On Wednesday November 16 I attended the
“Memphis Centered” series featuring Otis Sanford along with Professor McKinney
and Professor Nelson. Sanford lead the discussion and answered questions
regarding his new book, “From Boss Crump to King Willie: How Race Changed Memphis Politics.” One topic I found most
interesting was the role of the media in Memphis during the civil rights era.
In the discussion, Sanford noted that mayor Henry Loeb condemned the Sanitation
Strike. Throughout the strike, Loeb wanted the public to believe the protests
were purely labor disputes. Because Memphis newspapers from the political left and right backed Loeb, the civil rights
issues were completely left out of most coverage. Sanford claimed where the
mass population of whites believed race relations to be “fine,” the media
“failed” to bring to the surface the real struggles of the black community. One
moment during the lecture that even surprised me was when one white man in the
crowd stated that he personally believed race relations in Memphis to be fine
throughout the Sanitary Strike. This statement made me wonder about the nature
of this thinking from the man and Memphians during the civil rights movement in
general. To be specific, was this “misunderstanding” really because of the
media or was it because whites wanted to avoid racial conflict? Wouldn’t most
people be aware enough of race issues across the U.S. to observe how this
strike might be connected to civil rights? This topic is just as important
today it is just as necessary for the media to accurately and clearly uphold
the reality of race issues, protests and debates. For example, much of the
controversy surrounding Collin Kaepernick’s National Anthem protests were due
to beliefs that he was “disrespecting” veterans. Many media sources covering the event failed
to mention that the kneeling was actually the result of discussion with an army veteran on a way to protest
that would be more respectful than sitting. I personally did not know about
this until I entered this class and did more in depth research into the story.
Many media sources even twisted the meaning of the “Black Lives Matter”
protest. Many stories portrayed the movement as violent and even Anti-Police.
So many different interpretations of the meaning of the protest resulted in a
large portion of people questioning its true motive. Some even believed the
movement to be exclusive and focus should be shifted to “all lives matter.” In addition, Dr. Frederick Staidum in his
lecture “Going Forward to Where We’ve Been,” noted how the media labeled many
poor black victims in Louisiana of hurricane Katrina “refugees.” With an
increasing variety of sources for news going forward, these media sources need
to take more responsibility for how they portray race issues and black folk in
general.
Word Count: 463
Hey there, I was at these lectures too, and I recall when the old white Memphian commented about the santitation strike. To my recollection, he said that the media was portraying the sanitation strike as a labor dispute, and that’s what he thought it was, not that race relations were fine throughout the strike. To offer an answer to your question about the misunderstanding Memphis whites had about the strike, I think it has to do with both white avoidance of racial conflict and the media. News companies unfortunately don’t provide narratives to educate the viewer; the primary focus is to captivate. Capitalizing on white tendency to avoid the subject of racial conflict, I imagine that newspapers were reluctant to provide something that would be unpopular with their audience: the truth. Simply not wanting to engage with such issues as a white person living in Memphis at that time would have been enough to keep you out of the loop on all but major black civil rights action, and as a prevailing opinion among whites, it shaped the media they consumed. I agree with you that it is important for news sources to accurately portray reality, but I don’t think news sources themselves agree.
ReplyDelete