Natonal Committee chair) have spoken at CCC events.
If Ann Coulter defends them, what is she doing on Fox News or appearing at college campuses?
Ask yourself why mainstream media gives her a pulpit from which to spew racist, anti-Semitic lies? Why would a person like this be anywhere NEAR the Today Show?
People like Ann Coulter represent far more of a danger to the US than any terrorists; terrorists are subject to arrest and capture - we don't put them on talk shows and radio to talk about their philosophy.
The New York Post continues to make headlines around the world, although not for their coverage of the war or the struggling economy - but for depicting the President as a dead chimp.
It's a new low even by the questionable standards of the New York Post as the editorial staff is apparently reduced to resurrecting the most base racist imagery in order to sell newspapers.
In the wake of the growing firestorm of controversy surrounding the disturbing cartoon (pictured above) depicting two white police officers standing over the blood-spattered corpse of a dead chimpanzee representing the President of the United States, the owners and editorial staff of the Post have further degraded themselves by issuing a half-ass apology that defended the decision to run the cartoon as a protest against the economic stimulus bill; suggesting they have absolutely no clue of just how offensive this cartoon is for many Americans.
But if the global media reaction is any indication, the Post is about to get a lesson.
On Saturday the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP called for a boycott of the paper, demanded a detailed apology and insisted that the editor-in-chief Col Allan and the cartoonist Sean Delonas both be fired.
Local television news stations here in New York City over the weekend featured updates on the story and interviews with New Yorkers in the street - who, regardless of race seem overwhelmingly aghast at the cartoon.
The question on many minds is why?
The editorial pages of the Post are typically populated by more Republican-leaning views that span the gamut from conservative thinkers like Robert Novack or Ralph Peters, all the way to bizarre fact-bending purveyors of angry, hate-filled right-wing rhetoric like Michelle Malkin or Bill O'Reilly - but this cartoon goes beyond that.
Aside from it's sports or entertainment coverage, one can always depend on the Post's articles and writers to present a perspective that will come down on the right. That's one of the reasons I read it, as a way to gauge conservative viewpoints that differ from my own. I've had two of my letters published.
But I've noticed that whenever an unarmed black suspect is beaten or shot by members of the NYPD, the Post inevitably spins the coverage as pro-police regardless of the facts of the case. Like clockwork, an article by cranky conservative crumudgeon Steve Dunleavy will appear extholing the virtues of police and blasting anyone who has the audacity to question police brutality.
But by now it's clear to millions of people of all races that the Post has stepped off the proverbial reservation and violated the boundaries of reasonable editorial commentary.
It's not a lampoon, a political cartoon or even a jest.
It is a violent and racist statement that dredges up the tired time-honored stereotypes that depict African-Americans as apes, gorillas or monkeys in place of well-reasoned intellectual discourse.
In response the Post printed a lame excuse for an apology and used the opportunity to label Al Sharpton as an instigator. Sharpton is what he is, but he didn't draw the cartoon.
It's flat out wrong of the Post to suggest the murder of the President (at the hand of two white police officers) because they disagree with the economic stimulus package.
What's next? Inspiring lynch mobs to storm the White House and lynch Presdent Obama because he passes legislation the Post doesn't like?
The editor-in-chief needs to resign immediately along with the cartoonist and an apology must be made by Rupert Murdoch. Period.
As an American I'm not really comfortable with an arrogant power-obsessed Australian media-tycoon condoning the murder of a US president because he doesn't like his legislation or his skin color - not when he owns other newspapers and two television stations here in the city as well.
Haven't we got enough problems to deal with without racists like Murdoch fanning the flames of hatred and ignorance to sell more copies of a newspaper?
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's defiant ideological stance against the United States and in particular former-president George W. Bush reveals a man with an unquestioned grasp of the power of the media.
He garnered worldwide media attention after calling Bush "The Devil" at the United Nations. He openly denounced Bush's Iraq War policy and sought to align the world's poorest nations in opposition to US foreign policy.
