For some reason, I can't edit my comment to CapitolInsider above: It should say in first line "living" instead of "listing."
I'll also add that, while I understand that it can sting to see your words criticized on another site, right-wingers (many of whom are friends and/or columnists of Emmerich's) have done that nearly every day to the Jackson Free Press and several of us personally, including Ronni and me, for many years. (Including lots of snark from Emmerich and his columnists.) We're used to it, though, and just consider it part of the journalism business.
Ronni did not write the Stinker Quote above to be snarky back to Emmerich, however. She wrote it because that quote shocked our whole office, and it deserved to be called out. And it has, indeed, opened up a discussion about race, and that's a good thing.
Here's the full column. It rather meanders from thing to thing, but notice that it starts out talking about how the Jackson airport shouldn't be named for Medgar Evers. The point, again, is that the Northside Sun chose this column for a prize due to its "insightful commentary."
Ha, Capitol Insider. One could only think that if you're listing inside Mr. Emmerich's bubble with him, refusing to peek outside it.
The bottom line here is that Emmerich launched the current column on several false premises. First, that having a discussion about race is a bad thing. Wow.
Second, that it somehow proves that race was no consideration when white Jacksonians voted en masse for one candidate--because they voted for the blacker candidate. If y'all can't see how offensive that is just to say out loud, I can't help you on that point.
But it's also not logical. I get what Wyatt is trying to say--that white Jackson voted as a bloc (largely) due to ideology over race. But obviously skin tone doesn't prove that; for one, throughout history, there are have been people of one race who have purposefully or not supported the policies that benefit another race, or hurt their own (not saying Lee did, by the way; this is for the sake of logical analysis). So, duh, of course it could happen.
And what hurts his argument more is that white Jackson voted en masse for one candidate in the primary when there were almost a dozen to choose from--and when no one can argue that the incumbent is an ideological radical. So Wyatt can't make that argument against Johnson; thus, it falls apart right there.
Not to mention the fact that a mindful consideration of this must probe *why* whites in Jackson vote largely as a bloc in the first place (or blacks for that matter). That part, on its face, is "about race." Of course, it's about the historic white supremacy that made Jackson the largely resegregated city that it is, but that is not something I've ever seen Emmerich discuss in print.
That brings me to the 2004 column. Above, Mr. Emmerich is outright misleading about the fact that he, "the publisher," chose that column out of five. I can understand if he regrets rewarding those comments, but for the love of honesty, he should just say that here, rather than making it sound like it a "letter to the editor" (which actually appeared next to it under a banner, "Letters to the Editor.") That is, he cannot argue that those words were not "insightful commentary" that he, the publisher, gave a prize to. It's written right under the column.
Wyatt, again, no one called you a "racist." It sounds like you're over-reacting a tad. Otherwise, we're putting out BOOM, and I don't have time to read all your comments right now. We did, however, find that column from 2004 in our files; it was not a "letter to the editor." We'll post more about it soon to jog your memory.
Nr786, Melton snubbed us because he had lots to hide and didn't want scrutiny, which we were giving him. That is usually the case when politicians refuse to talk with media, and it's always clue that we need to watch closer. And, in fact, Melton started being very nice to us about 14 months of refusing to talk to us, and that didn't change how we did our job. That is something else that politicians and others do to try to keep stuff hidden: place nice with the media.
So, no. Our coverage is not based on whether they are being mean to us, avoiding us or trying to charm us. We've seen it all, and it hasn't stopped us.
And I've been in this journalism game long enough to tell when someone is trying to charm us into good coverage—we call it "access journalism," and it's bad--or are willing to be forthcoming with information and transparency. I don't know yet where Lumumba falls. He did a pretty good job during the campaign and as a councilman, but for filing those campaign finance reports so late, which I find really disturbing. So we'll see.
Also, I'm of the journalism school that says we must go look for diversity in coverage, staffing, freelancers rather than wait for it to come to us. Of course, we do look for most of our news, so this wouldn't be any different. Media diversity should be deliberate. It's our responsibility as editors, media owners and journalists to work hard to cover our entire communities -- proactively.
I can't post much now, but two quick responses: The piece above didn't call Wyatt a "racist." And, second, the Malawi projects sounds great. We can't afford to fund a well at this point, but will talk about ways to get it some publicity. We're currently focused on a cause closer to home: the horrible problem of sex trafficking in MIssissippi and even Jackson. We invite Wyatt to sign on as a Chick Ball sponsor and publish stories about sex trafficking as well. Also, I seem to remember that the "prize" piece was by a regular columnist with his picture above it. I probably have a copy at work. Still, not sure it changes anything.
I agree 833, it was difficult to take anything seriously that followed that quote, which appeared near the top of the column. If it was a joke, if was offensive; if it was serious, it shows how little he understands race dynamics in the city where he has a newspaper.
donnaladd says...
For some reason, I can't edit my comment to CapitolInsider above: It should say in first line "living" instead of "listing."
I'll also add that, while I understand that it can sting to see your words criticized on another site, right-wingers (many of whom are friends and/or columnists of Emmerich's) have done that nearly every day to the Jackson Free Press and several of us personally, including Ronni and me, for many years. (Including lots of snark from Emmerich and his columnists.) We're used to it, though, and just consider it part of the journalism business.
Ronni did not write the Stinker Quote above to be snarky back to Emmerich, however. She wrote it because that quote shocked our whole office, and it deserved to be called out. And it has, indeed, opened up a discussion about race, and that's a good thing.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 10 June 2013, 2:22 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Pardon my Basil's carry-out container. It was yummy, though! ;-)
On This 2004 column won an "insightful commentary" award from The Northside Sun.
Posted 10 June 2013, 2:06 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Oops didn't post. Here is full column:
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 10 June 2013, 2:06 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Here's the full column. It rather meanders from thing to thing, but notice that it starts out talking about how the Jackson airport shouldn't be named for Medgar Evers. The point, again, is that the Northside Sun chose this column for a prize due to its "insightful commentary."
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 10 June 2013, 2:04 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Ha, Capitol Insider. One could only think that if you're listing inside Mr. Emmerich's bubble with him, refusing to peek outside it.
The bottom line here is that Emmerich launched the current column on several false premises. First, that having a discussion about race is a bad thing. Wow.
Second, that it somehow proves that race was no consideration when white Jacksonians voted en masse for one candidate--because they voted for the blacker candidate. If y'all can't see how offensive that is just to say out loud, I can't help you on that point.
But it's also not logical. I get what Wyatt is trying to say--that white Jackson voted as a bloc (largely) due to ideology over race. But obviously skin tone doesn't prove that; for one, throughout history, there are have been people of one race who have purposefully or not supported the policies that benefit another race, or hurt their own (not saying Lee did, by the way; this is for the sake of logical analysis). So, duh, of course it could happen.
And what hurts his argument more is that white Jackson voted en masse for one candidate in the primary when there were almost a dozen to choose from--and when no one can argue that the incumbent is an ideological radical. So Wyatt can't make that argument against Johnson; thus, it falls apart right there.
Not to mention the fact that a mindful consideration of this must probe *why* whites in Jackson vote largely as a bloc in the first place (or blacks for that matter). That part, on its face, is "about race." Of course, it's about the historic white supremacy that made Jackson the largely resegregated city that it is, but that is not something I've ever seen Emmerich discuss in print.
That brings me to the 2004 column. Above, Mr. Emmerich is outright misleading about the fact that he, "the publisher," chose that column out of five. I can understand if he regrets rewarding those comments, but for the love of honesty, he should just say that here, rather than making it sound like it a "letter to the editor" (which actually appeared next to it under a banner, "Letters to the Editor.") That is, he cannot argue that those words were not "insightful commentary" that he, the publisher, gave a prize to. It's written right under the column.
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 10 June 2013, 1:40 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Wyatt, again, no one called you a "racist." It sounds like you're over-reacting a tad. Otherwise, we're putting out BOOM, and I don't have time to read all your comments right now. We did, however, find that column from 2004 in our files; it was not a "letter to the editor." We'll post more about it soon to jog your memory.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 8 June 2013, 7:36 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Nr786, Melton snubbed us because he had lots to hide and didn't want scrutiny, which we were giving him. That is usually the case when politicians refuse to talk with media, and it's always clue that we need to watch closer. And, in fact, Melton started being very nice to us about 14 months of refusing to talk to us, and that didn't change how we did our job. That is something else that politicians and others do to try to keep stuff hidden: place nice with the media.
So, no. Our coverage is not based on whether they are being mean to us, avoiding us or trying to charm us. We've seen it all, and it hasn't stopped us.
And I've been in this journalism game long enough to tell when someone is trying to charm us into good coverage—we call it "access journalism," and it's bad--or are willing to be forthcoming with information and transparency. I don't know yet where Lumumba falls. He did a pretty good job during the campaign and as a councilman, but for filing those campaign finance reports so late, which I find really disturbing. So we'll see.
On Clarion-Ledger Greets Lumumba Win with Negative Front Page
Posted 6 June 2013, 4:38 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Also, I'm of the journalism school that says we must go look for diversity in coverage, staffing, freelancers rather than wait for it to come to us. Of course, we do look for most of our news, so this wouldn't be any different. Media diversity should be deliberate. It's our responsibility as editors, media owners and journalists to work hard to cover our entire communities -- proactively.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 6 June 2013, 2:32 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I can't post much now, but two quick responses: The piece above didn't call Wyatt a "racist." And, second, the Malawi projects sounds great. We can't afford to fund a well at this point, but will talk about ways to get it some publicity. We're currently focused on a cause closer to home: the horrible problem of sex trafficking in MIssissippi and even Jackson. We invite Wyatt to sign on as a Chick Ball sponsor and publish stories about sex trafficking as well. Also, I seem to remember that the "prize" piece was by a regular columnist with his picture above it. I probably have a copy at work. Still, not sure it changes anything.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 6 June 2013, 1:54 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I agree 833, it was difficult to take anything seriously that followed that quote, which appeared near the top of the column. If it was a joke, if was offensive; if it was serious, it shows how little he understands race dynamics in the city where he has a newspaper.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 6 June 2013, 12:26 p.m. Suggest removal