WHAT WILL BE THE DIFFICULT WAY FORWARD?
by Cash Michaels
I’ll never forget.
It was June 2004, and I was a guest on a local public affairs television show. The big news was that President Ronald Reagan had just died, and the nation was in mourning.
Naturally, Reagan’s passing was the lead topic on the program, so various journalists and political commentators were on the show to give their perspectives about his legacy.
Now, to be clear, at the time I was well-known not to be a fan of President Reagan nor the Republican Party, which may have been why I was invited to be on in the first place. But what folks apparently didn’t know about me then, or now, was that when someone I disagree with has died, I will respect that fact by not throwing rhetorical rocks at them in their aftermath.
Doesn’t mean I’ll ignore the truth about their time in office and what they did or didn’t do. It just means, if necessary, I’ll just state the facts about why that political figure represented things contrary to my beliefs or the beliefs of my community, and do so in a very straightforward manner without jokes or snark. I consider that fair to everybody, including myself.
If asked on that program my perspective of Pres. Ronald Reagan’s policy impact on the Black community, I was ready to express my perspective in a no-nonsense, respectful, yet even tone.
But just moments after we all sat down at the table to tape the show, a well-known North Carolina political commentator who once worked for Reagan years earlier, and was still very loyal, looked at me from the far end of the table, and threatened, yes, threatened me NOT to say anything negative about his deceased former boss, or else!
He just was not going to tolerate it!
Now this was over twenty years ago. I was much younger then and trying to build a journalism career, so that kind of thing bothered me. And as I recall, I did temper my remarks about Ronald Reagan on that program, out of pure caution.
But I did NOT appreciate being intimidated!
Suffice it to say, he won that one, and he and I have never spoken again!
A few years later, after a major hurricane hit North Carolina and did so much damage not only to the coast, but in the Triangle, I was working at the old NBC-17 television station (now a CBS affiliate) part-time cohosting “NBC-17 News At Issue,” which aired on Sunday mornings right before the network’s “Meet the Press.”
Normally we taped the show on Thursday evenings to air on Sunday mornings, and I can recall, after the hurricane hit, there were serious questions about what our North Carolina elected officials in Washington, DC were doing to get millions in disaster relief back to the state to help hard-hit communities here. So naturally, we invited everybody on to talk about it.
Including the biggest of them all then, controversial Republican U.S. Senator Jesse Helms.
Now obviously Sen. Helms’ views on race were well-known at the time, and naturally, he had his supporters and detractors. Make no mistake, the fact that I was the only black co-host on the program, and reported for a prominent African-American newspaper in Raleigh, The Carolinian, meant that I most likely wasn’t a Helms supporter.
` But this particular edition of “At Issue” wasn’t about politics or race. It was about what was being done to help vulnerable North Carolinians of ALL colors overcome the extraordinary damage and devastation caused by a powerful hurricane.
So our producers called Sen. Helms’ office, eagerly inviting him to come on and share with us what he was doing in Washington to help his constituents in our viewing area. We really wanted him on to talk to our viewers and answer our questions, and would have been very grateful if he made time for us.
And do you know that the man refused to come on our show!
You know why?
Our producers said his spokesman told them because he was "afraid" I might ask him an embarrassing question on the air.
Sen. Helms (and/or his staff) made me his excuse for not showing up!
I couldn’t believe it at first when I heard this. Trust me, given the tremendous damage done to our viewing area by the storm, I absolutely had NO intention of straying off topic to embarrass Sen. Helms about anything. I was a young journalist at the time, and was still trying to fit in on a weekly television show I shared with two white television newsmen.
My job was to fit in, and indeed, enhance our team's efforts, NOT use our show as a personal platform to carry out a racial justice crusade right in the middle of a statewide weather emergency. And my colleagues and our producers knew this, which is why they were shocked as well.
In those days, I was very conscious of the fact that I represented my community and newspaper every time I showed up on TV, and the last thing I would do was embarrass anybody by embarrassing myself. So trying to show up Sen. Helms on television in the aftermath of a big weather crisis was something that was NEVER going to happen…not by me anyway!
But the Helms episode did tell me one thing though - he and his staff definitely knew who I was at the time, and had no intention of giving me so much as a sliver of an opportunity with him in the same space.
In one instance I was denied the opportunity to express an honest opinion because a Republican was afraid of what I might say; in the other, I was denied an opportunity to do my job, again, because a Republican was afraid of what I might say or ask.
In both cases, I was unfairly and unjustly treated as if I were guilty of something, before I ever had the chance to do anything.
And in both cases, power was wielded to deny me my First Amendment right as a journalist, simply because of who and what I was. I've never stopped resenting both incidents.
I bring those two up from my journalistic past - the details of which I absolutely stand behind today - because of what has happened in this country in the days following the horrendous murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Our nation has gone through some shattering political and cultural convulsions since then, signaling that more is on the way.
Americans, exercising their right of free speech, for instance, have lost their jobs, punished, because they dared to utter his name in a way others did not approve of, even if they were telling the documented truth.
Former Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah knows what I’m talking about.
The self-described “last remaining Black full-time opinion columnist at The Post” was fired for her posting online about Charlie Kirk that management apparently felt crossed a line.
“As a columnist, I used my voice to defend freedom and democracy, challenge power and reflect on culture and politics with honesty and conviction,” Attiah wrote on Substack last week.
“Now, I am the one being silenced — for doing my job.”
Please remember the WP was ordered by its owner, Jeff Bezos, NOT to print its presidential endorsement of Vice President Kamila Harris last year, and to change its editorial policy.
It’s also no secret that Bezos has grown closer to Donald Trump since he returned to the White House.
One thing that is crystal clear to me from past personal and professional experiences, as evidenced by my two stories from years ago, is that the right-wing in this country has always been super-sensitive about folks they oppose exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of the press rights, and has historically used intimidation and wielded power to checkmate the First Amendment rights of those people when they could.
Case in point:
From 1947 to 1954, Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin publicly, and falsely in many cases, charged the Hollywood film industry of being infested with communists - the so-called “Blacklist,” costing many innocent Americans their careers, and frightening the entire country with the “Red Scare.” Sen. McCarthy was brought down by CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, who had the guts to confront him.
In 1972, President Nixon went to war with The Washington Post and CBS anchorman Dan Rather over their Watergate investigations and coverage of his corrupt administration.
Nixon lost that war, and was ultimately forced to resign his office in disgrace.
In 1985, Sen. Helms actually led a movement for conservatives to buy up CBS stock in order to take control of the network, and stop newsman Dan Rather. The effort failed, but is remembered in history for its audacity.
But now, multiply all of that by ten, especially since Republicans have presidential power to do something about that super-sensitivity and quelling free speech rights.
I must tell you that in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, I have truly feared for this country and its future, especially given the leadership that we have in place now. We are seeing unbridled power being wielded in a manner rarely witnessed before, and to say it smacks of fascism and authoritarianism is indeed an understatement.
In just the last two weeks:
The attorney general of the United States, with the president’s blessing, threatened citizens and companies who exercised their free speech rights about the Charlie Kirk assassination. In a truly incredible stance, she “threatened to prosecute” Office Depot, the company, because an employee there reportedly refused print Charlie Kirk vigil posters.
The vice president of the United States angrily urged citizens to “drop a dime” and rat out their fellow American citizens who exercised their free speech rights to express their negative opinions about Kirk, with the intent of having them lose their jobs as a result.
And wretched presidential advisor Stephen Miller, swore "before God” to wage war against “leftists,” erroneously holding “them,” not the one troubled young suspect in custody, but “them” responsible for Kirk’s death.
These folks want to seriously, and inexplicably, hurt somebody, and they have the power to do it!
The question is, can America survive this stuff?
I don’t know. All I do know is that the national deck is literally being stacked, and pretty soon, the U.S. Constitution will no longer matter, let alone exist.
We need a free and open press now more than ever, but bold challenges to that very idea are afoot, like Trump suing the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times (at press time, a federal judge had dismissed the NYT lawsuit, saying that it is not supposed to be a public forum for "vituperation and invective”).
Or forcing Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel off the air because, as political satirists, they were doing their jobs.
Or threatening the FCC licenses of broadcasters if they don’t police their opinion programming, like ABC-TV’s “The View,” to conform to government demands.
Who or what is next? The answer to that question determines who this country really belongs to.
We’ve seen what has happened to universities, law firms and cities that have been made prime examples of unyielding power by this administration. I honestly don’t think anyone has to convince me any further that this country is no longer the “land of the free.”
The only question now is, is this still the “home of the brave,” and if it is, who will come to the door of that "home" when the rest of us knock, seeking leadership?
Well, here’s one voice I trust who has the requisite experience, knowledge and courage to answer the door - former President Barack Obama, appearing before the Jefferson Educational Society in Erie, Pa. Tuesday, Sept. 16th, six days after Charlie Kirk’s assassination:
“…[T]here are no ifs, ands or buts about it, the central premise of our democratic system is that we have to be able to disagree and have sometimes really contentious debates without resort[ing] to violence. And when it happens to some but even if you think they’re, quote, unquote, on the other side of the argument, that’s a threat to all of us. And we have to be clear and forthright in condemning them.
Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a debate about the ideas that people who were victims of political violence were promoting. And so, I’ve noticed that there’s been some confusion, I think, around this lately, and frankly, coming from the White House and some of the other positions of authority that suggest, even before we had determined who the perpetrator of this evil act was, that somehow we’re going to identify an enemy. We’re going to suggest that somehow that enemy was at fault, and we are then going to use that as a rationale for trying to silence discussion around who we are as a country and what direction we should go. And that’s a mistake as well.
And so, look, obviously I didn’t know Charlie Kirk. I was generally aware of some of his ideas. I think those ideas were wrong, but that doesn’t negate the fact that what happened was a tragedy and that I mourn for him and his family.
He’s a young man with two small children and a wife who obviously — and a huge number of friends and supporters who cared about him. And so, we have to extend grace to people during their period of mourning and shock.
We can also, at the same time, say that I disagree with the [Kirk] idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “a mistake.” That’s not me politicizing the issue. It’s making an observation about who are we as a country. I can say that I disagree with the [Kirk] suggestion that my wife or Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson “does not have adequate brain processing power.” I can say that I disagree that Martin Luther King was “awful”. I can disagree with some of the broader suggestions that liberals and Democrats are promoting conspiracy to displace whites and replace them by ushering in illegal immigrants.
Those are all topics that we have to be able to discuss honestly and forthrightly, while we still insist that in that process of debate, we respect other people’s right to say things that we profoundly disagree with. That’s how we should approach this.
Amen, Mr. President, amen. And thanks for answering the door with wisdom, integrity and truth!
Scott Pelley of CBS’ “60 Minutes” has said the murders of Charlie Kirk, and before him, Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman - who was helplessly gunned down in her home last June - have put “blood on the First Amendment.”
Our government is wrong, very wrong, for what it is doing to our nation right now.
I pray that the First Amendment - our right to free speech and freedom of the press - bleeds no further, as America tries to determine, what will be the difficult way forward.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment