Black Conservatives on television

I don't know how many people saw this on Friday. I think it was very important. I think that there are far too few that pay attention to the other Black voice in the Black community.



These days Black culture is a commodity up for sale. Various consumer products use it to sell everything. Politicians use it to get votes. The youth are sold it as the norm they should observe. Yet there is a portion of African Americans that are completely opposed to such an outright mental slavery.

Why is it that the youth of today are sold on the idea that they should got to jail? Why do kids think that the only way to make money is via illegal actions, rap music, or sports? How have we moved from creating some of the most important inventions in the world, and multiple scientific discoveries that have saved untold millions of lives, to (some of us) waiting to be handed money?

Not only that, but why is it that in a mere 40 years we have gone from a people that led the nation from a mindset of prejudice and segregation to that of subservience. Dr. Martin Luther King never advocated that, Malcolm X never believed that. Both men were conservatives, especially in the political world of today. Yet Conservatives that are Black today are shunned and rejected. Why?

I really don't understand why we have come to a place where intelligent Blacks that offer strong reasonable opinions, that differ from the Liberal mindset, are considered to have abandoned their race. I don't understand why just speaking American English is considered an insult to so many. It leaves me with my head spinning.

I know of some younger African Americans that have bought into the commoditized view of Black culture. They rush out to buy anything that is hip hop, they obsess over rappers and bling. They are the first to go to any movie that is Black-oriented - no matter the quality - the first to buy a big SUV while living in the projects, the first to get $500 jeans and/or Prada shoes while they can't pay rent. And they are the first to denounce the Black businessman that questions the economic programs of President Obama, or the kid going to college.

Listen to the things said in the video clip. Forget that it's on Fox News, forget about Glenn Beck. Listen to the words, listen to the people. Have you heard these voices in your community? Maybe you even heard it from Bill Cosby. Now ask yourself this, Why have you not supported these views and instead contributed the nearly $1 trillion dollars of Black buying power supporting those that would keep you in a line for food stamps - essentially economic slavery?

Why, in America, would Black Conservatives consistently be called sell-outs, yet entertainers that are followed and emulated and are merely high paid employees selling the denigration and commoditization of Black culture are seen as being pro-Black?

How can an African American that rises from poverty, gets an education even though in sub-standard schools, goes to and pays for college without a trust fund or family money, and creates a career - maybe even a business - so that they can raise their kids in a better life than they had be called a sell-out?

Maybe Black Conservatives don't agree with every word coming out of President Obama's mouth. Maybe they aren't Democrats. Maybe they speak well and have educations. And how does that make them any less worthwhile or Black? How does that make them so different from Dr. King, Malcolm X, or even President Obama?

I'm glad Glenn Beck did this show on Black Conservatives. I'm glad that finally the major media is acknowledging our existence. I'm glad that the Black community is now faced with addressing this segment of Black Americans. Because maybe now we can have some real discussions on fixing the problems we all face. At least until another rapper tells the Black community that jail is good, drugs are great, and abandoning their own children is manly.

The full video is available at www.mvass.com. Either way let me know your thoughts.

President Obama vs. Fox News - bias or not?

So the White House is upset with Fox News. The President just doesn't like the coverage he gets there. Because they must be less than legitamite since they criticize his Administration. Are they serious?

Now I have no problem with anyone that wants to critique the major news media. There are multiple issues I have, ranging from the disproportionate representation of people of color in television shows to the subliminal reinforcement of stereotypes in news coverage and advertisements. I write about it often. But to be realistic, there is no one major media outlet that is far and away worse than all the others.

Of course when we focus only on the news media I begin to see the situation. Considering that virtually all the news media fawns over President Obama, Fox News actually doing there jobs must be a pain in the ass. They are the one place that reality sinks in, and rockstars prefer groupies to critics.

Think about it. ACORN has abused the system, promoting criminal activities and corrupting votes across the country. It took over a week and a preponderance of evidence before the rest of the media even noticed there was a story there. Hmm, political corruption on a national level. Sounds like a job that the news media is supposed to do.

What about officials in the Government. Besides telling the public about people in positions of power that have less than reputable backgrounds (Van Jones is a great and obvious choice) isn't it the job of the news media to mention the problems (like failing to pay taxes - which almost everyone in or proposed to be in the Obama Administration has failed to do) in our Government? Isn't that what most of the media did non-stop against President Bush?

And those are just 2 examples of many. The fact that a President is a rockstar does not mean they are above critique or observation. It's part of the job. And President Obama has had many things to critique, just check my political blog VASS to see what I mean.

When President Bush was in office, didn't he get hammered with tough questions every time he spoke to the press? Wasn't MSNBC treating President Bush even worse than Fox is accused of treating President Obama?

The media is not perfect. They all have agendas and preferences. But for the White House to attack one organization for doing its job - that smacks of abuse of power. How dare anyone question President Obama. How dare anyone question obvious flaws in policy. They have to be solely stooges for political adversaries and racists. Except that would be a lie to say.

Notice that the White House has not stated any materially important facts that were wrongly reported or commented (ie correcting the name of the city of an upcoming Olympics is not materially important). Notice that there is nothing that wasn't true. They didn't like it, but that does not mean it was false.

No, the White House would prefer that the public either drools with excitement (like some at MSNBC seem to do) if President Obama speaks, or completely ignores the news of the day. It's much easier to pass legislation that no one has read if no one pays attention.

Fox News is not perfect. I have had issue with some of the statements and coverage it has presented over the years. I have disagreed, strongly at times, with the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sheppard Smith. Yet I watch the channel every day because even when I disagree, the quality of the news and commentary is consistently far superior to other channels. And it is because I watch everyday that the silly internet bashers that misquote, and the bullying of the White House stand out for what they are.

Simply put, if an Administration is hell bent to make sure you don't see something it stands to reason that you should pay attention. Put another way, if this was President Bush telling you not to watch a news channel many would flock to see what he disliked and why. The fact that President Obama is Black and a rockstar politician doesn't change that reasoning.

Is TIME hypocritical, or is Glenn Beck the problem?

In as much as politics is entertainment these days, I want to discuss news commentators and the news media. I was motivated to do so by an article in TIME online. They were discussing Glenn Beck. Yeah, that guy.

For those that hate FOX News, and/or anything to the right, I ask you to keep reading and not zone out. For those that hate the left, do the same.

I’ve written about Glenn Beck before. On my political blog site. I have differences with many of his views, but at the same time he must be given credit for being dead-on with several issues. Van Jones was one, so is the current and growing ACORN situation. TIME notes both of these things.

But TIME meanders eventually to the question of if Beck is just there for the money, and playing both sides against the middle? Which is an important question, but not just for Beck.

Right now, politics and cable news coverage are huge business. Unlike years past where it was something more centralized to election cycles, or newspaper subscriptions, today politics is divided to channels available 24/7. Which is definitely helping to divide the nation, and occasionally inform.

Whether Glenn Beck is independent, or to the right does not matter. Whether FOX is right of center or just right of the rest of the media does not matter. They are all in it for the money. Which TIME is in it for as well. So to question the financial success of ANYONE in the media is stupid. None of us, including me (you did click on my advertisers or checked out my store, right?), do this simply for the good of our hearts. We want to be paid as well.

That is the American way.

The bigger question though is if the money is the goal or the means. Yes I want to make money, but I don’t write with that in mind. I write what I believe, and I think most pundits do the same. But in reading the TIME article you would think they are the only ones in the media that do it just to give away every dime. Which is laughable.

Let’s look at things as they are. We have a President that is not what he campaigned as (love or hate him for that as you will). We have an economy that is sour, and not likely to improve anytime soon. We have massive amounts of corruption in both Parties in Government. And the concerns of Joe Average seem the most far removed from politicians in my life (41 years).

Keith Olbermann, Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews and a host of others make millions because of this environment. But is that the goal? Or is it that each of them has a strong belief in what they say, and have no problem making a living from that conviction?

TIME seems to think that it’s all about the money. At least mostly so for Beck. Though they don’t mention their own revenues. Thus making their article useless, except for a subtle bashing of Beck, who has coincidentally scooped them and the rest of the media on several critical issues.

TIME mentions in the article that polls show America has the least trust in the media than perhaps ever before. And there is good reason for it. The Obama Stimulus was passed without being read and the majority of the media let it go. Van Jones made multiple radical accusations, after gaining a high political office, and the majority of the media didn’t blink. The President has made a health care policy that has no definition, and the majority of the media has not asked for details. And most recently, >ACORN has been exposed via the work of 2 amateurs and the majority of the media is just paying attention that this might be serious (a week after the fact).

Do I have a problem with the media, in particular news commentators like myself, focusing on issues they most agree with? Not at all. Do I have a problem with the same people getting paid for it? Obviously not. And of course I may be biased on this.

But I have a massive problem with the major media ignoring issues that are blatantly incidents that deserve national attention. I have a problem with anyone being paid for a job, reporting the news or commenting on it, and then not doing that job. Or worse being hypocritical.

I have yet to see coverage in TIME about the systemic bias in the legal system that continues to exist today. There was no coverage of the Megan Williams case, Oscar Grant, ACORN - the recent trouble garnered 1 article after the Senate vote but focused on past voter registration problems - and so on. For the life of me I cannot imagine why.

So TIME may wax and wane on the success of conservative pundits (with minor comments on Liberal pundits), but their job is to cover the news. Not Glenn Beck and his success, but the national news. He is doing his job – like it or not. TIME needs to do theirs.

No wonder so many find the news media to be so useless. It’s not just politically polarized, it’s stuck its head in the sand to the issues that are the core of its existence.