Fulwood’s Demotion

A recent change at the PD has caused quite a stir in Greater Cleveland’s African-American community for a couple of reasons. Long-time Metro Section columnist Sam Fulwood III has been “reassigned” (read: demoted) to an Arts & Culture beat by outgoing editor Doug Clifton (who in fact brought Fulwood here with him from the Miami Herald over seven years ago) and the allegedly stated reasons for the move somehow don’t ring quite true. And then there is the matter of Fulwood’s replacement, Phillip Morris, which opens another can of worms that I will address later.

Experience has taught me that when a person gives a bunch of reasons for a negative action usually none of them are the truth. Fulwood has shared with me some of the conversation he had with Clifton (who, by the way, is retiring in a week or so) and the reasons for the demotion supposedly were: (not necessarily in this order) He didn’t get out into the community enough; his writing wasn’t strong enough; and Clifton was concerned about his “legacy” at the PD.

I’m not a big conspiracy theorist; I don’t see evil machinations behind every move made by the PD simply because sometimes I’m not particularly fond of its level of journalism or its politics. Some of the deep-rooted negative feelings about the PD extant in the community simply have to do with the fact they are the only daily in town — which of course makes Cleveland a sort of journalistic Hicksville, a “one newspaper town,” something we didn’t used to be. Instead of doing everything it could to put its competition (the Cleveland Press) out of business years ago, it should have actually been attempting to save it and make it viable — if for no other reason than the commonwealth. Shortsightedness being a commodity our corporate captains never seem to be in short supply of.

Now we are left with a newspaper that oftentimes demonstrates signs of journalistic schizophrenia. To wit: It will reprint (it evidently doesn’t have anyone on staff knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to create original content) an editorial calling for new policies that create employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated persons, and on a preceding page will do a negative and slanted story, virtually taking to task an employer for hiring a person with a long ago misdemeanor conviction.

Most recently (April 19) it ran a great story about how formerly incarcerated persons can and do succeed upon returning home from prison when help and support is available, but a headline writer titled the piece “Ex-Convicts can become contributors, study shows.” The term “ex-convicts” is pejorative, and the headline writer knows (or should have known) this; if they didn’t an editor should have caught what amounts to a journalistic slap in the face and educated the offending headline writer. Staying abreast of current shifts in language is part of being a journalist ... isn’t it?

Now the foregoing example is certainly not earthshaking, but it is reflective of the journalistic shoddiness that has tarnished the paper’s reputation over the years. It’s a bunch of little things, little mistakes here and there in the paper that add up to an unwholesome whole.

It would not surprise me very much if a story about how Mexican farm workers actually aid the US economy would be entitled “Wetbacks keep lettuce prices reasonable.” There are some very culturally insensitive hacks presently working at the PD and their juvenile insensitivity is tolerated by the higher ups. For Clifton to be concerned about his legacy is quite laughable.

But I digress. I think the real reason behind Fulwood’s demotion is money. Everyone knows that the PD, like so many other US dailies, is struggling financially; that’s why it ceased publishing its Sunday Magazine a few years back — and why Terrance C.Z. Egger was brought in as president and publisher ... this certainly was no promotion for him. He’s here to try to right a sinking financial ship, do it as quickly as possible and then get out of Dodge.

And at a newspaper salaries are the biggest area where economies can be made. But the PD is a guild shop, which means that Fulwood can’t be terminated without just cause, but he can be dogged out so bad that he quits. And if I were Sam no way would I give them that satisfaction.

My suspicion — which admittedly could be totally off base — is that Egger twisted Clifton’s arm on this demotion. Something like, “Since you brought him here, do me a favor before you go and try to get rid of him.” But the larger issue is, what kind of message does this send to the African-American community? While Fulwood wasn’t fired, he certainly was treated shoddily.

In case Egger hasn’t been in town long enough to notice, Fulwood, although his assignment was as a Metro columnist, was the only opinion writer at the PD African-Americans felt they could turn to when an issue in our community needed spotlighting. He was always there for us — which brings me to Fulwood’s replacement: Phillip Morris.

Although we are on cordial terms, I can’t say that I know Morris well; few people in the African-American community can make that statement. He’s always tended to keep his black brothers at an arms-length distance. However, from occasionally reading his work I can attest — without fear of rebuke — that he is a top-flight wordsmith. Over the years I’ve disagreed with his take on issues (especially those that affect the African-American community) more often than not, but have certainly respected his right to his well-formulated opinions.

Similar to many other conservative black writers — Jayson Whitlock, Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams immediately come to mind — I feel that he earns his keep by, in large part, exculpating the existing power structure (and the institutionalized racism it has maintained in the country almost from its founding) from any responsibility in regards to the deplorable conditions found in minority communities. Their job seems to be to assuage white guilt in regards to these matters.

While I’m in agreement with black conservatives on some points (such as African-Americans should not look to the very people who caused the majority of the problems of our race in the first place to be eager about solving them, we’re going to have to quit whining about what “they” did to us — and are not doing to help us — and put more effort into solving these problems ourselves), I vehemently disagree with conservatives of any race as to whom and what caused (and continues to cause) those allopatric problems.

And, while I don’t hold out much hope the government that sanctioned slavery and its attendant racism for over two centuries — nor the institutions that profited so handsomely from it — will suddenly see the error of their past ways and finally make apologies and financial amends, I will never, ever let them off the hook for what their despicable policies and practices did to my race. But, like that cousin of mine that owes me that thousand bucks and will never pay me, they are deadbeats. What “they” legitimately owe my race is an uncollectible debt; we have to write it off, move on, and try harder to save ourselves. Reparations just ain’t happening, at least not in my lifetime and us playing the role of professional victims is not going to make them pay up. Why? Due to a total lack of conscience on the subject by the majority of white Americans. Many white folks — certainly not all — have become really expert at playing dumb on the topic. Who? Me?

The problem I have with conservative black journalists and thinkers is they too often buy into the oft suggested but never quite stated racist notion there is something genetically wrong with us black folks... that it is our own lack of morals, fortitude, thriftiness and other positive traits that cause a full one-third of our race to be in dire straights and sinking deeper on a daily basis. Of course they are dead wrong, but Randall Robinson states it so much better than I in his seminal book The Reckoning: What Black Folks Owe to Each Other:

Not one person I’ve spoken to in the African-American community (and I really do speak to quite a few on a regular basis) feels that we have gained in the trade of Morris for Fulwood. What little they know about Morris they don’t like ... or at least don’t trust. One person said to me, “Perhaps he can write a bit better than Fulwood, but what good does that do us if he sees most issues in a different light than most African-Americans? How can he be a voice for people he doesn’t seem to care very much about?”

But the larger question is, since the PD had only one opinion voice that championed African-Americans, why try to get rid of it instead of one of the marginally-talented white writers it has a surfeit of?

With all of that said, I certainly hope that Morris steps up, fills Fulwood’s shoes, and becomes a strong and fair advocate for all Clevelanders. As I previously wrote, he certainly has the talent to do so and I for one am more than willing to give him a chance. But it will be interesting to see what his perspective on minority issues is going to be. How much will he champion black causes — or, more succinctly — how much will his PD bosses allow him to do so without fear of banishment?

It is crystal clear at this point that attentiveness to the concerns and desires of its African-American readers is not high on the agenda at the PD, so, as I very publicly stated in an interview I did on Channel 19 the day after Fulwood’s demotion was announced, I’m cancelling my subscription to the PD and encourage other members of the minority community to follow their own consciences in the matter. Based on how well African-American’s agendas are addressed, I might reconsider my cancellation at some point in the future. But since I won’t be reading the PD someone will have to tell me about how well — or badly — Morris is doing, and trust me, a whole lot of “someones” will. Stay tuned...

Managing Editor’s note: The above column was turned in by Mansfield B. Frazier on Monday, April 23. On Tuesday, April 24, Phillip Morris’s first PD Metro column appeared, and Frazier wrote the following in response to it:

At least Phillip Morris didn’t disappoint anyone. In his first Metro column he managed to be dismissive of virtually all complaints African-Americans currently have against the power structure. Writing about the speakers at a Carl Stokes memorial celebration, he stated they "...used their allotted two minutes to rail against the standard bogeymen of the oppressed, including: police brutality, predatory lending, driving while black, and the lack of elected black officials."

Bogeyman: “a legendary ghostlike monster often believed in by children... can be used metaphorically to denote a person or thing of which someone has an irrational fear.”

Since Mr. Morris thinks that he is so clever with words, I have one for him. Supercilious: “haughtily disdainful or contemptuous, as a person or a facial expression.” And if you don’t believe this description is accurate, just look at his photo.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com
(:divend:)