_______________UNEQUAL RIGHTS FOR HATERS BY ISHMAEL REED (01/23/99)

One does not have to be either black or reflexively liberal -- I am neither -- to recognize that Ishmael Reed is dead on in accusing the mainstream media of according deference to white hatemongers. All of his targets -- Tim Russert, Laura Ingraham, Don Imus, the whole sorry bunch -- have disgraced themselves for years by treating David Duke, Pat Robertson, Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan and other assorted moral idiots as respectable purveyors of respectable opinions. The cable networks owned by NBC have been especially wretched in this regard. I agree with Reed. Screw them all. -- Robert Benjamin East Windsor, N.J. Bravo to Salon for publishing Ishmael Reed's attack on the racism of Don Imus and the cravenness of his Rat Pack of white media stars. Reed has ripped the respectable lid off "Imus in the Morning," perhaps the most racist and homophobic program in mainstream radio and television. Even Newsweek's whitewash cover story observed that "Imus routinely has to protest that he is not a racist." (How many non-racists have to fend off such a charge, routinely?) Recently, Imus' white producer, Bernard McGuirk, called Asians "our urine-colored brothers." How does Imus get away with it? As Reed suggested, Caucasian-biased merchants are protected by the white boy network. All 25 members of Imus' A-list of guests, as noted in Newsweek, are white. Even the so-called Imus American Book Awards also fit Imus' master race plan. All three handpicked nominees in Imus' nonfiction category are race writers: Lani Guinier, Taylor Branch and David Remnick. And when one of them wins, Imus will say this proves he is not a racist. -- Philip Nobile Brooklyn, N.Y. If Ishmael Reed actually believes there is a "pro-white" bias in the news media, then he is not only wrong, but hilariously so. In case Reed hasn't noticed, it is more or less "open season" on whites as far as the media are concerned; any allegation, any slur, any conspiracy theory is permitted -- so long as whites are the target. Editorialists and news writers routinely make remarks against whites (especially Southern and/or working-class whites) that would get them fired on the spot were any other race or ethnicity the object of their slander. Second, Reed's "examples" are absurd. The Dartmouth Review is no more a "hate group" than is Mother Jones magazine. The only thing they were ever guilty of was bad taste -- and that is wholly subjective. Similarly, the correct "white" counterpart for the loathsome Nation of Islam is the Ku Klux Klan, not some ultraconservative lobbying group -- be they "neo-Confederate" or not. Reed's real objective, of course, is to equate an entire spectrum of political belief with "hatred" in order to marginalize it -- individuals, movements and publications all becoming "hatemongers" if they cross Reed's ideological line. It's an old trick, and a low and dishonorable one. By resorting to it, Reed only marginalizes himself. -- George Heingartner Ishmael Reed's piece about the acceptance of white racists into the mainstream is right on target. It was frightening to see the media slam Cheryl Mills' excellent defense of the president and compare her to Johnnie Cochran. This is a common form of subtle racism where all blacks are put into the same bucket. The Republicans proclaimed Paula Jones as a "civil rights" hero and Mills set them straight. Paula Jones is no Rosa Parks. -- Natalie Reaves N E X T+P A G E+| Hate America vs. Let Live America