Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot: I'm only granting one-on-one interviews to journalists of color

[LoAmmo]

Knowing the analogy--any analogy--would be called out was not because I knew it was poor. It's because I know how the internet works.

 

[Derec]

So why lie?

Nobody is lying.

 

[thebeave]

It would be interesting to see her reaction if the managers of the Chicago Bulls and Chicago Bears sports teams only allowed white reporters in their locker rooms on opening day because whites are underrepresented in the teams. Maybe she'll get a clue then.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Knowing the analogy--any analogy--would be called out was not because I knew it was poor.

That is unfortunate you didn't realize it wasn't a good analogy, as again, it ignores the context.

You don't need to make poor analogies to show the lack of wisdom or political savvy with Mayor Lightfoot's decision and messaging. Not everything needs to be a "what if white person..." argument. Instead of excluding, she should have had their team work harder on including those in the press she felt were under represented.

 

[LoAmmo]

That is unfortunate you didn't realize it wasn't a good analogy, as again, it ignores the context.

Oh, piss off, and take your lame condescending snark with you. For reasons known but to you, you're choosing to go to the mat over an example that, truth be told, was barely even an "analogy" in the first place--more like, the exact fucking premise but with "black" and "white" reversed. Every other aspect identical, even down to the "two year's anniversary of being mayor."

You don't need to make poor analogies to show the lack of wisdom or political savvy with Mayor Lightfoot's decision and messaging. Not everything needs to be a "what if white person..." argument. Instead of excluding, she should have had their team work harder on including those in the press she felt were under represented.

When the subject is about racism in general, and in particular using "white" and "black" as the dichotomy, as in this instance with the Chicago mayor, it most certainly is not some bizarre stretch to simply flip the script and ask what would happen if the racial identities were reversed. It is true that not EVERYTHING be turned into a "what if a white guy did this" argument. But it's a very apt question HERE.

My point was, and is, that if a white mayor had excluded black journalists in favor of white-only journalists, for any specific newsworthy event, it would be hailed on these pages as a disgusting example of "white supremacy" showing itself again, etc. But the Chicago mayor seems to be getting, in comparison, a free pass. That's all I'm saying.

I think that if we are EVER to truly start to reduce racism as a prime motivator in people's thoughts/deeds/actions in this country (and that's a really big "if") it will only happen if it's universally called out, no matter who is doing it to who. It can't be the worst thing ever when white does it to black and no big deal when black does it to white. Fighting racism WITH racism seems pointless and stupid to me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is unfortunate you didn't realize it wasn't a good analogy, as again, it ignores the context.

Oh, piss off, and take your lame condescending snark with you.

For reasons known but to you, you're choosing to go to the mat over an example that, truth be told, was barely even an "analogy" in the first place--more like, the exact fucking premise but with "black" and "white" reversed. Every other aspect identical, even down to the "two year's anniversary of being mayor."

Except it wasn't. I mean, I understand that you can't apparently get what actually happened and that is frustrating you, but the fact of the matter is that A did B because of C, where as your analogy just says anti-A did anti-B.

Car in front of me slammed on their brakes, and I rear ended them verses car in front of me slammed on brakes after child ran onto street in front of them and I rear ended them. I have no idea why context matters so little to people.

You don't need to make poor analogies to show the lack of wisdom or political savvy with Mayor Lightfoot's decision and messaging. Not everything needs to be a "what if white person..." argument. Instead of excluding, she should have had their team work harder on including those in the press she felt were under represented.

When the subject is about racism in general, and in particular using "white" and "black" as the dichotomy, as in this instance with the Chicago mayor, it most certainly is not some bizarre stretch to simply flip the script and ask what would happen if the racial identities were reversed. It is true that not EVERYTHING be turned into a "what if a white guy did this" argument. But it's a very apt question HERE.

But it is a stretch to ignore the context. Making with a polar opposite on race equivalence is both inaccurate and wholly needless.

My point was, and is, that if a white mayor had excluded black journalists in favor of white-only journalists, for any specific newsworthy event, it would be hailed on these pages as a disgusting example of "white supremacy" showing itself again, etc. But the Chicago mayor seems to be getting, in comparison, a free pass. That's all I'm saying.

Man, and if you think the mayor is getting a free pass, you haven't read any of the posts in this thread. No wonder you have no idea what is going on and have to resort to analogies to discuss what happened because you clearly don't know what is going on.

The action wasn't racism. It was a poorly waged attempt at dealing with a perceived inequity in the press pool. The Mayor did not put this forth due to the perceived superiority of black journalists or to inhibit white journalists from being able to be journalists or because of bigotry. Doesn't make the Mayor's actions wise, right, or kosher, it just wasn't what the OP alleged they were.

 

[Gospel]

I understand what Mayor Lori Lightfoot is trying to do, however, I disagree with her execution. I think it would have been better she brought attention to the lack of diversity in the press corps without providing one on one interviews exclusively to journalists of color. But I do recognize that her deciding to do so may have brought even more attention to it than it would have gotten otherwise. Nobody gets the word around faster than a bunch of pissed white people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understand what Mayor Lori Lightfoot is trying to do, however, I disagree with her execution. I think it would have been better she brought attention to the lack of diversity in the press corps without providing one on one interviews exclusively to journalists of color. But I do recognize that her deciding to do so may have brought even more attention to it than it would have gotten otherwise. Nobody gets the word around faster than a bunch of pissed white people.

The problem is that she's basically saying you fight racism with racism. There's a lot of black-favoring racism in the law, thus she is basically condoning the white supremacists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She did no such thing. Enough with shitty analogies!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's no different from some Republicans only going on FOX.

Oh yes? Does FOX refuse to interview people of colour?

?

The Republicans escape questions they don't want by only going on FOX. They can spew lies unquestioned.

Like that woman is trying to do.

No, the Republicans are discriminating on the basis of the behavior of the journalists. This mayor is discriminating on the race of the journalists. It's not about what questions they would ask. There are plenty of White left-wingers who would have interviewed her if she hadn't said she would only give interviews to people who are not White. They would have asked only nice questions. But it did not matter. Because she rules them out on the basis of race, not behavior.

As for tough questions, I'm not sure whether she would give an interview to a non-White Black Fox News reporter. If not, then that would be like what those Republicans are doing.