Johnson Camp Dissects Loss
by Adam Lynch
May 12, 2005
With 92 of 95 precincts reporting on the May 3 primaries, and a very low turnout, Frank Melton walked away with about 26,000 votes to two-term Mayor Harvey Johnson’s almost 15,000. Now Melton is headed to the June 7 general election where he will face Republican Rick Whitlow. Johnson’s campaign workers, meanwhile, wonder what went wrong.
Johnson, Jackson’s first African-American mayor, presided over an eight-year period that saw crime fall by more than 30 percent and downtown city revitalization that numbered in the millions of dollars and is still climbing.
Johnson oversaw the beginning of the Farish Street historic project, the removal of more than 1,700 dilapidated houses, the groundbreaking of the Metro Jackson Parkway, development of embattled downtown residential housing and even the death knell of the discarded hulk of the King Edward Hotel, as well as countless other projects. And yet, the citizens thought it was time to move on.
“I am just shocked and dismayed (that we lost), said campaign worker Nikki Burns, who oversaw much of the political wrangling between the campaigns of Melton and Johnson. “I still can’t believe it really happened. … We had the best mayor this city has ever had, and we just let him go. He’s just gone for good, and it’s a shame.”
Burns, a former editor for the Mississippi Link Newspaper, in part blames the media for turning the tide against Johnson. “The media was very unfriendly (to Johnson). The media had these (instant) polls that had never before entered into a political race. Every night they’d show these polls, and it was virtually a subliminal message to these voters,” Burns said.
She also blames a lazy media for little to no follow-up on issues and overreaching campaign promises. “If a candidate (promises to tear down the King Edward Hotel), how many reporters asked ‘how?’ They just let these empty promises get aired across the TV. But then if the mayor holds a press conference about new park equipment, the media asks a thousand questions such as ‘where’d you get the money for it’ and ‘why are you opening up parks when there’s so much crime to be dealing with?’… and that statement that Melton made regarding him hiring an out-of-state policewoman? Well, remember how everybody moaned when the mayor hired (JPD chief Robert) Moore, asking how come he didn’t hire within the rank and file of the JPD? Well, nobody said anything this time. I just don’t know why.”
Johnson campaign manager Derrick Johnson agreed that the media had been drumming up the issue of crime for two or three years. “The onslaught of the media sensationalizing specific issues around crime negated a strong momentum that was never overcome,” Johnson said. “The figures (showing falling crime) were published, but if you’ve got Channel 12 last summer going sweep-sweep for ratings, it’s very hard to counter that. There was a segment called ‘Street Justice,’ which ran for more than two weeks. Different angles of the same story. No new information. No new incidents. Just repeating the same thing over and over—that’s stronger than any published numbers can ever be.”
Campaign volunteer Sean Perkins said he wondered if it was Melton who personally beat Johnson or a collective feeling that it was “time for a change.”
“I didn’t hear a lot of anti-mayor sentiment,” Perkins said. “I really only heard the call that we need a ‘change.’ It frightens me that all you need is charisma and one-liners to win. If you have substance, and you’re doing things, and you’re not charismatic, then everything you do is negated.”
On election night, some Johnson campaign workers also expressed frustration that the mayor did not shed his suit, roll up his sleeves and show Jacksonians that he was one of them and that he felt their pain.
Perkins also said Johnson’s campaign would’ve benefited from a Republican running for a council seat in Ward 1. “We needed a Republican to run against Ben Allen. Then Republicans would’ve been forced to vote for a city councilman, and it would have kept them from voting in the Democratic primaries.”
Derrick Johnson said Melton had received his strongest support from Ward 1, which is largely Republican.
Perkins added that he didn’t feel that Johnson’s recent skirmish with Hinds County Supervisors in picking Convention Center board members had any negative impact, as some critics say. “We have developers coming back to Jackson because of Johnson. It’s hard to believe that this one difficulty broke down his relationship with the business community,” Perkins said.
Rep. Mary Coleman, D-Jackson, said she felt the Melton campaign had wielded crime like a knife, pushing a trumped-up air of fear among the city’s populace.
“I think they did a very effective job of using crime as an issue, and they turned their voters out. I’m not sure how you convince people that crime is rising even though statistics say different. Honestly, I think the main issue was that people did not perceive that crime has improved. I don’t blame the media for this, but the citizens have to realize that crime and the perception of it is not going to change until the citizens decide to get out there and make a difference. No one person can solve this problem. It’s going to have to be a team effort,” Coleman said.
COMMENTS
With 92 of 95 precincts reporting on the May 3 primaries, and a very low turnout
Very low compared to what? Or is this an op-ed?
Perkins also said Johnsonís campaign wouldíve benefited from a Republican running for a council seat in Ward 1. ìWe needed a Republican to run against Ben Allen. Then Republicans wouldíve been forced to vote for a city councilman, and it would have kept them from voting in the Democratic primaries.î
Derrick Johnson said Melton had received his strongest support from Ward 1, which is largely Republican.
Too bad your reporter didn't do the math and follow up by asking Perkins or Johnson about these assertions in light of the fact that Melton won without needing even one vote out of Ward 1. Maybe Mayor Johnson lost because his campaign freaked out about Ward 1, took its eye off the ball and ended up losing the rest of Jackson. I suppose since they spent so much of the Mayor's campaign paranoid about the Republicans that it makes perfect sense to keep blaming them even after their candidate has already crashed and burned. Running a candidate against Ben Allen wouldn't have gotten the job done when the election was lost in Wards 2 through 7.
PBR, once again i find myself asking "what the heck is your point?".
Low turnout is low turnout is turnout that is low, as in no where near 100%, as in under 40% or what ever the final tally was. It's low in comparison to what it should be. I know that your assertion is that it was higher than when Johnson was elected 4 years ago. So what? It was still low. If your point is that it was higher this time around, then why don't you just say that, instead of asking these "pointed" questions that you so often employ?
Also, in what way does saying that "Melton had received his strongest support from Ward 1" in any way contradict your point that Melton would have won anyway? Why does it bother you so much that Republicans voted for Melton? No one is saying that he "needed" Ward 1 to win. That's not even implied. Get over it, and learn to be a tad more gracious.
I think the poster who needs get over it is yourself. If you are made uncomfortable by my posts then maybe take a pass on reading them, or responding, or both. I'll continue to ask questions, or make statements, as I choose within the confines of the user agreement.
The reporter is making a turnout comparison to something and all I am asking is to what. It is a request for clarification. Very low compared to what?
Perkins claims that the Mayor's campaign would have benefited (meaning either through more votes for the Mayor, less for Melton or some combination thereof) had someone run against Ben Allen for his seat on the Council. The reporter follows Perkins' assertion with a quote from Johnson reiterating Melton's strength in Ward 1. Yet the election wasn't won or lost by either candidate in Ward 1 and I'm stating that it would have been nice to see the reporter challenge Perkins' and Johnson's flawed rationale in this story which is ostensibly about dissecting the loss. Maybe the Mayor's team could have been asked why they fared so poorly in Ward 7, for instance. The story does not attempt to dissect the loss in any of the other five wards Melton carried, or ask what motivated voters in the one ward the Mayor won. It relies on three of the usual suspects in Burns, Perkins and Johnson who just maybe were part of the reason why Harvey Johnson lost as they are still clinging to the loss being the direct result of actions by the media and Republicans in Ward 1. That isn't dissecting, it is denial.
<i>On election night, some Johnson campaign workers also expressed frustration that the mayor did not shed his suit, roll up his sleeves and show Jacksonians that he was one of them and that he felt their pain. <i>
Actually, a week before the election, Harvey junior showed up at the Belhaven Market to slum it with us regular folk... his sleeves weren't rolled up, but he did have on khakis... The whole display was very phony-bologne... nobody talked to him,... everyone just stared at him, like, "WTF is the mayor doing down here at 8:30 on a Saturday buying collard greens?"... he sort of milled around for 20 minutes and then slinked away. It would have been sad if it werent... hmmm.. O.K. it was sad.
The story does not attempt to dissect the loss in any of the other five wards Melton carried, or ask what motivated voters in the one ward the Mayor won.
PBR, lose the jerk attitude, dude. Have you read the headline of this story? This one's about the Johnson camp themselves and what they think. Now, as Kate said, get over it, or leave. Your choice.
   Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 3:33 pm
Seriously, I think they missed the number one reason:... 26,000 folks WANTED to vote for Melton.
They blame crime, the media, even Harvey... Is it so hard to believe that the citizenry were presented with 2 good choices, weighed the good with the bad, the past with their idealized future, and overwhelmingly came out to vote Melton?.
Even apathy with the opposition would have netted Johnson a win, but people like Melton, plain and simple... There were a lot of variables in this election, but give Melton a little credit.
Melton gets credit for drawing his 26,000 voters to the polls, Pudd. No one said he doesn't, however he did it. But the point is that it's not many, and the message that has been so proclaimed to be so overwhelming -- fear -- did not fare well. Smart leaders (and journalists) should take note of that, and understand that wedge issues are just that: wedge issues. But they do not necessarily translate into an active, engaged electorate making decisions about the real issues in a communityóthe ones that cause the crime and the disenchantment. It's fine to go along, be along -- but an engaged citizenry should pay close attention to signs that leaders are not engaging voters and learn from it.
