I want to better educate myself about race, Black Lives Matter

Received from a Park University student of mine several days ago...

Dear Professor Youngblood: 

There is a lot of information floating around on social media about the Black Lives Matters movement and about police brutality. I feel strongly that this is a problem in America but I don’t feel like I know enough to be fully aware of it or how to speak out to help my African American friends. I was wondering if you knew of any news sources or articles from both sides that I could read to better educate myself that would be much appreciated. 

Sincerely, Alyssa

 

Dear Alyssa:

Thank you for your insightful, thoughtful question. I’ll do my best to answer it, with the help of some writers and researchers who have much more expertise on this subject than I. Please follow the links I’ve provided, and analyze the information yourself.

 

Like you, I am still learning.

 

Whether we’re talking about policing, housing, health care, education, or a hundred other domains, what we really should be discussing is systemic racism—policies and practices embedded in societal structures that favor or disadvantage one group. I’ve found a great, Four minute video that explains systemic racism in a way that even I can understand. 

The most revealing article about systemic racism I’ve read is “The Case for Reparations” by Ta- Nehisi Coates, who anchors his argument around housing discrimination. Specifically, Coates draws on a mountain of facts that discuss redlining and how African Americans were and continue to be relegated to “less desirable” neighborhoods. Even today, studies show that racist practices called racial steering by realty companies mean that blacks aren’t even shown properties in “white neighborhoods.” (For details, see Newsday article, and Academic Study). Until the mid-1960’s, government housing loans were systematically denied to African Americans, while mortgage lenders have also traditionally discriminated against African Americans (Coates).

 

Systemic, racist housing discrimination has led to a litany of other problems for black majority communities. Property tax- supported schools in African American areas receive less funding since the houses in these neighborhoods are less valuable. (NPR article) These schools, then, struggle to offer competitive teacher salaries and extracurricular activities compared to their suburban counterparts. Students attending urban schools, who often live in poverty, are less likely to attend and succeed in college. Employment discrimination exacerbates the situation. Poverty is concentrated in inner cities, though it has recently spread as well to smaller towns. Not surprisingly, black unemployment is consistently twice as high as white unemployment. Where schools are poor, jobs are scarce, and poverty is prevalent, crime flourishes. As has been well publicized in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, entrenched racism is manifest in discriminatory treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system. 

 

Not everyone believes these facts. 

 

Skeptics are quick to fall back on “what-about-isms.” For example, in response to Black Lives Matter,  we hear in traditional and social media, “what about white lives?” According to their website, Black Lives Matter's mission is “to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on black communities by the state and vigilantes,” not to discriminate against any other group. Just because you believe black lives matter doesn’t mean that you think other lives aren't important, too. Why the zero-sum thinking? Incidentally, there is a movement called “White Lives Matter” that is, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "a racist response to the civil rights movement Black Lives Matter. (It) is a neo-Nazi group that is growing into a movement as more and more white supremacist groups take up its slogans and tactics." 

Another “what about” pops up on Fox News after every police shooting and asks, “what about black on black crime?” Of course, this is a problem, but so is, for example, affordable child care. But what do these have to do with police brutality? Nothing. When discussing racist policing, bringing up black crime or any other subject for that matter is simply a distraction that diverts us from the real issue of systemic racism. At any rate, this black on black crime argument is a red herring, since a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that most violence occurs “between victims and offenders of the same race, regardless of race.” So, most black crime is perpetrated against other blacks, while most white crime victims are also white, a fact conveniently omitted by the conservative press. 

One other spurious opposing argument/distraction regards Antifa, an anti-fascist protest movement (it’s too loosely constituted to even be called an organization) that has sometimes had violent encounters with neo-Nazis. Antifa is a favorite Fox News bogeyman. During these protests, a study shows that Fox News mentioned Antifa six times more than CNN, even though, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “The FBI has found no evidence that the American militant anti-fascist movement Antifa was involved in violence that erupted during national protests over the death of George Floyd.”

