Can’t Help Myself

I got out of bed very late today, which screwed up most of my plans. And here it is, almost five a.m., which means I will be wakign up late again. I began ukulele lessons but the full details of this new aspect of my life will have to wait until I receive the photographic accompaniment.

I was actually headed to bed, but my frightening inability to disconnect myself from the world compelled me to go to CNN.com for one last, quick, read. I decided to click on a follow-up story about that guy in Fresno who is accused of killing all of his children. I'm not interested in discussing the details of this sad story. What I am interested in is one sentence that stopped my eyes dead in their tracks and forced open my mouth: "Prosecutors claim that all the evidence points to Marcus Wesson, a short, stout man with mangy dreadlocks that hang to his knees."  Mangy. Dreadlocks. First of all, Mr. Wesson was first identified in the second paragraph. In the second paragraph, his age is revealed. The details of the case follow one after the other in all subsequent paragraphs. We know who Mr. Wesson is, and we are even presented with a picture of him that appears to the right of the story in compliance with CNN.com's template. The sentence in question stands alone as one paragraph, as the 13th paragraph in the story. Out of 15. "Mangy dreadlocks." Representations of African Americans and, well, everybody else who isn't white, are rampant in the media. Most are negative. This man is already being accused of this heinous crime. There is already significant evidence stacked up against him. There is already a picture of him on the page. And there was plenty of footage of him on the day of his arrest. Why, then, in the 13th of 15 paragraphs did the writer of this story feel it necessary to describe Mr. Wesson's physical appearance the way he or she did? I will admit that I probably wouldn't have thought twice had this writer stopped at "short, stout man." But he or she didn't. Instead, the writer negatively described the black man's hair, not stopping until an idea of its length was planted firmly in readers' heads. There are many reasons for my reaction, but the one I have to say stands out the most is something that I heard about second-hand when I had locks. An ex-girlfriend of mine has a mother who said (paraphrase): "She has dreadlocks. Aren't those dirty?" Relegated. When there is so little good out there in the media about blacks, why does a journalist take the opportunity to identify an "other" (hair) aspect of this already twice-"othered" individual (1. an accused criminal; 2. a black man).

This description doesn't serve the story. It in no way influences readers to look down upon him any more than they probably already do. It only operates to further stick it to yet another alleged black man in a jailhouse jumpsuit. I had my first ukulele lesson. It was a pretty good day.