this happened about 5 years ago. given the publicity around it when it happened, I find it difficult to believe that someone wouldn’t know that the term is offensive.
I like his unreserved apology there. He really seemed contrite.
Not you, it’s just the comment I referred to initially, and then you decided to jump in without even looking at the record. I agree that’s how we know he’s racist and what was likely to be intentional, not because of his age.
I’ve read the whole thread, mate. No-one said he said it because he was 26.
See this:
That’s what I responded to, an imagined relationship between his age and his intentions. Then one after another someone would come in and provide some illogical explanation of how that made sense and I countered everyone, discussing just that statement in the abstract. I had to give examples to show how the arguments did not hold up, it would have just been much easier if everyone didn’t try to convince me that his young age made him more likely to speak like an old person, then I wouldn’t have had to demonstrate why that didn’t make sense. So go talk to those people if you think explaining logic and reason is giving excuses to racists. Even Dibble figured out his age is irrelevant.
Can you link me to this other thread you’re talking about, please? Because it’s not this one.
Something else no-one said.
His age is not irrelevant. If he were an 80 year old broadcaster, he might get have gotten a pass.
They said the opposite. They all said it made him LESS likely to talk like an old person. So it didn’t just come rolling off his tongue like an old person, not to mention he wouldn’t have been ad-libbing. He consciously chose to use that word.
Something’s blocked in your head.
My father isn’t usually very sensitive about race terminology, but he didn’t like “colored” even when it was in fashion. “Crayons are colored. I’m not a crayon,” is what he once gave me as a rationale. “Colored” is an example of a marked label. You’ve got people and then you’ve got colored people. It’s othering. Just like “Oriental” it’s obvious that white people came up with “colored”. So that alone makes it cringy.
When I hear words like “negro” and “colored” being used in a non-ironic way, I don’t get offended, but I brace myself for offensiveness, because someone who reaches for these words probably isn’t the most socially aware.
The last time I heard the term “colored” being used without offensive intent was in the early 1980s and that was exclusively by elderly and/or disabled African-American persons. These people were institutionalized and probably continued using the term long after the people in their home communities ceased using the term. I don’t ever recall any white person using the term “colored” without at least some implied intent to be offensive and I am not that young anymore.
It’s not imagined, as people have pointed out over and over. Someone in their 90s might well have just slipped up and used a term they grew up with. Someone who’s 26 did not grow up with ‘colored’ as part of the normal vocabulary. His age is quite relevant to demonstrating intent, and you coming up with bizarre strawmen doesn’t change that. In particular, the one you repeated here and I quoted below is the direct opposite of what anyone in the thread is arguing. When you’re ‘disagreeing’ with the inverse of what people are saying, you’re actually agreeing that they’re right, not demonstrating that what they say doesn’t make sense.
Just curious, but do news anchors just wing it when they do the promos within a broadcast like that? I guess they might if the promo is being done by a seasoned anchor, but a less-experienced one might need to have a script in case they’re not so smooth when speaking off-the-cuff.
If that actually was scripted, what the hell were they thinking? In any case, that was pretty bad. Time will tell if it was “career-ending” bad or not.
Generally speaking, broadcasters read from scripts. But they don’t necessarily stick to them word for word.
In larger operations, there are multiple people who write different portions of a script. However, the person who reads it will often write parts of it emself and will usually get to review it as the final editor.
In smaller operations, such as a local radio station, the person reading the script generally writes it emself, often right before going on the air.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that for me. I appreciate it!
Just to add, the smaller the operation, the less likely it is that anyone is reviewing scripts before they are read on the air. In this case, I would not be surprised if there had been no one else signing off on the script. Radio stations generally don’t have editors.
There are several major reasons why his statement was/is problematic, particularly in today’s climate of social injustice “reawakening”.
*This kid would not naturally have had colored in his vernacular, as a 26 year old urbanite. Even if some of his work associates (and consequent social circles) made him familiar with the term, if he didn’t know that he was using a controversial or incendiary term, he was incredibly ignorant, and said something that he should’ve known better than to say. Had he used Black (which is concise, monosyllabic, and unequivocally acceptable), no one would’ve blinked an eye.
Black is the more common term to use in journalism circles (I believe even moreso than POC), so that makes using colored an intentional choice.
*Colored as used by the NAACP was so named because as one poster mentioned, it was deemed an acceptable term in relation to the other options at the time.
We should all know by now that it’s usually inappropriate to use a term that’s been reclaimed by a particular demographic, if one is a non-member of said demographic.
*While there are multitudes of historical omissions in American history teachings, I’m almost certain that in his high school career he would’ve learned something about Jim Crow era policies, if nothing more than the use of the term colored in that context. So, he should’ve known that the term is not only outdated, but derogatory by implying that Black people were unequal and subhuman. So, as many organizations attempt to right racial prejudices now, his comment was hugely inappropriate, and he needed this “time out” to (hopefully) contemplate why.
The reason why things have persisted on unequal and unjust terms for so long is due in part to the fact that those responsible have continuously gotten away with doing so, without repercussions.
Oh and two more things:
*The kid was a news radio anchor, not a tv news anchor, so there is no teleprompter. So there’s that.
*When the NAACP was founded (in 1909), colored did not have the derogatory connotations that it acquired during the Jim Crow era.
Is it weird that I assumed that this happened during a TV broadcast rather than on the radio? I think my mind completely blanked out on that. Sheesh…
With radio stations being on shaky ground nowadays, it’s not surprising at all that some news departments would not be hiring the best and brightest.
There was a time, perhaps, when the “But what about the National Association for Advancement of Colored People and the United Negro College Fund?!” arguments were simply white cluelosity, rather than disingenuous trollery. But that time has been gone for at least forty years.
You also have to consider that this was a “coming up later on the news” bumper during a baseball game broadcast. Not only was this guy reading off a script but presumably it was recorded, possibly edited, and saved for later when it could be inserted into the game.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m going to assume in 2020 there’s not a guy sitting in a booth from 7-10 every night waiting to read “coming up later on the news” tidbits to be inserted live into the baseball game broadcast. Especially not news that didn’t happen live.