“CNN”

This will be a short post. It’s Friday and I’ve been informed that people don’t read blogs on Friday. But that’s okay, because my issues with CNN’s Black in America specials are quite simple and easy to explain.

Put simply:

CNN’s Black in America specials aren’t black enough for me.

Sure, they feature black people, but the focus is narrow and the subjects (both human and topical) fit neatly into established narratives about black folks.

Last night CNN decided to show the “black experience” with money and debt through the personal stories of the members of one church. The most prominent people featured were an at-risk young black male and a family with a middle class income close to foreclosure.

This may sound innocuous and indeed it is in some respects–certainly many black people go to church and many black boys are at risk of dropping out of school, or worse, falling victim to the streets. But these stories closely follow the most comfortable narrative of black life in America.

This type of storyline doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable nor does it reveal any truths specific to the black experience in America. The average white person who watches “Black in America” will see identical parallels to their own lives in the struggles of the black people profiled. Plenty of white people go to church and plenty have worked very hard to keep their children from heading down the wrong path.  And certainly plenty purchased homes they couldn’t afford and have since lost those homes and suffered the financial fallout.

The biggest, and perhaps inadvertent, message in CNN’s special is that we are all the same.

The problem is, we’re not.

There are still a great many problems in America that affect black people disproportionately or at the very least differently. Every day stories are published by media outlets, including CNN, and non profits across the country about the disparities that exist between minorities and white people. I’m challenged to understand why none were worthy of providing an umbrella and inspiration for the Black in America series.

For example, in September the Southern Poverty Law Center published a study that found “big racial caps” in suspensions in middle schools in the United States.

“Middle schools across the country are suspending children with alarming frequency, particularly in some large urban school districts, where numerous schools suspend a third or more of their black male students in a given year…”

CNN could have taken that study and interviewed various administrators, teachers, and parents in a few schools systems and shed some light on why this type of disparity exists.  Instead, when CNN did talk about education in its previous Black in America special, it did so from the convenient angle of personal responsibility and “hero” school reformers and principals–another meme the media likes to run with as evidenced by the crowning-without-merit of former DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee. To talk about what’s happening at the ground level with nary a glance to the structural problems is lazy to say the least.

Unfortunately, CNN appears content to sell the black experience as the common experience only with darker people. That’s probably the most superficial way to approach such a project.

CNN and Soledad O’Brien need to take a break from looking at how black people handle life in America and begin to examine how life in America handles black people.

For all that some are trying to make Shirley Sherrod’s firing into a greater discussion about race, this is more a lesson in media studies than race relations. Sherrod’s story reveals the fundamental and collective power the media wields over all facets of society, in particular politics, and total lack of accountability for journalist and media personalities that permeates the body politic.

As someone who is certified in crisis communications, I’m aware of need for Agencies and organizations to be mindful of the media’s power but not blindly reactionary. When organizations fail at this key part of media management, their feet are held to the fire. The NAACP will and should pay dearly for its decision to release a statement condemning Sherrod for her speech without listening to the full audio (which, by the way, was delivered  in front of a local chapter of their organization). The Obama administration is also rightfully feeling the burn for its regrettable decision to force a resignation from Mrs. Sherrod.

But who holds media personalities like Andrew Breitbart who edited the tape of Sherrod in order to promote an erroneous message accountable for their actions. Who will hold Fox News responsible for its dogged promotion of Breitbart’s lie. And who will hold CNN correspondent and journalist Roland S Martin accountable condemning Sherrod before he had all the facts?

The answer is no one. When it comes to Breitbart and Fox News, we’ve come to expect blatantly biased behavior. However, Martin is an employee of CNN, a channel that aims to be a credible news source. That calls Martin’s comments into question, and, further the role and greater responsibility of journalists to police themselves and each other. Not only did Martin support condemning Sherrod he also defended his position by citing the status quo. Martin pointed out that when you’re “in the midst of a political firestorm” you have to know that your comments can be used against you. Nevermind the fact that Sherrod gave the speech back in March prior to the NAACP’s dispute with the Tea party, which, I think most people would agree is at the root of Sherrod’s firing.

To CNN’s credit, Campbell Brown and guest David Gergen were hard on Roland Martin during Brown’s show today. They quickly poo pooed his attempt to divert the conversation into mucky raceland bringing the conversation squarely back to where it belonged: on the complete and utter mishandling of this woman and her statements by Martin among other people.

Martin is certainly not the only journalist to pontificate on a situation about which he does not have all the facts. But that does’t mean he should be given a pass. At some point we have to hold members of the media responsible for what they say, especially those who claim they’re journalists not just opinion pundits. Until that happens, the collective role and credibility of the media will remain in question.