A Loss to Blacks -- and NPR

Published on Saturday, December 18, 2004 by the Miami Herald
A Loss to Blacks -- and NPR
by Leah Samuel

Tavis Smiley's departure on Thursday from National Public Radio is a loss not only to blacks but also to all NPR listeners.

For its part, NPR issued a vague statement that is long on happy talk about how Smiley helped to ''jump start'' its effort at reaching blacks.

Smiley's departing letter to local stations asserts that NPR has ``failed to meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio.''

Smiley may simply have been tired of banging his head against the racial wall. When I interviewed him a year ago, he said that he often was frustrated and exhausted from doing the work involved in putting together a meaningful show five times a week, while at the same time tussling frequently with NPR over the show's tone and guests.

''The most difficult thing that I have had to do,'' he said, ``is fight a culture at NPR, a culture that is antithetical to the best interests of people of color.''

MORE>>> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1218-02.htm

NPR sucks bad...

them...

Thank God for Pacifica and WBAI!

Racism is alive and well. Yes, it is the bottom line, but the bottom line is racism covered in green.

That told me all I need to know. Buh-bye.

On edit: Let me be clear: It is my opinion that Tavis is a right-winger. I think he is making an attempt to sway people to the side of the Republican party.

He left off a syllable? :shrug:

Was it that he mis-spoke?
Having done radio part-time for over a decade now, I can tell you that even the best-prepared host will slip once in awhile. I once accidentally referred to "the anals of modern jazz".


on edit - just read your edit. I had never picked up on that. His show was pulled from our market about 2 months ago, so I didn't hear his thoughts on the election.

I listened to his show every day from the day it went on the air until I heard him say that line. He has made other statements along this same theme. Believe me or not, whichever you like. I am sticking by my perception.

but not when you make shit up

boy r we in BIG trouble :scared:

peace

And yes, "we"--you and I--are.

and if you keep up that kind of standard i will.

i come to DU because folks USUALLY post DETAILS when make serious claims - unlike the lame-stream - and i/we ain't got time to waste.

:hi:

peace

Just like "Islamofascists." I am immediately on alert the moment I hear it. I would love to be able to give you other quotes, but I would be pulling them out of my memory, which is not a fair rhetorical technique.

He wasn't brilliant or well-spoken but I don't think he was a right-winger. He isn't smart enough to pull it off.

Tavis is VERY articulate and well spoken. He is very intelligent and his commentaries will really get you to thinking. He is brilliant.

More importantly, he has a heart for people, and is really focused on how to make life for Black America better.

but I don't consider him that great of an asset. There are others who speak for black issues much more eloquently.

Tavis is a very bright man.

Unless revelling in ignorance is your style?

I'm sure when Tavis was Tom Bradley's top aide he was just dying to unleash those Republican values.Or maybe his Foundation that helps black youth is really a secret Rove organization.

Essence raves that his political writings “show us how to correct America’s swerve to the right.”

http://www.tavistalks.com/

On his book,Hard Left:Straight Talk About the Wrongs of the Right;


From Publishers Weekly
Smiley, a liberal black TV and nationally syndicated radio commentator, comes out swinging at the Republicans and their "Contract on America" in this partisan, thoughtful political statement. He bypasses virtually no one as he skewers politicians beholden to the tobacco industry; black conservatives ("an oxymoron") and the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court ("Black America's worst nightmare"). He encourages liberals to combat conservatives because "in any good fight, nothing counters a sharp right like a hard left." A hard-hitting intellectual counterpunch that liberals will endorse.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Midwest Book Review
Tavis Smiley is the liberal's answer to talk radio conservatives. Smiley routinely takes on the political right and beats them at their own game.

At last, those on the left have a fast-talking champion with fresh ideas to counter the outrageous barbs of conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, who have cowed Capitol Hill and dominated talk radio. Smiley is particularly harsh on Black conservatives like Ken Hamblin and Armstrong Williams, who he feels have betrayed the Black community.

Hard Left is a clarion call to liberal politicians and leaders to take their heads out of the sand, tear a page out of the conservative playbook, and counter the conservative offensive by tackling the political and racial issues that go to the core of our society.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0385484046/104-6177446-0259125?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155


------------

But hey,continue to judge the man on one word.It makes you look so informed.

Tavis Smiley is not a right-winger by a long shot.
If you have not done so, I encourage you to listen to his commentary on the Tom Joyner Morning Show on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and purchase his books.


Tavis is a Democrat, but he believes in takig BOTH parties to task when he feels like they have failed Black America.

dude hates bush

read one of his books instead of making stupid comments

TEARS into the bush administration in his latest...

it was because he was told to do, IMO. Perhaps one of the reasons he is leaving is because he is being asked to go against his principles. You are just plain wrong about Tavis. He is definitely not right wing. I have watched him over the years, that description does not fit him.

It is beyond me that ANYONE would accuse Smiley of being a repub

I'm a huge fan of Tavis Smiley, and really upset about his leaving NPR.

When he first started his syndicated program at NPR, I had emailed the local NPR station in my hometown, asking if they planned to carry his show. They said no.

Finally, after maybe about a year, they picked it up, and put it on at 2:00 in the morning! I was furious! I wondered who in the world they expected to be able to hear his show at 2:00 in the morning. I also wondered if this was a deliberate move to keep a black commentator's ratings down.

And just so I could hear Tavis' show, I purchased a device that allows you record radio shows when you aren't able to listen to them live. It's the radio version of a VCR. I would set the timer on it to record Tavis' show while I was sleep.

Anway, I tell that story to demonstrate that NPR never did right by Tavis, in my opinion. I'm glad he still has his tv show on PBS, and does his commentaries on the Tom Joyner Morning Show.

they wouldn't NEED the corporate $$$

follow deams example :bounce:

the 'revolution' will NOT be televised,
it'll be WEB-CASTED :bounce:

peace

Internet stream is fine, but it shouldn't be the only way.

Trust me, I'm greatful for internet stream. It's the only way I get to listen to Air America Radio, until they debut in my city on January 20.

But you have to remember that there are still a lot of people without a home computer, because they cannot afford it. For some people, they only get access to a computer if they use one at a library, internet cafe, or at school.

But many people still don't have a home computer.

:evilgrin:

peace

December 16, 2004

It's been nearly three years since the window opened. In January 2002, my daily newsmagazine program debuted on National Public Radio. It was the first show targeting an African American audience in NPR's thirty-four years on the air, but I also viewed this coveted forum as a window for non-Black and younger listeners; a way to peer into a segment of this country's culture from which they've been largely segregated, at least from a media standpoint.

The program was collaboration between NPR and the African American Public Radio Consortium, a group comprised of Black public radio professionals who saw this as a window of opportunity, a way to bring new voices and perspectives to public radio, and in the process, to attract a broader base of listeners.

I feel confident in saying the experiment has been a success on virtually every level. We reach an estimated one million listeners each week on nearly 90 stations, attracting the most diverse audience in public radio history. When I recently announced I would not renew my contract with NPR, one listener wrote "Please let Mr. Smiley know this 63-year-old white male born in North Carolina enjoys his shows immensely"; another said "As a 30-something Orthodox Jew living in a white suburb, the perspective Tavis brought was, for me, fresh, thought-provoking, and expanded my horizon to a community that too often goes unheard", and a third commented "As a white male from Seattle, I considered your show to be particularly important. To be sure, I wasn't interested in some of the show's topics; sometimes I even found the show annoyingly 'black' - but at some level, I also thought for me, that was the point".

The point, exactly. Increasingly, people in this country are trying to live with others who are essentially like themselves, and my efforts throughout my broadcasting career have been focused on narrowing the yawning racial divide. "The Tavis Smiley Show" was a bridge across the chasm. So why am I walking away from it?

It's not because of the listeners; they certainly understood, appreciated, and participated in this unprecedented dialogue. The executives of the affiliates that carried the program could not have been more supportive and enthusiastic, as were the thousands of politicians, academics, actors, musicians, writers and athletes who appeared as guests.

But to my surprise, NPR, the network that rightfully deserves much credit for offering this groundbreaking platform, didn't really get it. It began the journey, but wavered on the way to our agreed-upon destination.

