By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, March 31 at 4:00 AM
In this week's "Political Eye" column in The St. Louis American, the paper's editors responded to observations we made last week about the relationship between political advertising and newspaper endorsements.
"Political ads in the Black Press... tend to be small and not very lucrative," said the Eye. "Shredding one's credibility over them simply wouldn't be worth the meager payday, especially when there are far more steady and nourishing revenue streams." (Click here to read the full column.)
We agree with this observation. We don't think it's worth it in the long run either. But the reality is that political season is for small newspapers (black-owned or otherwise) what Christmas is for retailers.
Publishers of small newspapers are often faced with this question: "Why back a loser?"
But the American is in a different situation. As one of the most successful black newspapers in the country, the paper's publisher doesn't face that question while staring at a stack of bills on his desk.
No, Dr. Donald Suggs, the publisher of the American, and the paper's editorial board make the decision to boldly slant their coverage in support of one candidate over another in the comfort of the knowledge that their decision won't mean the difference between being around next year or not.
When we say "slant," we are are not talking about editorials. The editorial page is traditionally the free ground for opinion and wild ideas. We mean the week-after-week of non-stories that are manipulated into front page news.
Last week it was "Corporations with district contracts back the candidates that approved their contracts." Is that really news?
This week it's a headline about one alderman -- albeit a popular one -- endorsing these same candidates. Nevermind the numerous aldermen, state senators, state reps, local unions and activists that have endorsed their opponents.
If they choose to slant their coverage based on ideology, rather than profit, is that selling out?
Well, maybe not if the coverage was slanted in the favor of the poor and disenfranchised, which was the founding mission of the Black Press dating back over a century. But too often, that is not what happens at the American.
As we told editor Chris King in our "civil exchange of emails," in our view, the American used to be the vehicle for black people to communicate with one another and the rest of the world. Now it is the tool with which the rich and powerful communicate their message to black people. The message used to go up and out. Now it flows downward.
One's ideology tends to change when you are surrounded by elites. One's point of view tends to take on the characteristics of those you socialize with and depend on for "nourishment."
The new way is more profitable, if not as a goal then as a serendipitous consequence.
Whether the paper's coverage is slanted in favor of the powerful out of ideology or profit, the end result is the same: black St. Louis has one less place to turn for fair, unslanted coverage.
6 Comments:
Okay, so the two most visible challengers are parents of SLPS-enrolled kids. But other than who's endorsed whom, or who has kids enrolled where, what are the real differences between the two leading slates of candidates?
11:23 AM, March 30, 2006
Good observation, Antonio.
Sadly, over the last three or four years, this has become the norm for the American.
I see troubling changes every week in the Sentinel and Argus, too.
6:53 AM, March 31, 2006
Isn't it a little odd (or perfectly planned) that Hizzoner waited to veto the CRB bill until after the American's endorsements came out? Everyone knows that the incumbents for School Board have a better shot if voters don't treat the election as a referendum on Slay.
7:02 AM, March 31, 2006
This is why I like blogs!
Print media will be completely obsolete in 5-10 years, however, there will always be the influence of an editor who sits behind a desk, or in the future, a computer.
Blogs, written by one person, have bias, however, the variety of blogs available makes this acceptable.
Plus you can voice feedback!
Paper kills trees too... ;)
7:27 AM, March 31, 2006
Thank-you very much for articulating my feelings about the American. I have stopped reading it because their slant is obvious and disingenuous to our community.
3:18 PM, March 31, 2006
[letter to editor of American]
In defending the American against Antonio French's accusation that it "sold out" its endorsement of the Slay slate in exchange for paid political advertising, the Eye asks "have we sold out to Mickey D's?"
Well, duh. McDonald's pushes empty calories and trans fats at your readers and exploits impoverished, non-white farmworkers. But of course "not enough black people in St. Louis are affected by the grievance in question for us to give the issue deluxe coverage" -- or any coverage at all, apart from this passing mention.
And the American has not sold out to whoever bought a half page pushing Rockport shoes (made in third world sweatshops), or a half page ad for Schnucks, which continues to stock Anheuser Busch products delivered by Lohr, whose drivers remain on strike, or a nearly full-page ad for some front group for the telephone monopolies who want to take over cable television and internet access.
To carry these and similar ads without also printing some editorial content examining the questions the ads ignore implies endorsement, and suggests that, yes, the American has been bought.
11:29 PM, April 01, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home