Report: Framing Race and Class in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina
The Equal Justice Society today issued a report, “Framing Race and Class in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina: A Natural and Unnatural Disaster,” an examination of coverage by different kinds of media of this unique natural and unnatural disaster in an effort to understand how the story of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath were being presented to American audiences.
The issues of race, class and government action brought so forcefully into focus in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina provided a unique framework with which to analyze media coverage of these fundamental issues. The report is part of EJS’s long term effort to “put race back on the table” and reframe the public conversation about race and government accountability.
The study was conducted by Shannon Seibert, a graduate of USC Law School (who also has an MA in Journalism) who worked with EJS on an Irmas Fellowship, and managed by media relations consultant Elaine Elinson. It includes three aspects: a detailed media scan of rightwing newspapers; a synthesis of several studies of mainstream media; and an examination of the efforts by progressive organizations to project their messages into the media.
The media scan of conservative papers — the New York Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and the Orange County Register from September 2005 to January 2006 — reveals the systematic messaging and tactics of the Right. Here we examine how the conservative press distorts the issues of race, racism, and the role of government in addressing the disaster.
The review of the mainstream media - The New York Times, Washington Post, primetime network news, etc. - reveals moments of stellar in-depth reporting, coupled with a waning of interest and coverage in an unconscionably short period of time. The efforts by progressive social justice organizations to help frame the public conversation were rapid, thoughtful and politically sophisticated, yet lacked the necessary resources and coordination to sustain a long-term effort.
There is no doubt that future American disasters will disproportionately impact people of color and the poor in this country. It is vital that we understand the stance and role of various kinds of media and the impact that their messages have on public opinion and public policy. It is equally vital that we develop the resources, tools and skills to be able to deepen the public discourse around the pivotal issues of race, racism and government accountability.
Two years after the nation’s witnessing of the devastation in New Orleans, it has become a matter of common knowledge that Hurricane Katrina ripped the veil off America’s often hidden visage of race and poverty. No amount of “spin” in the first days after Hurricane Katrina could dispute the reality of hours stretching into days while tens of thousands of people remained stranded on rooftops and overpasses in smoldering heat without food, water, or medicine. Neither could be disguised the federal government’s apathetic approach to rescuing the tens of thousands left behind, nearly all of whom were African American.
With the horrific images came an awakening of interest of a long-slumbering public in the fate of their fellow Americans. Widely heard throughout the media in those early days and weeks was the common refrain “the story of Hurricane Katrina has changed the way Americans view poverty.”
For their part, journalists and pundits — those who determine what will be communicated as news to the American public — agreed that the story of the hurricane’s aftermath, the government’s inadequate preparation and response, and the reality of poverty and racism in America was one that would last long beyond the typical “shelf life” of a news story.
At the same time, activists on the ground in the South and across the nation mobilized incredible resources and dedicated vast amounts of time and energy to assist evacuees with immediate needs of food, clothing, and housing and organized politically to keep the aftermath of Katrina at the forefront of national consciousness.
Yet, two years later, despite the lack of electricity, water and other public services in parts of the Ninth Ward, mayoral elections in which more than half the evacuated city was provided no feasible way in which to participate, and one-third of the city’s population still unable to return home, coverage of Gulf area victims in the media has largely evaporated, and American interest has markedly waned. As noted by Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz, “Most of those left behind in the storm were poor and black…and it seemed, briefly, that we were on the verge of a national conversation about race and poverty. But it never materialized.”
What happened? How did the largest natural and manmade disaster ever experienced in this country fade so rapidly into the background, its victims all but forgotten? Why did journalists, once visibly shaken at the images pouring through our screens, suddenly lose interest in a story with such wide-reaching implications? What must progressives do to encourage media interest and accurate reporting on issues of the realities of racism and poverty in America?
In this era of the 24-hour news cycle, the media largely dictate not only what issues Americans discuss over coffee, but also how they think about and discuss those issues. Quite obviously, if something is not reported upon, then the public will not know to talk about it, absent information from “alternative” sources. But just as importantly, the way in which media present the images and events, the context, understanding, history they provide to explain the images and events, and the language they use to provide those explanations influence even the most highly sophisticated news consumer.
Progressive organizations and foundations have only recently come to realize the important role communications plays in achieving the goals of the progressive community. Foundations such as the Open Society Institute and Ford Foundation are increasingly funding communications departments within activist organizations.
Academics such as George Lakoff have gained fame offering “framing” as the answer to progressives’ ills. While questions remain in the framing discussion - to what extent framing our message should be focused upon and how our message should be framed - it is indisputable that progressives must develop our communications capacities, strategies, and knowledge to enhance our ability to be effective advocates.
The issues of race, class, and government action brought so forcefully into focus in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina provided a unique framework in which to analyze media coverage of those issues. By looking at the opposing sides of the communications battle - the Right’s strategies and the Left’s ability to transmit our messages through the media - we hope to offer insight into how best to neutralize the Right’s messaging while developing an understanding of progressive messaging efforts so that we may continue to improve our communications strategies.
