When I arrived at the spiffy event, there were around 6 or 7 hundred white people milling around. I counted 10 people of colour, including the "help": 3 Aboriginals, 3 Chinese people, and three "Other". Whenever my eyes made four with another "minority" we exchanged rather embarrassed wordless screams of incredulity and desperation.
I left early, slipping into the snowy night. Down on Yonge Street, between the taxi drivers, street car drivers, and late night workers returning home, it was hard to spot even one white face.
What a world of difference between the elite crowd in the windowless room I had left, and the actual demographic of this beautiful city I am proud to call home.
Just think! Events like these take place every day across Canada. And we say nothing. We just carry on, amidst the ever more self-righteous rhetoric of a multiculturalism that is reflected on the street, but not in the institutions of power.
Weeks later, still nursing my pain, a magazine crossed my desk: "Broadcast Dialogue". On the cover, a picture of Bev Oda, our new Japanese Canadian Minister of Heritage. Inside, an article on "Diversity in Broadcasting" I scanned it hungrily - Could this be that mythical thing: a local media publication that is representing the demographic of this country...?But when I opened the magazine and turned its' pages, my heart fell. On almost every page, pictures of white men and women, sometimes pictured singly, often in groups, of 2, 4, 10, 20 or 50 at a time.
Even the article on "Diversity" was richly illustrated with photos of the noble Caucasian men and women who are "leading the way" in Canada's bold initiative.I find it is even more painful when, as here, it seems an effort has been made to adress the issue, but not carried through. It highlights the discrepancy. A bit like being invited to the Genies.
I decided to speak out! I wrote a letter and sent it to the Publisher of Broadcast Dialogue.
Dear Broadcast DialogueMinutes after I pressed "SEND" I got a phone call from Howard, said publisher. Delighted, I told him my Genie's story.
I was delighted to see that the March 2007 issue of your magazine had 3 articles exploring race and diversity ("Diversity in Canadian Broadcasting", "Sexist? Racist?" "Little Mosque, Dragon Boys, and Jozi H"), and one on gender, in canadian broadcasting. This is good and progress.
I then went through the magazine and counted the number of images of people of colour versus white people, and men vs women. The results shocked me. Here they are:
Images of white people in the march issue: 166
Images of people of colour of any race at all: 7
Percentage of images of people of colour: 4%
Percentage of Canada's population that is visible minority: 13.4%
Images of men: 147
Images of women: 26
Percentage of images of women 15%
Percentage of women in the Canadian population 51%
I think it is outrageous that your magazine, like the rest of Canada I might add, feels satisfied to talk the facile talk of multiculturalism and gender equality while shamelessly perpetuating the same old, same old, racist sexist WALK.
Get with the millenium please! If America can nominate a white woman and black man for president, & appoint a black woman to be secretary of state and defense, how can Canada justify continuing to pack the halls of power and privelege in this country exclusively with white males?
Sincerely etc.
"I had enough!" I exclaimed "I decided to speak out!"
"Really." he replied. "Well let me tell you something. Take your "shock" and your "horror" and your "sexist" "racist" nonsense, and peddle it elsewhere. I'm not interested."
I hung up.
And wrote to him again:
Dear Howard,Broadcast "dialogue" indeed.
What I wrote is not nonsense and I have no intention of listening to abuse.
(Photos: The somewhat misleading cover of Broadcast Dialogue, showing a photo of our own Bev Oda. The two other photos show typical inside spreads, with photos of white men singly and in groups of 2, 4, 10, 20 and 50.)
45 comments:
Thank you Frances-Anne! I share your issue(s) and am even more shocked by the pettiness and lack of focus among people of African heritage. I can tell you it is indeed frustrating. We must keep on challenging the hegemons.
Regards,
Vernon
Greetings,
WOW. . . Not surprised but it is always a shock…..when brought to my attention.
Is there anything we can do? Send material or call to let them know we too are aware and feel the same. They have tons of brochures, pretty pictures and posters promoting multiculturalism, visible minorities but I continue to feel very very invisible.
Thanks
Peace & Blessings
Vivine Scarlett
Program Director/Curator
dance Immersion
Tel: (416) 203-0666
www.danceimmersion.ca
Proud Host of the 19th annual International Association of Blacks in Dance Conference
Kindly remove me from your distribution list. I tried the prescribed way on the bottom of your mail but that does not work.
Thank you.
Oh my goodness. So, how are we going to address this in some cohesive, unified fashion? Is there or should we set up a media monitoring group? Viewing "The Next Great Prime Minister" recently on TV truly underlines the importance of the non-traditional, immigrant contribution and perspective.
My two cents
Ouch! Let's keep speaking out!
Miriam.
Dear Frances-Anne
Well done - I am proud of you.
Patsy
Well, Frances-Anne what an experience, it reminds me of graduate school at Columbia University. I could say more but these days I prefer to write songs about stuff like that.
Dis is GONG.
Frances -
It is unbelievable in this day and age we are still subject to this kind of treatment - But we must never give up the fight and the faith
Frances-Anne:
Very much regret your traumatic experience but hate to report that I am not as shocked as I should perhaps be. I am not sure that we have made as much progress as we should have done in Toronto, in Canada. Diversity is much talked about, even"valued" but not implemented effectively or conscientiously.
As Black and Racial Minority people, we are not seen as belonging and sometimes we are reluctant to demand our right.
We tend to be viewed as tokens, hence the selective invitations. I admire your courage in leaving, in refusing to be part of "tokenism". I also believe that had all of the minorities departed together, a very strong message would have been sent. It took courage to leave and to challenge Howard. He doesn't "get it"unfortunately and sees you as the problem rather than the society's continuing discriminatory attitudes and practices.
You are absolutely right in taking the stand that you have and I applaud your courage; however, courage is a lonely place and one often gets targeted in the process.
I love Toronto but it will take more and more of us to stand up and challenge continously the racist, sexist status quo.
Stand tall and walk good.
Elizabeth (Parchment)
hey francis anne
i haven't reasoned with you in a while
but i always get your mail and check it out
just want you to know
that i am very proud and inspired by what
you have done
and it reminds me of the urgency of the work
that has always been done
that is being done now
and will continue to be done
by so many
in the name of change
in sistahly solidarity
d'bi.
Hi FAS;
Phew, you're making it really difficult for me to leave Trinidad. The reaction from the Howard guy was an inevitable backlash: the right-wing militant reaction to left-wing, psuedo-liberal rhetoric, of which there is plenty, and which, unfortunately, too many people swallow without examining & do not question the tokenism which they endorse.
Howard was fed up of the rhetoric, and his 'team' have obviously developed a response 'narrative' to it, but this is all at the level of rhetoric; to remind them that they have actually done nothing is irrelevant to them. The appropriate response to this is not the letter writing 'shock and horror', it is a lawsuit. Hit hard, make it hurt; not in the cheek, but in the gut, draw blood if you can--they understand that.
Dear Frances-Anne:
I'd take the comments to heart if they reflected an honest description of the situation.
All you did was stir the pot with an inappropriate target.
Kind regards,
Howard
Dear Readers,
I forwarded your comments to Howard as I received them, and his replies are included here (see above, and below). Thank you all for the outpouring of support. I really appreciate it. As you know it ain't easy stating the blindingly obvious in this country, especially when it comes to race.
As I said earlier, kindly refrain from the "sharing."
Broadcast Dialogue is not your target, as you well know.
As the guy with the camera, had I been at a convention of
"taxi drivers, streetcar drivers and late night workers," there'd
have been plenty of pics with people of varied backgrounds.
That's not where I was.
Dear Howard
I am sending you these responses in the interest of Broadcast Dialogue, (the name of your publication)
Also, on page 5 of your current issue, at the bottom, it says the following:
"Want to express your point of view?
Broadcast Dialogue welcomes your letters. Whether you have a comment on something you've read in BD or something else entirely in mind, share it with us.
E-mail your letter to : howard@broadcastdialogue.com"
Kind regards
Frances-Anne Solomon
francesannesolomon@gmail.com
Hello, Elizabeth.
My dispute with Frances-Anne is over her attack of my publication, Broadcast Dialogue, for shooting photos of the people who bothered to show up for the events covered in that edition. I most certainly did not prowl through the crowd looking for women nor did I seek out people of colour.
That would be reverse racism.
What was reflected in the photos was a genuine reflection of attendees.
Our telephone call, short as it was, was based on her attack of what I do and not on her position vis-a-vis white dominance in society. My suggestion that she take her "shock" and her "horror" and her "sexist racist" nonsense, and peddle it elsewhere was based entirely on the premise that, somehow, Broadcast Dialogue was responsible for her terrible night out -- and she counted photos in my magazine to "prove" it!
It was tripe when she said it . . . and it's tripe now.
As I explained to her in an e-mail, had I been at an event with "cab drivers, street car drivers and late night workers," there no doubt would have been far fewer white people photographed.
BUT I wasn't.
I attend broadcast gatherings where people of colour are indeed most welcome, provided they arrive with sufficient talent, interest and enthusiasm -- in engineering, programming, sales, management, news, and so on.
Is there another group -- besides white men -- to blame for this not happening?
The door is wide open! (See http://www.broadcastdialogue.com/article_view.asp?action=view&idnumber=665).
Howard Christensen
PS Frances-Anne's traumatic experience was not exclusive to her. Her attack on me and my product was uncalled for and grossly unfair. Read her letter to me again and see that she beats me up for her perception of society as a whole.
And that I do not accept.
Broadcast Dialogue is a trade publication reflecting what the trade is now and what many people are hoping it will become (see Diversity in Canadian Broadcasting at the link above).
Oh, just one more thing. Wayne Williams, the program director at FLOW Toronto, was a guest columnist the month before (Feb '07) Frances-Anne began counting photos. See his photo and his remarks here: http://www.broadcastdialogue.com/article_view.asp?action=view&idnumber=661
Dear FA
Thanks for including me in your mailing list. I read or watch everything
that you send and find it quite interesting. Later.
Nigel
The short story is that you attacked Broadcast Dialogue.
I responded by e-mail and by phone.
You threatened to "expose" me to the broadcast community for being just another white man who talks the talk, but won't walk the walk.
I published your letter -- unedited -- and responded.
You retaliated by sending your version of events to members of your list.
Here's the thing . . . I took your initial bait by getting back to you.
That was my mistake.
Why would I continue to dialogue with someone whose intransigent ideas, attitudes and posturing is based on the same debilitating racism with which white people are accused?
I'm dropping out of this discussion now.
Have a lovely life.
Howard
Wow Frances,
Thank you for doing your part.
Change takes time and effort
and is inevitable - only when people of courage (regardless of colour)
do their part.
With appreciation and in support of your inner and outer work effort and ethic,
Joanne
Joanne Gail Johnson
www.caribbeanchildren.com
Dear Frances-Anne,
I hope all is well and the premiere at the Reel Film Festival went well. I am looking forward to seeing the movie. I read with much dismay your group email about diversity in Canada. I had no idea things were that way there. Thank you for making a difference and speaking out…and also making such wonderful productions to acknowledge our worth if only to ourselves.
Hey Frances,
Sorry to hear about the way things went at the genies.... and with that stubborn magazine. I just don't understand how people can be so closed minded...
Hello Howard:
I was not sure that I would have the time to respond to the many issues that your email raised; however, I thought that I might address some.
Reverse racism does not exist as a construct, philosophy and/or concept. Racism exists. It is.
Surely Broadcast Dialogue, as a responsible publication, might have been concerned about the racial imbalance in attendees. This is what Frances-Anne wished to draw your attention to, isn't it? The fact that there was a pre-dominance of White people might at best cause concern and regret or at least questioning, might it not? After all, Toronto prides itself on being the most diverse city in the world, the place most dedicated to multiculturalism doesn't it? Yet it would seem as though this may not be reflected in many areas, aspects of Toronto.
I find it alarming that you accept that multiculturalism, diversity might be more easily manifested in "groups of cab drivers, street car drivers and late night workers", and wonder if you would accept a statement of similar ilk from me which claimed that insensitivity and classism exist in White male editors, the organisers of the Genie Awards, etc.
No-one likes to be criticised; and your reaction to Frances-Anne's concerns were not thoughtful or analytical. Pity.
Your defensive dismissiveness, quite apart from its disrespectful tone, makes Frances-Anne's points for her. "Provided they arrrive with sufficient talent, interest and enthusiasm".....oh dear! So in this multicultural , diverse city, there would seem to be a preponderance of White people with the aforementioned qualities. How quaint of you, Howard, to still believe these myths. But then, I believe that these qualities are not necessarily attached to a particular race, and that even you must be aware that in certain societies, yes even in Toronto, opportunities exist more abundantly for those who are White than those of other races.
There was an opportunity for critical commentary which was lost. Maybe you are too closely "embedded" to practise objective reporting!.
Regretfully, Elizabeth
Hello Frances Anne … I just read your email posting in INCLUDE re: the event you were at. It certainly is a sad state of affairs. I have a short little story to relate to you about something that happened to me last Thursday in a bar regarding over the top anti-semetic remarks bordering on violence. Here’s the hook, I am not Jewish. I just let the person spew his hatred and waited until he was finished. As a man born in Canada of Italian heritage and a victim of racism myself, I can certainly relate to the atrocities that are going on out there. I know this may not be the same as what you experienced but let me tell you that ignorance is still rampant and alive in Toronto Ontario Canada. If you would like to hear more about what happened please call me.
Best regards,
Fernando Curcione
I just passed this through INCLUDE because, well, I can. ;)
Dear Publisher of Broadcast Dialogue,
I just received the email below through a list-serve that boasts a huge membership, comprised of industry professionals from all aspects of the entertainment industry, not only from Canada, but also from the United States. They will all bear witness to the letter below that was sent to you and to your alleged response to the letter and the statistics you were quoted.
The allegation is that you said something to the effect of, "Take your "shock" and your "horror" and your "sexist" "racist" nonsense, and peddle it elsewhere. I'm not interested."
I find it hard to believe that you would say such a blatantly ridiculous, spurious thing in response to a smartly critical letter responding to your magazine, especially considering the fact that this issue contains three articles directly connected with the complaints lodged against your publication, which, in this issue at least, portends to relate progressive steps towards achieving diversity in broadcasting, something, I am sure you would agree, is not a noble pursuit or "White man's burden", if you will, but a very important civil rights issue of treating all people fairly and equally.
Please be so kind as to clarify what happened and send your response to the entire list-serve so we may all know that you are not the person we all feel you are at the moment.
Furthermore, please clarify if the stats below are correct and how such an obvious oversight may be addressed effectively in the future so that your magazine truly is The Voice Of Canadian Broadcasting.
Respectfully yours,
-Anand Rajaram
Dear Frances-Anne:
While I am not entirely surprised at your story, I am appalled at the response. Even for PR reasons there was no attempt at civility. The complete assurance of your respondent (the publisher himself) makes the issue crystal clear. Obviously, some action is necessary - the thing is so pervasive. I had a conversation about "images" with students in one of my classes last week and the pall over the classroom signalled their "shock and awe" about what was obvious and unseen by them until that very moment. But ...
Ramabai
Hi Frances-Anne:
I am just getting over a nasty bug and am still not "all there", but I want to reply to your recent note and letter to Broadcast Dialogue.
First, thanks for writing your letter and the email. It reminds me of the open letter I wrote to my industry newspaper some years ago when I was still an employee of a broadcasting organization.
Frances-Anne, your experience at the Genies is being repeated umpteens of times by umpteen other people in the cities of Canada, in many other professional and social settings. This state of affairs is being observed not only by Canadians who are people of colour, but by white Canadians themselves, many of whom realize that something is plain wrong.
The situation must change, for the good of everyone. Canada's famous "racial harmony" will be eroded if the change doesn't come swiftly.
The question is: what do we all do about it?
You are doing something about it in several different ways - most especially, by being a visionary and entrepreneur.
Most change doesn't come about from the leaders of the establishment. ("People in power don't give up power willingly".) It comes from outside pressure, which takes several forms and calls for several different kinds of change agents, such as:
1) The person who hurls "rocks" from outside and "shatters the windows" .
2) The tempered radical who tries to change the situation from the inside.
3) The person who goes away and starts up a business that embodies the very qualities that are missing from the established businesses of the day... and works hard to make that business successful, because it is never easy.
To paraphrase Moses Znaimer's words at the Innoversity Summit a few years ago:
"Whatever they blame you for, that's what you use" -- to start up your own thing. (He was answering a question about the audacity of himself and a couple other Jewish individuals who had failed to fit into the world of conventional broadcasting. They decided instead to start up CITY-TV.)
My regret is that pioneers such as yourself have to spend so much time and energy calling for change, and trying to negotiate it, when most of your professional energy should be spent on creating the new state of affairs. Hamlin and I would have gone much further in our careers if so much of our energy hadn't been required on the frontlines of battle. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we had simply walked away from the many battles and started up our own business much earlier. But this was our choice and we are thankful that we could play the role we did.
We need visonary people like you (and Canada One principals and others) to be owners of prosperous creative businesses -- and leading and training those who must come up behind you in greater numbers -- so that the kind of experience that you had at the Genies (and elsewhere in the media industry) will gradually disappear.
As for your letter to Broadcast Dialogue: the first outcome of this is that it got prominent play in the latest issue of the magazine!
Keep pushing forward.
Best,
CR.
Dear Publisher of Broadcastdialogue,
As you will soon find out no longer are people going to accept such
disrespect laying down. Your comments will be heard and read all over the
Caribbean and possibly the world. What surprises me most is the fact that
someone in your position cannot diffrentiate between sexism,racism and
someones freedom to express his hurt and anger for being marginalised in
his own country. I hope that soon you WILL be more interested. I eagerly
await a response. TALK IS FREE!!!
Camille Selvon Abrahams
Creative Director
Animae Caribe Animation & New Media Festival
www.animaecaribe.com
001 868 760 0266
Hello Frances-Anne,
Thank you for continuing to keep our awareness of these important issues in the forefront of our minds not only through initiating these sorts of important dialogues with individuals from every side of the fence but also through the many examples of your work.
I am shocked that in 2007 the publisher of a Canadian broadcast magazine would not see your letter as doorway to reach those people who he considers 'welcome attendees' who are simply 'not attending.'
I am even more shocked that he would say something as ignorant as comparing taxi and street car drivers to multiculturalism in the Canadian Broadcating Industry!
Mr. Christensen said seeking out women and visible minorities to interview and photograph would be reverse racism. Why wouldn't a responsible journalist wish to seek out minorities to interview at an event addressing multiculturalism and diversity??
I feel disheartened that this thinking and behaviour continues to feel justified by the status quo. Thank you Frances-Anne and countless others for pointing a finger and suggesting otherwise.
Judy Singh
Dear Publisher of Broadcastdialogue,
I wish to add my voice to those below.
As human beings and Caribbean professionals working around the globe
we know the world is our stage as much as anyone else's.
The values of equal dignity and respect are inevitable
as human evolution shows. The only question is
how will you respond to the call?
Your response is greatly anticipated and appreciated.
With sincere interest,
Joanne
Joanne Gail Johnson
www.caribbeanchildren.com
www.suntv.info
Tel(868) 62-AUDIO
SUN TV LTD.
19 Long Circular Rd.
St. James
Trinidad, W.I.
Hi Frances-Anne,
Needless to say, good for you. Below is a letter I've sent off with my two cents to the publisher. It came back as a noreply from the Caribtales newsgroup to which I also CCed it. So here it is, FYI.
Cheers,
Resh
Dear Publisher of Broadcast Dialogue,
Your reply to Frances-Anne Solomon’s observations about your publication is relevant to me on two fronts. As a member of the Toronto ’s arts community I have had the privilege of working with Frances-Anne Solomon at CaribbeanTales, a company that was established to provide a creative and expressive space for a Canadian demographic too often ignored or misrepresented by the mainstream media. As a Professor at a Toronto college where I teach (among other things) a course in Anti-Racism, you have provided my class with an excellent example of the systemic racism that does indeed exist throughout Canada ’s Arts and Media industries. Oh, they love you.
Interestingly, at the beginning of this course I am never called upon to justify that racism exists. For many, of all races, ethnicities, genders, abilities, classes, etc., it’s pretty much taken as axiomatic that racism is a powerful, even foundational, element in Canada . Of further interest, students normally point to media as a dominant culprit.
Where the world’s majority can still be regarded as a minority interest in Canada and where this visible minority is largely invisible throughout Canadian media - even in the vaunted “diversity” issue of your own publication - observations of racism are not “nonsense”. Likewise, as limited female representation in decision-making roles throughout this country fails to represent the over 50% female majority, neither can charges of institutional sexism be so easily shrugged off.
Canada is one of the few nations in the world where our multiculturalism is writ large in the very constitution of the nation itself, as a reality, a right and a point of pride. The media is supposed to be a mirror and the arts, a light. Their promise to all of us is to reflect and illuminate the world about us. Instead you operate as a nay-saying magus, attempting to deny the obvious in your futile attempts to convince the majority that they are a minority, shouting that their feelings on the matter are nothing but mere fancy. However, your attempt to vilify and deny Frances-Anne’s observations of what is blatantly obvious to a great many of us, in the end does more damage to you. You are no magician. We do exist, we are here, and no matter how much you choose to turn away, we are the elephant in the room that you cannot make disappear.
So a question for you. Which would seem a greater example of nonsense? A woman who speaks up about the sadly atavistic tendencies of a small elite desperately trying to keep the media of the world’s most diverse city white or the deluded individual who stands on a beach-front and thinks he can hold the ocean at bay by belittling it.
And might I add…. Given that you are in fact far from dear to me, the above greeting is used out of a sense of polite formality – even this trifling little bit of courtesy was denied to Frances-Anne Solomon in your rude, crass and frankly low-brow reply to her very thoughtful, critical and intelligent observations of your publication.
Resh Budhu
Hey Frances-Anne,
Sorry for not forwarding this earlier. Anyway, he responded yet again.. which is also attached here. Anyway, I've decided to not respond to his reponse to my response... Interesting guy though...
Resh
Note: forwarded message attached.
From: "Howard Christensen \(Broadcast Dialogue\)"
Date: April 13, 2007 11:46:52 PM EDT (CA)
To: "resh budhu"
Subject: Re: The Post you Won't find on her board
Reply-To: "Howard Christensen \(Broadcast Dialogue\)"
A question for you, Resh. Will this response also be discussed during your anti-racism class? Will you sustain my "excellent example of the systemic racism" running rampant in the arts and media industries?
I'd hate to lose your students' love . . . .
Best,
Howard
PS With the exception of three very kind correspondents, this entire experience has been a horror show. As one of them said, "You have been made a victim of an immoral and uninvited personal attack inspired by blind ideology and simple closed-mindedness."
And there was this: "What happens most of the time in situations like these, we are not even considered important enough to get a response. I think that by you taking the time to respond shows that you have been affected by your experience and is good enough to pay us some respect by responding. It is unfortunate but you would probably get more really strong reactions. Brace yourself for this. But it is in a strange manic way, healthy dialogue. But keep in mind please that these are all reactions to decades of disrespect and disregard. I believe that your reaction to everything will bring this to a healthy close. So far you are doing well. Keep in mind also that we are not all Angry Black People. PEACE Howard!"
And: "I have read your responses to Frances-Anne's letter. May I suggest you call (deleted)? He has described you as "a decent guy" and I think you need to have a good talk with him. He may be reached at: 416-etc., etc."
----- Original Message -----
From: resh budhu
To: Howard Christensen (Broadcast Dialogue)
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: The Post you Won't find on her board
And Hello to you as well, Howard,
Thank you for your very prompt and very interesting response.