Fear doesn't pay. Ever.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 3:53 pm
Is that an ad hom attack?
The title is Johnson Camp Dissects Loss. The Johnson camp provided the reporter rationale for the loss that is plainly questionable from the outset. Really no different than your concerns about campaign promises sans details. Broad stroke statements that don't measure up under analysis and in this post-election dissection the numbers were available for review. Johnson lost over 8600 total votes versus his re-election effort in 2001 but only 404 of that total was lost in Ward 1. It would have been nice if the reporter challenged Perkins and Johnson when they fell back on faulting the media and Republicans in Ward 1. The question the Johnson camp should have been asked is why they thought 8200 other voters from Wards 2 through 7 decided to go in another direction for Mayor this year.
No, it is a response from the owner of this site to someone who is being a jerk and not reading the headline. Get what you give, dude. If you want to express an opinion, fine, but stop attacking my reporter for doing what he was asked to do.
And if you don't like the rules, stomp out. But them are the rules. Stop. being. a jerk.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 3:58 pm
...Johnson camp should have been asked [...] why they thought 8200 other voters from Wards 2 through 7 decided to go in another direction for Mayor this year.
On that, I'll have to agree with PBR. It would be good to hear what their response would have been. I'm still trying to figure out some sound rationale for that myself. But I think the previous answers they did give would probably be carried over for this question as well.
That is exactly right... Harvey did not engage voters... Melton did...
And why do you always respond back to a point, with a statement that that point was not being argued?... and again you are right.. No one did give Melton credit.
Has anyone gleaned that fear was even a deciding factor in the election?
Or are you just guessing?
No matter what, 41,000 folks voting in a city of close to 200,000 is pathetic.
Has anyone gleaned that fear was even a deciding factor in the election?
What? Can anyone say that fear rasied by crime-mongering was NOT a factor and keep a stright face?
It's not the suggestion, or opinion, itself I mind, GDI, it's PBR's jerk attitude about it all. The truth is, the story does what the headline says it does. The point of this piece is to allow those people to say what they wanted about the loss without framing or shaping it like mass media do. To hear their thoughts right after the campaign.
The point, PBR, is that if you choose to act like a jerk here -- not matter what point you're trying to make -- the best response you're going to get is the same tone, and you really shouldn't complain about it. And if you go overboard and just try to troll for a fight, I'll boot you. That's my point.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 4:04 pm
Fear wasn't one of my reasons for voting... was it yours?... Anyone you know actually cite FEAR as a deciding factor in their vote?...
:-I
This is me with a straight face.
I understand, Donna. It's more of a (pardon the comparison) Sunday Morning With... piece, letting the subject talk through a general set of issues without directive from the writer --one of the better things Salter does in my opinion.
Yes, I could list about 2 dozen neighbors, fellow church members, and colleagues not to mention overhearing casual conversations in restaurants and checkout lines leading up to election day.
And why do you always respond back to a point, with a statement that that point was not being argued?
Huh? I don't even know what that means. But we get to "drink" anyway, because I don't always respond to anything in the same way. So no need to explain it. It's clearly an accusatory throwaway statementóprobably made because I disagreed with you and that bugs you and couldn't think of anything else to say but that I am committing wrongdoing to you. ;-)
Has anyone gleaned that fear was even a deciding factor in the election?
Uh, being that no other issues but fear of crime was engaged in any detail, what do you think? Otherwise, what GDI just said. That is: yes.
Or are you just guessing?
No, a little crystal ball told me. Pudd, I'm stating my opinion based on my reading of the campaign and various factors. It does you no good to accuse me of having an opinion, of "guessing" ó duh. I'm guilty as charged. Try just sticking to the issues.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 4:11 pm
I was gonna ask for an explanation on that too. Could I get a double on that one?
Well, then if they reacted to genuine crime hype by voting out the incumbant, they reacted wisely...
If they reacted to bogus crime hype by voting out the incumbant, they're uninformed weak minded boobs.
All this to say, the article is all excuses without giving Melton any props.
C'mon, Pudd. It was the opinion of Johnson's folks. You think Johnson's folks are actually going to sit there and say "The mayor lost because Frank is a better candidate"?
Maybe to be balanced there should be a JFP article asking Frank Melton all the same questions.
OH silly me. Frank won't give interviews!
Oh, I agree,... I understand that... but perhaps all this is part and parcel of why he lost... his campaign staff spent the whole time wringing their hands about the Republicans, the media bias, crime perception,.. all the excuses outlined here... and never got out the message of what a great job H.J. was doing... By all accounts they had the horse to win,.... they just flat out didnt get the message out. I understand the spin and saving face, but at the end of the day, perhaps the campagn staff needs to look in the mirror.
Maybe to be balanced there should be a JFP article asking Frank Melton all the same questions.
OH silly me. Frank won't give interviews!
Thank you, GDI. And I must say that, here at the JFP, if one side won't respond, we're not going to screw the other side by not giving them the opportunity to say what's on their minds. That's not balance; that's giving the advantage to the person who doesn't want to talk. And that's doofus. ;-)
We have been asking Mr. Melton for months to talk about issues that matter to Jacksonian -- including, but not limited to, crime -- and he has steadfastly refused.
I understand, Donna. It's more of a (pardon the comparison) Sunday Morning With... piece, letting the subject talk through a general set of issues without directive from the writer --one of the better things Salter does in my opinion.
Exactly. Not every story is supposed to be the same; one of the things alternative media can do are stories that just let people talk about what's on their mind. People can judge what they say accordingly, but attacking the reporter is just mean-spirited.
The article is about what the friggin' headline says it is about, Pudd. If you don't like it ... well, no one cares because, well, no one cares. Please say something useful now, or give it up. I'm done wasting my time on this and responding to silly accusations. If it didn't start out as an attack on my very hard-working reporter, I wouldn't have bothered in the first place, it's so silly. But I defend my people.
Move on.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 4:31 pm
By all accounts they had the horse to win,.... they just flat out didnt get the message out.
Good. You got something out of the piece. I tend to agree with your assessment.
Now, was that so hard? It is perfectly possible to agree, disagree and discuss without always attacking people. Try it more often, please.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 4:33 pm
AH! So you aren't really saying that the article isn't giving Frank his props. It's that the Johnson staff isn't giving Harvey HIS props?
Did I just do a (drink) break of the rules?
Hell, drink regardless. I don't even know what this conversation is about anymore. ;-)
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 4:35 pm
Are you drunk?... who's attacking?... go back and read my posts. If you dont want folks to add to the discussion, perhaps a dissenting point, you should shut the whole thing down... you have a real trigger finger... take a pill.
No, I'm not drunk, Pudd, but you're making me want a drink. ;-)
Pudd, we can read your posts just fine. It's simple: Add to the discussion, and lose the mean-spiritedness. Talk about ideas, not people.
And I don't do drugs.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 4:37 pm
The point of this piece is to allow those people to say what they wanted about the loss without framing or shaping it like mass media do.
I don't see how asking the Johnson camp if they had any insights into why 8200 total voters from the other wards left the Mayor's fold this election is framing or shaping like the mass media. In fact I think it is asking for the same deeper level of analysis the JFP prides itself on providing. The Mayor's camp makes broad generalizations why they lost but there is nothing to substantiate the generalizations. Really just like campaign promises without details but in this case it is some type of quasi post-election analysis without any details beyond what they already used in the campaign. Did they conduct any exit polls or post-election focus groups? How would asking them for more granularity be framing or shaping? If there is any outlet that would ask those types of questions fairly without leading it would be the JFP.
If you want to express an opinion, fine, but stop attacking my reporter for doing what he was asked to do.
I wasn't attacking your reporter. Never mentioned him by name nor mentioned anything about his person or character. I do believe he could have asked some more probing questions when the Johnson camp came back with the same standard responses they used in the campaign and which were, at least as far are Ward 1 Republicans go, thoroughtly debunked by the actual results. But if all the reporter was asked to do was give the Johnson camp one last unfettered spin on the reasons why a two-term incumbent with a long list of accomplishments was turned back from the gates of a third term then I'm fine with that.
And if you go overboard and just try to troll for a fight, I'll boot you.
Please tell me how I am going overboard. I'm not trolling. I'm asking valid questions about the election as brought to the fore by this dissection article. Kate introduced a confrontational tone and I don't understand why you are continuing with it. I did respond to Kate's 'get over it' with a return suggestion to do the same. I have not violated the user agreement. Please point out where these questions I've introduced fall short.
PBR, I've always said that suggestions are welcome; your tone and condescension are not. That simple. Keep doing it, and people will returning it. You can play nicey-nice now that you're called out, but one can just click on your Comment history to know how used to your condescending tone we have all become, Proud to be Right.
One way to "troll" is to badger with the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
We are moving on now, I promise. Your point is so much more than well taken by now. You don't like the story. Stipulated and noted. Move on, Mr. Right.
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 5:04 pm
Is being right a reality or a perception? Just wondering after reading the last couple of posts...
Posted by: L.W. on May 12, 05 | 9:47 pm
Neither I don't think. Just a basic human desire. <grin>
Posted by: ladd on May 12, 05 | 10:09 pm
I thought Proudtobe right had an excellent observation. I don't understand what he did that deserved such a thorough trouncing.
