SINCE THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY, THE BLACK PRESS HAS STOOD AS ALTERNATIVE TO the white mainstream press (O'Kelly, 1982; Dates, 1990; Simmons, 1998; Hutton, 1993). (1) Today, at least 278 African-American owned and operated newspapers are printed across the United States, with a circulation approaching 13 million (Owens, 1999), a following perhaps second only to black churches (Martindale and Dunlap, 1997). Despite its enduring role (Brooks, 1959; Oak, 1970; O'Kelly, 1982; Wolseley, 1990; Pride and Wilson, II, 1997; Simmons, 1998), many media analysts exhibit a majoritarian bias, claiming that the alternative press not credible in the eyes of Americans (Bennett, 1993: 2), without explaining why this presumed circumstance exists. Is it due to a presumed deficiency of news coverage, or is it perhaps tied to the attitudes of most Americans? If the former is the case, what are the deficiencies? If the latter, how can we be certain that the majority's attitudes are well founded? The majoritarian view also tends to devalue the readership of the black press. Bennett's (1996: 19) throwaway remark reflects this: when people turn to more pointed or radical sources, they become more isolated from the issues and perspectives that shape public opinion and the political agenda in the mainstream media. The statement receives no empirical backing and it is not clear whether any might readily be found. One wonders if the author has not conflated cause and effect: Is it not more probable that feelings of frustration or anger toward dominant institutions (including the mainstream press) precede the turn to a minority press, perhaps even constituting its motivating basis as readers seek an antidote? (2) Others, like Jacobs (1996, 1998, 2000), have acknowledged the significance of the black press. They note how its distinctive use of narrative, myth, and other discursive forms constitutes its own public realm, where difference is expressed within a larger geography of communicative space. People know it is there, available to be read should the need be perceived (Jacobs, 2000: 6). Yet this praise of difference betrays deference to relativism, and hence an unwillingness to critically assess the quality of coverage that emanates from different and often ideologically opposed news sources. Hypothetically, one press could consistently provide less comprehensive coverage of a story, less amplification of community voice, and less critical assessment of official institutional practices or ideologies than does its counterpart, but each consistently contributes to the ongoing disadvantage of less empowered members of society. Does the contrast lend itself simply to a description of difference? Or does it not invite critical analysis as to why the differences express themselves in such a systematic manner? The difference view also stresses that both white and black presses offer coverage consistent with the different biases of their respective readers. But this view fails to adequately appreciate how myth, narrative, or other discursive forms may resonate with readers because of real-world pressures, including rival worldviews (e.g., Lukes, 1975). The biases are not merely expressions of difference, but need constant attending to by mythmakers, storytellers, and other purveyors of meaning against all challengers, real and potential. For example, a belief that denies that racism is entrenched in dominant institutions does not simply differ from a belief that it is so entrenched. Is it not the case that those who deny the presence of racism have attempted to delegitimate its critical challenges, no less so than those who decry racism's presence have aggressively challenged its denial? Against both majoritarianism and relativism, an oppositional thesis views the black press as a significant counterpoint and counterpart to the white press (Newkirk, 2000: 38). (3) The oppositional thesis argues that the black and white presses do not simply differ in the way A differs from B, but rather are oppositional in the form of A and not-A. …
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.