Davos 2020 has ended. The event was dominated by climate change in particular young activists such as the 23-years-old Ugandan Vanessa Nakate, and four milky white-skinned girls Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer, Isabelle Axelsson, and Loukina Tille.
Too much time is given to Greta Thunberg, who most certainly doesn't speak for everyone and, in particular, not African countries, but nor do the other four white girls. Nakate, the only black girl amongst them, who joined the fight due to a concern about the unusually high temperatures in her home country and possibly the only one who could represent that part of the world, gets cropped out of Associated Press (AP) photo.
How could AP justify this action and then say there was "no ill intent." Really? You crop out the only black girl from the photo to keep white girls in, and you call it "no ill intent." Why didn't AP cut out one of the white girls at the end? Because let's face it, I've heard of Nakate and Thunberg, but I've no idea who the other three are who seem keen to join the climate change movement because it suddenly seems a popular topic to be in. Even when Neubauer has taken so many flights to travel to Africa, Europe, and the United States and has then stated how she shouldn't be criticized, it should be the political system to get the blame. If this is who AP favors in photos, then they should question their judgment. AP's Executive Editor, Sally Buzbee, issued a statement:
"We regret publishing a photo this morning that cropped out Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate, the only person of color in the photo. As a news organization, we care deeply about accurately representing the world that we cover. We train our journalists to be sensitive to issues of inclusion and omission. We have spoken internally with our journalists, and we will learn from this error in judgment."
The sensible thing Buzbee can do is to fire the person who cropped and authorized this photo because there is no place for racism in any organization. Speaking to that person isn't going to help their inner racism. Just like the British media's institutional racism towards Meghan Markle will not just go away.
But really, what has happened to the media today to go on such obvious racist tirades? That is not only against black people, but also discrimination is ripe against other ethnic minorities. I have worked at CNBC in London, where all English staff has discriminated against me. I am white, but I am an immigrant who arrived in the UK as a refugee. While I worked at CNBC, there were no black nor brown people there, but this is not the fault of an American network, this is the fault of the white English people running the London bureau who make employment decisions in London.
So why am I telling you this? Because today news agencies are openly discriminating against people who are not like them, who are not white, who haven't been to private schools, whose parents aren't well off, or who didn't have the right connections to get them where they should be. Today's media is run by friends and family who have no clue how to report the news objectively. Because let's face it, newsrooms are one big f***-fest, and if you don't bend over enough, you are nowhere. So when you crop a black person out of a photo, of course, you will get a talking to if even that, but what you should actually get is marching orders.
News decisions are made by white, privately educated people, who haven't got a brain cell to make a decision objectively and to think about what the consequences could be. So it is no wonder AP cropped out Nakate, or British media used racist terminology against Meghan Markle. Welcome to the world where uneducated misinformed inexperienced friends and family make news decisions.