I disagree. The doc. in the OP points to, hints at the fact that the original Black newspapers received advertising dollars from white companies in addition to Black businesses and organizations that supported them.
One of The Great Migration pull factors was Northern and Eastern city jobs from white owned business. Advertised and recruited to African Americans in Southern cities where these papers were also distributed.
Also, Black people didn't manufacture and produce all the goods and services that we used, so of course the white companies purchased ads in Black publications.
Those things were true in the era covered in the doc., were true when John H. Johnson ran Ebony and Jet, and are true today.
Responsible media covers stories, and discloses if they accept revenue from company when they report/discuss them during news coverage.
In the case of RMU, he says that his platform is largely user supported, and shouts out his contributors regularly.
I never said that Black people can't or don't buy ad space, I was expressing that a commercial press outlet cannot be maintained without white advertising ... even more true today than yesteryear
Roland martin dovetails directly into my point. He would fit the bill of "democrats in dashikis". His channel is a
Democratic party promotion platform. All his social punditry and news coverage ultimately concludes with corraling his audience to vote for whatever candidate their endorsing at the moment. That's not journalism, that's advocacy
In the wikilweaks documents it was noted that funding from those streams were dictating terms down to the specificity of what questions could and couldn't be asked... and for them to be presented in advance.
And that pendulum of dynamics can very well swing to the nominally different republican party. It isnt about the choice of party but that when your viabilty is rooted in such external forces, that shyt ain't black
Last edited:
