Donald Trump will participate in a panel discussion at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) annual convention in Chicago, which begins on Wednesday, as announced on Monday night.
Some Black journalists quickly took offense online at the announcement, which stated that the Q&A would “concentrate on the most pressing issues facing the Black community.”
“Fake News”
They discredited the choice to welcome a presidential candidate who has thrashed Black writers, spearheaded a movement to halt diversity, equity and inclusion endeavors and who is liable for an increased anti-journalstic rhetoric, including the promotion of the expression “fake news” to describe factual, yet possibly unattractive, reporting.
The Guardian was informed by Tiffany Walden, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The TRiiBE, a digital platform devoted to Black Chicago, that NABJ’s decision was “irresponsible.”
Walden’s Statement
According to Walden, “We’ve watched Trump threaten to send the feds here when he was in office. We’ve watched him use Chicago as a dog whistle in all of his campaign’s materials during his first run for office.”
“He talked about Chicago having top gang thugs. So this puts the city of Chicago and its residents in a very vulnerable position. It also puts Black journalists in a very vulnerable position at a convention that’s supposed to be a safe space for them.”
Echoing Sentiments
On X, political analyst Ameshia Cross echoed this sentiment: “The same Trump that attacked Black journalists from the stump. The same Trump who is attacking DEI, can’t get ahead of his own racism and sexism. And the guy who wants to dissolve journalism as we know it, that’s who is speaking at #NABJ24 w/ record attendance. C’mon yall.”
Another writer, Carron J Phillips, referred to the move as “the single dumbest and worst decision in NABJ history”.
Lemon’s Response
Because of the outcry, Ken Lemon, president of the NABJ, and others defended the decision, arguing that Black reporters ought to be able to question a political candidate.
Lemon told NABJ student journalists on Tuesday, “Every year, every presidential election cycle, we invite the presidential candidates to come. We extend that to anyone who is a nominee and in this case we have two presumptive nominees. We invited both of them … This is an important hour. We have people whose lives are depending on what happens in November … This is a great opportunity for us to vet the candidate right here on our ground.”
Harris Presence
Kamala Harris is booked to speak somewhere else on Wednesday, when Trump will be at NABJ, however her affirmation to go to this year’s convention, which runs through Sunday, is “pending”, as per NABJ.
Tia Mitchell, the chair of NABJ’s political reporting taskforce and a Washington reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, stated on X: “I helped make this call. And it’s in line with invitations NABJ has sent to every presidential candidate for decades. But continue to go off on your feed. I’ll continue to work to create opportunities for journalists to interview the potential next President.”
Panel Moderators
Wednesday’s board will be chaired by Rachel Scott, a senior legislative reporter for ABC News, Fox News’s The Faulkner Focus and Outnumbered host Harris Faulkner, and Kadia Goba, a politics journalist for Semafor.
On X, contributing Atlantic reporter Jemele Hill wrote, “As journalists, we can never be afraid to tackle someone like Trump. The reality is that he is running for president and needs to be treated as such. Being questioned by journalists is part of the job, and especially important in the company of Black journalists. Mainstream media keeps trying to convince us that he actually is gaining support among Black people. Let’s see if it’s true.”
“Played Evasive”
In any case, the columnist Matthew Wright pushed back on the idea that there was anything useful in addressing Trump.
According to Wright in response to the Guardian: “What does that serve? We literally just watched him talk to Laura Ingraham [who] was trying to get him to answer different questions, but he practically played evasive of action even then. If a super conservative white woman can’t get straight answers out of him, what makes you think that three black women are going to get them?”
Trump Campaign
In an explanation about the NABJ appearance, Trump’s campaign stated: “President Trump accomplished more for Black Americans than any other president in recent history.”
A few writers interpreted this explanation as proof that NABJ’s choice to interview the former president was destructive, and would prompt further propagation of lies.
Panel Announcement
“This is the way 45 is touting his appearance before @nabj this week. Was this what you wanted [Tia Mitchell]? He is already lying and he isn’t even in Chicago yet,” On X, media strategist April Reign wrote, “This is your legacy.”
NABJ members were also concerned about the panel’s announcement, which came less than 48 hours before the convention began.
Shocking Decision
The decision shocked culture writer Shamira Ibrahim, she told the Guardian.
According to Ibrahim, “It puts everyone in a really bad position. You already paid your convention fees, you already paid for a hotel that’s likely not refundable at this point, flights are likely difficult to get replaced. Even if you have a moral opposition to it or an ethical opposition to it, you’re kind of already stuck in whatever plan you made.”
Undermining Community
NABJ’s yearly convention has permitted Black journalists a space to partner and gather safely since the association’s establishment in 1975, and for certain correspondents they consider it a family reunion. Ibrahim asserted that inviting Trump would undermine that sense of community.
She went on to say, “NABJ is primarily not just a place for journalists to get opportunities to interview politicians, but also a place for Black journalists to network, have open conversations about things that are happening in the industry, attend panels, and really get a sense of how to shift in a very, very volatile, fragile space.”
“Inviting someone who, one, has made targeted attacks on Black journalists, two, has actively been responsible in defunding programs that help build Black journalists, and three, has publicly attacked the Black press flies in the face of any sort of fidelity convention.”