Cheers,
Resh
"Howard Christensen (Broadcast Dialogue)" wrote:
Hello Resh,
Nice to see you haven't jumped to any conclusions!
Thank you for writing and thus giving me the opportunity to reply. Yesterday morning, I sent Frances-Anne a note for posting (see below) to clarify that my argument is not with the societal situation but rather her rude opening gambit that -- with no knowledge of my history -- aimed to tear me apart for photographic journalism in Broadcast Dialogue that overwhelmingly portrayed white males.
She opened by insulting me . . . and I returned the favor . . . hoping that I was suggesting, in snide fashion, that she take her not-so-subtle implication of my racism and deliver it to people who actually NEED to hear it, thus "go peddle it somewhere else" (unsaid was, "you silly twit.").
Yes, I was angry and I was defensive.
I remain defensive in light of her horribly ignorant opening salvo. Who I am and what I do is being attacked -- for all the wrong reasons.
I sent the following for the list yesterday morning. As of an hour or so ago (1 p.m. Friday), it does not appear on the board.
Why is that, Resh?
Are board members the subject of a little spin doctoring by the lady who controls content?
Kind regards,
Howard
So there is no mistake, I do not for a moment dispute Frances-Anne's concerns about societal issues.
I do, however, find fault with her insulting approach and attack on my publication.
Effective communication excludes inflaming one's correspondent with unfair, biased and uninformed comment (as it relates to our magazine).
I resent the tongue-lashing she gave me and Broadcast Dialogue by including terms such as "utterly shocking," and "I think it is outrageous that your magazine... feels satisfied to talk the facile talk of multiculturalism and gender equality while shamelessly perpetuating the same old, same old, racist sexist WALK" and "Get with the millenium."
Is it any wonder I did not respond in a manner that might have been more sympathetic?
List members' approval of the lady's shoddy attack is misdirected.
Look around!
The diversity in Canadian broadcasting is taking hold... in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton... and in smaller centres.
And it is doing so in the most visible way: ON THE AIR.
The photos Frances-Anne was so quick to dismiss as being indicative of an industry that's living in the dark ages are of people in management, people who have worked their way up over many, many years (and who, despite being the white males so vilified, are the ones who do the hiring) . . . Just as today's new arrivals will do.
Should Frances-Anne care to truly make a societal impact, please suggest that she bring along an attitude that encourages collaboration/co-operation rather than open conversations by waving a battle axe of words that serve only to insult and inflame.
Howard Christensen
Publisher/Broadcast Dialogue
Dear Howard
Resh forwarded your response to her response and I have posted it like everything else I've received.
Thanks very much
Frances-Anne
Hello fa-- I'm glad your
stance on "Dialogue" is finding support--those stats look entirely hard-headed and convincing to me--how come the man doesn't get it? Best, j.
Hello Frances Anne,
I have not been in touch with you for sometime but your recent experience prompts me to respond. Interestingly, I have read your news on Broadcast Dialogue and considered how it ties in with our (U.S.) present outrage over Don Imus's remarks about the Rutger's team. What time period are we living in where certain individuals feel free to speak so hurtfully and abusively about others? Why do they feel so secure? Is it because they control the wealth or so they think and this allows them to relaxed into ways and words that they have not purged from their thoughts? Imus must have felt that he could say whatever he wanted because of the millions of dollars that he makes for our major radio and tv stations. He mistakenly felt financially and politically secure, above reproach. He must have felt that African Americans do not contribute to the wealth of this country. His sponsors felt differently. Has he never sat in a shopping mall or visited a chain grocery store?
With regards to your situation, why would the editor of Broadcast feel above criticism and belittle you for your critique? Did he feel that you did not matter? Why do people feel that diversity issues are so isolated? Whites must use reflection. White is not a race. It refers to a gradation of skin coloring --nothing else. Whites do not all share a common heritage. They sometimes hide behind whiteness and act as if they share a common heritage but we all know better.
The second story in our news (U.S.) is the story of the German military trainer who tells the soldier in training to pretend that he is shooting blacks in the Bronx (one of NYC boroughs). I thought immediately of the many Germans on the tourist buses headed for Harlem and the Bronx to find soul food and Latino food and to listen to jazz and do the Salsa. They fully enjoy our diversity and even adopt it. Are these situations that make the news isolated instances of ignorance? I wish that this was true for there would be more hope. Instead, Imus has a following of millions of listeners who say they love him. The military trainer must have felt that his remark would resonate with the soldier in training or he would not have made it and the editor of Broadcast must have felt that he was pleasing those who it mattered to please.
I commend you for speaking out, it offers opportunities for discourse and change. In lieu of the honest introspection and reflective thinking that some whites need to engage in, to purge their uncontrollable urge to belittle others and assuage their immense but understandable guilt and unfortunate self-disgust, we must all speak up and out.
Peace,
Mary Shepard
Hey FAS,
Good to see you, too, and congratulations on the Award.
Here's my correspondence with Howard.
Best,
C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cameron Bailey
To: publisher@broadcastdialogue.com
Cc:torontoincludes@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: "Diversity"
Dear Howard Christensen,
Cameron Bailey here. I've just read of an exchange between you and my colleague Frances-Anne Solomon. It sounds bad. If things transpired as Frances-Anne describes them, you dismissed her concerns about diversity in the Canadian broadcast industry (and in your magazine) in an unbelievably callous manner. I hope you're smarter than that. I hope you understand that the reality you might choose to dismiss now is your future. I hope you'll take this as an opportunity to learn more about what's going on in your industry, and who's being shut out.
Most of all, though, I hope you'll do the right thing and apologize to Frances-Anne as soon as possible. It would be a start.
Sincerely,
Cameron Bailey
--
Cameron Bailey
Programmer, Toronto International Film Festival (http://www.tiffg.ca)
Film Critic, NOW Magazine, CBC Radio
________________________________
From: "Howard Christensen (Broadcast Dialogue)"
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:10:56 -0400
To: Cameron Bailey
Subject: Re: "Diversity"
Key sentence in your note is the third where possible doubt is implied.Too often, there are gut reactions to stories that upset us . . . particularly when they originate with someone we know.
