Re: Who is expert at representing Indian perspectives?

Roberta Astroff (rastroff@vms.cis.pitt.edu)
Tue, 10 Dec 1991 11:03:00 EDT

I agree that the distinctions made between "expert" and "non-expert"
have had profound political implications, perhaps particularly in the "study"
(anthropological and other) of native peoples. However, if we are talking
about getting varied native viewpoints into mainstream media, the establish-
ment of accepted sources is a necessary evil. Necessary because news workers
are constrained and trained to produce the news through routine -- the basic
routine being getting on the phone and calling someone. Most reporters do
not have the time on a routine basis to search out new sources.

I call it a necessary evil, though, because as Todd Gitlin detailed
in his Book the Whole World is Watching, about the new left movement and the
media in the 60s, this need to create spokespeople can deform the shape of
a movement that is organizing along non-mainstream lines. The establishment
of the Native American Anti-Defamation League (an announcement I read on the
netowrk a while ago) will create an "official" source that non-Native
American newspeople can turn to for comment or critique. However, all such
"official" sources end up standing for everyone, thus posing the threat of
covering over a variety of opinions and positions within Native American
populations and nations. Roberta Astroff.