Sept. 12 – The Gallup group released a survey today about American attitudes about marriage between whites and blacks.

The survey results shows positive steps forward:

Americans are approaching unanimity in their views of marriages between blacks and whites, with 86% now approving of such unions. Americans’ views on interracial marriage have undergone a major transformation in the past five decades. When Gallup first asked about black-white marriages in 1958, 4% approved. More Americans disapproved than approved until 1983, and approval did not exceed the majority level until 1997.

Of course, I still wonder about that remaining 14 percent. Surely the KKK cannot have that much support among the American electorate.

Then I looked more closely at the numbers.

The real progress and hope for America comes from the under generations under the age of 65.

The 18-29 year old group approves — or does not disapprove — of interracial marriages by a whopping 97 percent. Meanwhile, the grandparents (and in some cases parents) of those young people approve by only 66 percent.

This trend is mirrored in other social issues.

A Pew Center report on attitudes toward same-sex marriages matched anecdotal information and the Gallup survey of inter-racial marriage:

A plurality of seniors worry that gays and lesbians cannot be as good parents as other couples (by a 47% to 37% margin). By comparison, people under age 30 believe gay couples can parent just as well by a 69% to 29% margin.

So there is hope.

But let’s return to the Gallup survey and learn a bit about putting this whole thing in perspective. Or as we journalism instructors like to say: “Context.”

According to the Gallup survey, in 1968 about 20 percent approved of inter-racial marriage. That number is significant because just a year earlier the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia law that outlawed marriages between a white person and a black person. In his opinion handing down the court’s decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Very clear and direct writing. (Another example for journalists to follow.)

Journalists in Virginia and the Washington, DC area should pay attention to the Gallup survey with the Loving case in mind. The lawyer who argued the case for the Lovings was Bernard S. Cohen, a lawyer and former state legislator from Alexandria.

In 2007 — the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision — Cohen put the Loving case in the context of the current debate over same -sex marriages. He questioned the argument of “let the states decide” in 2007 as he did in 1967:

When the U.S. Supreme Court got Loving right, the polls showed 70 percent still opposed to interracial marriage. Imagine the injury to our nation if the Court had flinched, or if the opposition had prevailed with arguments like “let the people vote” or attacks on “activist judges,” and had cemented discrimination into our Constitution, as in Hawaii.

There is a lot to learn from history and many ways for journalists to take those lessons and apply them to today’s issues.

But first you have to know the history.

Great piece by Robert Niles at the Online Journalism Review this week about journalism ethics and how science works: A journalist’s guide to the scientific method – and why it’s important

Intuitively we know that the scientific method of research, hypothesis, testing and revision is what we do as journalists. Niles details the connections nicely and ties in how scientists do their job with the SPJ code of ethics.

But…

He fails to point out that journalists also need to understand the scientific method so they can get stories related to science right.

Specifically in the issues of evolution v. creationism and global warming, too many journalists fall short of doing their jobs right.

To start, look at the words used in most stories. Sources and reporters will use the term “believe in” when talking about global warming and evolution.

Belief is non-science. People believe in creationism. They believe in a deity.

Scientific data are accepted or rejected. And the basis for that acceptance or rejection is supposed to come from analysis of the facts and not what a person believes.

While journalists cannot do anything about what  sources say, (i.e. some presidential candidates: “I do not believe in evolution.”), it is wrong for a journalist to use such a term when discussing science or when framing questions.

Likewise, it is time journalists stopped giving equal weight to sources.

In a debate of what science to teach in science classes, scientists and science teachers should be given more weight and credibility than ministers or philosophers. Likewise, if a school board is debating including a course — outside the science curriculum — that compares the various religious creation stories, then ministers and philosophers should have greater  weight than scientists.

I would no more trust a person with only a theological degree discussing science than I would trust a scientist discussing religion.  But the standard style of giving equal time to “He said/She said” quotes rules out giving readers/viewers/listeners of the story the necessary context of who has the greater credibility in a given issue.

So many complain about how much the US imports from other countries. Yet, when a change occurs for the US to export, the story gets lost or ignored.

Well, that is not completely fair.

The Americus, Ga., media covered the event. NPR covered it. VOA covered it. Even the Economist covered it.

But the Atlanta Journal Constitution missed it.

It was: U.S. company exports chopsticks to China.

Yes, there is a giggle factor here but there is also a serious story of how US exports create local jobs.

Click here to see the AJC.com search page for “chopsticks”.

Now look at these stories:

VOA: Chopsticks Carry ‘Made in America’ Label

NPR: Georgia Company Exports Chopsticks To China

WALP TV10: Chinese will eat with GA chopsticks

Even China Daily picked up the story: US firm joins the dinner table

Now if I missed the AJC story, it was not from lack of trying to find it. (Here is the Google search.)

This is a small story. But it does have irony and — like I said — a certain “giggle” factor. But more importantly is shows that even in a small town a company can reach into a foreign market. That company can create LOCAL jobs that help the LOCAL economy.

More importantly, once you get past the irony, maybe (but I doubt it) some enterprising reporter might look at other small companies in the area that might be doing more mundane exports that also create or maintain US jobs.

Chopsticks to China is the hook for a series of larger stories it only people would look for them and look beyond the damned “Local. Local. Local” mantra.

Got just a short posting about a friend’s review of the world’s highest bar. (FYI, it’s in Hong Kong.)

The issue of who pays for the food and drink at a restaurant to be reviewed for most Americans is a no-brainer. But that is not necessarily so in the rest of the world. And my friend even has to refer to it in her blog.

Take a look and tell me what you think the ethics are in this situation.

Highest bar and journalism ethics

The U.S. government is taking big steps to provide unfettered Internet access to people living under the thumb of aggressive censors.

And the technology has already been proven to help areas in the United States that are under-served by high-speed Internet connections.

Just as the U.S. government finances Voice of America to bring uncensored news to millions of people around the world, this new project seems to one that will have relatively little expense –about US$2 million — but  tremendous benefits.

This project sounds like a great opportunity for local journalists to use as a way to connect an international project — avoiding the censors — and a hot local issue — limited access to high-speed Internet in poorer areas.

U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors

One of the devices is very cool: The Internet in as Suitcase.

[The suitcase project] will rely on a version of “mesh network” technology, which can transform devices like cellphones or personal computers to create an invisible wireless web without a centralized hub. In other words, a voice, picture or e-mail message could hop directly between the modified wireless devices — each one acting as a mini cell “tower” and phone — and bypass the official network.

[The suitcase] would include small wireless antennas, which could increase the area of coverage; a laptop to administer the system; thumb drives and CDs to spread the software to more devices and encrypt the communications; and other components like Ethernet cables.

The project will also rely on the innovations of independent Internet and telecommunications developers.

“The cool thing in this political context is that you cannot easily control it,” said Aaron Kaplan, an Austrian cybersecurity expert whose work will be used in the suitcase project. Mr. Kaplan has set up a functioning mesh network in Vienna and says related systems have operated in Venezuela, Indonesia and elsewhere.

Reminds me of the efforts to smuggle photocopy machines part by part into Poland during the days when the Solidarity movement was banned by the then communist government.

The group that put together the Internet in a suitcase have  helped set up wireless networks in Detroit and Philadelphia.

Sounds to me that there are some serious local-global stories that can be done here.