Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

2009 is a big year for diversity in animation:

The Black Panther animated series.

The Cleveland Show.

Astro Boy Movie.

The Princess and the Frog – the new Disney movie where the lead princess is a black character.

5:04

2008: The Boondocks banned episode.

No token hero: Static Shock. Napolitano says that the character of Virgil defies tokenism and reminds us that the black lead’s white friend acts “even blacker.”

In 2000, Dora the Explorer hits Nickelodeon, one of the very few attempts to seriously represent the Latino community in children’s television.

5:03

Simpsons becomes the first cartoon to lend a serious ear to gay issues with its “Homerphobia” episode.

5:00

1969 Fat Albert appears on screen – Bill Cosby turns his childhood experiences into a cartoon. The cartoon addresses topics such as drugs, racism, peer pressure and the strains of urban life.

4:56

In 1963, Astroboy is born – the first anime. Animation took a huge step from vilifying the Japanese in comics to becoming voracious anime consumers.

All Negro Comics comes into being in 1947s during a brief spurt of the segregation gap breach with Jackie Robinson and Orrin C. Evans.

4:50

Something happens with the Napolitano’s mouth and he starts to lisp noticeably.

4:47

Walt Disney sent by USA to South America to try and reclaim America’s image against German propaganda. Saludos Amigos produced – the prototype for all the “Speedy Gonzalez” and “Chiquita Banana” characters.

4:38

Napolitano told three stories about Aunt Jemima, Uncle Remus and The Yellow Kid – fiction and cartoons representing blacks and immigrants respectively. Back then, animation companies liked to present different ethnicities as parodies of themselves.

4:30

The main speaker, Dan Napolitano opened the panel. A multicultural director at Alfred University introduced the “Art Force Five” – five young people representing the different art forms. They go into schools where some students may have been formerly incarcerated to talk about art.

Friday found me at the New York City Comic Con. The main space at the Javits Center dazzled with its array of colorful fiction but once you’ve seen one con, you have seen them all. What really interested me were the panels. I found one called “From panthers to princesses: diveristy in animation.” Intrigued, I came in just as the panel was about to start.

Letter to the Editor, The New York Times November 5th print edition, from Rev. Connell J. Maguire, Riviera Beach, FL: That day has dawned, the day dreamed of by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when a man is judged by the content of his character rather than by the color of his skin. …”

Of which man does Rev. Maguire speak?

I’m not being cheeky.  In fact, the question exhibits a lack of assumption that I wish more of the media had deployed both last night and throughout the election cycle.  Hopefully, they’ll master those assumptions over the next four years of practice.

Here’s my beef with reporters and editors: If you’re going to cover race, you can… nope, you should also speak to the roughly 85 percent of the country who isn’t black.

On November 4, in addition to camping out in Harlem and at Morehouse, the historically black college, the major networks could’ve planted reporters in predominantly white neighborhoods too.

John McCain, in his eloquent concession speech missed an opportunity to get it right.  The “special significance” and “special pride that must be theirs tonight” belongs not just to black Americans.  It is America’s and also belongs to white Americans.

What about the white Freedom Riders who’ve lived to see this election?  There’s also the little white boy or girl in the 1950s, forced to give up a black friend and conform or risk being ostracized?  Fast forward a bit: what about the whites who hunkered down in white flight neighborhoods like those in Long Island or the Detroit suburbs between the 1960s-1980s?  Or the infamous “white working class” voters in Appalachia territory?

If the coverage is tainted with what I’ll call, “Baby Boomer assumptions,” about race and racism then two main but truth-obscuring ideas flourish: 1) blacks support Obama simply because he’s black, rather than because he’s charismatic and qualified and 2) whites are miraculously, race-less, or worse, when they are race-full, it’s only because they’re racist.

The cost of skewed coverage is that Americans really are taken aback by each other November 4th–which means that we (blacks, whites, Asians, etc.) really don’t know each other.  And that the media hasn’t helped us in that regard.  It typically hasn’t covered stories, like this Christian Science Monitor piece, that show us how the country and our relations with each other have changed.

Back to Rev. Maguire’s Letter to the Editor: Suppose Martin Luther King, Jr. in this statement plucked from his 1963 March on Washington speech, also included white men and women?  Suppose he realized that whites also judged each other by the color of their skins rather than the content of their characters?

Perhaps voters, including those who abstained from the process on election day, were finally judging McCain by his character?

Just a thought.  But in the final analysis, it’s the questioning of long-held assumptions that matters more.

Note: This serves as an update to Maya’s post on the Josh Howard mess, which I had originally intended to write about. The story has taken an interesting turn.

As Maya wrote, a YouTube video of Josh Howard, taken on what looks to be a camera phone, talking ignorantly during the National Anthem of a charity softball event leaked to the net a few days ago.

In just 11 seconds he makes a couple really dumb remarks about his choice not to recognize the playing of the Anthem and the reason why:

“The Star Spangled Banner going on right now. I don’t even celebrate that shit cuz I’m black…”

The public quickly latched on to this video, and the reaction was a negative one. People were extremely upset at his actions, at what he said, and even at the fact that the NBA would most likely not punish him in any way, leaving it up to the team to handle the situation.

Handle the situation the Mavericks have.

Mark Cuban — the infamous, outspoken, and media active — owner of the Dallas Mavericks has always been savvy when it comes to creative ways to handle his team. Cuban is a successful businessman, and he operates the franchise more in the mode of an entrepreneur than a traditional owner.

Cuban is also a blogger.

In the wake of Josh Howard’s YouTube comments, Cuban did something brilliant:

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban says forward Josh Howard realizes his comments about the national anthem were wrong and the player has apologized.

In his online blog, Cuban also responded to e-mails he has received commenting on the player’s remarks by saying Howard “will work with us” and “beyond that, it’s a private issue.”

-from CNNSI.com

Cuban then posted a huge amount of nasty e-mails, with the sender’s names and e-mail addresses included,  that he had received from infuriated Mavericks fans and haters alike. I read them yesterday; they were laced with profanities and choice racial epithets. They were the kind of thing that makes you feel uncomfortable to read, things like calling Howard, and I paraphrase the gist of about five of them, an unpatriotic, dumb ni****.

The e-mails were left up on the blog for about a day, then removed.

In their place now stands this: a brilliant post from Cuban entitled “I made my point.”

As much as I felt posting my “Thanks for the Advice on Josh Howard” post was the right thing to do, I have had an upset stomach all day because of it.

I thought it was important to point out the hatred and ignorance of so many who quickly judge people they have never met, based purely on soundbites and headlines. If you think you know any public figure based on what you see on TV or read on the internet or in newspapers, you are sadly mistaken.

I wanted to point out the irony of them experiencing the onslaught of attention from suddenly and unexpectedly being placed in the media spotlight from a throwaway comment.

The post continues for a few more paragraphs, so be sure to read all of it, because Cuban makes some excellent points.

What Cuban effectively did was show the fans that it is unfair to make verbal attacks behind the veil of (perceived) anonymity that so often accompanies the internet. Cuban did not condone Howard’s comments, although he certainly does have a level of bias since he has a personal relationship with him.

However, he also did not condone sending hateful e-mails with no fear of repercussion. Jean-Jacques Taylor of the Dallas News has an insightful take on the whole transpiring.

…That said, we all know the information superhighway is a wonderful place that has changed our lives – and our world.

But the Internet has also given way too many cowards the courage to write things they never would say to someone in person because they can do it anonymously and without worrying about confrontation.

Well, Cuban has exposed a few cowards and their views to the world

It is an interesting time, this internet age. The internet was the vehicle for leaking Josh Howard’s comments. It was the outlet for many excessive Howard bashing comments. And it was the platform for Cuban’s perspective bearing reply.

Did it solve anything? I’m not sure. But certainly, in this situation at least, it caused a little self reflection. That’s worth something.

Yesterday Amy began an interesting and relevant conversation about this issue especially as we rapidly approach this year’s Election Day. Also, Jackie, drawing on her prior legal experience, added fascinating insight (as well as the human side of the story).

After reading the comments from Amy’s post, I thought maybe this issue needed its own post for ongoing discussion.

First, if you are interested in knowing what New York State felonies are, this site provides a list by offense level. Did you know there are A1 and A2 level felonies, B violent felonies, B non-violent felonies, C violent felonies, C non-violent felonies, D violent felonies, D non-violent felonies, and E felonies? Have a look at the lists. You may be surprised by what you see — and let’s not forget the broad discretion prosecutors have in deciding what charges should be brought in cases.

In New York State if you are convicted of any of the above, you will lose your right to vote (until you are on probation). It is also very hard to get a job (much less a good one) after a felony conviction.

FairVote2020 has some neat interactive charts and maps with loads of good information about felony disenfranchisement across the U.S. by state.

Dan Filler, blogging at the Faculty Lounge, writes:

Felon disenfranchisement has an intuitive appeal – we deny the right to vote to those who breach the fundamental social contract and violate the law.  But these laws have deeply racist roots and a dramatically disparate racial impact today.  There is also a deep democratic problem with the policy; as we criminalize and prosecute more and more conduct, we passively strip more and more citizens of voting rights.

Most states added felon disenfranchisement laws in the aftermath of the Civil War. It is no coincidence that more people gained the right to vote at that exact moment (at least in writing on the Federal level, via the 13th, 14th, 15th, and later the 19th amendments). Only two states allow everyone to vote (including those who are incarcerated): Vermont and Maine. Those two states are each almost 97% white (the highest white populations by state).

For more information and the latest news, see the Right To Vote Campaign, a collaboration between the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice, and The Sentencing Project. The Right To Vote Campaign has led on this issue, but its own Web site has been down recently for some reason.

Late Update (9/14/08): See this New York Times article from Sunday’s edition, “States Restore Voting Rights for Ex-Convicts, but Issue Remains Politically Sensitive” and accompanying multimedia map from The Sentencing Project.