Social activism and the black athlete (5×8 – 3/28/12)


Name the last African American athlete who took a stand on social issues. Not since the days of Muhammad Ali and Bill Russell have black athletes taken to social activism, Jason Reid of the Washington Post writes today. That changed with the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida, he says, when Miami Heat stars LeBron James and Dwayne Wade spoke out:

They made their feelings known despite the blowback they could face from some of the fans who pay their multimillion salaries. Following the initial splash of the tweeted team photo, Wade and James commented about the case in interviews and offered support for the deceased boy’s family.

Although that may not seem like controversial stuff to some, don’t kid yourself: The subject of race remains polarizing. There’s potentially plenty of blowback out there whenever the issue is addressed in a public forum.

Even if fans don’t react negatively, skittish corporate execs might. Wade and James make millions from their product endorsements. The companies who pay them no doubt are concerned they’re risking alienating some consumers.

Reid says there’s too much to lose economically for African American athletes to get involved in social issues.

What did Wade and James do? They were photographed wearing hoodies.

That’s too much for people who remember that Ali went to prison.

“I like your stuff, but that’s like a paintball team comparing themselves to the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy,” one commenter said.

Meanwhile, another privileged group — sports broadcasters — is being roasted today for its expression of “slactivism,” donning hoodies in their avatars, Poynter reports.

As a journalism organization, ESPN should do more work like Hill’s and less like the self-expression of several others — including ESPN anchors Trey Wingo and Mike Hill, NFL reporter Michael Smith and Grantland writer Jonathan Abrams — who donned hoodies in their Twitter avatars.

If you want to make a difference, explain the story, don’t become part of it.


What would it take for people to change their behavior because of high gas prices? Something more than $3.79 a gallon (in the upper Midwest), the New York Times says today. Sixty-three percent of Americans say the high prices are causing financial turmoil of some sort, just not enough to do anything about it.

Analyzing census data, the writer determined gasoline accounts for less than half of what a typical driver spends on entertainment and restaurants, and found that during periods of high gasoline prices, there is no corresponding reduction in our spending on entertainment.

In other words, Americans may protest loudly, but their economic behavior indicates a remarkable indifference to the price of oil. In Europe, where taxes keep gas prices well above $5 a gallon, citizens are more likely to take public transportation and live near the center of town. The streets are filled with mopeds and tiny cars. The United States, on the other hand, barely exerts the minimum effort expected of a gas-phobic society: its enthusiasm for car pooling, enhanced public transportation and fuel-efficient vehicles remains relatively low. The average American even spends more gas money on social and recreational trips (about $13 a week, on average) than on their commutes to and from work (around $8). If gas prices truly damage the quality of our lives, we have done a remarkable job of hiding it.

Yet they attract so much attention for other very rational reasons. First, we’re still adjusting to a world of volatile gas prices. From World War II to the mid-1970s, the overall U.S. economy was largely insulated from the rest of the world. Our exports and imports were a small part of most businesses, and gas prices, which were carefully managed by complex government controls, barely budged. (In inflation-adjusted terms, they actually fell.) As the massive cars of the time attest, Americans didn’t need to think about the global supply or demand of oil. Even after the oil shocks in the 1970s, prices went up by what now seems like a trivial amount.


Should journalists have signed petitions for the recall of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker?

The revelation that reporters at Gannett newspapers in the state signed the petitions has renewed the question of whether journalism ethics has evolved to allow journos to reveal their political biases.

Ryan Rainey, a journalism student, writes in the Badger Herald that there are credible reasons why reporters should be allowed to go on the record with a political statement:

None of the news employees said to have signed the petitions were covering the recall, nor were they involved in any statewide political coverage, the newspapers said. Instead of acknowledging the ethical complexity of their employees’ individual and unique decisions to sign petitions, they made a rigid judgement about a difficult issue.

That means the armchair media critics who couldn’t even tell you who Bob Woodward is have won.

Journalists are, just like everyone else, complex Americans who make difficult decisions on a regular basis. We’re not robots — especially not the liberal or conservative models some think are programmed by George Soros and the Koch brothers.

Instead, we’re equal actors in society who want to participate in the democratic process just like any other Wisconsinite. Does that mean journalists can participate in activism? No.

But it does mean that if we want to see an election happen, or if we want to have a small, non-activist say in an issue that affects our friends and families, we’ll relish the opportunity to do so. Any true journalist, regardless of personal political beliefs over which they have little control, will swear an personal oath to fairness and equal-opportunity sourcing.

Media outlets that cater to a point of view are having a field day.

Writing in HuffPo, journalist Dave Seldana favors the journalists who are involved.

Granted, taking a position on an issue as contentious as recalling Walker is a political act. Signing a petition is clearly taking sides. But then, so too is choosing not to sign a petition. Are those staffers who did not sign because they support Walker and oppose the recall effort also facing disciplinary action? And if not, how does Gannett rationalize that choice? Because clearly any staffer who did not sign is presumptively a Walker supporter and can’t be trusted to report fairly on the issues, right?

Given the choice, I’ll take a reporter who owns up to her opinions over one who hides behind a fake veil of “objectivity.”

The test comes when people in the media get involved on he side of controversy not considered popular in media circles, however.

Former WCCO meteorologist Mike Fairbourne signed a petition years ago contending the role of humans in climate change is overblown. He was roasted by the local media. It’s one reason why most local meteorologists steer clear of the issue. It’s not worth the blowback.


Settle down, people. The mystery has been solved. Why was there a squid on the public access area of South Union Lake in Alexandria? Squids, you may know, aren’t freshwater creatures. The latest invasive species? It occupied the wags in town for a day or so,until a nearby resident said he buys squid to feed to his turtles.


Saying again: When I am king of universe, dogs will live much longer than they do now.

(h/t: Michael Wells)

Bonus I: Women in Afghanistan are still being jailed for “moral crimes” that aren’t in the penal code.

Bonus II: Video of James Cameron’s trip to the deepest part of the oceans this week.


Chief Justice John Roberts has said he has complete confidence in the Supreme Court to decide cases fairly and impartially. Court watchers point out, however, that the nine current justices tend to vote along a partisan divide, aligned with the presidents who appointed them. Today’s Question: How confident are you that the Supreme Court decides cases impartially?


Daily Circuit (9-12 p.m.) – First hour: When was the last time you had an extensive, hands-on, physical exam in the doctor’s office? With a push for technology and hyper-specialization in the medical world, many fear that the art of general diagnosis and the teaching of good diagnostic practices, may be fading. We discuss how to revive the lost art of the diagnosis and why getting back to basics at the doctor’s office could lead to more affordable healthcare.

Second hour: Jonah Lehrer, author of “How We Decide.” Lehrer edits the “Mind Matters” blog for Scientific American and writes his own blog, “The Frontal Cortex.” His latest book is “Imagine: How Creativity Works.”

Third hour: A bad boss can make your work life miserable. But new research shows that he or she can also affect your family life, your health and your personal morale. How should one cope? And when should one just jump ship and try to find a new job?

MPR News Presents (12-1 pm): An America Abroad documentary: “The Rise of the Islamists.”

Talk of the Nation (1-3 p.m.) – First hour: The Political Junkie.

Second hour: A.N. Wilson, author of “Hitler.”

All Things Considered (3-6:30 p.m.) – The military wants to improve treatment of post traumatic stress disorder. Many vets say they’re still under pressure to deny their problems. While there’s more treatment, more deployments have made the problem worse. NPR looks at the stigma and misunderstandings of PTSD.

Legacy funds have helped Minnesota become among the small number of states looking at contaminants of emerging concern in drinking water. Some of these contaminants are little known or little researched, but health officials say it’s important to develop guidelines for them. Consumers have started paying more attention to some of these emerging contaminants, but even the most vigilant consumers say they’re relying heavily on government regulators to tell them if their tap water is safe. MPR’s Elizabeth Dunbar will have the story.