I sought to have NPR build upon the foundation we laid down, to attempt to attract the millions of white, black, brown, and yellow Americans of all ages in each red and blue state, who don't hear public radio and who perhaps prefer the comfort of listening to what is familiar and unchallenging rather than entering unexplored territory.

The funds were certainly there to do the job, thanks to Big Mac lovers everywhere. Joan Kroc, who inherited the McDonald's fortune, bequeathed 225 million dollars to NPR in her will. I had hoped the network would use part of the generous gift to spread the word to underserved communities, to create additional, complementary programming, to expand what I believed was our shared mission.

That was not to be. NPR, considered a bastion of the liberal media elite in this country, was satisfied with the limited victory it had achieved, and wanted to leave well enough alone. Some of the disenfranchised had been brought into the tent; it apparently was okay for others to remain out in the cold.

To accept that kind of complacency would have been a betrayal of everything I strive for in every aspect of my life, so while I will forever be grateful for the vehicle NPR provided, it's time for me to head in another direction.

We live in perilous times, and when the national dialogue can be hijacked by an exposed breast or a dropped towel, extra effort must be made to embrace, grow, and reward intelligent and inclusive conversation. If not, we deserve what we get.

I now intend to concentrate on media outlets that get the job done, such as my nightly television show on PBS. I'm proud to say that program has, over the last year, attracted the youngest, most educated, and, as was the case with the NPR show, the most diverse audience of any regular series on public broadcasting. Our eclectic mix of guests has been as varied as the viewers; I've spoken with Prince, Newt Gingrich, Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Aretha Franklin, Dustin Hoffman, John McCain, Lenny Kravitz, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Bill Cosby, Maya Angelou, and Ted Kennedy. (This works for PBS... but don't try it at your next dinner party!)

And while NPR failed to fully exploit the window of opportunity it had, that window has been pried open and will remain so. I'm pleased that NPR says it will continue to air the show that we created in some form, and I hope the commitment to the program will increase.

The truth is, retreat at this point is impossible. The exclusionary chains have been broken, the diversity genie is out of the bottle, and I will keep the faith that this small step backwards will inevitably be overcome by our continuing march forward towards a day when we will enjoy the profound privilege of talking with, not at, each other.

Tavis Smiley
Los Angeles, CA
16 December 2004

http://www.tavistalks.com/TTcom/press_rel_121604.html

:hi:

You make me laugh too much Forkboy!

No offense to anyone but I never quite understood the hoopla over democrat party vs democratic party. I don't get bent out of shape over it because both are grammatically correct and Democrats themselves are using the term nut I admit, in the right mood, I'd be capable of knocking someone's teeth out if they used it as a slur.


http://www.lipolitics.com/nassau-democrat.htm

If you google "democrat party", the first link up is the Democratic National Committee's page. The rest are to a ton of Democratic State Sites.

http://democrat.whitleynet.org/

Nevertheless, I do understand the sensitivity and the misunderstandings.

===

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

Democrat (adj., n.), Democratic (adj.)


The proper noun is the name of a member of a major American political party; the adjective Democratic is used in its official name, the Democratic party. Democrat as an adjective is still sometimes used by some twentieth-century Republicans as a campaign tool but was used with particular virulence by the late senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican who sought by repeatedly calling it the Democrat party to deny it any possible benefit of the suggestion that it might also be democratic. Other nations also have political parties with the words Democrat and Democratic in their names. The uncapitalized words democrat and democratic have to do with believers in and supporters of government based on majority rule, the principles of equal rights, and the representative procedures developed to permit these principles to operate. Capitalize only the proper noun and the adjective when it refers to the Democratic party.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/1727.html

. . in Seattle for some time now. I am usually working at that time and I always have NPR on while working - so I've heard his show dozens of times.

I have often been irritated at the tone of his interview and the deference he gives to some of his regular guests - like JC Watts, for example, who are hard right demagogues. His failure to call them on obviously misleading statements. His insistence at how "welcome" they are to "come back anytime". Things like that.

A post above offers some book reviews - from 1996. A lot can happen to a person's worldview in 9 years. Especially if it seems like that person's source of funding is shifting to the right.