His observation was fine. You'd probably have to understand that just about everything he delivers here is with a club, and he is always "right," as you can see. I run out of patience for the troll tone. Otherwise, I expressed my views of what he was saying wrong already.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 11:29 am
Just reading this thread makes it appear that it is you who is always right.
I'm sorry if it appears that way; it's not how I feel. I have a long history of blogging here, and PBR has a shorter one. Feel free to read through back comments to get a greater context.
I do admit, though, to being a bit hard on PBR (although with his hammer-tone, I think he can handle it) yesterday. That's because I stand up for my people, and I think's it unfair to trounce my reporter for not asking (or quoting) something this person Monday-morning quarterbacked later on. That's just silly.
The whole point of the User Agreement is to promote reasonable debate and discussion. The second JFP haters stop in (and you know them, because they're always trouncing, logically or not) and start talking about people instead of ideas, we start spiralling into trash talk instead of ideas. Sometimes I have to get a bit personal back to keep it on track, and go too far myself. However, the willingness to monitor this site and keep it from devolving is why we have mroe than 300,000 page views a month, almost 1,000 members and real conversation here. So I'll have to get trudging along, even if I get accused of "censorship" and personal attacks along the way for making it clear that this isn't a site for settling grudges and bashing the "damn liberals." We're here for discussion, and reasoned discussion on all sides is welcome. But delivering it with a hammer is not.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 11:36 am
Proudtoberight had an interesting observation. He did not seem to be "trashing" your reporter. Your response was, basically, that the story was just a mouthpiece for the Johnson campaign and as I understand it, a lot of people have accused the JFP of being just that. There was nothing about Proudtoberight's tone in this tread that was condescending. You say that you want reasoned discussion yet you call anyone who disagrees with you a troll. That is not very consistent. But, like you said, it's your site. You can be right all the time.
Your response was, basically, that the story was just a mouthpiece for the Johnson campaign and as I understand it, a lot of people have accused the JFP of being just that.
Yes, people from the Melton campaign have spread that rumorópaid operatives, in fact, have gone on blogs and radio shows and libeled/slandered me and the JFP because dared question Mr. Melton. They are not credible.
Otherwise, I never said the story was "just a mouthpiece" for Johnson campaign (you put words in my mouthódrink!). In fact, had Melton decided he didn't want to be asked real questions, he would have been in that story, too, as well as his campaign people, or in a companion piece next to it.
I think it's an interesting piece that allowed people to speak their minds after they lostóin a way that wouldn't be done elsewhere where there would have been one or two quotes out of context. And it was one story among dozens that we did on this campaignómore substantive coverage than anyone else. We reported much that no one else bothered (including a very critical story about Johnson's union record that the paid operatives conveniently ignored).
You don't have to like the story, but I also don't have to agree with you back. Dialogue is a two-way street. You (meaning whomever) can't just leave accusatory droppings all around and then start whining because someone responds, which is inevitably a sign of a troll. They want to proclaim, but not be challenged. I challenged PBR. He's a big boy (or perhaps girl). I'm sure he/she can take it.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 11:48 am
I'm not sure what the difference is between being a mouthpiece and just printing whatever someone says without asking any questions or challenging them in any way (I'm sure you will come up with one). My point is only that a reader had an interesting observation and you proceeded to trash him (you say challenge, I say trash). It seems that if anyone were being a troll, at least in this thread, it is you. Of course, my saying that makes me a troll, I am sure.
A reader comes up with an interesting point and you call him a troll. How is that an informative dialogue?
Winston, we will have to agree to disagree and leave it here. We are not being a "mouthpiece"; this is one story among many, and just because you don't like it doesn't make your characterization true. I did not "trash" PBR; I talked to him/her like the adult I assume he/she is.
I'm not sure the textbook definittion of a "troll" would be someone respondong to accusations on their own site, and explaining the rationale that was challenged, but we can agree to disagree on that. ;-) But a definition of a troll is badgering with the same point over and over again, so I suggest you leave this one here. You've made your point; you've designated me a "troll" and a "mouthpiece" (both of which I've allowed you to do, you will note); you've got PBR's back, so now move on and talk about an idea or two.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 11:55 am
I would suggest that you do the same.
Same what? Winston, this is my site, and I'm responding to comments you made here to me. I talk about ideas on this site every single day. If you'd care to keep hanging out here and talking about ideas as well -- which you are mroe than welcome to -- please do not condescend to me or tell me what to do as if I'm a child to be put in her place.
Move on.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 12:27 pm
So, as the editor, only you are allowed to be condescending because you are. A lot. Now call me a troll.
OK. You're a troll. You've proved it.
Na na na na boo boo. Waaaaaa ... Mommy, he's being mean to me ... make him stop ...
Happy now? Your complaints are lodged. Move on.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 1:57 pm
I have to agree with "Winston 3" on this one. Calling someone a "jerk" and a "Troll" does not rise to the level of polite discourse.
Ooooo
Can I get a triple on this exchange?
<drinkdrinkdrink>
Thanks, Emil. Neither does being one of those things, so we cancel each other other. ;-D Talk about ideas anyone? As much as a few of y'all are determined to turn this into one of the other blogs, it won't happen. I'm most happen to delete all the silly swipes.
Last call.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 2:14 pm
Also, I should mention that "troll" is a semi-official term in the blogosphere, and it is exactly what gets you kicked off if you are deemed by the owner of a blog site of being one. So, it doesn't really matter whether you like the word or not. It stays, whether you do or not.
"Jerk," on the other hand, is my chacterization in response to someone who badgers like a troll, or just tries to pick a fight, especially if they do it regularly. In order words, "trolls" are "jerks," at least in blogland. I will often warn you that you are being "a jerk" several times before asking you to leave because you've demonstrated that you're not here to have a civil conversation. And the truth is, often when someone's being a jerk, the only way to get their attention is to point out that they're being "a jerk." Most people, who aren't here to troll in the first place, apologize. Others just act like jerkier jerks because they're, well, here to troll. (Dizzy, yet?)
As for me being the editor, well, I am and, thus, these are the decisions I must make in order to keep the ideas flowing and a civil forum that doesn't function as a place for character assassination and other annoyances. My point is that I make those decisions, and must get ornery from time to time (and often apolgize for it as I do with my staff).
My suggestion is that if you don't like my decisions, write me an e-mail (yelling at me about the FREE in JFP, by the way, has no effect, and has been done), and I will consider your request. I have been known to reinstate accounts based on those e-mails.
What won't work, however, is posting aseries of juveniles taunts that are not relevant to the discussion. I will delete them so that we can stay on track with the conversation. They violate the User Agreement.
Thus, if you don't like the way I edit the site, write management, and we'll consider your comments.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 2:24 pm
I remember Johnson saying on the news that he will continue to work in the public sector, but he wasn't sure how at the time. Has anyone heard anything yet about what he plans to do next?
Posted by: L.W. on May 13, 05 | 6:48 pm
No, I asked him when I saw him at the Duling event a week ago, but he said he didn't know, yet. Hopefully something that will keep him involved in the future of Jackson. He's had a great vision for the city so far.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 7:09 pm
Speaking of the city:
http://www.mostlivable.org/cities/jackson/home.html
Posted by: L.W. on May 13, 05 | 7:21 pm
Yeah, I know. But you remember when The Ledge, et al. bashed the city when we got this designation?
People can say what they want about the campaign staff's response in this story, but the truth is they are right in many ways (even if they're not being quite hard enough on themselves ... in public; they are in private). The mass media have had it in for Johnson, at least since I've been in Jackson to see it happen. He wasn't perfect -- no one has said he was -- but I have never seen such unfair, unbalanced coverage of anything. (OK, except maybe tort reform).
Then we got bashed (by a small contingent of loudmouths) because we tried to give him, and the chief, a *fair* shake, just as we tried to do with Mr. Melton (and did, considering how his campaign acted toward us and how unavailable he is to the public).
Remember my interview with Mayor Johnson more than a year ago? He made some very good points about the awful media hereóand I'm sure the edit board over there has been planning to get the mayor back ever since.
To me, though, The Ledge's disgusting treatment of the police chief this week exactly proves what we've been saying about them: they suck, and they trying to score cheap brownie points with folks they believe will reward them for being such an awful news source in the community.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 7:41 pm
One thing that has struck me since I've been back here is how little basic human respect the local media have given the mayor and the police chief. You can respect people even as you disagree with them. But so much of the coverage (not to mention its lack of context or basic human reasoning) was so RUDE, and those na-na-na-na-boo-boo columns of Stringfellow's? Gross. I think it's the belittling attitude that disgusts me the most. In fact, I remember sitting in press conferences as reporters belittled the chief to his faceóin fact, that's what happened the day that the Ledge gleaned that infamous "perception" quote in April 2003 that they have repeated incessantly out of context. The reporter was arguing with the chief, and teasing him about "perception." And that's what he got in response. There is a basic unfairness here. I know it's popular in Jackson to bash the police chief, but no one should do anything just because it's popular. And with our history, that's certainly the case. The status quo has seldom been right in Mississippi, and that hasn't changed a whole lot, yet, although it's on its way.
Maybe these are just old habits, but I have a feeling the media will not treat Mr. Melton the same disrespectful way. Maybe it was inevitable that the FIRST black mayor and his appointees would be treated that way. I don't know; that's just a guess. But I sure don't understand the mean-spiritedness I've seen in evidence this week. I have never quite seen anything like it in my media travels. Truly ugly, and nothing objective or balanced about it. They're just gloating in public because they've run off the mayor and the chief.
And the funny thing is: It's not like the chief or mayor committed some major crime or got caught up in a corruption scandal or something. In fact, if you look in the Ledge's archives, you'll find much more respectful treatment of past public officials who WERE embroiled in scandals instead of two men who resided over major progress and drops in crime that no one has produced evidence to impeach.
Is this the state's inferiority complex at its darkest? That is, we Mississippians just can't handle progress, so we shoot up the folks who help us achieve success? Maybe the city needs a psychiatrist to help us figure out why we do these things to ourselves! I remember Marshall Ramsey's cartoon after the state voted to keep the Confederate flag in our flag: a Mississippian aiming at his foot and firing. Guess what the Ledge is doing on our behalf.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 7:53 pm
I didn't know you posted that link before. I haven't been blogging here that long, and I just discovered your paper a few months ago.
Anyhoo, I read some of the 2003 article, and I see where some oof the frustration began for him. I think there is an underlying agenda for accentuating the negative. I remember when this city made national headlines when Ditto hired Jackson's first black police chief. I can't remember his name right now, but I know he only served about four months. I wonder why that didn't make national news.
If Mississippi is going to improve its image, we've got to do a whole lot better.
Posted by: L.W. on May 13, 05 | 7:59 pm
I forgive you, as long as you don't come on here swinging at us like some newbies do. ;-)
I think there is an underlying agenda for accentuating the negative.
I believe you. I wish it weren't true, but it clearly is. The truth is, the VERY same crime rhetoric is used now as was in the '50s and '60s. I keep saying I'm going to go into my Citizens Council file and quote y'all some crime rhetoric from then to compare to now. It's the same crap we're hearing on talk radio now, and seeing what too often in The Clarion-Ledger. It's fearmongering, and it does nothing to prevent crime or help crime victims. Instead of help lower crime, it perpetuates it, meaning that more people move out to swamplands in Madison and buy up land where it's going to flood like mad at some point. But that's another topic.
I remember when this city made national headlines when Ditto hired Jackson's first black police chief. I can't remember his name right now, but I know he only served about four months. I wonder why that didn't make national news.
That was Walker -- David, I think. I've been studying that era. He lasted 11 months, I think. He wasn't really qualified, but was put in there after Ditto promised the growing black electorate that he would appoint a black chief -- who was sorely needed after the distrust sewn by white police leadership for so long. The trivia is that he was appointed after the Moose chief (the same one who became a hero in Washington recently during the sniper attacks) arrived for his interview with a blonde, white wife, and the city wasn't ready to handle that just, yet. So Ditto hired Walker and then cast about for a more qualified chief, finding Jimmy Wilson out of D.C., who had helped investigate the Reagan shooting and Marion Barry's drug/prostitute case. He was very qualifiedóan expert on fighting black-on-black crime (as is Chief Moore, incidentally), but made enemies quickly among the power base here (which was mixed race, by then, to some extent). He tried to clean up the corrupt and crime-ridden juvenile detention center, but the district attorney refused to prosecute the people arrested for rape (believe it not, because he said the teen girls incarcerated consented!?!), and it became a battle of wills between them. The Clarion-Ledger jumped in with very similar crime rhetoric as now (the editorials then were stupid, too). As I understand it (and this doesn't come from Ditto), Ditto supported Wilson until he couldn't any longer and fired him under pressure. The D.A., the public defender, the local FBI rep and the former mayor (Danks, who was attorney to most of the others) were against him, so it wasn't like he could get much done. When he was fired, local black leaders and the NAACP were very angry and tried to get him reinstated. When they couldn't they vowed to elect a black mayor to take Ditto's place, which they did: Harvey Johnson Jr.
Anyway, that's more history than you asked for. But it's all very interesting. Stay tuned.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 8:14 pm
If Mississippi is going to improve its image, we've got to do a whole lot better.
Damn right. And we as a state and a city have to stop allowing ourselves to be victims of this vicious fearmongering, which is being done for political reasons, and has been for many years. We have to "just say no." More and more people are starting to, fortunately. But we'll see what happens in the near future. The main thing is that we all band together to overcome this fear-baiting together. Clearly, not many people were motivated by it in the election, so there's a lot of potential here for us to leave this particular southern strategy in the past. We've got a lot of idiots to shout down first, though.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 8:15 pm
"...Proverbs 11:11 says: 'By blessings of the upright a city is exalted, but it is overthrown through the mouth of the wicked.' What that means is those good things happening in a city is what exalts the city and makes it what is it. Just a few wicked tongues can overthrow all of that. We need to look very carefully at where the wicked tongues are in the city."
He should have quoted that Scripture during his whole campaign. Wow!
Posted by: L.W. on May 13, 05 | 8:15 pm
I know. I love that verse. And, in fact, Johnson did use that quote during the campaignóon Bible bookmarks! We got ahold of one after our primary issue went to bed, or we would have reproduced it.
But it is a beautiful verse, and very apropos for our situation. I'm going to paste it again here just because it's power and bold it. Thanks for joining, L.W. You're cool. ;-D
'By blessings of the upright a city is exalted, but it is overthrown through the mouth of the wicked.'
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 8:19 pm
You didn't give me too much history - I needed to know. I was a teenager when the "police chief musical chairs" started, so I had no clue. Fascinating, indeed!
Posted by: L.W. on May 13, 05 | 8:20 pm
If I could attach a signature to my posts, I would use that verse, no question.
Have a good evening, and you're cool too! 80)
Posted by: L.W. on May 13, 05 | 8:22 pm
It is fascinating. I'm a student of history, especially recent historyóthe stuff that gets stuffed down the "memory hole" because no one wants to own up to it. That used to mean really getting to know the Jim Crow era for me, but now I'm realizing that it means figuring out what happened here in the 1970s through '90sóthe stuff that few folks are writing about now, or even acknowledging. This was really brought home to me during the Obadele dust-up when so much false information was put out (guess by whom: the fear folk, of course). Just absolutely false statements of "fact" put out in releases (the sheriff calling him a "convicted cop killer," which he wasn't) and one crimemeister posting that he was someone he wasn't.
I believe we study history to learn from it, not to shape it to our agenda. There was little or anything good that came out of the RNA-police clash, but not a single person is going to learn from it if all that is spread is lies. We study history to learn ourselves and what we're capable of (good and bad), not to build false political cases against people we dont' like. Truly disgusting.
And tell me this: How many Jacksonians know the details of what happened here 35 years ago this coming weekendóan event that still affects Jackson to this day?
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 8:28 pm
See you soon. Don't be a stranger, friend.
Posted by: ladd on May 13, 05 | 8:28 pm
Everyone should know about this:
http://www.may41970.com/Jackson%20State/jackson_state_may_1970.htm
Somebody really should do a book on the history of Jackson over the past 25 years, BTW--opinionated or otherwise. There are too many stories that just need to be told. That person should probably not be me, but give me a holler if you're interested.
I don't think the C-L is evil or anything, but I think its quality is spotty to say the least and that allows plenty of room for bias to creep in.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by: Tom Head on May 14, 05 | 3:42 pm
Agreed, Tom. And today is a big anniversary (35th) of it. You'd think media would be swarming like they did for the big anniversaries of the murders in Neshoba County.
Posted by: ladd on May 14, 05 | 4:20 pm
And how would this increase their sales among affluent rednecks in the suburbs? I think the mistake, Donna, is in assuming that the Clarion-Ledger is primarily about journalism. It has some good people working for it, but Gannett owns it, and that means it's a McPaper. What enterprising individual journalists do on their own is all well and good, but the C-L exists to make a profit, not to make a difference. It doesn't have a soul. Having a soul doesn't sell papers.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by: Tom Head on May 14, 05 | 4:34 pm
Didn't Churchill say something regarding "in victory, magnanimity? We have some people who totally miss that sentiment.
The C-L has consistently gotten the facts wrong on the JPD. The number of Chiefs and Acting Chiefs is greater than they are stating. Under Ditto it averaged one/year; i.e. eight total. And, just like the murder rate, Johnson managed to cut that statistic by 50%.
A whole Blog on the events at Jackson State would be of interest.
Interesting re Churchill. I'll be honest: Melton supporters don't seem very happy since the primary. I don't really get it. They still seem angry, and they won. ?
And the funny thing about the complaints about this particular story (above) is that it's one of those stories you don't see oftenówhere people just open up and talk about something very raw. You can easily draw whatever conclusion you want from it. But there are so many people out there who just want to beat up people who don't agree with them that they can't just calm down and consider different ideas and sentiments on their merits. That's my point about the Ledger's coverage of the chief this weekóit's so cheap and juvenile, and for no apparent reason, other than scoring brownie points with the Angry Ones. But who gives a damn about those people? Angry Ones don't change the world for the better; they hold it back if you give them enough power to, or don't expose their games. Media aren't supposed to be enslaved to such people. And that's exactly how the Ledger is acting this week. It really leaves a bad taste for a lot of people.
We have a story coming on the Jackson State events, by the way. We just couldn't get it done before this issue, but it's coming. And a thread about it on top of the site now, so feel free to start blogging on it. We should talk about it in detail. It was very important, and provides needed context for the tragedy happened a little over a year later with the RNA and the Jackson police and FBI.
Imagine: context.
Posted by: ladd on May 14, 05 | 5:05 pm
I think the mistake, Donna, is in assuming that the Clarion-Ledger is primarily about journalism. It has some good people working for it, but Gannett owns it, and that means it's a McPaper. What enterprising individual journalists do on their own is all well and good, but the C-L exists to make a profit, not to make a difference. It doesn't have a soul.
Sigh. I know that, Tom, and it's tragic. However, I still believe, and strongly, that if journalists and editors would fight back and speak up enough that even the corporate newspapers would be better. I refuse to abdicate the responsibility of individual journalists to the idea that they are "owned" by corporations. If we give into that idea, Orwellian days are here to stay. And they aren't happy days.
The funny things is: a lot of the kinds of stories I'm talking about would sell ó and increase their readership and circulation. They just take the cheap way out by whining about crime without any real context and splashing out-of-context quotes on the front page with a picture of a beaten-looking police chief. That is not journalism to be proud of. They can do better. They need to. It is irresponsible to call yourself the state's newspaper and then do the insipid coverage they do. And the people who work there need to get together and demand the space to do better journalism.
I'll stop, being that I'm repeating myself. But this is SO important. Mississippi is never going to get better for residents and businesses with such bad media coverage. It's a key concern.
Posted by: ladd on May 14, 05 | 5:11 pm
Depends on the Melton supporter, I guess. None of the Melton supporters I actually know in person--including Wilson--seem to be the least bit angry.
I'm afraid that you're letting the blogs and the right-wing talk radio pundits determine too much, in your mind, of what Melton supporters represent. One of the big time Melton supporters, for example, is Wydette Hawkins. I haven't seen the man in 15 years, but I knew him when I was a kid and I've followed his community work since then. His endorsement of Melton was one of the major factors that led me to ease up on the guy, because Hawkins is somebody whose opinion I can really respect.
I do wish Melton would grant you an interview, because I think it would make you feel a lot better about his prospects as mayor. Maybe he will after he beats Whitlow. Right now he seems to be avoiding public forums--and since he's an inexperienced politician, no doubt afraid of making another gaffe that could cost him the campaign, I can't fault that from a strictly strategic point of view. It isn't great statesmanship, but statesmanship is really what you do after you're elected.
What bothers me more than the predictable and incurable anger of right-wing pundits is the fact that so many core Democrats are not getting behind the party candidate or his opponent. When a Johnson supporter says "We have two mayoral candidates and either one of them will run the city into the ground," then what is that if it isn't negativity? If the fear of this outcome was supposed to bring Johnson supporters to the poll, what was that if it wasn't a fear-based campaign?
I'm hopeful. I voted for Johnson, but Melton doesn't scare me; I'm interested in seeing what he does with the mayor's office.
I guess I'm lucky. Here again, I came into this race seeing two great Democratic candidates and having to choose one, and now I'm having to choose between a great Democratic candidate and a great Republican candidate. I'm happy. It's the direct opposite of the governor's race, where I felt like I had to choose the lesser of the evils. Here I actually came into the game with not one, not two, but three candidates I liked. I don't think that has ever happened before. My #1 pick was Johnson, but I only wish the two options I had for governor were Frank Melton and Rick Whitlow. That'd be heavenly.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by: Tom Head on May 14, 05 | 5:18 pm
Agreed 100%, Donna.
Have you affiliated with the National Writers Union yet, by any chance? Their big thing is representing journalists who stand up against Gannett. If you remember Tasini v. New York Times, Tasini was the NWU president at the time. (One of the inspirations for the JACP was the creative artists' coalition idea that Tasini left the NWU to work on.) I think Jackson could support an NWU local, and if you're game and can help me come up with a list of names, I'm more than ready to roll up my sleeves and help put one together. That would put the fear of God into the C-L, let me tell you.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by: Tom Head on May 14, 05 | 5:48 pm
Your point is good, Tom, about Melton supporters. I am referring largely to the loud ones who are out in the front of the campaign. But a report from Melton's behavior toward one of my interns last week doesn't indicate that he is acting much better. However, that doesn't mean, of course, that every person who voted for Melton is angry since the primaryóbut I personally haven't heard directly from one who seems ecstatic. In fact, you come across the happiest about it that I've heard, and you didn't vote for him. ;-)
I agree with you: I wish Melton would grant us an interview, too. However, I truly don't think he wants to discuss issues with youóI think it's much more about that than about us somehow doing him wrong. He knows our reporting has been factual so far. As it is, though, I have not been shown a very good side of him by anyone, yet, so I can't make up something I haven't seen. I must say, I liked dealing with him one on one both at Bravo and at a press conference a week later. My hopes were very high that he was going to allow me to get to know him and do a textured, honest story. Then my Bravo piece came out, and they went cold on me.
So, I hope your optimism pans out to be correct, Tom. Truly I do. The ball is in his court; we will report whatever he does fairly, as we did with Johnson.
As for the Writers Union and TasinióI'm very familiar. When I was a freelancer, I was an active member and haggled over contracts all the time. I wrote about the Tasini decision for the Voice and the fact that the New York Times was blacklisting writers who wouldn't sign their rights away. Ironically, though, the Voice turned around then and did the same thing to me. Thus, I quit writing for them on principle. I say that with all due respect to the time I wrote thereóit was great, and they treated me very well, until it came time to negotiate a fair contract. Then they went corporate on me over rights and indemnification. Still love 'em and my editor there, though. Just can't sign away my principlesóespecially to an alternative.
Posted by: ladd on May 14, 05 | 8:40 pm
Tom, thanks for posting the Jackson State article. It was very informative, and I am glad to know this information now. However, I am STEAMED that I did not know about this event before now. I was born a few years after that disaster occured, so I guess it was well swept under the rug by the time I was old enough to even know my full name.
Something to chew on as I retire for the night, feeling deftly ill all of a sudden...
Posted by: L.W. on May 14, 05 | 11:41 pm
Hey, L.W., I didn't know that Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were killed in my hometown when I was 3 until I was 14. Face it: Mississippi has accepted a long-time "vow of silence" when it comes to difficult episodes such as these that we should all be learning from.
So many things happened here in Jackson that we should all know and talk about (like the teenagers being locked by Jackson police into the non-ACed livestock pens at the fairgrounds for marching for civil rights). A simply great book is "Coming of Age in MIssissippi" by Anne Moody, available at Lemuria, will fill in lots of the '60s holes. However, it's the 70s through the 90s in Jackson that seem to be really missing now. We'll see what we can do that about in upcoming months.
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 11:15 am
Both Eric Stringfellow and Ronnie Agnew today are skewering Mayor Johnson today for not speaking to lamestream media after City Council Tuesday and not returning their phone calls this week:
Agnew: The issue I have with the mayor is his apparent willingness to let the city drift for the next six weeks without offering details on the transition. If this is his approach, the mayor should take advice from his police chief. The city's top cop told the newspaper last week that he planned "to shut it down" and use vacation time for the remainder of Johnson's term.
Now, if I may ask, who said that Johnson is letting the city "drift" for the next six weeks? Is that Agnew's brilliant conclusion based on the fact that the mayor didn't respond to the same media last week that was raking the police chief over the coals at the same time? To a columnist who barely showed up at campaign events and then said the mayor didn't address any issues? (He did.) Or the same media that provided NO real coverage of the city elections and "balanced" falling crime nunbers with an unsubstantiated allegation of an illegal conspiracy? It's also the same media that did not even try to talk to Johnson the entire time they were doing their lame "Changing Faces" series, which largely resulted in criticism of the mayor. They tried to get him to answer accusations right before it ran, instead of sitting down with him throughout the process like they were doing with his critics. Then they complained because he doesn't come to them more often (sound like Wyatt??). It's the same media that build a whole out-of-context "perception" pyramid scheme to help get the mayor ousted (and get their papers picked up). Nearly everything the chief and the mayor have said to them has been taken out of context to serve the mass media's narrative.
The point here: last Tuesday was one week after the election. It is very probable that the mayor did not yet have a "transition" strategy to tell them about, yet. If he continues to avoid them, fine, call him out on it. (We will.) Meantime, Melton dodged appearance after appearance during the campaign and never got such wrath from the Ledge. And I didn't call him out on all the cancelled interviews and treatment of us until weeks after it started happening, giving him a chance to change his mind before I told the public about it. And even then, my editor's note was quite magnanimous, considering that his paid staffers were lying about us on talk radio.
The Clarion-Ledger is just out for blood. That's too bad. Makes them look not nice at all. Real Mississippians could understand, to some extent, the awkward place the mayor and chief are in, and give them a little bit of space to breathe in. They are human beings, after all. But I guess corporate monsters lose sight of what that means here in Real Mississippi.
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 11:35 am
Tom, back to our discussion. I should add that Jeff Good, and other attendees at the Duling event, were very gracious to the mayor, giving him a standing ovation. I should probably also add that The Clarion-Ledger reporter arrived at the end, after the mayor's remarks, so they wouldn't know what was said at that event, either.
