Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Obama’s Disallowed Whiteness and Media Stylebooks

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

For the past week, we have hosted a discussion about Barack Obama’s multiracial identity, and how media like The Enquirer reports it—particularly based on things like the AP Stylebook and Gannett’s Code of Newsroom Ethics.  And while there seems a general desire to allow Obama himself to choose whether he be called “African-American” or “multiracial,” no one suggests media should refer to Obama as “white.”  But shouldn’t that be a realistic option if multiracial people are truly granted their preference?  Can Obama be “white,” if he desires?

Interestingly, the AP Stylebook is relatively silent on the issue of terms like “white,” or “Caucasian”—unless to specify that the latter should be capitalized.  But how many people are seriously willing to entertain the notion that a brown skinned man with tightly curled hair could choose to be “white” if that were his preference?

Let me be clear:  I am not saying that Obama should not be given that choice.  I am suggesting, however, that the choice is not one we have, as a culture, realistically extended.  So people like Obama, or Tiger Woods, are forced to make a decision between being multiracial or African American.  But what would we do if such a person decided to be white?  Is that a decision our media, for example, would be willing to accept?

Recently, The Enquirer’s Peter Bronson found an old copy of a stylebook and he wrote about it for his column.  I found this excerpt most noteworthy:

The list of prohibited redundance includes “true facts,” “high noon,” “completely destroyed,” “blazing fire,” “loud din,” “old adage” and “invited guests.”

Under “Bromides,” Wiley advises, “Beware of the following trite expressions. They are worn out.” He lists “point with pride,” “spread like wildfire,” “like rats in a trap,” “rumor has it,” “whipped out a revolver,” “bury the hatchet,” “news leaked out,” and “hail of lead.”

“Hail of lead” is not as trite as it used to be. I guess newsrooms weren’t the only places that were more exciting in 1928.

But some things never change. “Accuracy is essential,” Wiley insisted. Still a true fact.

Accuracy.  With the case of a multiracial person like Barack Obama, it looks like modern media stylebooks have traded accuracy for preference—but I think there are some unspoken rules regarding these preferences.  I do not believe the media would refer to Obama as “white” if that’s what he said he is. 

Interestingly, we cannot turn to a place like the AP Stylebook to find an answer.  They do not have entries for “multiracial,” and their definitions for things like “white,” “Caucasian,” and even “African-American” are not totally clear and thorough in terms of providing accuracy—that essential element from newsrooms in 1928.

So, AP Stylebook editors, if you are reading this, I challenge you to update your book with a “multiracial” category—and I dare you to make clear and accurate definitions that make sense.  I’d love to know if you’d let Obama be another white president, if he felt like it.

 

 

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<del>

<i>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: