Today’s “The Daily”: A Study on why representation in media matters.
The Daily podcast from the New York Times, hosted by Michael Barbaro, is one of my few media commitments…I listen to just about every episode, and often on the very day. I think of it a bit like the John Oliver show on HBO…a welcome deeper dive into a single issue, so I can feel a little better informed. (But not so deep a dive that I can’t make it through the whole episode during my morning walk…I’m looking at you, Ezra Klein.)
Despite being a fan I have on multiple occasions been frustrated by episodes where I felt that not enough thought was given to including analysis from a more diverse set of guests who could speak from a place of both expertise and lived experience. Every time I’ve thought this I’ve also been able to think of dozens of examples of the kind of person who could bring all that to the table.
And the reason it matters is because the lens through which homogenous experts see events and interpret events and analyze events and therefore report on events is limited enough that those of us with different expertise and experience notice glaring omissions of applicable analysis or glaring commissions of over-simplification.
Today’s episode was about the sh*tshow that is Virginia politics right now. And it was discussed through the lens of the Democratic Party adopting a “zero tolerance” policy around past bad behavior, as a way of retaining a moral upper hand vs. the President and the GOP in general.
The episode certainly brought up relevant political context…like the fact that the Al Franken episode occurred while Doug Jones was fighting off Roy Moore to take a Senate seat in Alabama. The fact that Franken and later Representative Conyers were in seats considered to “safe” for Dems. The fact that the laws about succession of power in Virginia and the interplay between Democratic leadership in the state and a (just barely) GOP legislature certainly weigh heavily on the decision-making to come in Virginia.
But it was missing any real nuance or context around the transgressions being discussed themselves, especially any nuance that might come from someone likely to have been affected by similar transgressions.
This results in a host of small “cuts.” Statements that make you cringe, wondering if they realize their own blinders.
One example: The guest, Jonathan Martin, referred to Congresspeople who had come under the cloud of accusation of sexual misconduct and referred to one as being an accusation of quite *serious* misconduct…with the emphasis on “serious,” as though the other accusations…kissing, groping, so on…were not quite so serious. I mean, I realize the whole point of the episode was to discuss whether a Democratic Party Zero Tolerance policy was going to hold up, but way to let us know where you’d come down on the issue, dude.
They also talked about the Franken vs. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Fairfax responses from, say Senator Gillibrand, without bothering to mention that by the time Gillibrand called for Franken’s resignation there were eight credible accusations against Franken, including one from a congressional staffer the Senators calling for Franken to resign knew. And how it might legitimately affect one’s position that there is thus far one accusation against Fairfax (ETA: A second one has just surfaced), just released in detail a day before.
I, for one, believe Fairfax’s accuser in the absence of any reason not to (because that’s what the data tells me to do around these kind of cases AND because her account reads credibly AND because I know people personally who know and respect and trust and believe her) but acknowledging the difference in the situations would have been a reasonable thing to do vs. implying that under identical situations the Dems are waffling on their policy.
Similarly, they omitted any sense of nuance or discussion around the racism charges in Virginia…for example, how appearing in classic blackface alongside someone dressed as a Klan member might or might not be identically as offensive to dressing up as a rapper, while acknowledging that both are offensive. Something I can’t weigh in on with credibility either, I should add, but having an African American guest, particularly one who is an expert on this kind of thing, might have shed some welcome light on it. And such people exist. They even exist in the sphere of New York City and a mere one degree, if that, from the New York Times. Hey, how about having (the NYT’s) Wesley Morris or Jenna Wortham on to discuss? Just a suggestion.
In fact, every time I get that gnawing frustration in my gut about the lack of representative commentary on this show, I can think of numerous people who could have provided it…even NYT writers/talent.
The reason exploring this nuance matters is because in each case the homogenous commentators interpreted everything through the lens of power and politics…which is kind of rational for two white men at the most elite media organization in the world…but isn’t as edifying for their listeners as hearing people with expertise and lived experience weighing in.
And that constrained lens in all likelihood contributes to the apparent hypothesis that the outcome of this question was going to be binary:
Either a “zero tolerance” policy was going to come after us all…no matter our job, no matter how small or unserious (in their judgment) the trangression.
OR
There is no way to have a zero tolerance policy and that all decisions will be made based on political expediency.
Well, there’s no evidence that this slippery slope argument has factual basis in what is happening in the world. I am tempted to say “case in point” and list, for example, Bryan Singer keeping his next blockbuster directing job, or Steve King, or or or, but you get the point.
Bringing a different voice to this conversation would have created space for a different conversation. Maybe a less cynical conversation. Maybe a more expansive conversation. Certainly a more empathetic and enlightening conversation.
A conversation I would have been thinking about hours later for better reasons than why I’m thinking about it now.
#RepresentationMatters