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 11:36 am
Yesterday was no better! While Hampton and Co. are skewering the chief in an editorial, the Metro section has an article about the annual awards banquet for JPD. It was a wonderful event as they described. Can the editors not take one day off from bashing the chief and mayor? They won! Let's have a week or two of respect for the office, and do more stories on the upcoming election. The editor points out his comments are based on comments by Moore a week earlier. It makes it more personal then professional after a while!
Let it go C-L!
Posted by: tortoise on May 15, 05 | 11:52 am
Tortoise, you make a great point. Why not use the inches to flesh out the differences between Whitlow and Melton, and challenge both to detail their actual plansóeven if it's just on crime, being that that's the Ledge's obsession. Voters still know what Melton's crime strategies are! We know a bit more about Whitlow, but no thanks to the lamestream media. Hell, crime-obsessed people would pick it the paper up if anything about crime was on the front page.
Also, did I miss the story about the 35th anniversary of the Jackson State shootings? (I read the paper online now, so I might have.) Someone clue me in with a link if one is there. That would be a good use of space as wellóthat story deserves at least as much ink as the Obadele/RNA dust-up the Ledge covered incessantly (although poorly). Where da beef?
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 11:59 am
OK, according to Google News, today the Washington Post and the Kansas City Star talks about the Jackson State shootings (which happened days after the Kent State tragedy). On April 25, WLBT ran a piece about a candlelight vigil at JSU (presumably they did it then so students would still be there), and the same day, the Ledge ran this about it in its entirety, presumably from a press release.
JSU plans vigil to honor students slain in 1970
Jackson State University will hold its 35th annual Gibbs-Green Memorial and Candlelight Vigil at 6:30 p.m. Sunday on the Gibbs-Green Pedestrian Plaza. The memorial marks the May 14, 1970, shooting that claimed the lives of students Phillip Gibbs and James Green.
In case of rain, the memorial ceremony will be held in the F.D. Music Hall at 7:30 p.m. For more information, call Cathy Patterson at (601) 979-3706.
Oh, and the Socialist Worker Online talked about it on April 27.
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 12:05 pm
Note that Obadele inaccurately gets labeled a "convicted cop killer" and the Ledge doesn't mention that police killed those unarmed kids 15 months before. Shudder.
Crime, indeed, is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 12:39 pm
Donna: You can easily draw whatever conclusion you want from it. But there are so many people out there who just want to beat up people who don't agree with them that they can't just calm down and consider different ideas and sentiments on their merits.
Philip: A large part of this is that much of this part of the country is wrapped in a cloak of ignorance -- the result (mainly) of limited horizons. Most people here have never had their paradigms challenged. They simply are not accustomed to hearing a wide variety of opinion expressed. Hardly anybody seems to express agreement with anything unless 90% of the people agree with it already. This is further reenforced (IMO), by the Southern "Culture of Honor" -- which calls for swift retaliation against any perceived slight[1]. Put the "Culture of Honor" together with limited exposure to new ideas and you have what you need to create a culture that beats up people (metaphorically, or even physically sometimes) for expressing contrarian views (hmmmm...what happened to Freedom of Speech??)
(CONTINUED)
From Psychology Today
***************
WHY "REDNECKS" SEE RED
An old North Carolina proverb states that every man is sheriff of his own hearth. And that belief seems alive and well, particularly south of the Mason-Dixon line. One survey recently found that 36 percent of white Southerners approve of killing to defend one's house, while only 18 percent of Northerners do. In a similar vein, Southerners are more likely than their Northern counterparts to believe it is appropriate for a man to punch a drunk who bumps into his wife. And while Northerners most often kill while committing property crimes, such as holding up a 7-Eleven, Southerners, especially those in cities of fewer than 200,000 people, more commonly commit homicides when embroiled in personal arguments.
These statistics show that that honor, home, and violence are deeply intertwined in the white Southern male psyche, contends Richard Nisbett, Ph.D., a University of Michigan social psychologist, native Southerner, and author of Culture of Honor (Westview Press). Nisbett has conducted numerous experimental studies of this culture, with often astounding results.
In one study, members of Nisbett's research team sent letters to store, hotel, and restaurant chains in the guise of a hard-working, 27-year-old man requesting a job application. Half of the letters admitted that the "applicant" had been convicted of manslaughter for accidentally killing a man who had been having an affair with his fiancee and who had challenged him to a fight if he were "man enough." In the rest of the letters, the writer stated that he had been convicted of stealing a car to help support his wife and kids. The response rate to this second letter, it turned out, was similar throughout the country. But in the South and West almost 60 percent of employers sent applications to the letter writer who had accidentally killed a man, compared to only 46 percent of Northern companies. One Southern business owner even sent back a sympathetic letter to the man convicted of manslaughter, writing that "anyone could probably be in the situation you were in...Your honesty shows that you are sincere." These results suggest that many in the South still approve of using violence to defend male honor.
(CONTINUED)
It's no surprise, then, that Nisbett finds that Southern men react more strongly than Northerners when insulted. In one experiment, as male college students walked down a long, narrow hallway, Nisbett had a large, burly man approach them. Southerners, on average, stepped aside to let the man pass when he was nine feet away, while Northerners waited until he was five to six feet away But if the man, without provocation, called the subject an "a******" as he approached, Southern subjects would wait until he was three feet away to step aside. Northerners, however, didn't change their distance. Nisbett also found that Southern men had increased levels of testosterone and the stress hormone cortisol when insulted in this way, while Northern men did not.
How did this culture of honor arise? Most white people in small southern cities are descendants of Scotch-Irish herders who immigrated to the area in the 17th and 18th centuries. And herding cultures, Nisbett notes, have traditionally been violent because of the need to defend one's flock and grazing territory. In comparing herding regions of the South with areas where farming predominates, Nisbett found that the herding regions indeed have higher homicide rates. Even though these areas are no longer dependent on raising sheep and cattle, at least some of the herding culture's values seem to have endured.
Hmmm, from this angle the Culture of Honor sure doesn't look like an honorable culture now, doesn't it? In fact, it actually plays a large role in supporessing freedom of speech (and hence democracy) itself. is it any wonder we don't hear about all the 70s to 90s stuff???
Interesting, Philip. Thanks. You are one smart southern white man. ;-)
No doubt, there are a frighteningly large number of people here who do not believe that a viewpoint they don't hold should be expressed at all. And try being a woman expressing said viewpoint. You send these dudes into palpitations.
Of course, that's the fun of it. ;-)
And, fortunately, it's not the majority, I don't believe. Just an obnoxiously loud minority who are going to have to get used to not being the only voices here in old Mississlop.
Posted by: ladd on May 15, 05 | 3:37 pm
Phillip: "These statistics show that that honor, home, and violence are deeply intertwined in the white Southern male psyche, contends Richard Nisbett, Ph.D., a University of Michigan social psychologist, native Southerner, and author of Culture of Honor (Westview Press). Nisbett has conducted numerous experimental studies of this culture, with often astounding results."
You are saying that as if it is a bad thing! Reminds me of the famous (and true, IMHO) quotation by Black Panther and (I believe) current prison inmate Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (paraphrasing): "Violence is as American as apple pie."
Buck (to Me): You are saying that as if it is a bad thing!
Yes, I am saying it's a bad thing - or at the very least this "culture of honor" is too much of a good thing. Re-read my posts again for my basis for asserting The Culture of Honor hamstrings democracy (as opposed to merely casting ballots and writing representatives).
Buck:Reminds me of the famous (and true, IMHO) quotation by Black Panther and (I believe) current prison inmate Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (paraphrasing): "Violence is as American as apple pie."
Philip: Legitimate self-defense when directly physically threatened is one thing. Merely getting aggressive (whether physically or verbally) is another thing entirely. Violence being "as American as apple pie" is no doubt the reason our nation's crime rate is so pathetic compared to other equally economically advanced nations.
Phillip: I read your posts and am familiar (in the sense that I read articles about them) with the culture of aggression in america and the difference in the northern and southern portions of the country.
I disagree, though, that this "culture of honor" idea translates into beating people physically or metaphorically. That is to say, the ideas of honor, home, and violence (of the self-defense variety) resulting in violence between individuals who disagree seems, to me, to be quite a stretch.
Not to minimize the very real (and unfortunate) character of narrow-mindedness that is and has been a hallmark among some individuals in the south (and many other "red states"). We should all remember, though, that narrow-mindedness is not relegated solely to the conservatives among us: on the left side, a similar quality was memorably (sort of . . . ) referred to as "intellectual smugness" by Al Gore some time ago.
My ramblings all come to this: American jurisprudence has always, with some variations depending on the jurisdiction, allowed for individuals to use deadly force to protect themselves when they actually or reasonably believe that they are at risk of death or serious bodily harm in most circumstances, but especially so when an individual is in his/her home. If that right is ever taken away from us. . . then God (or [insert Deity name here]) help us all.
Further comments about "Culture of Honor" are at This Thread
Yes, please continue this discussion on Philip's "This Thread" link. It's interesting, but seriously off-thread here. Also, see my reference to the book "All God's Children" there; it's relevant to the last few comments here.
Posted by: ladd on May 16, 05 | 11:09 am
Funny that I just clicked to this story in the New York Times about David Dinkins, the mayor of NYC defeated by Rudy Giuliani in a torrid flush of crime rhetoric. I've thought about Dinkins a lot during the mayoral election hereóHarvey Johnson reminds me of him. He was quietly effective, and in fact is now as much (if not more) credited than Giuiliani with drops in crime (he brought in community policing, which Rudy largely abandoned for "zero tolerance" approaches to shaking down people for guns and filling the jails even for trivial crimes). But Dinkins, then, didn't get credit for what he put into motion, but it seems that hindsight could come into focus for NYC's mayoral tortoise. Now his endorsement is being courted by Republican incumbent Michael Bloomberg:
David N. Dinkins left office stunned and frustrated, secure in history as the city's first black mayor but narrowly defeated for a second term by a man who used the racial violence in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, as an example of a city mismanaged. He was shunned by his successor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and kept a low political profile for several years. [...]
Mr. Bloomberg's advisers believe they have a fair shot at getting Mr. Dinkins's endorsement, which would be a coup as the mayor tries to attract Democratic support and draw black support. But Democratic strategists are more confident he will remain in the camp, and at least back the party's nominee.
Their courting comes as Mr. Dinkins seeks to shore up his legacy, hopeful that historians will play up things like the drop in crime that began toward the end of his term after a period of abundant and sometimes sensational violence. He concedes blemishes like his handling of the Crown Heights racial violence, where he now says he dropped the ball. It is, he said, his biggest regret that he did not take action sooner to quell the violence among blacks and Jews there.
Columbia will soon announce an endowed chair in his name. He is planning a book, eager to pay homage to his political mentors and troubled by inaccuracies he said he has seen in the news media, from the sequence of events in Crown Heights to who was a deputy mayor and who wasn't.
But the parlor game over which candidate he may pick in the mayor's race - and yes, it matters in some circles, particularly among black voters who still hold him in high regard - has piqued curiosity in political circles partly because of some unexpected elements.
The relationship most intriguing to Democrats has been the one with Mr. Bloomberg, who has given Mr. Dinkins in retirement something that Mr. Giuliani denied him, a place in city business.[...]
And perceptions linger that Mr. Dinkins underperformed as mayor.
Thomas Kessner, a history professor at City University of New York's graduate school who wrote a book about Fiorello H. La Guardia, said that although it is too soon to judge, Mr. Dinkins appeared to fall into the "caretaker" category of mayors rather than those recalled for grand achievements or forceful personalities.
Posted by: ladd on May 16, 05 | 11:26 am
Here's a good Dinkins v. Giuliani comparison by award-winning journalist Wayne Barrett, called "Giuliani's Legacy: Taking Credit For Things He Didn't Do":
Rudy Giuliani's legacy is that he was the luckiest mayor we have had in a long time. He was blessed by being mayor when we had a great national upsurge in the economy. He was blessed by being mayor when we had a national downturn in crime. He was blessed because he had very little to do with either phenomenon in New York, but most New Yorkers and most tourists will think he did.[...]
[Giuliani's police commander] Bill Bratton himself conceded in his 1998 book that by the time he arrived at police headquarters, the squeegees were gone, noting that, "ironically, Giuliani and I got credit for the initiative." Only politics, Bratton concluded, prevented David Dinkins and Ray Kelly from receiving their due. [...]
Of course, some people attribute some of the rising economy in the city to the drop in the crime rate. But what did Rudy Giuliani do to produce the drop in the crime rate? The crime rate has declined in cities throughout the country. In Seattle, for example, where the murder rate was declining far faster than it was in New York, Lenny Levitt of Newsday called the police c ommissioner and asked him what was causing the lowering crime rate in his town. And the police commissioner said, "we have no idea" He did not say, "we did it."
In the final days of the administration of David Dinkins, we had 36 consecutive months of decline in the crime statistics across the board, in the seven index crimes. Murder went down 14 percent. Those last 36 months under Dinkins reversed trends that were a decade old. Who should get the credit, the mayor who reversed the trend or the mayor who deepened the trend?
Obviously, we know who's gotten the credit. The New York Times has done, by my latest count, twelve front-page articles about the decline in the crime rate under Rudy Giuliani. It did one article about the decline in the crime rate under David Dinkins -- and in that 55-paragraph story, it never mentioned the name of David Dinkins. What Rudy Giuliani has managed to do is mug the media into accepting as fact that he is the man who caused it to happen. [...]
There is not a single police tactic other than Comstat, that any of the experts has ever looked at and said was responsible for the decline in crime. Rudy has tried to say, for example, "we cracked down on guns," and by cracking down on guns, the guys in the subways who had the guns could not go out and commit the murders." But did you know that in the final three years of the Dinkins administration, gun arrests averaged 7,300? They have averaged 4,000 under Giuliani. The strategy of cracking down on guns was a Ray Kelly/David Dinkins initiative. By the time Rudy Giuliani took office, gun arrests, if they had any impact on the murder rate, were already having it.
The only real claim that Rudy Giuliani can make to a legacy at all is in the crime statistics, and they have been miserably manipulated. [see link for more]
Posted by: ladd on May 16, 05 | 11:38 am
A little bit more of Barrett's piece; it's really good food for thought:
Some people seem to believe that the perception of a reduction in crime is more important than the reality. But I think there is another perception, that Rudy Giuliani's administration, while it may have been effective in dealing with crime, has caused great pain in minority communities through abusive police tactics. I believe that that is an accurate perception. Rudy constantly throws numbers around that suggest it is inaccurate. I think he completely distorts those numbers. But the point is that that is a profound perception in the city now
It is not just issues of police abuse. Under Giuliani, black employment in city government reversed a decades long trend of slow and gradual growth. We actually saw a significant decline in black employment in all city agencies.
Posted by: ladd on May 16, 05 | 11:38 am
Do you suppose that other mayoral candidates here in Jacktown took a close look at what happened in NYC and strategized accordingly?
Posted by: L.W. on May 16, 05 | 8:12 pm
Looks like the mayor held a press conference after City Council last night. WLBT reported this:
Mayor Harvey Johnson said, "I think overall the media here in the city of Jackson focuses too much on the negative. It's just not in this campaign. That's my opinion. I think that citizens for the most part allow that to happen because there's not enough reaction to that kind of reporting."
He has a point. Too many people here allow themselves to be led around by the nosering, so to speak, with sensationalist and incomplete reporting. As we're talking about on the Barbour thread, maybe it's time for a campaign of people really talking back to the lamestreams. "Media literacy" is a good thing.
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 2:12 pm
Considering the beating he took in the primary I'm sure Harvey Johnson will be in denial for some time to come. You have to be out of touch to have the Jackson body politic so thoroughly reject your bid for a return engagement. Johnson's never shown much of a willingness to appraise his own performance so no reason to think he would begin such an effort now. I'm betting there will not be any future runs by the former Mayor for Jackson office. Too many bridges to repair including those he is torching on this retreat to private life.
Oh, I think Johnson's legacy's going to be just fine and that he's in "denial" about very little. The truth is, often history smiles at you as much based on who was against you as who was for you when time has a chance to play out. Fact is, he did a lot for the city, even if he didn't scream enough for some folks' taste, and even The Clarion-Ledger won't be able to stuff that fact down its selective memory hole. He'll be fine. He comes from good stock.
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 2:36 pm
And it's strong spin to say that, in an election where 33 percent turned out, that he "took a beating." Truth is, Kenneth Stokes has a stronger mandate than Frank Melton. ;-)
Not that it matters. What matters is what happens next.
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 2:39 pm
That was all they reported? Did they ask any other questions? Any retrospect on his time in office? They must be holding out for an hour-long special on the life and times of HJJ.
C-L's version of same story
Posted by: tortoise on May 18, 05 | 4:06 pm
The gymnastics you're performing to minimize Melton's victory, and downplay the proportional size of Jackson's population which voted for him, are cute but not that clever. Despite singing the joys of being registered and voting in the advance of the most recent Presidential election, even sponsoring Hal & Mal lovefests to get people registered, in the wake of Harvey Johnson's meltdown May 3rd you've quickly migrated to linking Jackson's true enthusiasm for Melton as a functional measure versus eligible voters in order to create a perception that his large electoral victory is overstated and of a smaller width -- despite ample evidence to the contrary. This new found affection for pegging turnout to a percentage of eligible voters versus registered voters is also inconsistent with the measures commonly reported by both the Hinds County Election Commission and the office of Mississippi's Secretary of State.
This hyping of eligible voters is FUD and spin. I guess you are in denial also. You can disregard the magnitude of the recent primary versus election results history in Jackson all you want. You can work to narrow and reduce Melton's mandate in the minds of your readers. The fact of the matter remains that the incumbent lost touch and took a beating.
Johnson's.Candidacy.Did.Not.Resonate.With.Jacksonians.
Stokes' opponents were just plain stomped. Stokes' mandate was very simple, Keep Being Stokes. Period.
I wouldn't hold your breath, tortoise. The lamestreams prove every day exactly what Johnson is saying. They just seem too dense to realize it.
This was in the Ledge story you just linked about his press conference:
During the final days of his campaign, it was difficult to get media coverage "in both the politics and the projects that were being announced," Johnson said. He scolded the media for being too negative and not attending his news conferences. "We need to let people know all along what's happening," he said.
