Was NABJs Mission Accomplished?

By Willie Brown

When I first heard the National Association of Black Journalists invited Donald Trump to speak at their conference, I have to admit, I felt a certain kind of way.  In fact, I felt a little betrayed and bewildered about the invitation.  It seemed to me that Black folks –even Black journalists—tend to bend over backward to do things the “acceptable” way—whether it is in their best interest or not. 

I found myself asking what an interview with Trump could possibly accomplish for Black journalists or Black America. 

Was Trump being setup by the NABJ so more of his racism and misogyny could be put on public display?  As a journalist organization, are they ethically obligated to extend invitations to candidates of each political party? 

After a discussion with a colleague, I decided to look at both sides.  I sat through the painful 20 minutes of Trump disrespecting Black journalists, Black people and Black presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.  With all the problems in this country, you’d think Trump could reel in his dysfunction long enough to give lip service to the concerns of his Black audience. 

But NO!!!  He went right in on Harris with the first question, saying she was Indian and only recently “turned black” since running for president.  He talked about everything except how voting for him would help Black people. 

The debacle was more than enough to let me know my first instincts were correct.  And, after reading the opinion piece in the Washington Post by Karen Attiah, a long-standing NABJ member, I found myself in good company.

Attiah made some good points and brought into focus why she feels the interview was a mistake.  The point that I resonate with most is that “none of the moderators represented Black-owned, independent or Black local media outlets. In that sense, the event essentially perpetuated the same exclusion and disrespect to historically Black media and Black issues that we associate with White systems.”

As an independent Black news publisher, I am unbeholden to right-leaning sponsors. I feel no personal obligation to allow Trump or anyone with his ideology to take up space in print or on our website, that could easily be used for better purposes. 

Of course, we have written about him, but his appearance in Inglewood Today, after the 2016 election has been sparse, to say the least.  Inglewood Today has been in this community for 31 years, so we know our readers, and we know Trump.  Let the mainstream post news about him all over the media, while we focus on the people of Inglewood. 

If you know the history of Inglewood Today, then you know I started my company because mainstream media was being unfair in its coverage of Inglewood residents. 

News about Inglewood was usually negative and distorted.  There was a time, folks—black and white—were afraid to come here because of all the bad press.  Inglewood got blamed for all the bad things whether they happened here or not.  Good news was totally ignored.  So positive news about Inglewood and its residents became Inglewood Today’s sweet spot.

Attiah also made the excellent point that NABJ commentators didn’t touch on anything that directly impacts Black people.  “We did not hear any questions about Black maternal mortality, reparations, Black immigrants, or foreign policy in Africa and the Caribbean,” Attiah said.

As a proud member of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, I agree with NNPA Chairman, Bobby R. Henry, Sr. that both the NABJ and NNPA have important roles to play.  We must recognize and celebrate their unique contributions. 

While The NABJ seeks to support and uplift through its focus on diversity and inclusion to insure fair and accurate media representation of black voices, the NNPA “focuses on promoting and uplifting Black-owned media companies, ensuring that our stories are told from our own perspectives.” 

Truth is, we need both, but we also need to be discerning about who we give the mic to. As Black media professionals we cannot allow the ideal of “inclusion” blur our judgment as to who to invite into our space.  Some doors are best left unopened.