Shielding a group you like from any criticism is not journalism

As a general rule, I steer clear of Black issues, such as the recent throwdown between superstar sportscaster Stephen A. Smith, and the National Association of Black Journalists, which handed member Smith a “thumbs down” award for a “recurring public pattern of disparaging commentary directed at prominent Black women across politics, sports, and media.” 

Smith responded with a furious attack on the organization he always had supported.

I sat on the sidelines and kept quiet. My opinion? If Smith had disparaged only Black women, then NABJ was right. However, the biggest name at ESPN — the former Inquirer sportswriter has a $100-million, five-year contract — has a long (and loud) history of blasting everyone — male, female, Black, white, brown, red, green, Republican, Democrat, etc.

Singling him out on the basis of race and sex seemed, well, a little racist and sexist to me.

As I said, I wrote nothing then.

And was OK with that.

And then Inquirer columnist Solomon Jones weighed in, and his framing of the controversy moved it from race and sex to how male Black journalists are supposed to act. How they are required to act.

I put it aside and tried to ignore it, but I can’t, because I think Jones’ idea is profoundly wrong, and actually dangerous to journalism.

I link to his column here, but most of you can’t read it because it is behind a paywall. 

The headline summarizes it pretty well: “Why Black men have a duty to stand up for Black women.”

The paragraph that summarizes his theme: “To put it plainly, there is no circumstance under which Black men should help our enemies to disparage and disrespect our women.” That means don’t criticize them. They are a protected class. Period.

Note the words no circumstance and, disparage and disrespect.

No circumstance means no criticism of them no matter how bad, wrong, or awful the things they say or do. I don’t believe in giving anyone a free pass.

It’s a popular idea on the Left to run everything through the filter of identity, whether racial, gender, economic, social, etc., but it’s not popular with me.

Let me stipulate that Blacks, and Black women, have a unique, and often deeply unhappy, history in this country — running from once-upon-a-time slavery to present-day bigotry and redlining. As a minority myself, I understand the concept of ethnic solidarity.

With that said, to test it, let’s apply the Solomonic Statute  to other ethnicities:

White men mustn’t criticize Hillary Clinton?

No Muslim should disrespect mass murderer Osama bin Laden?

No Protestant should disparage customs-buster Donald J. Trump?

Let me get personal. Under the Solomonic Statute, as a journalist who happens to be Jewish, I was wrong to beat up disgraced fraudillionair Bernie Madoff. I did that here, and explained it this way: He was a disgrace to the Jewish people, especially for feeding the vicious stereotype of Jews as money-grubbing cheats. Madoff was a gift to anti-Semites.

Writing as a Jew, I was in no mood to defend this chazzer (Yiddish for pig).

Not long ago, even as a strong supporter of the State of Israel, I felt forced to condemn its government for failure to take fast action against its citizens who attack Arabs on the so-called West Bank. It is vigilantism, pure and simple.

Under the Solomonic Statute, I shouldn’t have written it, for disparaging Israel and disrespecting its leaders. A handful of social media morons even called me a self-hating Jew. They are morons, but that’s free speech.

Journalists — even opinion writers, such as Jones and myself — have an obligation to truthful expositions, even when they may harm pet causes. You can explain bad actions, but you should never excuse them.

Specifically, Jones condemned Smith for attacks on Black women such as Kamala Harris, Jasmine Crockett, and Joy Reid. They are all public figures with platforms to defend themselves, and Smith ridiculed them for things they have said or done. Perfectly legitimate.

If the only people blasted by Smith were Black women, Jones might have a case.

But he doesn’t have a legitimate case because the man I like to call Screaming A. Smith is a nonpartisan attack dog. As noted above, he attacks everyone without regard for their status. He is the stereotypical equal opportunity offender, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. That’s free speech.

I think — just a thought now — one reason NABJ decided to paint him with the Scarlet Letter is because Smith’s political opinions range from moderate to conservative, unlike the majority of the NABJ board.

Ever since leaving the Inquirer  — after he was transferred from column writing to sports reporting — he has developed into a powerful national brand as a fearless straight shooter, so powerful some even float his name as a Presidential candidate. Smith doesn’t discourage such talk — why would he? — but he ain’t giving up his mountain of money for a fanciful run at being Leader of the Free World. He enjoys his celebrity guest spots on Fox, CNN, News Nation, and elsewhere.

But Smith isn’t the central character here, Jones is.

If he sees his role as a journalist as a shield, and to ward off criticism of a specific group, under no circumstance, he ought to turn in his press card and pick up a picket sign. 

He has left advocacy for ridiculousness.