Mississippi Goddam

Nina Simone -- a singer, songwriter and activist -- wrote a number of songs about her experiences as a black woman in America. Some of them are fairly subdued, possibly a result of her attempts to appease her American record label. Some are more direct.

Simone had plenty of personal experience to draw from, having grown up surrounded by the thinly veiled -- and sometimes blatant -- discrimination that was prevalent during the Jim Crow era. She chose to speak out through her music.

In 1963, in the heat of the civil rights movement, black activist Medgar Evers was shot in the back as he entered his home in Mound Bayou, Mississippi. He was murdered by a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Simone cited this among other incidents as inspiration for the song Mississippi Goddam.

The song describes the frustration of trying to fit in to American society as an equal, while still being treated as a second-class citizen. It also describes the anger that swells when the writer realizes that equality might never be reached.

"Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You’re all gonna die and die like flies"

That’s a pretty shocking line. I’m guessing that if Nina were still alive, she would be considered a terrorist. And whichever presidential candidate she supported would be a terrorist sympathizer. (You can read the rest of the lyrics here.)

Nina also wrote and performed love songs, blues songs, gospel music, and jazz. To characterize all of Simone’s music as radical black activist rhetoric would be very misleading.

That brings us to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Lots has already been said and written, so I’m not going to rant for too long. All I want to add to the blogosphere on this subject is this: If you don’t consider the entire person when judging a few of their words or actions, then you aren’t truly listening. Truly listening to somebody requires that one makes an attempt at understanding that person’s point of view.

Any person who is at all aware of the history of the black experience in America must conclude that hard feelings linger as a result of the continued disparity in the experience of black and white Americans. I think Barack Obama did an amazing job addressing this in his “race speech.”

Once again I am disappointed by the treatment this story received by the Media and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Media is harping on this because it is raunchy, not because it is news-worthy. And the Clinton campaign is again choosing to make petty arguments in an attempt to sway voters. It says something that John McCain reacted with class while Hillary grabbed handfuls of mud.

Why the Media Pisses Me Off

Misleading Headlines
(Part 1 of an ongoing series.)

“Clinton raises $35 million in 1 month” was the headline of an AP story that appeared on my local paper’s website this morning. That is so not the story.

I see this type of careless headline writing on a daily basis, and I’m taking a stand.

I remember a few things from my journalism classes at the University of Delaware. One is that the “lead” of the story (generally the first sentence) should be a microcosm of the entire story. It should accurately describe the main theme of the story. The rest of the story fills in details in order of importance (or chronologically when appropriate).

The lead of this story describes Hillary Clinton’s “remarkable financial recovery” and goes on to point out that despite her efforts, Barack Obama was still outspending her. This is an interesting point, but does this lead convey the most newsworthy aspect of the story? I think not. In the fifth paragraph we discover that Obama has likely raised over $50 million in the same time period. This will shatter the record for fundraising in a primary election. But I’m not saying that should have been the lead.

Here’s the deal: When there are multiple angles to a story, it’s the reporter’s and editor’s jobs to decide which angle is the most important. The lead and headline of the story should follow suit.

If the story is about the Democratic candidates’ fundraising, than the news might be that both candidates saw huge increases in donations. Possible headline -- “Candidates see huge boost in fundraising.”

If the story is about comparing the two candidates’ campaign financing in general, than the news is that Obama continues to crush Clinton in dollars brought in and dollars spent. (This was introduced in the second paragraph, and reported in more detail later in the story.) Possible headline -- “Obama outpaces Clinton in fundraising, spending.”

If the story had been only about Clinton’s fundraising, which some might infer from the headline, the headline still doesn’t convey the most important point. Raising $35 million in a month is not news in and of itself. It is only newsworthy when compared to other stats. So the story might be that Clinton’s fundraising more than doubled from January to February. Possible headline -- “Clinton donations more than double.”

So, I know you’ve been waiting patiently to hear my humble opinion on how this story should have gone, so here it is:

“Despite boost, Clinton fundraising still lags”
The lead is pretty close, but I think it should include the fact that Obama’s campaign is outspending and out-fundraising Clinton’s.

So what happened at the AP? Was this just a mistake? Just a bad day for the headline writer? Did he or she just skim through this story before typing up the headline? Did the editor really feel that the headline reflects the biggest news in this story? Or is this an indication of the writer or editor leaning toward Clinton? I don’t like any of the above possibilities. I expect better from the Associated Press.

Disclaimer: Please don’t add a comment pointing out a typo or misplaced comma. I know I was not a great copy editor (or headline writer, for that matter). That’s why I’m ranting on a free blog site instead of writing or editing for the AP, the Times or the AJC.