When skyrocketing oil prices in 2004 pumped billions of dollars into the Venezuelan economy, Chavez defiantly thumbed his nose openly at Washington by shipping free heating oil to poor urban residents in the Bronx and other areas in the United States during the winter months.
He has hosted Hollywood admirers like Sean Penn and Danny Glover.
But according to a February 12th New York Times article long-held accusations of anti-Semitism leveled against him have once again surfaced amidst a recent wave of violence against Jewish-owned businesses, synagogues and other property after Chavez denounced Israel for their actions in the Gaza War.
He expelled the Israeli ambassador then demanded that the members of Venezuela's Jewish population denounce the leaders of Israel's government as "assassins." When a synagogue was desecrated with anti-Semitic slurs on January 31, Chavez brazenly dismissed the attacks as the work of Israel's intelligence wing the Mossad - despite a report from the Venezuelan attorney general that 5 members of the Venezuelan police and an intelligence operative were arrested in connections with the attacks.
State-sponsored anti-Semitism? Chavez's positions on Jews go back well before 2009; one of his closest advisers in the 90's was Norberto Ceresole, an Argentinian sociologist recognized by many as a fascist and an anti-Semite.
To his credit Chavez offered aid to residents of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina and actively campaigned on the part of the poor in his own country; but that's not a blank check to dredge up anti-Jewish rhetoric in an attempt to tap anti-Semitic feelings in his nation.
His recent actions leave cause to wonder if those efforts to help blacks in the US were sincere, or just clever media spin employed to solidify his own power. For someone who accuses the Israelis of acting like Nazis, Chavez certainly seems to have the lessons of the Third Reich's resident spin-meister Josef Goebbels down to a tee.
As anyone who's read this blog might know, on the weekends I love cooking brunch and listening to NPR.
I did pretty well on this afternoon's always hysterical radio news quiz "Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me" think you know your current events for the week? Click the link and take a shot at this week's quiz!
Tavist Smiley is doing a phone interview with the newly selected chair of the Republican National Committee. A Black president AND a black chair of the GOP in one year? I gotta sit down.
In January I kicked off 2009 with a blog in the wake of perpetually hostile femme-Nazi-freak Ann Coulter's book plug appearance on NBC's Today Show being pulled after viewer outrage promted a flood of calls to 30 Rock.
It wasn't just former Republican National Committee chair-candidate Chip Saltsman's sending out CD's with the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on it to the members of the RNC as a holiday stocking stuffer (it's not his fault, that disengaged schmuck wanna-be power broker didn't even grasp how that affects the perception of the party, he was strictly status-quo....zzzzzzz) that clarified the need for the Republican Party to step back and redefine itself to re-connect with the American electorate.
In 2008 the GOP learned the hard way that it cannot possibly survive as a party that speaks exclusively to privileged white males.
Political novice Sarah Palin's selection as the VP candidate was nothing more than a failed media gimmick designed to try and counter the media fervor and energy that stemmed from the Democratic party's selection of Barack Obama as their candidate for president.
What was the GOP honestly thinking picking an obscure governor of a state with a population of 686,293 people who has difficulty conjugating and thinks Africa is a country as the next person in line for the highest office in the land?
John McCain didn't even select her as his running mate, the party did; and it's now well-known he was privately pissed about it.
Time will tell but I think it's a pretty big statement on the part of the GOP to pick Michael Steele, the first African-American lieutenant governor of Maryland (who lost a bid for former Senator Paul Sarbanes US Senate seat to Ben Cardin) as the head of the party.
It's not going to alter the culture of the party over night, but listening to Steele's interview, its the little things that are slowly going to change the perception problems and branding issues that the Republican party faces looking ahead.
For instance Steele told Tavist Smiley he requested that the daily press briefing the party issues be sent to all major African-American media outlets for radio, newspaper and Internet.
Prior to that, communicating with the media outlets that speak to blacks wasn't even part of the of the Republican agenda. That's the kind of thinking that will have to change if the GOP expects to move forward in the 21st century as a party that has the ability to govern on behalf of all Americans regardless of salary, skin color or religion.
