WaPo's Kurtz: "Can Black Women Objectively Cover Michelle Obama?"

Washington Post columnist and media "reporter" Howard Kurtz continues to shock and awe with a lack of self-awareness in his latest column.

Kurtz reports on the number of black female reporters following First Lady Michelle Obama and admits that "no one raises questions when an Irish American male reporter covers a pol named Murph"  but yet still writes a two-page column asking, "Obama is a black woman from the South Side of Chicago [and] are the beat reporters inadvertently invested in her success?"

Rachel Swarns of the New York Times and The Washington Post's Robin Givhan were among those herded behind the rope Monday. They and the other main beat reporters -- Newsweek's Allison Samuels, Darlene Superville of the Associated Press and Politico's Nia-Malika Henderson -- have something in common: They are all African American women.

Perhaps this gives them a richer cultural understanding of Obama as a trailblazer. Indeed, most write with enthusiasm, in some cases even admiration, about the first lady as a long-awaited role model for black women. [...] Whether racial and gender identification produces a gauzier, more favorable portrayal of Obama is perhaps too early to judge.

Washington Post reporter Robin Givhan won the Pulitzer Prize in 2006, becoming the first fashion critic to do so. Kurtz, who has no Pulitzer, neglected to mention this data point.

Adam Serwer at Tapped: "You would never ever see a media critic like Kurtz questioning the ability of white men to cover other white men objectively, or for that matter the ability of white men to cover women or people of color, despite the fact that if newsroom coverage were to be affected, it would be by the prevailing cultural biases of the better represented population in the newsroom."

You will also never see media critic Howard Kurtz report on the scandal at his own newspaper after the publisher offered to sell "off-the-record" chats with reporters and Administration officials. Can rich, white, male corporate "reporters" "objectively" cover the nation's health and economic woes, Howie?

Comments

[Former COGIC]

>>>Can rich, white, male corporate "reporters" "objectively" cover the nation's health and economic woes, Howie?<<<

WORK ROD, WORK!!!

Did they cover George Bush OBJECTIVELY? Hell to the no!

[Andy Niable]

Yes, Howie, I'm sure gays can't objectively report on gays, women can't objectively report on women, people of color can't objectively report on people of color... so I guess that just leaves privileged white males to "objectively report" on everyone--how lucky for you, Howie!

[mjolnir202]

This man is a tool and has been for years. This gets to one of the most prevailing cultural biases in American society, that only white people and white men in particular are capable of objective thinking. Every other group is simply ruled by emotion and unable to make a clear eyed analysis of the facts. Yes, only white men can you give an 'eye of God' objective evaluation of any the world around us.

Former Cogic: I agree with your point wholeheartedly. We are in this mess in the Middle East almost exclusively because of the so-called 'Objective' policies of almost exclusively white men.

The worse part is that they're so blinded by their hubris and internal bias that they can't see when they're about to make a mistake and never learn from those mistakes. They believe that their every action is guided soley by an objective reading facts as opposed to emotions, rationalizations, jingoism or tribalism.

And, Rod, I'm glad you're picking up on the current pay for play scandal at the Post. That paper is a joke and the editorial page increasingly makes Wall Stree Journal's look erudite and enlightened.

[Joseph]

Again evidence of how unsettling the Obamas can be to the norms of white supremacy...

Thanks Rod for deconstructing the alleged "objectivity" of rich white male journalists

[chris]

@ Mjolinir202. You are exactly right about prevailing white male centrism (not all white men,just most). I have found that they see themselves as the exclusive holders of truth and objectivity. I work for an elitist, pompous white male and have observed that he eagerly decides what is or is not truth to the exclusion of feedback from others. Frequently, he revises history in our small company and even in the world at large. After working for him for 8 1/2 years, I have learned to let him and others believe what they want and re-create the world as they want. It easier that way. The day goes by faster. But, thanks to Rod for calling out the WashPost.