To paraphrase Malcolm X in the clip that Keeonna posted, in the 1960s it may have appeared that the only way to integrate black and white people was through military dictatorship. The federal government’s pro-civil rights position was clearly in opposition with the will of white segregationists controlling Southern states such as Mississippi, and it used force to impose progressive change. With the use of federal troops to enforce the Brown vs. Board ruling (including Alabama Gov. Wallace’s showdown with Kennedy) and sentiment for passing a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act gaining momentum, the “states’ rights” cry of the South was defended using irrational and repressive tactics. The violence committed against civil rights activists, essentially state-sanctioned vigilantism, reflects the desperation of those clinging to their hegemonic “social system and way of life—[what they considered to be] the consummation of centuries,” (111). Jackson’s censoring of national television content on WLBT and WJTV reflects the same desperation. By “blacking out” programming and omitting news coverage of events within their own community (especially civil rights protests), these stations exhibited a fear of viewers gaining access to information and outsiders’ perspectives. Classen discusses how the FCC and US Court of Appeals intervened in this matter, and how civil rights advocates wanted the federal government to ensure an unbiased media, vis à vis the fairness doctrine. My question to the class relates to the role of the federal government in regulating racism or any other type of bigotry in the media: To what extent should the FCC be involved in monitoring content that may be prejudiced/stereotypical? Can the “fairness doctrine” be applied to representation of people in the media? If the FCC regulated media for this kind of content, would people consider this to be itself a form of censorship, or too paternalistic? Currently the supposed moral guidance of the FCC is about “four letter words” and nudity.

On a related note, I was wondering if the fairness doctrine is used at all today in monitoring news content. A station like Fox News Network is permitted to air blatantly biased views and call it objective news. This goes unchecked (other than by Comedy Central satirists).

Classen's book also explores the effect of consumerism on media content. When the media is driven by a market economy, the profit motive may supercede political or moral concerns with regard to airing content. Television executives and a corporate biased federal government will not be partial to either reactionary or radical criticism, if it affects seriously the bottom line of business. Classen notes, "Businesses at first reacted to local activism with shock and resentment, then went through a period of silence (allowing extremists to fill the vacuum), and finally took back a degree of civic leadership through opposition to the extremist activities that threatened economic progress," (103). He adds, "...gradually a desire to gain a larger share in the economic prosperity of the fifties and sixties diluted southern segregationist zeal," (104). The extremist activities literally interfered with normal business activity, but the segregationist philosophy could also be viewed as a hindrance to business. When a marginalized group is viewed as just another demographic group in the consumer market, the still white-dominated business world is not color blind, but opportunistic. Both television content and advertising reflect this. Both NBC and ABC have diversified their palette of actors and shows, with respect to ethnicity and sexual orientation (eg. Betty the Ugly, Will and Grace, etc.) though they are still white-dominated. This tentative inclusiveness may be viewed as liberal reform, but it could also be viewed as economic expediency; the audience is the consumer.

Finally, I appreciated Classen's discussion of his own methodology. While he utilizes both legal and cultural analysis, he highlights his justification for including oral history. Official records reflect the hegemonic view. Neither an oral history nor an official document is unbiased. Classen explains the necessity of including oral history on page 135: "Oral practices meant that supremacist surveillance had no records for review and reprisal. Instead, within these traditions, knowledges that powerful institutions neglected or refused to formally recognize were hidden, cultivated, maintained, and circulated-- knowledges that were officially effaced but remained stubbornly attached to specific contexts and experiences."