I'm not condemning - just offering my own vague sense of uneasiness with Tavis Smiley. I could be way wrong. But it will be interesting to see where he ends up and who pays for it.

Something where he and JC co-produce something for blacks with a decided RW viewpoint wouldn't surprise me a bit. I'll bet there are RW sources who would put some really big bucks into such a project.

I think NPR figured out where he was headed with his programming and called him on it. That's why he now says "The most difficult thing that I have had to do,'' he said, ``is fight a culture at NPR, a culture that is antithetical to the best interests of people of color.''

Notice he doesn't say NPR was preventing him from turning his program into a RW show for blacks - but I'll bet that's what happened.

Instead, he says NPR was "against the interests of people of color". That says a whole lot to me.

I hope I'm wrong.

He says everyone is "welcome" to come back anytime.It's called polite discourse (not my strong point I admit,but I'm not a host of a show).

From this you suspect that he and Watts are in cahoots to make a right-wing show?

Notice he doesn't say NPR was preventing him from turning his program into a RW show for blacks - but I'll bet that's what happened.

What evidence,besides his daring to be polite,do you have of this?

Instead, he says NPR was "against the interests of people of color". That says a whole lot to me.

What does that say to you?

Why didn't he say what it was that NPR was doing that he objected to - other than "advocating against the interests of black people"?

Just what interests might those be that NPR is against - and why didn't he describe them?

I find it preposterous that NPR would do anything that a progressive would interpret as being against the interests of any minority.

If he thinks they did then he should be up front and spell it out so NPR can defend itself if they wish to.

Instead, he gives this nebulous press statement that smears NPR as being against the interests of blacks. To make that statment in a way that NPR can't defend seems disingenuous to me as well as an attempt to damage NPR in the eyes of the black audience.

And it also seems like the perfect segue into his own more RW oriented show on another network. But it makes no difference what I suspect or what you think. We are both about to be shown what Tavis Smiley is up to.

Besides, like I said, I could be way wrong. And like I also said - I hope so.

having worked at a progressive news organization myself at one point.
people here bitch about NPR's turn to the right all the time...why would it be so hard to believe that regarding the interests of people of color?

. . was fought against us with every dirty trick in the book. Many liberals have their knives out and sharpened - ready to stick it to any organization or person they perceive as not "left" enough.

Have you seen any actual evidence of a shift to the right at NPR? I think that during a bitter divisive struggle such as we are in - each side sees a lack of outright support for their views from any institution as an attack against them - much as the RW has been screaming for years now about liberal bias, not only on NPR but by all mainstream media.

Now that the left has been greatly radicalized we see the same enemies lurking in "All Things Considered" that the right has been seeing for twenty-five years - just from the opposite direction. I haven't seen it - but I'd be willing to look at any evidence you might have or have seen that this shift to the right actually exists.

Re: Tavis Smiley - I sense a bit of that same "what has the liberal establishment done for me lately" attitude from Tavis that I have heard from some other people of color lately. And, I suspect, a certain willingness to game the system - to play the right off against the left for political and economic advantage. I consider that dishonorable and selling out one's principles. I'd condemn that in any person - regardless of color.

But, as I said before, I'm not attacking or condemning Tavis Smiley for that - only expressing my sense of unease with the direction he seems to be headed - and hoping he's not headed there.

let's see:
black people support the democratic party in the 90+% range, and what have we got the show for it? a party that can't send it's white frontrunners out to talk about disenfranchisement because of fear of a white backlash. so much so our "allies" :eyes: gaming the system...possible, but it's sort of like selling your soul to the devil, in some circles. i don't listen to NPR anymore, but i always see posts here about the supposed rightward shift. as i said, i saw the SOS at mother jones in the 1990's, so i DO know what he means, and i have no doubt he experienced exactly what he claims.

However, it is sometimes good to step back and take a longer view.

In the late fifties liberals (I was one of those) united with the colored in the south to oppose discrimination. Many of us were beaten in the demonstrations (I was not) and some were killed. We were marching for equal rights and justice - not to show people how liberal we were.

The Democratic party went through a lot of hand wringing but came out on the right side of that conflict - in support of that effort.

