Breaking: Journalists have yet to adjust brain, mouth filters

producermatthew:

So we’re all just going to ignore the fact that Jeremy Lin used the word “Chink” in his Xanga username in 2004, right?

Just wanted to be clear, since, you know, we’re firing ESPN headline writers for being insensitive and criticizing ESPN anchors for using the word during play-by-play.

At what point do we draw the line between “acceptable use” and “unacceptable use?” Do we further divide people by saying it’s okay for some people to use the word, while barring others?

Or can we all agree that nobody should use these sorts of words, in any context?

That’s a lot of fake concern for one post, which has been edited at least once. Neither this post nor this post (edit: link fixed since the Google cached version has been removed) were very good follow-up justifications of what Matthew Keys wrote, like he could retroactively change his intent and say he was really distressed about racism and sexism all along. Keys must know this because he’s deleted both posts — ironic considering the latter discusses transparency on the Internet.

The idea that a group’s reclamation of racist/sexist/homophobic slurs might be more harmful than good is a valid question, and one that invites debate. But that’s not what Keys is doing here. His disregard for background is, at best, insensitive and ignorant. At worst, he’s wielding racist logic to push a point: “If we are going to sit here and be so racially equal, then we should all be penalized the same exact way.” And his claim that he’s trying to get people’s “brain juices flowing” with an “unpopular opinion,” as stated in his blog description, sounds like a way to absolve himself of his own attitudes under the guise of opening up a conversation.

When your real goal is to start a dialogue, you should at the minimum come with a base awareness of the topic and perhaps a referee’s stance. If you want to make your personal blog a source of punditry and race-baiting, that’s obviously within your right. But don’t insult readers by hiding behind a disclaimer. It makes me wonder how a person with such a casual indifference to sensitive issues is working as a social media editor at Reuters.

As an Asian American journalist working in a major metro newsroom, it’s been fascinating to see how Jeremy Lin is forcing us to reassess long-held stereotypes, to even rethink a sports-writing cliché. And for the most part, I’m finding that people are living up to certain standards of respect and professionalism. In fact, it kind of feels like ’08 again, with the world psyched at a new racial precedent.

But it’s been maddening to watch the laggards catch up or not even bother trying. I know the ESPN staffer said he was a huge Jeremy Lin fan and that it was an honest mistake and that he had used the headline at least a hundred times before. I shouldn’t psychologize too much about this, but I suspect that he knew and, like Keys with his questions above, thought that equality meant he should be able to apply his lazy headline-writing to Lin. His mistake? Not realizing that the game had already changed, while he hadn’t.

Despite one dismissed ESPN employee, members of the established media are going to get a pass for some time while they work out what and what is not acceptable to write. (Next up: the “humble, hard-working” qualifiers.) This reconfiguring process is why some writers/editors will not include Jeremy Lin’s full quote re: the ESPN headline writer. “You have to learn to forgive, and I don’t even think that was intentional,” he’s been reported as saying. The full quote is, “Have to learn to forgive, and I don’t even think that was intentional. Or hopefully not.” The latter introduces a note of ambiguity. The former absolves anyone who thought that the headline wasn’t worthy of a firing.

Some journalists will manage to explain their way out of these situations without suffering serious repercussions. They will have to live with themselves when history shines a light on today as a significant racial moment they failed to see and be a part of. Then there are the others who won’t. They’ll forget their criticisms, exaggerate their participation, and say they were there with us all from the very beginning.