No more horsing around, it’s time to get to the meat of it. And we at Libetica can think of no better place to begin unraveling the webs of deception within our culture but by going for the jugular, National Public Radio and our very own local Minnesota Public Radio. Not only are we going to be taking aim at one of the heads of the media leviathan, but we’ll be exposing a sacred cow that they use daily to manipulate us emotionally and intellectually, racism.

While this is the first look at NPR and MPR, it certainly will not be the last as on any given day at almost any time, the listener will be exposed to nothing less than propaganda, regardless of the topic being discussed or the news event being broadcast. While there may be a hint of hyperbole in that last remark, the fact remains that they simply are the best at spinning webs of ideology and propaganda, all through those silky smooth voices.

Today’s post is in regards to a Marketplace segment titled “Can changing home appraisal language help close the wealth gap?”

We highly encourage you to listen to any and all source material that we discuss so that you are able to hear for yourself what is being referenced and so that you can make up your own mind after hearing what it is we have to say.

In terms of this segment, what we have to say is that we’re flabbergasted at how much propaganda and racism (on their part) they were able to fit into a segment that lasted no more than two minutes and twenty-five seconds. This should sound like no easy task but with myriads of producers, researchers and editors all paid handsomely by tax payer money, the magic can flow seemingly effortlessly from their radio antennae.

So what exactly is our criticism of this segment? We found many things troubling with the premise of the story and the utter lack of consideration for anything other than the ideology which they are attempting to instill in the mind of the listener. What we heard this radio program and those interviewed say was the following:

1. Asking if a neighborhood is “safe” is code for “white” which implies using the phrase “a safe neighborhood” is a racist one. No consideration was given to those of non-white skin colors who might be in the market for a home and ask if it’s a “safe neighborhood.” Are we to believe, as this segment suggests, that only white people ask such a question or are concerned with safety? Or is it only racist when a white person asks about and is concerned with safety?

To distill the meaning of the word "safe" to mean predominantly "white" as this segment does, they completely overlook the actual meaning of the word as it pertains to a neighborhood and force it into an ideological paradigm, one bent on the promotion of racial tension and division. As a listener of this sort of propaganda, it's our hope that you see it for what it is and don't fall into this narrow-minded and nefarious trap.

As to the real meaning of the word "safe" we at Libetica tend to think of things such as there aren't gun shots every night, the number of house invasions, car thefts, muggings, carjackings and domestic assault cases are relatively low. It means a person can reasonable consider walking throughout their neighborhood at any time of day or evening without worrying about being the victim of a crime. It means that there are active neighborhood watch groups, that neighbors will call the police if they see a crime or something suspicious, it means that the police are involved in ensuring the safety of the neighborhood. It means that neighbors attend regular neighborhood and park meetings to discuss problem homes, streets and intersections where criminal activity seems to be the norm and will actively participate in resolving these issues. To suggest that only white people are interested in any of the above or that people of color do not wish the same for their neighborhoods is ignorant and borderline racist.

2. “Desirable", when used to describe a neighborhood, is also code for “white” and therefore racist. It’s amazing that the interviewer and those interviewed seem to be oblivious that people of color may wish to live in a “desirable” neighborhood and that “desirable” may have many factors associated to it other than the percentage of “white” people living in it. For instance, when we at Libetica think about what makes a neighborhood desirable we think about such things as available parking, access to public transportation, access to public parks, the condition of said parks, the condition of streets and other infrastructure, access to stores, cafes, restaurants, bars and other cultural venues, the size of yards and distance between homes, the amount of mass housing (apartments vs single homes), historic property values and potential future values, aesthetics of homes and infrastructure, location of fire stations and police precincts, location with regard to clinics and other health providers, public and private school availability, amount of choice of schools and after school programing in the parks and yes, we would definitely ask about safety. If the standards above are met, regardless of the racial makeup of the neighborhood, we’re all good to move in, thanks. Their portrayal of the word “desirable” as code for “white” and ultimately racist is naive and simplistic at the least and propagandistic and deplorable at the worst.

3. The segment mentions the need for more “objective metrics”. If crime rate (as denoted by "crime ridden") isn’t an objective metric for where one would want to live and sleep and expose their children by way of daily environment, then what is? If “desirable” and “safe” are racist and using terms such as “crime ridden” is bad (assuming it also to be racist because according to the tone and tenor of the segment they are assuming “crime ridden” is code for “black” – who’s the racist here?), what metrics would they have us use and what words are appropriate (as approved by the race police so as to not be racist)?

In describing a neighborhood for instance, that has had multiple gunshots almost every single night for the past 3 years, would they prefer we say something along the lines of “always something happening” or perhaps “never a dull moment”? If you’ve ever looked at a shot spotter map that indicates gun shots, I think it becomes pretty clear that certain neighborhoods are in fact more dangerous than others and such characterizations are not illogical or inappropriate and metrics such as number of gun shots in a neighborhood (which if there are many, might earn the label crime ridden) are not in any way racist…

4. One of those interviewed said, in relation to who is it that is doing the appraisals, and I believe there was a hint of disdain in his voice, that it’s “a group of white men mostly.” Racist much? What does their skin color have to do with their expertise, experience and professionalism? And what are they implying when they indicate that 85% of appraisers are white? Are they suggesting that people of color are not allowed to be appraisers and have been kept out of the profession? Are they suggesting a conspiracy among that “group of white men” to cook the books as it were so as to keep certain home values low? I was waiting with baited breath for him to suggest that this “group of white men” sit around the office in their white hoods plotting against specific area codes all day… I digress.

5. And who is to blame for a neighborhood having lower or higher values than another neighborhood exactly? This segment makes it seem to be only a matter of skin color (shame on them). In my neighborhood, NE Minneapolis, the skin color was historically white for some time and property values were relatively low. That might have had something to do with the deplorable makeup of said whites, a bunch of Norwegians, Swedes and Poles who didn’t necessarily all get a long and occupied a lower working class status as compared to other parts of the city. (We use the term deplorable here in jest.) Values are through the roof now and NE is more racially diverse than ever before in the neighborhoods history.

The truth of the matter is that the factors that make a neighborhood valuable are much more complex than this race-baiting segment would have anyone believe. A lot of the value in NE came from the artists who moved in and fixed up dilapidated and out of sorts homes. It came from the small store owners who took a chance opening businesses in a neighborhood mostly known for manufacturing. It came from the fact that other areas of Minneapolis, the warehouse district and uptown for example, were gentrified and people flooded to a place where home values were in fact low. It came from the fact that the people that lived in NE invested time and energy into making their homes and yards look beautiful and were active in local government to make sure that the neighborhood was relatively safe. When crime and prostitution began to emerge on Central Avenue, neighbors formed watch groups and drove such things off the street. My point, home value in a neighborhood is based on many factors, none of which were explored in this one sided racially divisive segment.

Now we at Libetica aren’t here to suggest that there in fact might not be a problem with such a gap in home values, we simply don't know (we'll look into it further) and this segment did nothing to explain why such a gap is in fact a problem. Rather than offering objective journalism on the matter, they distilled the cause of the gap to a matter of racism. In our estimation they failed to prove the case. In fact, not only did they fail to clarify what the actual problem was and what the root causes might be, but in offering a solution based on presumed and unproven racial biases, they exposed themselves as in fact, being racist.  Furthermore, they did this issue a serious disservice in presenting the segment as one sided, ideologically skewed and intellectually dishonest. One must wonder if the goal of this segment wasn't to expose a serious problem and to educate the public to its merits but rather, to further perpetuate a culture of racial divisiveness and social tension?

The fact that they did not wish to offer a serious exploration of the issue, and is further evidence of their lack of journalistic integrity, is demonstrated by their deliberate omission of any voice other than those whom agree with each other. Of their multiple guests, none represented the “group of white men mostly” who are appraisers. More importantly, of their multiple guests, none represented the 15% “non white men” appraisers. If this were true journalism and theirs an honest attempt at transparency and the furtherance of knowledge, they would have had someone on the show to offer a rebuttal or explanation as to why there is a gap in home values and what it's implications are.

But this seems to be the modus operandi of NPR and MPR as they so often have multiple guests on a program, all of whom simply add to an echo chamber of agreement in the direction of one particular ideological agenda or another. Nothing makes us cringe more at Libetica, as it should for any free thinking human being, as hearing phrases toted about all too often on NPR such as “settled science”. But we’ll save that phrase for another essay.

And so to conclude, we find the ease with which this program and the guests on this segment can so quickly distill words such as “safe” and “desirable” into words of racism while negating completely the desires and wishes of people of color in also wanting to live in safe and desirable neighborhoods as propagandistic, deplorable and yes, even racist.

I know this might be hard for some to hear. No one wants to criticize the soft spoken, nerdy and familial voices of NPR. They’re supposed to be the good guys after all, fighting off the rhetoric and fascist ideals of the right. Right? Um, no. And there in lies one of the major problems with much of public radio as it does appear to do just what was mentioned, offer an alternative to that bad and evil Fox News and those bad and evil Republican politicians... But that’s not the role of a journalist nor of a news broadcast and it certainly shouldn’t be the role of a company whose revenue is made directly from the pockets of tax payers. Journalism should attempt to never take sides and never promote an agenda of it’s own. We’ll explore this in much more detail in further essays but suffice it to say that this is just the tip of the iceberg where propaganda in pop culture and even within the sphere of intellectualism is concerned.

We hope that this little tidbit will get you thinking and if you’re a listener of NPR, as we are (we also listen to Fox, CNN and so many more), that you’ll begin to listen with a new set of ears, ones that are just a bit more open and a bit more discerning for what is news and what is propaganda.

See you soon and Peace!