You are in the media -- not so much as a journalist -- but nonetheless affected by some of vagaries of how it all works. Rarely, if ever, do news craftspeople rush to air/print with the rant or biased opinion of an individual without, at the least, taking a moment to confirm what's been presented.Your assumption that Frances-Anne deserves an apology is way out of line. If anything, Cameron, kindly suggest that she offer me one.
Thanks for writing.
Howard Christensen
----- Original Message -----
From: Cameron Bailey
To: Howard Christensen (Broadcast Dialogue)
Cc: Frances-Anne Solomon
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: "Diversity"
Thanks for your response, Howard, disappointing as it is.
It's true I can't know exactly what transpired between you and Frances-Anne, but, as an African-Canadian who's worked in Canadian media for 20 years, I'm extremely familiar with the issues in question here. I'm disappointed that you appear unable even to accept the premise of race-based exclusion in our country's broadcast industry and seem so quick to dismiss France-Anne's concerns. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, but your email to me does seem to confirm that impression. It's that, at the very least, that deserves an apology.
Sincerely,
Cameron
--
Cameron Bailey
Programmer, Toronto International Film Festival (http://www.tiffg.ca)
Film Critic, NOW Magazine, CBC Radio
__________________________________
From: "Howard Christensen (Broadcast Dialogue)"
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:01:23 -0400
To: Cameron Bailey
Subject: Re: "Diversity"
So there is no mistake, her concerns may have relevance. But effective communication begins with an approach that excludes inflaming one's correspondent.
I resent the tongue-lashing she gave me and Broadcast Dialogue by including terms such as "utterly shocking," and "I think it is outrageous that your magazine... feels satisfied to talk the facile talk of multiculturalism and gender equality while shamelessly perpetuating the same old, same old, racist sexist WALK" and "Get with the millenium."
Is it any wonder I did not respond in a manner that might have been more politically correct?
Is it unfair -- inhuman, even -- for a rude and blunt approach to be met with a similar tone?
------ Forwarded Message
From: Cameron Bailey
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:19:21 -0400
To: "Howard Christensen (Broadcast Dialogue)"
Subject: Re: "Diversity"
Fair enough, Howard. Understood.
C.
Interesting piece. I was in Tobago the other day and picked up CBC on television. Do you know I looked at it as though I was doing something wrong, it was so white!! Then it felt traumatic, believe me! as I have now grown accustomed to cultural and physical resemblances after 2 and a half years back home!
Yvonne Bobb-Smith, Ph.D.
Mentor/Educator/Consultant
Trinidad and Tobago, Caribbean
www.infocounsel.org
Tomorrow is Today, Think Critically
Hi Frances Anne,
I can "get" all the rest of it, have seen and experienced such. One explanation I was given is that there are not many blacks and visible minorities at those levels...really...Thing is that we are there and can use a knife and fork better that many white folks with better manners and social skills too!!!! BUT I can't believe Howard's arrogance, blatant rudeness and disregard for publication's mandate. Schizoid or what. Would that magazine be available on news-stands or the library. I'd like to write to some of its sponsors. They, I know, would surely dialogue....
Pat Riviere
Hi Frances-Anne,
Again, my pleasure. Just as a follow-up, as per Howard's request, for my last Anti-Racism class, I read them the correspondence, including Howard's defense. I admitted to my own faux-pas in not hearing his side before sending off my initial letter, but I thought that I was somewhat vindicated by his response. The class was both amused .. well more bemused and disgruntled by his response, but also had confirmation of something we've been discussing all year, the concept of Democratic Racism. Simply put, it is the brand of racism that pervades the institutional nexus of Canadian society, a society that celebrates liberal values of freedom, justice, equality, etc., but is built on foundations that are anything but. Hence, his statement that inclusiveness in the media is readily apparent through the visibility of visible minorities on the air, but not in the halls of decision-making/power. His understanding, of course, that upper management is based on a refined process of meritocracy.. the great unsaid being that we just have to earn our way to the top until we are considered good enough by those who do the hiring (again his point). Same pattern can be seen with bank-tellers / bank management, cashiers / corporate honchos, etc, etc. Anyway, it was a perfect ending to the class in giving a very real demonstration of what we've been talking about... So, something positive.
BTW, just looking at the roll-call of responses on your board, really gives one a feeling of pride and community.
Cheers,
Resh
wonderful!
i checked out the reply
community is alive!
nuff love energy and support to you
francis anne
solidarity
d'bi.
I hear you Howard.
It is hard to hear ourselves summed up with labels
especially when our own view is very different;
and further, if we perceive there is no opportunity to present our side
fairly.
That's harsh - and I do believe we all desire the same things.
I appreciate your response and
I would expect yes, that the group will/ should continue conversation
and allow all sides to be fairly considered. (I will be watching for
that too.)
It is an immature presumption of power, a professional and personal
insult , if not outright racist, to accuse a person of caucasian
"look"
of enjoying their benefits solely because of their "whiteness" or a
white supremacy conspiracy. (same with gender)
Is that really where Frances-Anne was coming from?
Her email sounded passionate and concerned.
Her statistics are logically and clearly presented.
Perhaps you were unaware of this general image and so her observations
may serve to your publication's benefit?
I do understand that nothing and no one can or should be summed up and
made to feel annihilated by statistics/ image/perception.
Both sides seem to share that perception/ feeling in common.
I know and understand for myself how professional frustration often
aligns with the rage of sometimes legitimate feelings
of personal injustice . This sometimes inhibits opportunities for
communication and improvement.
It is however the temporary reality of our humanity at this time
regardless of age, race, gender etc. None of us is above , beyond or
untouched
by it. We are in this thing together. And we would all benefit if we
grow sensitive to one another's pains and beefs
even if they are sometimes expressed from/ through the pain.
I often lament and laugh at the fact that we are in the field
of communications, but often cannot truly communicate person to person.
May you be encouraged in your own efforts and
I trust that this is at the very least, a personal and professional
opportunity for you to feature ethnic minorities
and women more visibly WHEN they earn a place up front.
This can only happen IF
1. you believe there are such candidates here and now
2. your journalists are willing to look for them
3. when they cross your path you are honestly open and willing to
recognizing and applauding their talents.
ALL THAT you get to do! Lucky you dude! smiles
May we each and all employ the power and privilege we enjoy with
authenticity.
Sincerely,
Joanne
Joanne Gail Johnson
www.caribbeanchildren.com
On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Howard Christensen ((Broadcast Dialogue))
wrote:
>
> Good morning, Joanne,
> Thank you for writing and thus giving me the opportunity to reply.
> Yesterday morning, I sent Frances-Anne a note for posting to clarify
> that my argument is not with the societal situation but rather her
> rude opening gambit that -- with no knowledge of my history -- aimed
> to tear me apart for photographic journalism in Broadcast Dialogue
> that overwhelmingly portrayed white males.
> She opened by insulting me . . . and I returned the favor . . . hoping
> that I was suggesting, in snide fashion, that she take her
> not-so-subtle implication of my racism and deliver it to people who
> actually NEED to hear it, thus "go peddle it somewhere else" (unsaid
> was, "you silly twit.").
> Yes, I was angry and I was defensive.
> I remain defensive in light of her horribly ignorant opening salvo.
> Who I am and what I do is being attacked -- for all the wrong reasons.
> I sent the following for the list yesterday morning. As of this
> morning, it does not appear on the board.
> Why is that, Joanne?
> Are board members the subject of a little spin doctoring by the lady
> who controls content?
> Kind regards,
> Howard
>
> So there is no mistake, I do not for a moment dispute Frances-Anne's
> concerns about societal issues.
> I do, however, find fault with her insulting approach and attack on my
> publication.
> Effective communication excludes inflaming one's correspondent with
> unfair, biased and uninformed comment (as it relates to our magazine).
> I resent the tongue-lashing she gave me and Broadcast Dialogue by
> including terms such as "utterly shocking," and "I think it is
> outrageous that your magazine... feels satisfied to talk the facile
> talk of multiculturalism and gender equality while shamelessly
> perpetuating the same old, same old, racist sexist WALK" and "Get with
> the millenium."
> Is it any wonder I did not respond in a manner that might have been
> more sympathetic?
> List members' approval of the lady's shoddy attack is misdirected.
> Look around!
> The diversity in Canadian broadcasting is taking hold... in Toronto,
> Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton... and in smaller
> centres.
> And it is doing so in the most visible way: ON THE AIR.
> The photos Frances-Anne was so quick to dismiss as being indicative of
> an industry that's living in the dark ages are of people in
> management, people who have worked their way up over many, many years
> . . . Just as today's new arrivals will do.
> Should Frances-Anne care to truly make a societal impact, please
> suggest that she bring along an attitude that encourages
> collaboration/co-operation rather than open conversations by waving a
> battle axe of words that serve only to insult and inflame.
>
> Howard Christensen
> Publisher/Broadcast Dialogue
Just to clarify : what I said to howard was objective statistical fact about the representation of images in his magazine.
It was not "an attack".
His response was as I reported it, no more no less.
This is not a personal matter, not for example a feud between myself and howard,
but about a much larger issue, the representation of the demographic of this country in national media publications.
It is also a historical one, about racism, not just in Canada and it's media, but in many other countries where human beings have fought and died for justice.
I think it deserves to be adressed at that level.
As always, I will publish all this in my blog, verbatim.
Kind regards to you all,
Frances-Anne Solomon
francesannesolomon@gmail.com
On 11-May-07, at 2:17 PM, Joanne Johnson wrote:
Slow down Howard - That was not my response at all,
that was what someone, a Guyanese woman living in Ontario wrote to me about the issue.
This is what I wrote her in response to her comments: (wishing you well,JJ)
Mo, I totally agree what you shared about the racism in media issue.
I actually corresponded a bit with both Frances and the mag's editor.
I feel we sometimes have chips that cause us to react in ways that are provocative too
and we don't realize how unprofessional our presumptions and accusations may come across in the first place.
And because we're brandishing seemingly justified perceptions does not mean we are always 100% right.
Having heard some from both sides I feel
A more mature position would mean we want also to take time always to hear the other point of view and attitude
before making a decision about a person, product or group etc.
My feeling is the editor also had a legit POV and is in fact sensitized to the issue.
His response was an understandable, (though regrettable in terms of potential long term relating),
when feeling unfairly attacked and without opportunity for inquiry and discussion.
On May 11, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Howard Christensen wrote:
Thank you, Joanne.
You had me up until your last sentence.
To speak of my response to Frances-Anne Solomon as "unbelievably unprofessional" speaks only to her version of events.
Best,
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: Joanne Johnson
Cc: Howard Christensen ((Broadcast Dialogue)) ; Frances-Anne Solomon
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 6:37 AM
Subject: Reader's response
I received this today from a black Guyanese author living in Ontario. Her first young teen novel, "The Island of the Swan Children" is scheduled for publication in Feb 2008 by Macmillan Ltd. (UK). Her husband looks white, and is also Guyanese.
Your discussions stirred this comment:
All the stuff you passed on about racial bias here in Canada, and wanted to mention, but didn't get a chance until now, that it was perhaps not helpful for the writer of the letter to compare the US to Canada. They have Condi Rice, and we have Governor-General Michaelle Jean, who is Haitian born, but in both countries women and 'people of colour' (what a silly term -- every human being is a person of colour) still have a long way to go. It does frustrate me to see the one-sided view in magazines, but I must also say that whereas US TV shows little variety -- a lone token and there, I get to see a lot more Asian, African, First Nation, and Middle-Eastern faces on Canadian TV. I also find that when Roy and I walk down the streets of Ontario, no one gives us a second glance. We get lots of hard looks from folks in the States. What am I saying? I'm saying the Magazine editor's response to the 'complainant' was unbelievably unprofessional and low, but I was unable to put in my two cents because she made the unfortunate decision to use the USA as a point of reference (sigh).
Joanne Gail Johnson
www.caribbeanchildren.com
Sorry for the delay but I am now playing catch-up. What I would recommend is a proposal (do you know anyone who is good at this?) for money to develop a media monitoring service for all the obvious reasons. I would work on the initial research like checking out the B'nai Brith system. I k that the first year would be spent organizing and testing. I know someone who will be willing to volunteer and I suspect that we would need a volunteer corps. The corollary to this is that there must be a Response mechanism for addressing matters responsibly and in a timely manner.
Thoughts?
Take care
Ita
On 12-May-07, at 8:57 AM, Joanne Johnson wrote:
FYI REF:
http://ledaserenesnewz1.blogspot.com/2007/04/broadcast-dialogue.html
http://www.broadcastdialogue.com/
Most things in life are about the HOW not merely the WHAT.
I do not see the value in immediately launching into war with any individual or group;
even if we feel adequately armed with the authority of "facts" or "statistics" .
We all know this ammo can be gathered with a strong preference for finding out something specific.
It can miss the underlying truth and intended meaning altogether.
In the matter of Frances Anne Solomon versus Broadcast Dialogue,
I wanted to know Mr. Christensen's POV before I decided for myself.
So I asked. This is what I came up with:
His reaction to Frances Anne was an understandable
and by his own admission regrettable reaction to feeling unjustifiably attacked,
without an opportunity for recourse.
If I 'get' him, I'd say he is on the look out for excellence in any skin.
But could it be these criticisms also hit a nerve?
I don't know that cultural terrorism is going to open any real doors for any one.
Where is the value in shooting down a potential ally?
If there has been fair and mutual communication and one has ascertained
a certain ill will, then there may be cause to make a stand. I do not feel this has happened - YET.
Having communicated with Howard Christensen,
and since I share Frances Solomon's concerns
- I DO feel this is a conversation gone wrong on both sides.
Sad since it appears to be a missed opportunity for mutual benefit and beyond.
However, I learn my lesson from this - the person who initiates the conversation also claims responsibility for the
tone of it. And the one who claims higher ethical (not ethnic) authority is therefore claiming the lion's share of the tone
and the outcome. Rushing to issues of gender etc for cover when the bullets start flying denies personal power.
Who among us would not meet a barrage of criticism (valid or otherwise) with aggression?
It is a natural human response - across racial and gender divides.
It seems to me that those of us in the business and art forms of 'communication'
often do not, at a personal level, value and engage in true communication?
I do not see how we can get around the essential reality that all life is personal
since we deal with professional, financial, political, (whatever) issues - One person at a time.
Ironically, we tend to build separating walls while calling for inclusion.
We often make presumptions of power and awareness levels
when approaching people in certain positions. We prefer to blame and attack,
using our feelings of injustice to justify anything we feel, say or do.
What can be the individual's role in the situation??:
If I can see it, then it is mine to say, do and "teach" / offer.
And what kind of teacher will I be?
One who berates and punishes those who have not yet learned
my point of view?
Or will I find myself erroneously preaching to the converted?
Isn't it often a case of becoming what one dislikes in others in order
to teach them otherwise?
This is how the anti-pollution squad behaves in polluted ways,
the ant-war crew is farthest from demonstrating peace and the
anti-racism passions for all our cares and fears, render us most bigoted.
A teacher/ leader assumes a lot of responsibility and a long term role
on any cultural landscape. How will we use THAT power
and to what benefit for self and others? Including those we wish/ hope to 'convert'.
And is it our right to convert anyone?
Do we promise something of tremendous life enhancing value, or do
we threaten out way to nirvana, taking heaven's gates by force??
Do we feel so excluded that we justify annihilating others (even in reputation) to claim our place?
And yes, when we find and establish an old dog with fleas it may be rightful and good to call a spade a spade,
But to see that in all people and situations at first 'look' , without inquiry
fuels our mistaken self concept of powerlessness and truly belies our own racism.
Howard Christensen has done nothing is this forum but protect and defend himself
- so clearly he feels this is a personal attack.
In communicating with him directly I find him quite reasonable and willing to exchange ideas and opinions constructively.
He also has some insights into understanding how he understands the media
landscape and how this informs his editorial freedom.
His POV as he expressed it to me, is actually more akin to our own than
has been professed.
Why not let him speak himself into your own opinion of him and his publication-
whatever the outcome? Here is some of what he shared with me:
Joanne,
You've already seen my demonstration of good faith through
Wayne Williams' appearance the month previous to Frances-Anne's ignorant (purest sense of the word's meaning, I assure you) attack.
You talk about the Marleys, etc.
I prefer to think of the Erics (the late Eric Murray [Broadcast News/Canadian Press]) for whom a broadcast journalism scholarship for visible minorities has been named. It has been in place here in Canada for well over a decade.
Eric was from Trinidad.
Eric was black.
Eric was a friend/mentor.
Howard
How many people even heard of him or Broadcast Dialogue before?
And yet in the name of siding with Caribbean, woman, ethnic similarity
we jump on the band wagon with no sincere inquiry and examination of the whole.
Myself included at first.
Frances-Anne asked some insightful questions.
Don't we want any answers - REALLY?!?
So far this has been little more than a Good Friday bobolie fest,
I encourage this forum to invite what it claims to host -
a truly professional discussion on
the realities - those we call factual AND perceived.
Because what each of us believes IS a part of reality
and deserves fair and valid attention.
Mature people, can be respectful of each other even and especially
when there are disagreements. We are all in this thing (not only of media, but of life)
- together.
Perhaps Broadcast Dialogue and Caribbean Tales can set an example of
mature professionals communicating in a public forum demonstrating fair
consideration for differing points of view??
I for one would like to understand more about the situation, specifically and generally,
and see it addressed it constructively.
Eventually many drops of water carve a hole in the stone, opening it.
Post a Comment