EURweb |
BETWEEN THE LINES: Ludlow, Black Leaders & White Press Condemnation -- Now You Know Why We Need The Black Press
*The recent condemnation of black leadership support of former L.A. City Councilman, Martin Ludlow, by the Daily News and the Los Angeles Times raises some interesting issues that black leadership has with the "great white fathers" and the paternalism of the majority press that is exerted when "uncomfortable situations" arise.
The print media are supposed to be the "watchdogs" of society and the recorders of history in the context of being the societal check against a tyrannistic government. Many black leaders, activists and socialites break their necks to get into the "major" papers, on television, in the print media.so much so that the only way that think they can validate themselves is with "a mention" in "the white man's" press.
The majority press frequently ignores the good things that happen in our community, like we don't have families social events, cotillions, college graduations and things of value in our community. But anything negative that happens in our community is news.
Civic leaders that emerge from within our community suddenly find themselves beholden to the watchdogs-who expect them all to be "a credit to their race," and serve the broader interests of society without serving community interest that gave them recognition.
So, when these same leaders do something that shows some independence-that they don't agree with-suddenly they're not worthy to serve the city. This recently was the case at Ludlow's legal defense fundraiser.
Showing loyalty, in essence, turned to a public "spanking" of black leadership in the major press because friends chose to help Ludlow with his legal expenses, repay his restitution and pull his life back together. Both the Times and the Daily News claim "credible" black leaders (one paper called it a "Who's who" of black city leadership), in the posh surroundings of Hombly Hills, were condoning criminal behavior simply by lending their name and attending the function. Black folk ain't supposed to have nor demonstrate loyalty (greater than that they have to mighty whitey). In the name of journalistic integrity, let's get two things out of the way; I did attend the fundraiser, and I did give a contribution. So I guess you can include me in this group (making this a rebuttal, of sorts), but I ain't never gave a s**t of what the white press, or "great city fathers," thought, so it doesn't make a difference to me. Like the runaway slave Denzel played in the movie, Glory, I've taken the whip before, so this spankin' was just part of the program you can come to expect with this country's race politic when you try to do what's consciously right-but don't ask permission. But it makes a difference, if you claim to be "fair" in your editorial content, and intently misled the public in both intent and purpose of the event. Both papers showed what they are really about-destroying people's lives. And for those who think the only credible press is the white press, all I can say is, "Thank God for the black press." Now you know why we need our own media voices.
Both papers intentionally sought to call out black leadership when there were prominent white, Latino and Asian civic leadership (about half of those present) on the invitation and in attendance. The tone of the editorials were directly questioning the character of those in attendance-as to why they were there. Let's get another thing clear. What Ludlow confessed to doing may have been illegal, but many contest whether it was as wrong as the government claims. Not when business and special interest PACs can give larger amounts and break no laws. Capping contributions in labor organizations was an antiquated law on the books directed at labor in the 1960s to stem the influence of organized crime in the labor movement. The government probably can't even tell you the last time someone was prosecuted under that law. Yet, individuals and corporations, today, can give above the legal contribution limits and recipients (the elected officials) only get civilly fined.and keep their office. So, let's understand what we're really talking about here. Moreover, "friends" groups are raising money (millions of dollars) for people accused or convicted of wrongdoing, including Tom Delay and Scooter Libby (who allegedly is taking the hit for Dick Cheney and Karl Rove). Two weeks after convicted LAPD cops, Stacy Koon and Timothy Wind, got out of jail for violating Rodney King's civil rights stemming from the infamous taped beating, a group of "friends" (mostly police union members) hosted a fundraiser for them. The Los Angeles Times reported it, but there was no editorial of condemnation. There was no calling off of the names of those in attendance. There was no casting aspersions on the character of those who gave. Nobody said the donors were condoning criminal activity, and didn't deserve to continue in their civil roles. Martin Ludlow is not supposed to have any friends? Ludlow's family is not supposed to have any help? Is Martin Ludlow not allowed to start over, and get help in the process? What, did black leadership forget to go to the white city fathers and request a "start date." Or was Martin supposed to stay on the floor until "they said" he could get up?
And, where in the f*** (fill in the blank) does the Times and the Daily News get off saying who can do what in our community, when both have been called into question for some of their activities (and motives) in their editorial positions in recent years? They do it because they think they can. They think they make the leaders in the black community, and they have no problem trying break the so-called leaders in the black community when they "step out of line." That's the downside of always wanting to be up in the majority press. The saving grace here is that they're not the only ones telling the story. Not as long as the black press can provide another side-a more
accurate side.
Time will tell if our community leaders see the lesson in this. In themeantime, our side of this story is every bit as important as theirs. The black press is now charged with "fact-checking" society's fact-checkers. The Ludlow editorials is proof that society's watchdog needs a watchdog.
Anthony Asadullah Samad is a national columnist, managing director of the
Urban Issues Forum (www.urbanissuesforum.com) and author of 50 Years After
Brown: The State of Black Equality In America. He can be reached at
www.AnthonySamad.com
.JPG)