 

Coverage of recent unrest has generally emphasized violence (the 1%) over legitimate, peaceful protests (the 99%). See my blog below for details. The previously mentioned study showed that Fox has used the terms “riots” or “rioters” five times more than CNN, while Fox has discussed looting 25% more than CNN. 

 

In summary, Alyssa, I hope I’ve provided you some food for thought. I know you wanted “both sides,” but I honestly can’t see another side to systemic racism. Those who defend the status quo and distract with “what-about-isms” are enabling this racism, in my view. As I said, I’m still learning, and look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.

 

Stay safe,

Professor Youngblood

Amid traumatic threat, seminar discusses trauma reporting

(DERRY AND BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND)-As we bumped elbows in greeting, an odd gesture done in lieu of hand-shaking, it occurred to me that the two trauma reporting seminars that we did last Thursday in Derry and Friday in Belfast may be the last such face-to-face seminars in Northern Ireland for weeks, even months, thanks to Covid-19.

At BelfastMet trauma reporting seminar
(Photo by Allan Leonard)

While attendance at the Derry event was low, the Belfast seminar at BelfastMet College’s E-3 Campus was well attended. Most of the Belfast attendees were BelfastMet students.

At the outset, I was worried that the minds of both the participants and attendees wouldn't be focused on the subject at hand, but instead on the Covid 19 virus. I know my attention seemed divided. However, the workshops’ energetic presenters and inquisitive attendees soon disabused me of this notion.

The first presenter, journalist Kathryn Johnston, talked about her murdered friend and reporting colleague Lyra McKee, and about how journalists continue to operate under threat in Northern Ireland. Johnston said McKee would “have been the first to look and those who shot her and ask why.” Later, Johnston would discuss the establishment of a bursary (scholarship/grant) in Lyra’s name to support young journalists engaged in depth reporting. Details about the bursary are still pending, she said.

Paul Gallagher, WAVE trauma centre (Photo by Allan Leonard)

Paul Gallagher, a Queen’s University lecturer, Ph.D. candidate, and survivor of “Troubles” violence that left him without the use of his legs, then discussed trauma and victims. He talked about how victims are not homogenous, and indeed the appropriateness of using the label “victim.” (Gallagher, who also works with the WAVE Trauma Centre, doesn’t mind being called a victim since “it doesn’t define me.”) He talked about how the clock stops on one’s previous life after a trauma, and how victims are often vulnerable and stigmatized. He led an interesting discussion about how journalists can exacerbate trauma, and what role, if any, journalists have in repairing trauma. Gallagher finished by sharing his tips for more responsible trauma reporting including validating individual experiences, helping to create a trauma-informed society, and two themes I would discuss later—giving victims back their voice, and countering dominant narratives about victims.

Peace journalism pioneer Dr. Jake Lynch from the University of Sydney discussed several concepts of peace, including justpeace, defined as a process of peaccebuilding that includes adaptive processes, structures, and practices grounded in relationships and characterized by low violence and high justice. He also discussed peacebulding gaps like the difficulty in transferring grassroots peacebuilding energy and ideas to decision-makers and elites higher up the food chain. Later, Lynch presented ideas about how media can structure itself to favor justpeace. He cited several examples from Northern Ireland showing media already doing this, including View magazine’s victims issue. Lynch finished by discussing media effects, and a study he led that demonstrated the efficacy of the peace journalism approach in creating societal opportunities for justpeace.

In a presentation on covering anniversaries and marches, journalist Alan Meban led a discussion about the phrases used in such coverage (flashpoints, sectarian, controversial), and shepherded an interesting critique of several stories, one of which discussed the anniversary of a “Troubles” bombing, while the other covered a gay pride parade using hateful, stereotyping language like “flamboyant.”

I presented on socially responsible trauma reporting, and shared with the crowd several pillars of such reporting. (See below)

Good student feedback at BelfastMet's E-3 Campus
(Photo by Allan Leonard)

Journalists and Shared Future News editor Allan Leonard showed the attendees many platforms that display more responsible trauma reporting coverage which offers counternarratives and the voice of the voiceless. These include Peace Direct, Café Babel, France 24 (FOCUS segments), NVTV from Northern Ireland, Northern Slant, and Shared Future News (https://sharedfuture.news/).

After the BelfastMet seminar, it dawned on me that, tragically, there will probably be more victims being created both in Northern Ireland and the world, and that our seminar, sadly, could not have been more timely. On this count, I fervently hope I’m wrong.

The Northern Ireland peace journalism project was sponsored by the US Embassy-London and the US Consulate-Belfast.

PILLARS OF RESPONSIBLE CONFLICT AND TRAUMA REPORTING—

Ask yourself these questions: What does the public need to know, and how much coverage is too much? When do reporters become obsessed with a story when the public is not? A community is more than a mass killing or disaster or conflict.

1. Always consider the impact of your reporting. Don’t gratuitously make things worse for the people whose stories you report, or for the general public. 

2. Accuracy is paramount. First rumors can be dramatic and exaggerated. Facts can be slippery in mid-crisis. Inaccurately quoting a victim can be traumatic. Check, double check, triple check facts.Make sure the person knows you will have to check the facts. Go back over the interview with them.

3. Journalists should thoughtfully select the images they use, understanding that they can misrepresent an event, exacerbate an already dire situation, and re-victimize those who have been traumatized.

4. Don’t prematurely jump on the “blame” bandwagon, or to conclusions, and consider the impact of “blame” reporting on traumatized victims and the public. Later, journalists should lead societal discussions about solutions (without advocating for any one solution).

5. Don’t intrude. The National Union of Journalists (UK) code of conduct says, a journalist “does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest. Be honest and clear about what you are doing. Identify yourself.

6. Avoid inflammatory, sensational language that exacerbates or fuels conflict or trauma. Never embellish stories. 

7. Do your research so you know the background and be sensitive to contested narratives and language.

8. When reporting about conflict or trauma, journalists should give a voice to the vulnerable, marginalized voiceless in their societies—women, youth, minorities, the poor, etc.

9. Journalists should reject formulaic, stereotypical coverage and instead offer counternarratives about the trauma, its impact, and those affected.

--From: https://dartcenter.org/sites/default/files/DCE_JournoTraumaHandbook.pdf ; NUJ Trauma Reporting Handbook, and developed from principles of peace journalism by Steven Youngblood

Northern Ireland Journalists:
Do yourself a favor-Don't call yourself a peace journalist
Anyone engaging in peace work anywhere in the world has learned the discouraging, ironic truth about the word “peace.”

The word “peace” is incendiary, and provides a blank screen upon which self-righteous critics and “glass half empty” skeptics project their anger, ignorance, and cynicism. In fact, in some places, leading discussions about peace can be dangerous. Just ask the colleagues and friends of Shujaat Bukhari, a newspaper editor who was shot and killed outside his papers’ office in Kashmir. His crime: embracing non-inflammatory, non-sectarian reporting and leading discussions about peace in Kashmir. Or, ask my journalism colleagues in Cameroon, where discussing peace can arouse the suspicions of both government authorities and rebels which in turn can get one arrested or kidnapped. This happened to me: gendarmes shut down a peace journalism seminar I was conducting in Cameroon, and threatened to arrest all presenters and attendees.

Then there’s Northern Ireland, where mention of the word “peace” won’t get you kidnapped or killed, but will subject you to sneering derision. I know, since I’ve written about peace journalism in Northern Ireland and made several visits there this year for peace journalism seminars and workshops. A recent spate of columns, broadcasts, and social media posts have taken aim at anyone who has the audacity to link the words “peace” and “journalism.”