I tell you: We have to bang this drum. If people don't speak up, corporate media is just going to drown this city and state in mediocrity. Speak up, y'all. I got an e-mail copied to me a little bit ago from a professional woman I don't know in Jackson that she had sent to the Ledger complaining because they're not covering the Barbour approval rating story. Hold their feet to the fire, folks!
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 4:11 pm
PBR: Johnson's.Candidacy.Did.Not.Resonate.With.Jacksonians.
Not very polite, but very funny!
No gymnastics, PBR. Just plain math and common sense.
Don't accuse me of crap, mister. You don't speak for me. I've ALWAYS talked about the problems with candidates doing so little about real issues to appeal to enough votersófrom national to local elections. And I challenge both (all) parties to do more to appeal to more voters so that we don't keep electing candidates whose approval ratings immediately start to tank (like Bush national, 42 percent; Barbour, 37 percent) because they weren't speaking to a majority of the people in the first place.
Now, I realize that my having a different opinion from litttle ole you and folks like you are making some folks mighty ticked off because you'd rather there only be one note (yours). But, get over it, PBR. You don't have to agree with me, or me with you.
I do not believe Melton has a mandate. I see no evidence of one. However, that does not mean that he cannot step up and be a good mayor. There is just no mandate for him from a majorty of Jacksonians so he's going to have to work at it. And just because, historically, too many candidates have been elected without mandates because they are not adddressing the majority of the voters' needs is not a reason to somehow think this is OK. We've been No. 50 (or occasionally 49) long enough. Part of the reason is that too Mississippians aren't willing to rock the boat, and say it isn't good enough to be on the bottom and elect people based on rhetoric rather than specific ideas. I am. And if you're getting seasick, feel free to dive overboard any time.
I don't care what you think of my opinion, PBR. You haven't said anything, yet, to give me a reason to. So get used to it. There are a variety of opinions in town now, and we're going to keep talking.
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 4:22 pm
BTW, PBR, I agree that Johnson's campaign did not resonate with Jacksonians. I've said that on the blog already. Stop copying me. ;-P
That, however, does not mean that Melton drew a "mandate." In fact, the logic of my/your statement it is that Johnson helped defeat himself, which I thoroughly believe. No argument there from me.
But we smart folk can hold two thoughts at once: that Johnson was not a great candidate, but Melton didn't exactly light a fire under most Jacksonians. Perhaps if he had pushed more issues, he would haveóbut then he might have lost some of the fervor of his conservative support. It's hard to build such a tenuous coalition of opposite-minded people and then speak freely about issues.
I think Melton's most immediate challenge (or one of them) is going to be to keep that coalition from coming apart publicly, considering the internal problems the campaign had during the run-up to the primary. But he may be a brilliant enough communicator and negotiator to do that. Personally, I haven't seen that side of him, but I eagerly await seeing what he will do if he is elected. I'm sure it will be mighty interesting, to say the least. ;-)
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 4:27 pm
Just in from the mayor's office; they're going to televise his full remarks to the media last night. Should be interesting to compare what he actually said and what was quoted:
Mayor Johnson called a ìquestion and answer sessionî with members of the media, Tuesday, May 17, 2005, immediately after the City Council Meeting.† He has recently been accused of avoiding the media, and he took this opportunity to address this blatant mischaracterization.
The session was videotaped and will be broadcast tonight (Wednesday, May 18, 2005) on the PEG Channel (Channel 18 ñ Time Warner Cable) after this weekís broadcast of the City Council Meeting.
City Council is aired at 7:00 p.m. and the Mayorís press session should air at approximately 8:50 p.m.
You may also catch the session Sunday after the 3:00 p.m. re-broadcast of this weekís Council Meeting.
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 4:31 pm
This is where DirectTV leaves many of us in the dark by not at least carrying one municipal channel!
Posted by: tortoise on May 18, 05 | 4:45 pm
Hey, many we can put this one online. We keep saying we're going to start posting audio and video. Let me talk to Todd (aka iTodd, with credit to Jay Sones). ;=)
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 4:46 pm
I'm waiting for the media briefing, but Mr. Sanders is holding up progress. Somebody come get him.
Posted by: L.W. on May 18, 05 | 8:51 pm
Okay, he's gone...
I can't believe he said that he took a break from smoking and drinking to come to the council meeting. I think I would have kept that to myself.
What bothers me is that people already have negative thoughts about those who wear dreadlocks, etc., and I feel that Mr. Sanders is perpetuating stereotypes to no end. For the record, not everyone who wears dreadlocks and/or a tam (that knitted cap on his head - the cleanest thing on him, ironically) behaves like he does.
I'll add him to my prayer list. I truly believe that he needs assistance through a behavioral health program.
Posted by: L.W. on May 18, 05 | 8:59 pm
L.W., you're cracking me up with your color commentary about the Council meeting! ;-D But what happened to the rest? How did Harvey do? I was at dinner at Bravo and missed it. More highlights?
BTW, I want to be on *your* prayer list, too. <smile>
Posted by: ladd on May 18, 05 | 10:45 pm
I'd be interested to hear about the council meeting and Mr. Sanders' participation therein.
Always an interesting public access show, his was (is?).
During the meeting, Johnson mentioned that a media briefing would take place after the meeting for "checks and balances" since some of his comments may be omitted. He mentioned that the C-L failed to appear at several press conferences, and he said jokingly that perhaps they were too busy writing editorials to do any reporting. At least he still has his sense of humor, huh? Stokes had to throw one in too - he said that someone said (can't remember if it was the C-L or not) that he was not at a council meeting when he was. He said that as fat he is, how can anyone miss him? Of course, everyone had to laugh at that one. Johnson said that he is not officially a lame duck until after June 7, but he intends to work until his last day in office. He also said that Chief Moore changed his mind about leaving early and planned to do the same.
There were only about four people at the briefing, and they were not given microphones, so I could not hear the questions. Other Cain was there, so maybe you find out some of the questions from him. Anyway, Johnson indicated that he was accused of being aloof and defensive, and his response to that was that those who did not know him very well may make that assumption, and that those who do get to know him find out otherwise. He said that he would not blame the media for his defeat; as far as he was concerned, he simply lost, and he would not see it any differently from if the percentages were 49 to 51. In terms of the citizens not being aware of accomplishments and city projects, he said that everyone was to blame for that - the media, himself, etc. He mentioned that there were times when he was not able to grant an interview due to not having enough time in his schedule; however, some items he sent to news outlets ended up on the cutting room floor.
I don't have the best short-term memory in the world, so you definitely need to see the rebroadcast. However, Johnson handled himself well and did not sound bitter at all. Kudos to him.
Posted by: L.W. on May 18, 05 | 11:19 pm
Oh yeah, about Mr. Sanders:
He said that black inmates at the detention center in Hinds County were being mistreated. He said something to the effect of inmates being forced to eat maggots instead of meat and that if white inmates were there they would not be treated that way. Then he began to ramble, and Dr. McLemore banged the gavel to end the ordeal, I mean, conversation. I still am trying to understand how his tam is pristine and his fatigues are, well, fatigued.
***Oh, Donna, I'm gonna pray for all of y'all. You guys "drink" too much around here (hee hee)!
Posted by: L.W. on May 18, 05 | 11:29 pm
Yes, that certainly seems much more like the Mayor then the protrayals over the last few weeks. He goes out with class, and a bit of truthful humor mixed in.
Posted by: tortoise on May 18, 05 | 11:33 pm
Thanks, L.W. Your account from memory seem much more balanced than what the media outlets cherrypicked. I'll see if we can get a little transcript worked up to post so people can decide for themselves what was being said. Too bad we don't have full transcripts for the last eight years. From what I've personally seen, the reality would be very different from the lamestream media's perception.
BTW, y'all, don't miss Todd's publisher's note on this topic this issue. It rocks.
Posted by: ladd on May 19, 05 | 11:18 am
The other point that should be made about the whole turnout/mandate issue is that it isn't supposed to be the role of media to trumpet the winner of a low turnout as a "mandate" (and all should know, should the joke have escaped you, that the reason we're pointing out Stokes', er, mandate was to show the hypocrisy at the Ledge in calling Melton's victory a "landslide" and not Stokes'. Those are sensationalist terms that I prefer to avoid altogether).
Anyway, civic journalism should be most interested in why 67 percent of Jacksonians did not turn out in this important election and hone in on that point. Our job is not to throw rose petals at the victor's feet and trumpet our own easy endorsements of the winners that we have helped annoint. ("We" meaning Ledge et al., of course, in this case.)
It should be up to the operatives and campaign bloggers to declare "mandates" and "landslides" and other such subjective rhetoric; real media should look into why the damn turnouts are so low, thus meaning that a candidate who wins with a "landslide" may have a very low approval rating within months, because most people didn't turn out for him/her in the first place. Good media should be part of the solution to getting people involved with issues. This is our job, not making small minorities of people feel good about their catchphrases.
Of course, the logical first step is to actually *cover* real issues, rather than the horse race so that people even know where the candidates stand and what their specific plans are. Otherwise, people make emotional decisions based on who makes better sound bites.
Posted by: ladd on May 19, 05 | 11:57 am
|
