A Framework For Appraising The Veracity Of A Media Source That Claims To Represent The "Black Interests"

I have been consuming a wide array of content from blogs, magazine & newspaper articles and talking heads on television and radio as part of my research on "What makes Black people tick with respect to our political advocacy".  Unlike most I actually do cross ideological lines as I make observations of how those who I am prone to disagree with come to their views and have them reinforced by a particular source.

When it comes to the definition of "Black Positions" and the projection of them into political and social discourse there are certain well known sources of this information but also an easily identifiable editorial bias that is more often present than not.  They see their goals as the protection of "the Black franchise" and the exposure of all "superior" threats to it both from the outside and within.

As much as some of you believe that your political advocacy is ultimately centered upon the attainment of the permanent interests of the Black community - a person who is asked to accept such a premise had better be equipped with some means of validating this claim.

I offer to anyone who is interested a template on how one might appraise the veracity of a source that makes such a claim about being transparently interested in advancing the permanent interests of the Black community.  This tool should be coopted into your own way of thinking, customized to your liking.  I hope.

Please note - Not all "Black media sources" explicitly claim to represent our community's interests.  I accept this.  Just because an author is Black does not automatically commit him or her to be bound to the ideological and political machinations around us.    Some of these content providers are into gossip, Hip Hop (voice of the Street Pirates), sports or fashions.  I will even go so far as to say that some Black blog sites that are heavy in to politics have never claimed to be other than a "Democrat who is Black" site.  They only care to be the best Democrats they can be.  They are merely reporting upon their passion from a 'Black perspective'.  This too is fine as long as they make it clear that they are working for their sponsor and not directly for our community.  Often times, however, their belief is functionally "As the Democratic/Progressive party goes - so goes the Black community.     


Why don't I include the Republican Party in this indictment?   Easy.  While I have no problem calling out "Republicans who are Black" as having the very same intentions with respect to their party - they have nothing near the amount of power and unflinched acceptance WITHIN the Black community as their Democratic counterparts.  Black leadership are on record (Bayard Ruskin) as intending to fuse the Black political advocacy movement with the Democratic Party framework.  The GOP has never had such a mandate from influential Black people with the forces to make it happen.   I do not believe that my acknowledgement of this fact is bias.   I have no more intention to advance the GOP to take the place of the Democrats as I have to see the Democrats advance.  My stated goal is to push ALL POLITICAL PARTIES OUT OF THE PERIPHERY OF OUR COMMUNITY CULTURAL CONSCIOUSNESS SO THEIR OPERATIVES DON'T PERFORM THE MISCHIEF THAT THEY PRESENTLY DO IN AN UNCHECKED MANNER. 

I am a tolerant person and feel no particular need to enforce a particular order of thinking upon anyone.  Ultimately the Black community is going to make its own decisions and will find itself residing where its aggregation actions have taken it.  My only goal is to provide people with information and management models by which better outcomes can be had.  These tools afford the possibility for (functional) "conspiracy theories" and/or entrenched stereotyped biases to keep our people trapped into a particular defensive mindset ( a siege mentality)  with a goal that is none other than to allow the establishment to remain in power in an unchecked fashion.

I support the right of these other operatives to say anything that they wish to say for we live in a free society.
I even respect the skill that they have in keeping  a certain power base in support of their advocacy efforts.  I do not like all of their antics but I do respect their knowledge of our community and what makes us tick.

I defend my right to use my free speech to ANALYZE various the various media that they control and make note of the concept of the "Black community consciousness domain".  Some who enjoy unchecked access to these jewels also misappropriate the intrinsic trust that is afforded to them by the Black rank & file for the ultimate benefit of a force that is outside of this domain.

Again the community might choose to accept "being used" as such.  Normally the words "the lesser of two evils" is applied as they hold their nose and move forward.    I ultimately can only provide information and some constructs for thought with the hopes of changing the outcomes that many are presently grieving about.

A framework for the appraisal of a media entity that purports to represent "Black Community Positions":

1. What proportion of their contributions actually talk about Black people instead of their own external adversaries?  (This is the most powerful of all of the checklist items)  If the rate is below 60% - you are being played for your popular sentiment rather than your interests.  They know that you hate your adversaries more than you love yourself.  How do they plan to provide salvation to a group of people that they rarely discuss?  Instead they believe if they slay their political adversaries, engaging in their daily jousting, they will one day provide for the Black community by removing this threat.  It just so happens that their words and antics sound exactly like those of their non-Black party and ideology mates.  Thus the distinction is not in their message but in their INTENDED beneficiary.   Believe this to be the case at your own peril.  For some people - those who focus too much upon the Black community as the basis for those who must be managed will be accused of "Blaming the victim".
2. Do they acknowledge any notion of the "incumbency" of their own thoughts in the present governance of our community? Those who are always on an "outward chase" don't often make note of the accomplishments that they have made and the influence they have over their present circumstances.  The proverbial "Mission Accomplished" signage that they use to prove their power and acceptance garnered over our community quickly turns into claims of inferiority when someone dares to assign accountability to them for the continued problems.  In theory at least the continuation of these problems despite their power should trigger calls for a reappraisal of their theories.  Since their goal is their ideological entrenchment rather than solutions to our community problems they are unlikely to change without some internal force that is committed to the community  forcing them to change by demanding that they deliver upon their promises.
3. How frequently are the people who are WITHIN our community but with no power over the prevailing direction of the community placed as a target of focus despite the fact that their viewpoint makes them unattractive to the balance of the Black community?  (The Scape Goating effect) By disproportionately talking about those who disagree with the official line more than the people who ACTUALLY HAVE POWER they often seek to make an example out of these "disloyal people", sending messages to any other people thinking about splitting from the pack.  After seeing what happens to those who do ask questions the goal is to keep such questions surpressed.  Questions are to be projected outward as indictments against others.
4. Do they express a "Chris Rock-style" demand for praise of what the establishment should be providing in the first place?  This often takes the form of a demand for perpetual praise for Black leadership who "freed us from slavery and Jim Crow".  In reminding a person "had it not been for US you would still be a slave" they are less interested in promoting our people to leverage the managed state of racial animus and go free - allowing their unique life experiences to assume positions - just as any other group of people are disbursed.  Since we should have been free had we not been molested by slavery one would think that  they would welcome the diversity of thought in Black people as a sign of the advancement of our society.  If you believe that they believe this then you are wrong.  They are more interested in rattling "history's chain of oppression" in order to invoke fear among our people and enforce unity.  With them as the incumbent power their position is protected and goes unchallenged for another day.
5. Do they express any notion of "transparency" where they show the intellectual fortitude to put their own-selves on trial and compare where we as a collective interest presently stand (in accordance to our permanent interests) as compared to where they had told others where we would be standing if we followed them? Failing this necessary self inspection they effective run a "permanent chase" rather than a process of refinement that has the goal of managing our community into the standard of living that they desire. 
6. Do they note WHO is standing most strong as a result of having completing the last 40 years of our "community self-determination" strategy? Those who stand strongest after their process is the best expose' of WHAT is the actual intended beneficiary of their efforts.  One can't get to a 'strong Black community' using methodologies that make us weak during the intermediate years on our way to the strength that will come when the victory is won as the enemy is taken out.
7. What competencies have been developed in our community as a result of the adoption of the ideas in their solution set? Again, since competency comes as the result of experience and the exercise of a certain skill set - you should be skeptical of those who promote the notion of national/societal obligation for a certain living standard for all as part of some national contract that we are afforded.  This shows a commitment to a strong service agency more than it shows any intention for a strong Black community where the competencies in support of our desired outcomes resides at the periphery where our people are the main agents in this change.  Our refinement comes from our efforts.  Warehousing people yet feeding them is counter to this.
8. How often do they call for any sort of fundamental "course correction" as a response to the admitted shortfalls at present?   Do they seek out more effective strategies or do they talk about the invaluable benefit of their leadership thus they and their ideas will be the leaders for the next interval?  (Try harder)