Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:03:00 JST
From:         Akio Tanaka <TANAKA%JPNSUT20.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
Subject:      American media on racial slur

The following was reprinted in _The Daily Yomiuri_ (28 Aug 92):
===========

Press Out To Lunch On U.S. Official's Japan Slur
by Norman Y. Mineta* [Special to The Washington Post]
*a Democratic representative from California

     On a recent Saturday and Sunday, several newspapers--including The
Washington Post--printed stories of U.S. Treasury Secretary Nicolas Brady's
apology for referring to the Japanese as "Japs" in a speech before reporters
the preceding Thursday morning.
     News of the analogy suggested that this was a follow-up story, that
the report of the secretary's use of a racial slur in the presence of print
journalists had been the subject of earlier articles.  If only this had been
so.
     Of the two-dozen reporters attending the briefing, only one--Chuck Lewis,
Washington bureau chief for Hearst newspapers--thought that it newsworthy
enough to warrant a story.  In fact, no one else reported the incident at all
until after the Hearst story appeared and raised eyebrows or until my office
registered protests with other news organizations.
     Business reporters found the statistics Brady disclosed revealing about
the administration's view of the economy, and so said their stories of the
briefing.  But what I want to know is why the slur was not judged to be as
revealing about the secretary and his views on race.
     When asked why, The Washington Post reporter told my office the paper
published "everything we considered news worthy."  The New York Times reporter
told my office: "I was shocked when (Brady) said it.  I just overlooked putting
it in."  When my office called The New York Times to ask an editor for an
explanation on its extraordinary news assessment, we were told, "You'll have
to call our public affairs office."
     The Post and the Times were not the only papers to hear, but not listen
to, Brady's comments.  Again, more than 20 other reporters were in the room
and exhibited a conscious disinterest in the news being made in front of them.
     I simply cannot understand how the story of a Cabinet secretary calling
the Japanese "Japs" was reported by only one journalist.  Was there an
adjective missing that would have made the slur more newsworthy?  How about
"slant-eyed"?  Would this have been newsworthy?
     During the presidential primaries, Sen. Bob Kerrey told a homophobic joke
before an open microphone, and reporters rushed to get the story in the paper.
Is there a different standard for presidential candidates, as opposed to
members to the Cabinet?  I don't think so.
     I remember in 1976, when journalists anguished around editors' desks and
later in seminars about whether it was right to report a disgusting joke about
African-Americans made by Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz.  The question
was whether Butz's remarks were off-the-record.  Well, there was no question
in Secretary Brady's case:  The event was the Godfrey Sperling Breakfast--
a venerable Washington institution where statements are clearly on-the-record.
     Unfortunately, I suspect the Post reporters's assessment is more accurate.
It just didn't register--either with Secretary Brady or with the reporters
at the Capital Hilton. And that's what's dangerous and frightening.
     Could it also be true that reporters and editors can be as insensitive
and prone to stereotypes as the partisans they follow?  Could it be the
reporters and editors there--predominantly economic and business journalists--
might be willing to shrug off that they view as a lapse for the sake of not
rocking the boat with sources and contacts?
     Could it be that some stereotypes are more acceptable that others, that
a double-standard exists?  In 1990, Japan Justice Minister Seiroku Kajiyama
said African-Americans, "like prostitutes," "ruin the atmosphere" of U.S.
neighborhoods.  The outcry was immediate and justified.  For a senior
government official to make such a racial statement was disgusting and
disgraceful.  So, too, was it disgusting and disgraceful for our Treasury
secretary to use a referent that is commonly spray-painted on walls by racists.
     And so, too, was it disgusting and disgraceful that when Secretary Brady
said what he did, all but one of the reporters failed to put down his fork and
pick up his pen.
================

Akio Tanaka/28 Aug 92
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU