Good evening, 919 Gang. Here’s news
about a former co-worker:
MICHAEL
CAVNA writes:
An
update on the health of Don Asmussen, whom some of us remember from his
merger-era years in the U-T art department. Plus, a link to his Kickstarter:
Update: I've got cancer. My
S.F. Chronicle bosses have been great and very supportive as I work my way
back. It has spread to my organs, including my brain (my very worst organ, as
most of you know). I had brain surgery last November, and now have some new
lesions. Wish me luck! pic.twitter.com/BW5xUwaAuo [t.co]
Kickastarter
link:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIM GOGEK writes:
I
looked at that cartoon and was not even sure what Steve Breen thought he was
trying to say. The only thing I could figure out was "here's a racial
comparison, readers." Only a bad case of white privilege and white
exceptionalism could have come up with that cartoon and apology. I found the
tortured apology and explanation by Breen and his editor to be almost as bad as
the cartoon itself. It made things worse, because there is no explanation for
that cartoon and the failure to edit it, except that it was stupid and racist.
To be frank, white people have no
business commenting on what should or should not be considered racism to black
people. All these "explanations" of what Breen meant are just
rationalizations borne of white exceptionalism -- and pretty arrogant. If you
are white like me, what constitutes racism to black people is simply not within
our ken.
However, white people still have
plenty to talk about when it comes to racism -- our own experiences of white
racism against people of color, because we have seen it all our lives. If you
were born in the 1950s like me, you have seen countless examples of white
racism that you can talk about. I know I have. For example, I remember a
lynching on Avenue X in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn when I
lived in NYC in 1982 (google it). I believe every time white police shoot an
unarmed black man it's a lynching. And I have heard the n-word from the lips of
white people countless times in my life, though not recently. But I do not
surmise that white racism is gone from my community. I find examples if I don't
try to ignore them.
White people, I'm interested in your
experience of white racism. I'm not interested in what you think the black
experience of racism should or should not be. Because that's just your white
privilege and white exceptionalism talking.
GLENN
GRANT writes:
I see certain people are still calling Breen's
cartoon a mistake. The only mistake I see is the U-T pulling it offline when
some people complained. Like I said before, I usually don't look at political
cartoons, so I don't know: Has Breen addressed the anti-Israel remarks of
Muslim congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib? Maybe he has. If not, would
he confer with Muslims and Palestinians and Jews to make sure he doesn't offend
any of them? I hope not, because that would amount to prior censorship.
The cartoon was not a mistake. It was
merely interpreted by different people in different ways, which can happen with
any editorial cartoon. I believe I understood its intent right away, and it
wasn't malicious. Even if I didn't, I doubt I would ask for it to be pulled,
unless it praised someone like Hitler or David Duke or called for violence. As
far as I'm concerned, it was a gutless move by the U-T to placate some readers.
It only served to call more attention to the cartoon, which apparently the
editorial board didn't want anybody to ever see again so it was so
"harmful." Just posting letters to the editor from those who disliked
the cartoon would have been more effective.
Gawd, I hope this is the last we hear of
this topic until Smollett gets his day in court.
SHARON F. DOORASAMY
writes:
In my post on Breen’s editorial
cartoon featuring Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, and Jussie Smollett, I
intentionally did not use the words race or racist. I said the cartoon was
offensive, and I stand by my statement.
Yes, I used the word “lineup,” because Breen’s editorial
cartoon links to an evolving crime story and he lined up three so-called
storytellers, all of whom happen to be black, to make a point that, obviously,
not everyone appreciates as sarcasm. I definitely did not “clearly see what he
obviously intended.”
I also did not attack Breen
personally. I don’t know him, and even if I did, I promise I wouldn’t care if
he was a “card-carrying” liberal or a conservative. If you miss the mark, you
miss the mark. We’re talking about a single editorial cartoon that I’m assuming
was seen by thousands of readers; and I hope this doesn’t come as a surprise
but most ordinary newspaper readers, the few who are left, don’t bother to look
at the name of the cartoonist or try to work out his or her “body of work or
reputation.” No. They glance at the piece, like it or don’t, get it or don’t,
and move on or complain to the editor, as they should.
And by the way, Breen did deliberately
link a Nobel Laureate with an obscure actor charged with criminal conduct.
That’s the issue! And it makes matters worse to argue his “record of
encouraging and defending efforts to help most African-Americans continue to
contribute to society in a positive way." This statement, honestly, leaves
me breathless; it's wrong on so many levels, and now I know I’m dealing with
drunks. You know drunks? It’s almost impossible to get a drunk to admit that
they’re a drunk. (I'm not calling anyone a drunk; it's a metaphor, just so
we're clear with one another.)
Here’s the real issue for me—and now I
will talk about race because I concur with James Baldwin when he said that “To be a Negro
in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all
the time” —I’m tired of people using some variation of the defense “I didn’t
mean it.”
It’s this constant, corrosive drip of racial insensitivity,
ignorance, and an unwillingness to examine one’s self and one’s motivations and
actions, or step into another’s shoes, or just do some doggone homework and
research, that makes me weary as a “card-carrying” Negro.
That’s why I stayed out of the
blackface debate. It’s why, and I regret it, I stayed in the shadows when my
old friend Jim Trotter was hurt and raging about police shooting black men in
the back. It’s why I kept quiet when, with all due respect, Jack called Robert
E. Lee a “true American hero.” Millions of enslaved human beings stolen and
bought like cattle from the African continent labored, often under the threat
of death by whip or the gun, in this country for 246 years, and Lee was bound
and determined to make slavery last even longer. He’s no hero, and thank you
Craig Rose for saying so. He was on the wrong side of history.
Time to get sober.
------------------------------------------------------
CARL
LARSEN writes:
Who
says news today isn't in jeopardy?
Consider
what 7San Diego did last night after the TV show "Jeopardy" didn't
run as scheduled Monday night during a widely followed special tournament? The
station told viewers there was a technical problem preventing the show from
airing.
Well,
the answer was easy. You bump the local news off the air, and run the missed
"Jeopardy" episode the next day.
That's
what 7San Diego did last night, after receiving many calls from irate viewers
wondering what happened to the show on Monday night.
Here's
the report from the station:
Monday
night's "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games tournament episode will air on NBC
7 Tuesday at 6:30 p.m.
There was
a technical issue with Monday night's episode of Jeopardy. We are incredibly
sorry for the disappointment this has caused as we know we are in the middle of
a special tournament that Jeopardy fans have been looking forward to.
We
rescheduled the correct episode that was supposed to air Monday at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday so you may watch or DVR it. This will be in place of our 6:30 p.m.
news.
Your cable
guide may not change in time to say Jeopardy, but it will be running from 6:30
p.m. to 7 p.m. ahead of tonight’s regular scheduled continuation of Jeopardy
All Star Games at 7:30 p.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRESTON
TUREGANO writes:
Re: The U-T website and staffers’ images/mugs.
I should have said in my 919 message for Tuesday that “the last time I looked”
(sometime last year) there were no mug shots of editors, reporters, photogs,
designers and others putting out the paper. There were email addresses. As of
today, I counted 113 staffers who are on the U-T website under “Contact the
Newsroom” and who have email addresses. Some names are in blue and by clicking
those you do see a staffer’s mug. I never noticed that in the past when mug
shots popped up (row upon row by section/department) as soon as you clicked
“Contact the Newsroom.” Seems strange that there are so many names just in
black type, and therefore without access to a mug shot. It’s kind of like the
919 membership directory, which is still waiting for data (including a mug) to
come on certain members. I do agree the listing for Logan Jenkins, who after 22
years left the paper in mid-January, should be removed.
REBER: Thank you, Preston. Yes, some members still owe me a brief bio and a
mug shot for the 919 Gang Directory. I would like to publish an updated
version, but without the “holes.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK
MONDAY
forwards:
Is the definition of journalism changing?
P.O.
Box 2239
Ramona,
CA 92065-0938
United
States