For their trouble they lost the south politically. That shift has continued due to an extension of Nixon's original "southern strategy" that has morphed through Gingrich and Delay and Bush into the RW empire we see today. The southern strategy is the gift that keeps on giving.

Through all this the Democrats have steadily lost influence and power. This happened because it's always easier to appeal to the hatred in people than to their better angels. And the RW has fomented and exploited this hatred expertly.

Politicians always have to walk the line between ideology and getting elected. If they don't get elected their ideology doesn't mean crap as they have no power to express their ideology.

It may seem to you that Dems have sold out because they don't deliver the goods. Well, they're not delivering the goods to white liberals either.

Instead, to retain some hold on their remaining power, they do and say things that appear to condescend to the right. I am sure that if they did not do that, there would be no-one to oppose the RW agenda. As it is we are weak but still in the game and able to limit their destructive actions aginst minorites, the environment, abortion rights, separation of Church and state - all those things.

The RW would like nothing more than to convince blacks that the already battered and retreating Dems are not their friends - even though they use the exact opposite tactic to get elected. The RW attacks the left by using code words to tell white bigots and racists that we are friends of minorites - and that's why they shouldn't vote for us. Ironic isn't it?

Then they tell you that if you just hate us white liberals enough, they'll accept you as an equal - plug you into that RW cash flow. I just hate to see them succeed at that - but they do have their shit together and I think the writing is on the wall.

The truth is though - those people will never allow anybody but white males to hold real power. They'll allow others to appear to have power as long as they say the right things and support the right policies and don't step out of line. And as long as they serve the purpose of convincing millions of other blacks that they could be the next token, ex-liberal, finally-saw-the-truth, black success story, just like JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell - and perhaps even Tavis Smiley now.

All that success and money is right there waiting for you. All you have to do is hate us white liberals enough - the same white liberals who lost their power because they foolishly supported equal rights for all Americans.

Go for it.

i say this several times a year, but mostly around election time, or when some black reporter quits NPR. black americans are in no more likely to join the republican party in large numbers than are black south africans likely to join the afrikaaners in large numbers...that how strongly many of us feel about republicans. as for the largesse of white liberals, everyday black folks were out there getting their asses kicked and being murdered long before the civil rights cause became popularized enough for the coalition to be formed. in other words: black people were the ones on the front lines of this battle, from start to finish, so i feel no especial gratitude to democrats or liberals.
as to the largesse of the democratic party...likewise, i don't feel especially grateful, and that other people are not being represented adequately either is equally shameful.
as for the cowardice in addressing racial issues (among other things), perhaps it's time for our political class to realize they work for us, not corporate interests. i joined the green party some years ago now, and if any party will woo african-americans, let's say it won't be the republican party.

I find it preposterous that NPR would do anything that a progressive would interpret as being against the interests of any minority.

Why? NPR isn't the same as it used to be.Not even close.It's made a drastic rightward shift.

If he thinks they did then he should be up front and spell it out so NPR can defend itself if they wish to.

Perhaps he will at a later time.Perhaps,unlike Pedro Martinez he prefers not to get into a public spat with people who he wont be working for anymore anyways.

Instead, he gives this nebulous press statement that smears NPR as being against the interests of blacks. To make that statment in a way that NPR can't defend seems disingenuous to me as well as an attempt to damage NPR in the eyes of the black audience.

All press statements are nebulous.NPR can still defend themselves if they so choose.

And it also seems like the perfect segue into his own more RW oriented show on another network.

Again,you provide ZERO evidence that this will be the case.Speaking of "nebulous",that's all your suspicians and bias seem to be.

Hey - you don't know - it could happen!

yes INDEED

Unconcious choice of words is taken as evidence, by some, of unconscious thinking tendencies...

I caught her on C-Span last week and she was doing the usual BS sales pitch, making excuses that they've sold out to the right wing and corporate donors. Forget about them. GO to pacifica radio's online stream, or http://www.democracynow.com. The last two places in the whole country to watch the truth.

EXECUTE PLAN BLUE

EXECUTE PLAN BLUE

VALIDATE AT VRWC HQ AND ACKNOWLEDGE.

Pepperoni, please!

This is really frustrating. I feel like it's just one blow after another.