Hey Lefties, We Need to Step Up on Race — But Not the Way You Think

I turned on the TV for a few minutes to snap some pictures of commercials, and boy howdy did I see plenty of white men. Of course, some of them were like this guy, forced to take care of the baby because the femlibs have totally emasculated us. Plus, there were plenty of black men and women in the commercials too.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Here’s an interesting sort of story. Over at the Washington Post, Monica Hesse tells us about her Facebook friend Tom, who is unhappy at the increasing absence of white men on TV. So she sent him a couple of studies showing that TV still had plenty of white men. It didn’t work. Eventually they agreed to a test:

A scientific experiment was Tom’s idea. He’s a data guy; he likes experiments. In this one, we’d make our own data by watching an hour of the same channel, coding ads by gender, by voice-over vs. on-screen appearance, main actor vs. extra….He suggested the experiment would be a win-win for him. “Either I get to prove you wrong, or I’m wrong, and the world is less scary than I think it is.”

So, a Nissan commercial (one speaking white man, one nonspeaking white woman). A Kotex ad (one white woman). Realtor.com. Aveeno. Home Depot. Febreze. Tom emailed the next day, attaching a spreadsheet and a note:

In reviewing these statistics, I have to change my opinion. They do represent the population fairly well. There are some commercials that don’t have any white males in them, but this is to be expected.”

His spreadsheet matched mine, but the email was still stunning. Had his mind really changed? Over an hour-long experiment? A few days later I phoned him, certain I’d missed something. Nope. “Give yourself a win,” he said. Something about that analytical-viewing hour had been cathartic. He’d begun reminding himself, for example, that if there was no man in one ad, there might have been in the previous one.

Unfortunately, this experiment entirely misses the point, and I’m surprised that neither of our participants noticed it. What Tom said was that he saw fewer white men on TV. To test that, you’d need to pick random hours of commercials over the past few decades and see what the trendline looks like. But there’s not much point in wasting your time: the number of white men has declined. We all know this. It’s because TV was overwhelmingly white up through the 60s, and after that people of color started agitating for change. The result—slowly but steadily—is more blacks, more Hispanics, more Asians, more women, and by simple arithmetic, fewer white men.

That said, about 30 percent of Americans are white men, and I’m willing to bet that the average TV commercial still features more than 30 percent white men. The problem is (a) most whites live among other whites and assume that the percentage is higher, and (b) there are a lot more blacks and Hispanics in TV commercials these days. My guess is that Tom has only barely noticed the decline of white men, which has maybe gone down from 40 percent to 35 percent over the past decade, but has noticed the growth of blacks of both genders, which has maybe gone from 8 percent to 12 percent. The absolute numbers may be small, but that’s an increase of half for blacks, while the decrease in whites is about a tenth.¹

So we’re back to where we started. The fact is that Tom is basically right: there are fewer white men and more people of color on his TV. This has been a deliberate change, and as he acknowledges, it fairly represents America—or is getting closer to it, anyway. The question is what we can do to make this less scary to white men—and yes, it matters that we do this. If your attitude is “suck it up, snowflake,” then we’re likely to get a lot more Donald Trumps in the future. That may not be fair, but the fact is that we have to suck it up and deal with it if we want a better, more tolerant, less fearful country casting ballots every two years. So what are we going to do about it?

¹I pulled these numbers out of thin air just to illustrate a point. I have no idea what the real figures are or how to find them.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate