Melissa Harris-Perry, a former MSNBC host, had her show canceled by the network following her refusal to appear on Sunday, The New York Times reported.
In an email Harris-Perry sent to her staff and later had a former producer post on Medium, she wrote, “[her] show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice,” by MSNBC to make room for their election coverage. Harris-Perry goes on to write that she felt the network pushed her aside to make way for less-qualified reporters.
Many major news outlets reporting this story played up Harris-Perry’s race in the matter, though she told the Times, “I don’t think anyone is doing something mean to me because I’m a black person” in an interview on Friday.
The lede in one article published by The Washington Post centered on the “racial aspect” of Harris-Perry’s situation. A FOX News article only mentioned Harris-Perry’s “racially tinged accusations,” and one Jezebel article used the headline, “MSNBC Officially Cuts Ties With Melissa Harris-Perry Over Beyoncé’s ‘Formation’ Video.”
To be fair, there was one sentence in the letter to Harris-Perry’s staff in which she used racially charged language, writing that she refused to be used as “a token, mammy or little brown bobblehead” for MSNBC’s “purposes.”
But Harris-Perry’s exit from MSNBC was deeper than just race relations with the network. That’s why Harris-Perry only wrote one sentence on the matter and later clarified her reasons for leaving with the Times.
Different outlets cherry-picked their angle depending on the kind of audience they wanted to attract. They weren’t acting in the spirit of journalism, but in the spirit of attention mongering.
Publications knew they would get clicks because people often get swept up in matters of race. News outlets are trying to profit off of Harris-Perry’s leave when they should instead be looking in their own companies, where there actually may be a race problem.
The race-emphasizing headlines capitalized on the United States’ current obsession with attributing every public issue to a social cause. And it’s often true — whether it’s racism or feminism, prejudice does occur in business. But if Harris-Perry didn’t feel discriminated against solely based on race, then she wasn’t. It’s as simple as that. And MSNBC is far from the worst when it comes to making an effort to incorporate diverse voices.
Tokenism, or in this case, having a minority anchor solely for PR purposes, is a serious epidemic, and the public shouldn’t use this platform to discuss tokenism when it isn’t present. Crying foul derails social movements and gives them less credibility.
Harris-Perry’s statement , but media outlets are bending Harris-Perry’s words to mean what they want them to mean. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have discussions about tokenism. We should. But only when it’s actually a problem.
Harris-Perry left her MSNBC show because the network was not using her as a respected journalist, but rather as a voice to fill spare airtime with.
According to the Times, MSNBC is in the middle of an overhaul in which the network is trying to move away from its liberal-leaning tendencies. Harris-Perry may also not have fit in with that picture. It’s tragic, but it’s just business.
Harris-Perry’s main issue was that she no longer had control of her show. In the weeks leading up to her cancellation, the show rarely aired. MSNBC just didn’t treat her fairly or give her creative control. The network was also trying to orient itself in 24-hour election coverage, but Harris-Perry didn’t want to conform. So she left, as she was free to do.
People have personal issues with any job. There was a clear disconnect between MSNBC’s vision for its programming and Harris-Perry’s vision for her show. It’s in the best interest for both parties to part ways. If someone hates their job, they quit.
Maybe there were more factors leading up Harris-Perry’s exit, but they sure weren’t all race-related, if Harris-Perry is telling the truth. Maybe Harris-Perry should’ve stood her ground in the midst of her network’s revamping. But she had enough.
The fact that Harris-Perry published her staff email on a public platform means she wanted it to be discussed, but people are unfortunately discussing it in the wrong way. They’re digging for dirt when they’re not even on the ground.