Put simply change is the natural order of the universe and it's time for the GOP to cowboy up.
Steele's appointment is a step in the right direction.
I was thinking about my previous entry about the state of the ad industry and I recalled a very interesting interview from AdAge.com a couple years ago with two African-American ad executives from different generations.
Doug Alligood and Erika Emeruwa were both ad execs with BBDO in March, 2007 at the time of the article.
They were 73 and 27 respectively at the time the article was written.
I thought it might be lend some perspective to the challenges facing the ad industry to look at their perspectives to lend some insight into how we can better understand the kinds of steps the leaders of this industry might consider to not only bring some balance to the ranks of Madison Avenue; but to get a sense of how difficult it is for people of color to feel comfortable about choosing to work in such an industry.
It's a good surface look at what it's like to be black in the advertising world.
Doug Alligood was at BBDO in the early 60's, almost unheard of at the time. In that respect he is something of a pioneer in the industry - a black man who found success and a career working in an industry that is today, almost exclusively white.
Erika Emeruwais bright, confident graduate of George Washington University, a young woman raised in circumstances very similar to my own - an environment in which she was usually "the only black person in the class" and I know what that is like having been raised in the suburbs of Bethesda, MD.
Their 2007 interview in AdAge.com (written by Lisa Sanders)is an interesting and I think objective look from the perspectives of two African-Americans with middle class upbringings who simply had a passion to work in the ad industry...and succeeded. It's worth a look.
Looking at ways to encourage diversity within the ad industry.
Last February when I blogged about advertisers under-serving Asian-American consumers, I referenced a Calgon commercial (pictured left) I remember well from my childhood which was rife with stereotypical assumptions and images of Asian-Americans.
Just look at the image, does anyone honestly think the commercial was written, or cast with a sensitivity to Asian-Americans in mind?
Images like this illustrate how the appalling lack of diversity amongst advertising professionals sanctions the creation and use of commercials that often use racial stereotypes to sell products to a demographic that isn't Asian-American.
Don't be fooled either, very little has changed within the advertising industry since this commercial was running in the 1970's - take a look at the Bendick & Egan Advertising Industry Report: Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry, January 2009.
On January 9th I blogged about the ad industry being taken to task for the alarmingly lax strides made in the hiring of minority ad professionals and inequity in compensation for blacks in the industry. I generally don't see a lot of mainstream media coverage exploring the extent of the influence that advertising wields over our perceptions of race and culture.
Most mainstream media, be it NBC Nightly News, Time or even People Magazine are far more concerned with selling ads than looking at how those ads affect the way Americans think about race or perceive people of different backgrounds.
Fortunately there are b2b publications like Ad Age that consistently devote coverage and analysis of the ad industry's power over perception; and how that impacts race.
The article raises interesting questions about how the ad industry engages black consumers, who spend almost $3 trillion annually. $3 trillion in spending and the ad industry still takes that segment of the US population for granted? How pathetic.
The unprecedented initiative launched by law firm Mehri & Skalet and the NAACP to confront the ad industry about it's inability to desegregate it's ranks and create a work environment that is more reflective of our nation's cultural makeup is receiving a lot of publicity - but not in the mainstream publications, television stations, Websites and radio that reach most Americans.
With the Superbowl hype making headlines recently, journalists and media pundits alike have been looking at all kinds of questions about commercial content. Which Superbowl ads made them laugh? How much does a 30-second buy during the Superbowl cost? Are TV advertisers pitching the appropriate products in a given time slot?
How many people watch commercials on TV and count the number of minority faces they see? How many people pause to think what a magazine ad says to people of different religious backgrounds?
When there isn't a diverse group of people sitting around the conference room table or in cubicles of the major ad agencies creating the commercial content we see, we shouldn't be surprised when ads don't enage or speak to consumers of all backgrounds.
Until Madison avenue and the holding companies that dominate the industry get serious about it, we'll get exactly what they've been serving us; commercial content served up by people who don't represent the demographic they're targeting.
Cheers to Gordon Brown.
