By
Mizanur Rahman
The
most stubborn narrative in news coverage of race and ethnicity occurs
when a public official or celebrity says something offensive about a
group of people. There's Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos." Comedian Michael
Richards' n-word tirade. Actor Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic comments.
As
much experience (unwanted though it may be) as we have covering these
stories, you'd think we'd have our journalistic playbook perfected. It
guides us to dig deep, to provide meaningful context and history about
the racially offensive term at the heart of the story. But just last
week, some teachable moments for readers were fumbled during news
coverage in Texas involving a city councilman and the word
"wetback." The
councilman is Charles Laws, who's also a general manager of
Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Co. in the Austin, Texas, area. Last week,
Laws posted an
agenda item [PDF]
for a meeting of his firm's board of directors. It was probably the
most widely read agenda item in the history of water supply
corporations. His company is weighing a request to provide water to a
proposed immigrant detention facility. In the agenda, however, Laws
dubbed the facility a "holding pen for wetbacks."
On Friday, the
Austin-American Statesman
reported that local leaders called for Laws' resignation. On Saturday,
the paper said that Laws, a member of the Mustang Ridge City Council,
defended his use of "wetback." According to the
Statesman's story:
Laws
said "wetback" is widely acknowledged to mean immigrants who swim the
Rio Grande and enter the United States illegally, not American
citizens. Laws said the term is not racial, an assertion that others
dispute. He said he wishes he had not used the word in an agenda item
for the Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp.'s board of directors, but
will not resign over it.
The Associated Press also moved
a short version of the story Friday.
[Read the full version of Rahman's piece here ...]
Why is it we get in a knot over "common"...
