A call to evolve our writing beyond typical propaganda: from one hubber to another

Recently my hub The Attempted Assassination of the Redemptive Spirit of Shirley Sherrod was visited and commented upon by a fellow hubber. The commentary did not substantively address the focus of the hub although my colleague was gracious in expressing an appreciation for the morale of the hub which is part of my Scriptural Perspective Series here on HubPages . I was invited to visit this colleague’s own hub which accorded mine in subject although not in spirit, and to further share some thoughts about some of the more political and social elements of the Sherrod story. Having so visited her hub, the following open missive is my requested response:

Thank you for dropping by my hub and for the invite to enjoin forum at yours. Your hub has a lot to it and I will certainly not attempt to address most of it. On the positive side I have to say that any continued conversation on race relations in America is healthy and I hope that people read your hubs and have stimulated thoughts about the issue. On the side for which you may not wish to further invite me into forums anymore I have to say that there are far too many of these types of articles circulating, and one has to find the rhetoric thereof to be of no journalistic innovation, and its theme to be counter-progressive to this important societal issue.

One of the most egregious examples of the misconceptions which continue to infect the American race dialogue can be seen by this hub’s excerpting of Mr. Sherrod’s speech which speaks to Black citizens in call to unify in economical and political terms. These terms are cast by your hub in a way as to suggest that they present “reverse racism” (a concept which is being loosely used by many nowadays although apparently understood by few). The reality is that national minority classes are scarcely capable of racism in such substantial terms as economy and politics by inheritance of their minority status. American minority classes may discriminatively galvanize their segments to serve the much needed progress of inclusion into the national political and economic infrastructures and such actions are not aggressive measures which disempower anyone outside of a given segment but only serve an empowerment of the minority to share in the power held by the majority. When people misrepresent such causes (e.g; “Mr [.] Sherrod talking negatively about the evil whites”) it only serves to indecently scandalize progressive movements in America; much like we have all seen Andrew Breitbart do here. The exploitation of these endeavors is a self-defense mechanism for actual racism.

The Sherrods have yet to be uncovered as racists and despite continued attempts to recriminate these people, what has been represented by them although probably short of the “virtual saint” description the hub reports is ascribed to Mrs. Sherrod by some, it is not seemingly appropriate to attempt to construe pasts and words in order to give the impression of a racist history where none has ever been previously purported. Must we now find this lady and her family members as bigots because her maligner and others have had to be found liable or negligent for their exposed treatment of her? Accordingly, there is something incredibly troubling with the hub; it asks readers “not [to] debate whether to blame Fox news, Breitbart or his video supplier; the NAACP and White House officials and Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of USDA for poor oversight, decision making and overall issue management”, thus we are directed that we should forego all thought on the elements of the matter which have already been proven faulty. Simultaneously we are immersed in line after line of rhetoric which seeks to convince that Mrs. Sherrod is still may be, probably; possibly, let us not rule out the chance, a racist. Also that racism in America is but a delusion driven by the actual culprit of reverse racism which is in turn driven by a Black need for revenge, White need to present as politically correct, and a degeneration of the American public’s thinking in general.

These types of fringe views should only find print by our reporting the existence of them on balance with the moderate sides of issues. Where one receives the privilege of being able to write for the public’s interest it behooves her or him to maintain a sense of responsibility for sensible presentation of matters. When we fail to uphold some journalistic integrity we effectively relinquish our positions as those granted with the opportunity to inform the minds of people by imparting a fairly leveled outlook on the broad landscape that makes up the contours of matters of fact and sometime fiction. When we so fail while we are being driven by a political agenda we are no longer writers but merely conveyors of party line propaganda. Now there I suggest is a de-evolution model to ponder. Good luck in your future journalistic efforts.