[livius]

I think he’s right, but one of the real difficulties is that one party now profits of this mindset and does not want blacks to change and get ahead.

I remember when Justice Thomas was not allowed by a black faculty and administration to speak to poor black high school students in VA. He is certainly a model of success, born to a single mother with drug problems in the rural cruelly segregated south and brought up by his grandparents, but triumphing because they sent him to catholic school and one of the nuns recognized his intelligence and made him work hard. Yet the VA school staff had the gall to say that he was not a good role model for the kids (most of whom were probably headed straight to jail) and they disinvited him. They could never explain any reason he wasn’t a good role model, but obviously the fact that he was a self-made, successful conservative who got where he did by working hard didn’t jibe with their sullen, extortionary dependence model of Black success.

So,how to break through that to even get a chance to speak to blacks and argue our points?

[RightOnline]

You deal with Muslims, liberals, urban blacks.....all exactly the same way: from strength. Strength is all they know; strength is all they recognize.

Not ONE damned so-called “leader” in this country has had the balls to say it, but it’s the gospel truth.

I defy anyone on this forum to challenge the notion.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I think he’s right, but one of the real difficulties is that one party now profits of this mindset and does not want blacks to change and get ahead.

Bad enough, it were only the official Democrat Party. The lynchpin, we all know, is “bias in the media.” The unofficial Demo Party. We must set “the media” back. I have a concept for doing it, but it would obviously take some heavy lifting to make any headway with it. We have to understand that:

1. Granted that fictional TV and Movie entertainment is slanted strongly to the left, on First Amendment principle we should direct no legal effort against it.

2. We have to do only with nonfiction “media,” and even then, books and documentaries are not the real problem. The real problem, bluntly, is journalism. “Objective” journalism which is anything but objective.

3. Before the middle of the Nineteenth Century, journalism was very different. Newspapers had postal subsidies to facilitate the interchange of news among themselves, but otherwise they were relatively insular, weekly or even sporadic, and in short were more about the slant of the printer than about current events - IOW, more like talk radio than like The New York Times. Then, “journalism” was not a unified entity. Now it is.

4. The reason for the unification of journalism is staring us in the face - it is the telegraph. The telegraph, and its natural offspring, the wire service. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Associated Press. Editors routinely print major stories now without ever having met, much less vetted and hired, the stories’ writers. In order to vouch for those reports, the editor has no choice but to sell the line that “all journalists are objective.” So much for ideological diversity in reporting.

5. The homogenization of journalism reduces the perspective of all journalism down to its elemental nature - people who want to be influential through mere talk, without having and meeting the responsibilities entailed in actually doing important things. If you want to make your way by criticizing those who perform to a bottom line without taking responsibility for making and implementing decisions on a timely basis, you are a leftist. And that is what journalism is. But journalism insists that it is objective, just as it insists that those politicians who go along and get along with journalism are virtuous “liberals” or “moderates” or “progressives.” Any positive label, IOW, except “objective.”

6. The claim of journalistic objectivity is actually an oxymoron, since no one can know that he is himself objective - and since therefore a claim of one’s own objectivity is arrogant and cannot be objective. Anyone who is actually trying to be objective must be open about possible reasons why he might not be objective - which expressing a belief in own’s own objectivity obviously moots. And this objection pertains equally to belonging to an organization, such as the AP, which you know claims objectivity for you.

In light of these facts, the AP is vulnerable to being held in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the FCC and its licensees are vulnerable to being sued for licensing broadcasters on the basis that pseudo-objective journalism is “in the public interest."

http://www.robertmundell.net/NobelLecture/nobel3.asp

Journalism and Objectivity