Katharine Seelye a reporter for The New York Times wrote an article about tommorrow's CNN / YouTube Debates where she links to two of my videos twice in paragraphs close to each other, but fails to identify me as the same person!
This is both sad and funny. But it's mostly sad and not that funny. Here's the part of the article I'm writing about:
" Another asks the candidates if they would put their friends in important government jobs. “Or are you going to hire the best and the brightest?” he asks. “Or are you prepared to tell us that your friends are the best and the brightest?”
A black man standing in front of a check-cashing store asks the candidates how they would stop predatory lending in low-income neighborhoods. A college student wants to know if the candidates would lower the legal drinking age to 18 from 21.
Now if you click on each link, you'll discover that both lead to videos of me asking questions. In other words, she sourced the same person for two different points of information, but to the lazy eye and finger that would not bother to click on the links -- yeah, right, -- it looks like she's writing about two different people.
Nope. She's not.
Katharine, what's the deal? I've just got to ask why you would reference me twice in this way, one paragraph after the other? And why "A black man standing in front" of a check cashing center, when I wasn't even STANDING IN FRONT OF A CHECK CASHING CENTER. THAT'S A BANK OF AMERICA ATM!"
It just goes to show you how stupid racism is, in this case, institutional racism, where the person thinks they're doing no harm at all in reaching for a stereotype, even if the stereotype tells the story incorrectly.
Wow, this is terrible!
Now, you might be saying "Hey at least she noticed your videos." But that's not the point. It's the principal of the way "Kit" Seelye (as she's called) did it. The best way -- the most direct way -- would have been to write something like "And Zennie Abraham, a YouTube vlogger, has two provacative questions, ..."
Think about it. Read the story. She wrote the article as if I were two different people, rather than the same person. I can't help but wonder what was rolling around in her head.
Geez.
In her partial defense, the rest of the video does show a check cashing place.
ReplyDeleteEeek. I don't know what's worse: the fact that there are two links to the same black man and this wasn't noted, the fact that one of the videolinks was purposefully described as "a black man" , or the implication that it must be a check-cashing store because the man standing in front of it happens to be black.
ReplyDeleteThat is some sad, sad sadness, right there.
Dear Mr. Abraham: I wanted to try to clear up any confusion about my article. I had been scrolling through the videos Saturday and your "best and brightest" question caught my eye and I copied the link. I was scrolling again Sunday and noticed the predatory lending video (with its lengthy and prominent view of a check-cashing center, by the way)and I added that to the many other links I had copied. I had seen hundreds of other videos in between, and I did not look at the links again before putting them in the web version of my story. So, no, I did not notice that it was the same person (you) in these two videos (although it turns out that many people submitted multiple videos for the debate). I mentioned a "black man" in the one about predatory lending in low-income neighborhoods because I was trying to highlight that this was one of the few questions I saw that related to what is often a minority, urban problem. I did not mention the race of the person (you) in the "best and brightest" video because it was not relevant. Bottom line: My article was in no way racist. I was simply trying to draw attention to two smart videos. Had I seen your third, "In God We Trust," I might have highlighted that too! I did not mention the names of any of the video-makers because I was focused on the substance of their questions. Sincerely, Kit Seelye
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Ms. Seelye. I do understand the the act was not intentional, and in fact did say so.
It's just that -- it's important to remember that when one write about the artistic and informational work of another, to always use that person's name. There's no good way to disguise the act because even you state that "I did not notice that it was the same person (you) in these two videos" and I have to ask the one question anyone else would issue:
Why not?
As a practiced and celebrated journalist, this should give you pause. If I can look at hundreds of videos and not mistake one person of color for the other, you can too.
Videos are deeply personal expressions of the maker. Everyone who dares take the time to make a video clip enjoys being recognized for what they did. In other words, failing to identify the maker of the video is essentially like refusing to name an artist who created a painting.
You would not do that, thus it's not good practice to take on in this case, either.
I'm delighted that you responded, but I'm also very sad to ready your response. I'm looking at the bright side in that you were trying to look at substantive videos, but creating such works is my style, so pointing to the identification of the creator's a good idea and practice.
Videos are a human art, but to endeavor to not explain who the video maker was is to de-humanize the process of capturing a moving image of what humans do.