Part One of the report focuses upon the conservative media’s efforts to spin, ignore, or distract from the issues of race, class and governmental duty unveiled by Hurricane Katrina. Part Two focuses on specific opportunities for framing and messaging presented to progressives by Hurricane Katrina and the extent to which the progressive community took advantage of those opportunities. To the extent Part Two of the report, which is based upon several organizations’ recommendations and analyses, illuminates missed opportunities for the progressive community, the information is provided in the spirit of recognizing our shortcomings so that we may better prepare for the future.
Thomas Saenz to Keynote Symposium
UPDATE: Tom Saenz will keynote the EJS Judge Motley Civil Rights Fellowship luncheon on June 2, 2009, in San Francisco. Click here for more details.
Thomas A. Saenz, counsel to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, has been confirmed as the keynote for the Oct. 26 symposium
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appointed Saenz as counsel in August 2005. He serves as a member of the mayor’s executive team.
Saenz previously worked for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a national organization dedicated to securing and promoting the civil rights of Latinos in the United States. Saenz served as lead counsel in numerous civil rights cases involving such issues as educational equity, employment discrimination,immigrants’ rights, day laborer rights, and voting rights.
He served as MALDEF’s lead counsel in successfully challenging California’s Proposition 187 in court, presenting extensive arguments on numerous occasions in three different cases involving the anti-immigrant initiative.
Saenz graduated summa cum laude from Yale University and received his law degree from Yale Law School. He then served as law clerk for the Honorable Harry L.Hupp of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Invitation to Take Survey on Immigration Forum
The Equal Justice Society, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Latino Issues Forum, Greenlining Institute and Centro Legal de la Raza would like to once again thank the participants for their interest in our July 31 panel, “Immigration and the Black Community: Conflict of Common Interest?” held at the Oakland Museum. Read more
DREAM Act part II
A recent posting on the ImmigrationProf Blog highlights the debate about the military service provisions that are in the DREAM Act.
A father, whose son was a soldier died in Iraq, made this impassioned caution to those seeking passage of the DREAM Act, due to the military service option as a path to legalization:
It give me great joy to see students taking non-violent action to find a solution to the immigration question. Many of them came to the United States as children and have finished their high school education. Now, because they lack legal documents, they face an uncertain future that may deny them the opportunity to attend college or find a decent job. The DREAM Act offers them a light at the end of an otherwise dark and uncertain road.
I see students on fasts, in marches, lobbying elected officials, all in the name of the DREAM Act’s passage. But BEWARE. Be very careful. Because our honorable youth with their dreams and wishes to serve their new country are being tricked and manipulated in an immoral and criminal way.
Why do I say this? Simply put, the DREAM Act proposes two years of college as a pathway to permanent residency but it also includes a second option linked to the so-called war on terror-”two years of military service.” Our young people may not see that this is a covert draft in which thousands of youth from Latino families will be sent to Iraq or some other war torn nation where they will have to surrender their moral values and become a war criminal or perhaps return home in black bags on their way to a tomb drenched with their parents’ tears. Read more
Richard Prince on Zogby Prejudice Poll
From Richard Prince’s Journal-isms Column on maynardije.org:
Most Americans believe their fellow citizens hold strong biases against minorities, according to a poll of 10,387 American adults conducted by Zogby International.
The “Report Card on American Prejudice” is described as part of a wide-ranging effort by the Game Show Network, sponsors of the poll and of a new television show, “Without Prejudice,” to spur a national dialogue on intolerance and bigotry.
The poll showed: While 67 percent of respondents claimed to have no preference themselves between a white, black or Arab clerk in a convenience store, 71 percent said, “most Americans” would seek out the white clerk. Just 1 percent said Americans’ first choice would be to approach a black clerk, while less than 0.5 percent said the same for an Arab clerk.
And yet, 55 percent of respondents said race relations have improved over the past 10 years.
Other results on race (where respondents picked from among several races):
- Seventy-three percent said in the event of a shooting, most Americans would expect African Americans to be involved
- Fifty-five percent said in the event of a drug bust, most Americans would expect African Americans to be involved
- Fifty-three percent said in the event of identity theft, most Americans would expect whites to be involved
- Seventy percent said in the event of insurance fraud, most Americans would expect whites to be involved.
In other findings, African Americans (56 percent) were more likely than whites (39 percent), Hispanics (37 percent), or Asians (32 percent) to think Americans believe that sexual orientation is a voluntary choice.
Whites (44 percent) thought Americans believe Muslims are responsible for wars more than Hispanics (37 percent), Asians (34 percent), or African Americans (30 percent) do.
Pollster John Zogby said in a July 23 news release, “Over my years of polling, I’ve learned that Americans tend to offer socially acceptable responses when questioned on their own views about race and prejudice. That’s why in this poll we predominantly asked people about “most Americans’” views on race and prejudice. We believe this provides a far more accurate window into how people really think about these issues. Americans are more forthcoming when discussing the problem in the context of their neighbors’ lives than in the context of their own lives.”
