Regardless of which network or publication you first received the news from, you likely never once heard or read the word racist.By Indigo Following the 2016 election, ABC Entertainment reevaluated its strategy in hopes of connecting with a demographic the network believes it left behind: the (white) working class. In pursuit of winning over working-class Americans, ABC rebooted “Roseanne”. 18.2 million viewers tuned in to watch the debut of the reboot back in March. Three days after the show’s premiere, ABC renewed the show for 13 more episodes. Critics raved about “Roseanne”, writing that working class families finally have media representation. No, seriously. The “Roseanne” high was short-lived. Last week, ABC Entertainment president, Channing Dungey released a statement announcing that the show had been cancelled and Barr was fired. The reason for the highly anticipated reboot’s cancellation depends on where you first heard the news. If you first heard it from The Hill, you probably read that a “racially charged ‘bad joke’ about Valerie Jarrett” led to the show’s cancellation. If you came across the announcement while tuning into E! News, the show’s cancellation came after a “racially charged tweet [sparked] outrage”. If you regularly read The Guardian, ABC Entertainment cancelled “Roseanne” after some “‘abhorrent’ tweets”. If Barr broke the news to you herself, an Ambien-induced rant at 2 AM led to the show’s cancellation and her firing. Regardless of which network or publication you first received the news from, you likely never once heard or read the word racist. Each time a headline with one of, or a combination of phrases such as “racially charged”, “culturally insensitive remark” or “controversial joke”, appears on my Twitter timeline, I’m reminded that I am expected to report blatant and violent racism as “racially charged jokes” or “culturally insensitive comments”. I’m reminded that I am only valuable in a newsroom if I can remove my Blackness from my perspective so that I can pretend that white supremacy isn’t life-threatening on a daily basis.
Support Black and Brown Creatives: Join Us On Patreon
White supremacy is insidious and pervasive everywhere, including at The New York Times and other liberal media.By Jordan Valerie In recent months, liberal news publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post have come under increased scrutiny for their coverage of race. From refusing to describe the president as racist to an obsession with racist “white working class” voters to Nazi-sympathizing profile pieces, the liberal media outlets that proclaim to be the saviors of truth in the era of “fake news” have proven woefully unprepared to cover the normalization of open white nationalism under Donald Trump. This glaring problem goes beyond a few poor editorial decisions; it speaks to the fundamental worldview of these liberal publications – white supremacy. “White supremacist” isn’t a term you usually hear ascribed to the prestigious New York Times. No, white supremacy is a descriptor reserved for Breitbart, and if we’re really brave, Fox News. The liberal New York Times? The same New York Times that Donald Trump wants to sue out of existence? There’s no way they can be described as white supremacist, let alone racist, right? Wrong. White supremacy isn’t limited to websites that feature a “Black Crime” section, like Breitbart. It’s not even limited to conservative publications whose editorial pages are littered with racist op-eds, like The Wall Street Journal and National Review. White supremacy is insidious and pervasive everywhere, including liberal media. Because white supremacy is not just neo-Nazis marching down the streets of Charlottesville, it is the belief that whiteness is supreme; that it must be treasured, cherished, defended, and centered at all times. And that ideology is absolutely reflected in liberal news media such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
It cannot be erased that the Gothamist and DNAinfo shut-down was an intentional, retributive attempt to thwart socialist empowerment of the people and reinforce capitalist exploitation.On Nov. 2, users attempting to access news websites Gothamist and DNAinfo, were met with this shut down note, including employees who had no advance notice of the shutdown. The ownership of the websites pointed to persistent profit loss as the primary, if not only, motivating factor. The notice itself by current DNAinfo and Gothamist-network platforms CEO, Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of brokerage firm TD Ameritrade, stated a business interest ostensibly driving the shut-down, saying: “DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure. And while we made important progress toward building DNAinfo into a successful business, in the end, that progress hasn't been sufficient to support the tremendous effort and expense…” However, although never turning a profit while in operation, DNAinfo, for example, was maintained for years since its founding in 2009. And Gothamist was estimated to generate about $110,000 in monthly revenue. So despite whatever profit or loss, the websites remained in operation and were only shut down 6 days after a National Board of Labor Relations majority vote requiring the ownership to bargain with the workers and their union. Because in reality, while Ricketts and the notice point to business they conceal what the true interest actually is: union-busting. In the months prior to the website shut-down, DNAinfo and Gothamist-network workers, including their journalist teams, were negotiating and discussing unionization. In April 2017, they signed the cards to unionize. After the shut-down, the Writer’s Guild of America East, the association the journalists unionized under, came forward in a statement that the workers were threatened during the negotiations and organizing saying, “It is no secret that threats were made to these workers during the organizing drive.”
We often underestimate the power of youths' voices and agency in our society. These 4 individuals are making history by holding people in power accountable for their actions -- and they’re not waiting until their 18th birthdays. These youth are calling