Take Alex Kane’s recent column in Newsletter:

   "Over the past couple of decades I have heard a number of academics (and some politicians, as it         happens) push something which is described as ‘peace journalism.’ It’s the Pollyanna approach to       politics: no matter how bad things may look on the surface, and no matter how much worse you         actually know them to be below the surface, you should simply ignore that reality and find                   something positive to say. Yet nobody ever asks why, if things really are so good, the Pollyannas         rarely offer anything more substantial than, 'Well, it’s better than it used to be.'” (25 Nov. 2019)

In another example, on the BBC’s The Nolan Show (21 Nov. 2019), one speaker said that there is a presumption that “for peace journalism to work” in support of the peace process, it must look closely at unionist politicians, but avoid looking into the “deep, dark hole” of Sinn Fein politics.

Finally, a Twitter discussion recently suggested that a peace journalist would “kill” an accurate story if this story damaged the peace process.

These criticisms are all off base, and reflect a complete misunderstanding of the nature and goals of peace journalism. Yet, I’m coming to realize that all the corrections in the world in defense of peace journalism won’t help skeptics understand what PJ really does, since all they seem to see is the word “peace” and its accompanying baggage.

In fact, as long as peace journalism contains the word “peace,” it will be criticized not for what it actually proposes, but for what its critics ignorantly and erroneously project onto the concept.

So, rather than spending our precious time and energy putting our fingers in the dyke leaking misinformation about peace journalism, perhaps peace journalism proponents should direct discussions away from the term peace journalism, and more towards its concepts.

Let me start.  Journalists and journalism academics and students in Northern Ireland, do you agree with these principles?

--Journalists should avoid inflammatory, sensational language that exacerbates or fuels conflict
--Journalists should reject “us vs. them” narratives and instead build bridges between communities
--Journalists should lead societal discussions about solutions (without advocating for any one solution)
--Journalists should balance their stories by giving peace proposals and peacebuilders a voice proportionate to voices of those advocating violence and war (without advocating for peace)
--Journalists should give a voice to the voiceless in their societies—victims, migrants, women, etc.
--Journalists should reject formulaic, stereotyping coverage and instead offer counternarratives about marginalized groups and perceived enemies (“them”)

Northern Irish journalists, if you embrace these concepts, do yourself a favor and don’t call yourself a peace journalist. Say that you’re a good journalist, or a socially responsible reporter—anything that doesn’t use the word “peace.” What really matters anyway is promoting and practicing these principles of good, fundamental journalism, regardless of what the label we use.

Engaging with others on International Day of Peace
If you advocate peace, a glance at the headlines on any given day is enough to make you cover your face in despair and give up hope. A Google news search shows over 141-million hits under “war,” including recent headlines from Kashmir, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and, of course, Syria. Throw in 34-million more hits on “violence,” including Chicago’s murders and the New York bombing, and the hopelessness is easy to understand.

We don’t have to succumb to this despair. Despite our seeming powerlessness as individuals, there is still something we can do Wednesday, Sept. 21, on the International Day of Peace, to contribute in a small way to peace in our communities and in our world.

We could protest, and demand peace. A few years ago, I received a typed letter from a Park University alumna who, at 92 years old, still conducts a one woman peace protest every week. She stands on a busy street corner in Indiana every Saturday with a sign that says, “War is Not the Answer.” Here in KC, peace activists have protested against a south KC weapons plant, and in favor of justice for African Americans and Palestinians.

These protests, and the activists who peacefully engage in them, are admirable. If you’re up to the challenge, find a street corner, and channel our 92-year old friend.

Realistically, however, the majority of us aren’t comfortable participating in such demonstrations. For us non-protesters, there is still a way that we can encourage a more peaceful Kansas City.

