Jackson Coverage

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson raised many issues in his speech at the Institute of Politics, one of which was the press' questionable coverage of Black issues affecting both the national and international communities. He specifically spoke of the distorted reporting and deliberate lack of coverage of Black political campaigns in the U.S. and struggles for empowerment in African nations. Perhaps the press' neglect can be attributed to the general disinterest of the American public at large in minority issues; and perhaps this is the public to which the press feels it must cater. This does not, however, excuse The Crimson for its own version of skewed reporting in its May 9 issue.

Having Jackson's picture on the front page paired with the headline "Law Dean Clark Rejects Jackson Offer to Mediate," sends a negative message to Crimson readers. Never mind the speech in which he raised pertinent questions about the state of this country--The Crimson left that for page 10! First, we have to know all about his "rejection." We are not denying the importance of Clark's decision to decline Jackson's offer, because that in itself is significant. What we do criticize is the relative insignificance that Jackson's speech was left with, as if it were only a side effect of his visit.

The prominence of the article about Clark's decision greatly undermines the importance of Jackson's speech. Did The Crimson feel that a former presidential candidate's words deserved to be on page 10, past Dim Wits and the dining hall menu? The article "Jackson Calls for Social Action," is comfortably buried, only for the eyes of the most probing reader. Furthermore, did The Crimson find this bland, innocuous headline sufficient? Is that the kind of headline the speech inspired? It seems as if the attitude of The Crimson towards Jackson is one of boredom and satiation. The Crimson might as well have had a headline as trivial as "Jackson Cuts His Toenails, Again."

In its coverage of Jackson's speech, The Crimson is guilty of the very same discriminatory practices denounced therein. The excuse of catering to a disinterested public does not hold here. The Crimson's readers are members of the Harvard community, including those who attended Jackson's speech, those who organized it, and those who cared enough to write about it. By underestimating our interest, you are failing to cater to your public. Tamara Lyn '93   Camilla Bustani '93