I’ve always resisted the notion that much of the media is so biased that their liberalism shows through.
Of course, I am ever-vigilant for stories, editorials, news reports or headlines that seem to give a pass to “victims’ groups” but not to the so-called power structure. I came across two recent examples, the first in the reporting about the “protests” in Ferguson, Missouri, and the other in commentary about Silicon Valley.
Let’s look at the past six nights in the St. Louis community. There were wild protests in mostly black Ferguson, which included smashing of store windows followed by outright theft of anything the looters could get their hands on.
My gripe is that the brazen criminal activity was supposedly carried out in protest of the killing of a black teenager, Michael Brown. The looters were simply motivated by decades of racism and police brutality, according to reports. Or the protests got out of hand and exploding into window smashing. There are now reports of police being fired upon from the area where the protestors had gathered.
I don’t doubt that some of those who live in the two-thirds black community of Ferguson have experienced perceived racism on the part of the police force, whose roster of 53 officers is 50 white and three “other.” But is it just possible that reporters and opinion writers are putting the cart before the horse? Maybe the killing of the young man was simply an excuse, an opportunity, for the looting.
Yes, fortunately, many other residents of Ferguson, both black and white, condemned what was taking place. But the formula which some politicians and some reporters and “opinionators,” to use a word that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger might have coined, is injustice equals protests, protests lead to looting, looting is explained by injustice, which is purely circular reasoning.
Now, if you don’t mind this sleight of hand, let’s look at the hot topic of “diversity” in Silicon Valley hiring.
A recent San Francisco Chronicle article was headlined “Most Apple workers are men.” The men are either white or Asian and those not hired are women, blacks and Hispanics. The article does not mention that men, especially Asians, have a stronger academic background than the three “victims” groups.
I’m not overlooking the fact that, on balance, women graduate with better grades than men, but fewer of them have backgrounds in the subjects related to technology and engineering. How can it be that senior management in the tech world would deliberately pass over talented applicants just to keep the right “blend?” Is that what Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Marissa Meyers, current or former chief executives of Hewlett-Packard and Yahoo, two of the most important technology companies in the world, represent?
Then to quote the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the world’s greatest authority on technology, engineering and just about everything else, puts the frosting on the grievance cake.
When Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs created Apple from nothing, was their first obligation to make sure their work force had “diversity,” or to, in effect, change the world while making money for their investors? Technology companies, as with all publicly traded companies, have an obligation to their customers, their shareholders, and to their workforce – not to the artificial goal of having the right “mix” of men, women, whites, Asians, Hispanics and other minorities.
Of course, the makeup of their workforce should be approved by Jesse Jackson.
Bud Stevenson, a retired stockbroker, lives in Fairfield. Reach him at Bsteven254@aol.com.