In another recent study from Ohio State University at Mansfield, white participants were asked variations of the question: How much should you be paid to continue to live the remainder of your life as a Black person?
“Participants generally required low median amounts, less than $10,000, to make the race change, whereas they requested high amounts, $1,000,000, to give up television. To the extent that larger amounts were requested, support for reparations also increased. . . . Together, these results suggest that White resistance to reparations for Black Americans stems from fundamental biases in estimating the true cost of being Black,” it said.
Special Thanks to Our Immigration and the Black Community Panelists and Links to Their Bios
I wanted to once again thank our co-sponsors, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Latino Issues Forum, Greenlining Institute and Centro Legal de la Raza. I want to also give a special thank you to the students of R.I.S.E., who provide Spanish translation throughout the program.
I also wanted to thank the members of Lucha Unida for their work, their words, and to wish them well on their trip.
I would also like panelists both for participating, and for their dedication to these issues. In response to requests for additional information on the individuals and organizations that participated in the panel, here are links to their respective bios, that are either listed below, or can be accessed by clicking on their name.
Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society
Rev. Phil Lawson, Black Alliance for Just ImmigrationProf. Bill Ong Hing, UC Davis School of Law
Nora Vargas (Executive Director, Latino Issues Forum)
Nora Vargas was most recently appointed as Executive Director of Latino Issues Forum (LIF), a state wide non-profit public policy and advocacy institute dedicated to advancing new and. innovative public policy solutions for a better, more equitable and prosperous society.
Ms Vargas is an accomplished public affairs and executive management professional, with over fourteen years of experience working with government entities, NGO’s, foundations, corporations and grass roots organizations. She is bicultural and bilingual in English and Spanish.
Prior to joining LIF, Ms Vargas was a public affairs and political management consultant for various successful State Assembly, municipal and community college campaigns based out of San Diego. Previously, she served as the Founding Director of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs for the City of Los Angeles. She also served as Vice President of Governmental and Political Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties.
Nora’s professional career has taken her from her hometown of San Diego, CA to serving in various capacities in Washington DC and in Sacramento as a political consultant.
Ms. Vargas is regularly invited to speak on the subjects of Latinos/as in politics and civic engagement, Mexicans voting in the U.S., Latinas and Reproductive Rights, Women in Politics and the nuts and bolts of political management and advocacy. She has served as an advisor and facilitator for the National Democratic Institute’s Political Party Trainers Program for Regional Party Renewal and the “Win with Women” project in Latin America.
Ms Vargas currently serves on the Boards of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE) and the Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE).
Nora is a graduate of the University of San Francisco. She has completed graduate work in both Public Administration and Latin American Studies at San Diego State University and will receive her Master’s Degree from Claremont Graduate University.
Larisa Casillas (Director, Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition)Larisa is the director of the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition (BAIRC), a coalition of member organizations based in Oakland that works to advance immigrant rights by forging strong alliances between member organizations, advocating for just policies and raising public awareness about the rights of immigrants. She is a longtime immigrant rights advocate with more than a decade of experience in policy development, media advocacy, community education and coalition building. She is the former Policy Director of Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN), a leading immigrant rights organization in San Jose where she was responsible for the development and implementation of SIREN’s policy and advocacy efforts on federal and state legislation related to immigrant rights. Prior to joining SIREN, she was employed by the Partnership for Immigrant Leadership & Action (PILA) where she served as the Campaign Coordinator for the successful statewide “Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2004 Campaign.” From 1995 to 1998, Larisa was the Director of the San Francisco-based Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights. At ICIR she led a coalition of 200 organizational members to defend immigrant and refugee rights from a faith-based perspective. From 1998-2002, Larisa served as a Senior Policy Associate at Children Now where she conducted research on tax policy, child care and after school programs. A former member of the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission, Larisa has helped to direct electoral campaigns in the City and County of San Francisco. Larisa emigrated from Mexico City with her parents and was raised in Northern California.
Nicholas Espíritu, Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellow, EJS
Feedback on Immigration and the Black Community
I wanted to say thank you to our audience, panelists, and cosponsors for coming out last night. In the next days and weeks we are hoping to continue the discussion on these important topics, and will be providing additional information, resources and commentary. We really hope that as many people and as many different viewpoints participate in the debate and we encourage your participation. Please, let me know what you thought of the event, what was useful, what could have been done better, and what still needs to be talked about. Also, please stay tuned as in the next few days we will continuing with blog entries based on some of the discussions from the event, providing related materials, speaker’s bios, the audio recording, and much more.
Nico
Update I
We have been getting commentary that, while the event was an important first step, more needs to be done. On that note, we would really appreciate it if you could help us understand what the next steps should be. What format should they take? Who needs to be at the table?