On Wednesday, to commemorate the International Day of Peace, challenge yourself to engage someone from a different race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. In a city as diverse as KC, this is easily done by simply driving to a part of town that you usually don’t frequent. You could visit an ethnic restaurant or business, of which there are thousands in the area. Go to an African American barbershop, a Mexican bakery, or an Arab/Palestinian restaurant, and sit down with the owners or employees. What do they think, for example, of Donald Trump’s wall or Hillary Clinton’s emails? Do they feel discriminated against? Do they think their children have equal opportunities in America? Ask about their views on immigration policy, and on whether the U.S. should admit Syrian refugees.

At Park University, we’re taking this advice on Sept. 21, and engaging with a group of six Pakistani academics who will be visiting our campus. The Pakistanis, from a school called Sukkur IBA, are on a semester-long exchange program at Johnson County Community College. At Park, they’ll be meeting with students in three classes. In my peace journalism class, I’ll ask our visitors to discuss at length the media portrayals of a supposedly dangerous and terrorist-infested Pakistan, and to reflect on the recent flare-ups in the disputed Kashmir region. I’ll also be

interested in hearing their impressions about Trump’s candidacy. In addition, the visitors will be meeting with Park faculty and staff to explore our common challenges as educators.

We can’t change the depressing headlines by ourselves—certainly not in one day. But we can do our small part on this International Day of Peace to build bridges between communities, between people, through the simple act of beginning a meaningful dialogue with someone different than ourselves. 

Peace Journalism or Pacifist Journalism?

Peace Journalism is only a half-measure—a pragmatic compromise that tip-toes around the moral imperatives of non-violence and pacifism.

I hadn’t given this much thought until my Park University colleague Professor John Lofflin broached the subject recently during a discussion and later on his insightful blog.

Lofflin argues that perhaps peace journalism advocates should consider taking peace journalism to its “logical conclusion”, something he calls pacifist journalism. Lofflin writes, “Would that simply mean condemning all violence, from capital punishment to war and everything -- terrorism and guerrilla fighting -- in between? A tougher pill to swallow, eh? Martin Luther King, Jr. vs. Malcolm X., Gandhi vs. Che. “

Like a discussion with any good teacher, a conversation with Lofflin always leaves me with more questions than answers. For starters, what does this say about the ethics of peace journalism? As peacemakers, are we shirking our ethical responsibility by not doing everything in our power to prevent violence, even if this means discarding the rules of ethical journalism?

As we consider what pacifist journalism might look like, perhaps we should examine how pacifist journalism might differ from peace journalism. Here are some ideas:

A. Peace journalism gives peacemakers a voice alongside those who advocate violence. Pacifist journalism would silence warmongers and openly promote only peacemakers.
B. Peace journalists avoid using inflammatory, demonizing, victimizing language so as to not further inflame or provoke those who might promote or engage in violence. Pacifist journalism would embrace negative language and use it to demonize those who advocate violent conflict. Pacifist journalists would use sensational language and images as propaganda to negatively portray wars and warmongers.
C. Peace journalists seek to maintain their objectivity and to balance their stories. Yes, they are framing their stories differently, with an understanding that what they write and how they write it could trigger violence. A pacifist journalist, one supposes, would openly reject the notion of objectivity in favor of spinning information to promote an anti-war, anti-violence agenda.

If the idea of pacifist journalism makes you uncomfortable, you’re not alone. Journalism ceases to be journalism when it takes such an extreme, one sided position. (What this says about Fox News, MSNBC, etc. is a question for another time). Of course, this begs the question, so what if pacifist journalism isn’t actually journalism? Thanks to technology, the lines between journalists and citizen communicators have been blurred or erased anyway. Does it even matter any more if you consider yourself a journalist? I would say yes, because true journalists still operate under a professional and ethical code that is sorely needed in this day and age of disinformation overload.

The journalist in me wants to reflexively reject the extremism of pacifist journalism, since it is not our role to advocate or propagandize. The peace activist in me wants to embrace the notion of pacifist journalism wholeheartedly, since I do truly believe that peace is the ultimate good.

Thus I am left with one vital question. With apologies to Barry Goldwater, is extremism in the defense of peace no vice?

--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn--