>Hold up. Every year I go to conferences where African-American journalists
>argue that race coverage in this country's media is what it is because of
>the overwhelmingly white hue of media owners, editors and journalists. Sure,
>racism isn't just about individuals, it's institutional and systemic,
>etc. -- but the fact is that they have a point, and outlets that have more
>African-Americans in charge generally have better coverage. We can quibble
>over how much, come up with counter-examples, etc., but I don't think the
>overall point is deniable.
>
>So why is it somehow anti-Semitic to make the similar point that if, say,
>Arab-Americans ran the New York Times (and other U.S. media outlets),
>coverage of the Middle East wouldn't be so virulently anti-Arab? It's not a
>guarantee, but isn't it likely?
My guess is that institutions like the Times can "diversify" without changing their political complexion much. Which isn't to say they shouldn't - they should - but an institution so central to the reproduction of class consciousness in the U.S. wouldn't be much transformed. ("The more a dominant class is able to absorb the best people from the dominated classes, the more solid and dangerous is its rule." - Marx, capital vol. 3) We had Clinton's cabinet that looks like America, and was mostly made up of millionaires.
Doug