Print
Email
From The Retort:
"It's easy to blame the messenger. When it came to CNN's Black In America this was no exception. Correspondent Soledad O'Brien received her fair share of shame and blame for how the documentary turned out. She was the most visible symbol, the most accessible face and the easiest target. But did she deserve it?
I was recently asked if Soledad O’Brien wasn’t the host of the documentary would I still be upset about the airing of the show? My answer to that is an emphatic “YES”!!! O’Brien is but a pawn in a larger game by the so called “left-leaning” media corps that will defend this documentary. They will claim that Black in America 2 and its previous installment show the diversity of this nation, while I see it as an attempt at getting ratings at the expense of the African Americans.
The issues brought up in the first series start off from a good place -- the legacy of slavery, where and how families benefited directly or indirectly. But veers off track when it suddenly goes into a myriad of biographical vignettes that do more to create a “black problem” instead of an American problem.
The documentary is akin to BET's infamous “Hip-Hop vs. America” round table discussion last year where the notion was tossed around that my generation’s music, hip hop, was denigrating our culture and values. Nevermind that the alleged culture and values of the nation have already been denigrated and the music is simply a reflection, if not highlighting, larger societal woes.
Both documentaries took the simple, lazy, and narrow view of a greater and much more complex issue. By focusing on the symptoms (raunchy lyrics, misogyny, or out-of-wedlock pregnancies) rather than the disease (lack of jobs and education opportunities for African Americans), you end up with stew of amalgamated sophisms about something much deeper."
Read the rest of the article here [12].
What say you? Is CNN getting 'Black in America' wrong or is Mr. Mitchell unnecessarily salty?
Comments