I always look forward to the visit from the Barbershop guys on Fridays. But one thing always gets my goat: it seems like inevitably, just after a dissection of some racist comment that somebody made about Obama (this week it was "that boy's finger doesn't need to be on the button") one of them makes an equally sexist or gender stereotyped comment about Hillary which just flies under the radar. This week, Mark said Hillary wouldn't win enough votes in Pennsylvania to take the nomination, but "it's enough to keep her nagging us for the next 10 weeks."

Nagging? C'mon man...calling Hillary a "nag" is just as bad as calling Obama uppity or "well spoken." And I'm still cringing over Jimmy's fat jokes aimed at Aretha during the "Queen of Soul" grammy discussion.

I'm not admonishing the guys to stop saying these things...the free-for-all aspect is what I love the most and frankly, when our conversation gets too civil and stilted and PC, nothing of substance gets said. But I did feel the need to call them out, since that's one of the very things for which the 'shop guys call other people out. Mote in your brother's eye and all that.

Sent by GErri | 9:31 AM ET | 04-21-2008

I enjoy listening to "Tell Me More". I have a 50 minute commute, with 2/3rds of that during your show vis Sirius Radio. I'm troubled by the promos for "Tell Me More" running on Sirius, during which Michel talks about "different viewpoints" rather than acknowledge that the vast majority of viewpoints are Black or African American. I don't think it's too contentious to assert that NPR tends to lean towards liberal viewpoints; regardless, I'm surprised and disappointed that the promos disingenuously dance around the primary point of this show which is to focus on African American issues with an African American viewpoint. I feel confident you won't disagree with my description of the premise for the show - almost every interview eventually works its way to some question about how this affects black voters or the black urban population. Therefore, why do you feel the need to use codewords ("different viewpoints") during the promo? Are you concerned you'll lose listeners or that new listeners will avoid tuning in if they're told the explicit premise for the show? I think you're promo speaks volumes about how you think race is perceived by one of the most open minded audiences in American, the NPR listeners.
Thanks!

Sent by Dan Drago | 10:21 AM ET | 04-21-2008

I think the pope should have been fingerprinted the moment his plane landed on our soil. The pope is the CEO of an organization who's provided cover for criminal acts of his employees.

Sent by Greg Thrasher | 1:28 PM ET | 04-21-2008

Sorry, the fact that I happen to be African American does not mean that all the points of view represented are African American. In fact, they are not. Our slate of guests is quite diverse and I mean diverse. When we explored the meaning of Independence for Kosovo I guarantee you we did not have any African Americans. Here's something I'd like you to consider...I suggest that you "hear" the show as more mono ethnic than it is. Why might that be? Research consistently shows that non black observers overestimate the percentage of African American/black presence in a group or setting IF the percentage of blacks is above 10 % or so. That is to say, if a room is 10 % black, non blacks see 15 or 20 or 30%. Knowing that, what do we do? Try to persuade our listeners that we are "less black" by NOT having black people on the show. I don't think so. No, our point of view is that we are presenting alternate views and voices and when you do that, many of them are going to be people of color and women and members of religious minorities...and sometimes those categories overlap it has to b said..a further point..do you call All Things Considered and Morning Edition "white shows" or "white male shows"? I don't and I bet you don't, even though I bet the vast majority of their guests are white, simply because (hello!) this country is still predominately white (which is why the other folks are called "minorities"--for now) issues they cover. No..I think our show is what we say it is..but we love that you listen and we love that you dig it...

Sent by Tell Me More Host - Michel Martin | 5:58 PM ET | 04-23-2008

@ Greg Thrasher, I thought your brand of nativism went out of style back in 1960, but, apparently, it just went underground.

Blaming the pope for "criminal acts of his employees" is akin to blaming the President of the United States for public school teachers who molest their students. The Catholic Church, like many organizations, has rules She follows, called canon law. Canon law, much like our own constitutional law, provides for due process and rights for those accused of crimes. Were he to short-circuit the process, just to appease the ill-will of nativists like yourself, he would be guilty of short-changing the rights of those accused. Now, as Pope, he has the right to do that, but, for many different reasons, not the least of which, justice, he doesn't.

He has, however, done quite a bit to start the healing process for victims of sex abuse --not that you were paying attention. At every religious event, he spoke about abuse, specifically about the pain of the victims. He has met with victims of sex abuse, a move that, sadly, his predecessor didn't take. He has also started work on changing canon law to increase the statute of limitations past the 28th birthday of the victim.

Now, more needs to be done to right this wrong, specifically in punishing bishops who covered up the abuse, a crime under canon law. Unfortunately, most Americans only see the cost of the scandal in terms of dollar signs, thus your reference to his "CEO" status, no doubt. The Catholic Church has been around long before the almighty dollar and will be around long after the almighty dollar is sold for pennies on the euro (which should happen any day now). This is where the doctrines of Catholic Church (love your neighbor, pray constantly) does so much more good than any bloated judgment (most of which goes to lawyers, anyway) will do.

BTW, if you're concerned the "criminal acts of his employees," are you equally concerned about what our public schools do to cover up their sex abuse? The AP ran a three-part series on it last October. NPR spent a 20-minute segment covering it (kudos to TOTN). Or are you only concerned about the religion of the abuser and not the toll of the abuse?

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 2:29 PM ET | 04-24-2008