The Deliberate Intent of Social & News Media Bias Towards Other Cultures!

I recently watched on PBS, the 1969 Student Takeover of the Community College of New York by the Black and Brown students who attended there. The title was “The Five Demands.” On February 6, 1969, the Black and Puerto Rican Student Community presented these “Five Demands” to City College President Buell G. Gallagher for a separate school of Black and Puerto Rican studies. In February 1969, proposed budget cuts, if implemented, would have eliminated the SEEK Program and frozen non-SEEK admissions. President Gallagher threatened to resign if these cuts were approved, and more than 13,000 CCNY students rallied in support in Albany. Even with these actions, the university received $29 million less than it had requested. The open admissions program was never going to happen because the powers that be knew beforehand that the budget would be cut. It was all about the color. 

 

S.E.E.K. – Search for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge was a program created to warmly welcome and support talented and motivated high school graduates from New York who face economic challenges, encouraging them to pursue their education at CCNY. The program provided academic support, tutoring, financial aid, including help with books and transportation, personalized guidance, career development, and networking opportunities. It had the potential to be an incredible program. However, like many initiatives aimed at progressive education for people of color, it was limited by budget constraints that prevented its realization. While I could delve deeper into this topic, I will refrain, as it isn't the focus of this paper. It’s all about the racists’ slants the media use to project their stereotypes of people, rather than actually telling the truth that they are afraid and unwilling to understand others they don’t want to know.

 

The topic I wish to address is the biased portrayal of the takeover by the New York newspapers. The televised reports depicted one narrative concerning the rioting by Black and Brown individuals; however, eyewitness accounts revealed an opposite scenario. In reality, it was white students who were assaulting Black female students, and Black males intervened to protect and defend the women. The televised reports also bore similarities to the conduct of white mobs in the southern United States. The real instigators were the white males who were determined to maintain the status quo. This constitutes the focus of my article. Regarding the Five Demands, please refer to the CCNY website for more information. 

 

Social and news media were initially intended to be an excellent tool for connecting people worldwide. In this place, individuals from different countries, backgrounds, and traditions could share their experiences and perspectives instantly. However, beneath this surface of connection, there's an inconvenient truth: social media platforms often end up reinforcing cultural hierarchies, spreading stereotypes, and fostering biases against cultures that don’t fit the dominant narratives. Sadly, this isn’t always accidental; it’s often a result of algorithms, profit motives, and even political agendas working behind the scenes.

 

One of the most visible forms of bias is the unequal amplification of voices. Posts and content from Western nations, particularly the United States and Europe, are more likely to gain global traction. At the same time, equally significant cultural expressions from Africa, Asia, or South America struggle to gain visibility. Algorithms privilege what is familiar to the largest advertising markets, making “cultural popularity” less about authenticity and more about monetization. In effect, this creates a digital cultural imbalance, where specific ways of living are normalized while others are marginalized or ridiculed. 

 

There is also a deliberate shaping of narratives. Platforms have faced criticism for allowing harmful stereotypes to spread unchecked, from caricatures of Middle Eastern culture to distortions of African history. In some cases, content moderation policies are unevenly applied: imagery or speech critical of Western powers may be flagged as “hate speech.” At the same time, degrading portrayals of non-Western cultures are ignored or even pushed forward as entertainment. This selective enforcement reflects not just cultural insensitivity but a structural bias embedded in the digital ecosystem.

 

Furthermore, social media and news outlets often bias their content to align with geopolitical interests. For example, stories that reflect poorly on certain governments are sometimes downplayed or suppressed, while those that reinforce dominant political narratives are boosted. This manipulation fosters mistrust and misunderstanding between cultures, leading users to absorb a distorted version of global reality. It is not simply about ignorance—it is about intentional design, where algorithms and moderation policies are written to prioritize particular cultural and political interests.

 

The consequences are significant. Bias in social media and the news deepens cultural divisions, fuels xenophobia, and conditions users to accept cultural stereotypes as truth. It creates a digital echo chamber where cultural “others” are not celebrated for their diversity but portrayed as strange, dangerous, or irrelevant. If unchecked, this deliberate bias risks turning social media from a bridge between cultures into a weapon of division. Who has the power to hold those in power accountable? The people do but won’t. Ask yourself why.

 

Ultimately, addressing social media and news bias requires both accountability and education. Platforms must adopt transparent policies that treat all cultures with dignity and fairness, while users must learn to question the narratives presented to them. Cultures are not commodities, nor should they be filtered through the lens of profit and political convenience. The true promise of social media and the news lies not in uniformity, but in celebrating the vast diversity of human expression. Only by confronting deliberate bias can we reclaim that promise.

Partisan Politics and the Task Forces that Divide America!

Partisan politics have always been a part of American history, but they have recently become more intense and hurtful. While parties were initially meant to organize ideas and support our democratic process, they've often become tools that divide us today. The growth of task forces, commissions, and committees is less about solving problems and more about adhering to rigid beliefs, which only widens the gap between people. Instead of bringing Americans together to find solutions, these groups sometimes emphasize the differences among us, making it harder for the nation to come together and find common ground.

 

Partisanship has always been a part of American politics. The country’s first parties, such as the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, frequently clashed over the extent of federal government power. By the 1800s, partisanship had deepened, with disagreements over issues such as slavery, tariffs, and states’ rights, ultimately leading to the Civil War. However, even after the war, partisanship didn’t disappear; it simply took on new forms.

 

Throughout the 20th century, America experienced moments of bipartisan cooperation, as evidenced by the passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s and support for Social Security reform in the 1980s. Still, these moments of coming together were more the exception than the rule. By the 1990s and early 2000s, partisanship grew stronger as cable news and social media created echo chambers that amplified ideological differences. Today, the Republican and Democratic parties often function not just as rivals but as cultural opposites, seeing each other as existential threats to the nation’s survival.

 

Task forces are designed to bring together experts, policymakers, and community leaders to address pressing issues collaboratively. Ideally, they would go beyond party politics by focusing on evidence and teamwork. However, many task forces now often mirror and strengthen existing partisan divides.

 

For example, immigration task forces in Congress have often faced challenges in creating lasting solutions. Back in 2013, the “Gang of Eight”—a diverse group of senators from different parties—introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill. This bill aimed to strengthen border security and offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Although there was initial hope that progress was possible, fierce partisan opposition quickly brought the effort to a halt. Republicans felt Democrats were too lenient, while Democrats believed Republicans were obstructive. As a result, Congress became gridlocked, and unfortunately, America is still waiting for meaningful immigration reform.

 

Similarly, efforts by task forces on public health during the COVID-19 pandemic showcased some deep partisan divides. Federal and state committees often mirrored political loyalties more than scientific understanding. Topics such as mask mandates, vaccine distribution, and school closures became partisan battlegrounds, with different task forces offering conflicting advice depending on which party was in power. What could have been a coordinated and unified response to a public health crisis instead became yet another arena for political conflict, affecting lives and eroding public trust in our institutions.

 

History shows that task forces are most effective when they set aside partisanship. For example, the 9/11 Commission was able to create a well-respected report because its members focused on a shared goal, despite having different opinions on some details. They understood that national security is more important than party politics. In contrast, more recent efforts to investigate election integrity and the January 6th Capitol attack have been hindered by accusations of bias, causing one side to dismiss their conclusions entirely. This highlights how bipartisanship and mutual trust can lead to more effective and credible investigations.

 

This pattern highlights a concerning shift: task forces are increasingly seen not just as neutral problem-solvers but as partisan battlegrounds. When Americans view these groups through a political lens, even well-researched conclusions can seem less legitimate. This growing mistrust only widens the divisions within communities and makes the institutions that are essential for supporting democracy weaker.

 

The impact of partisan-driven task forces extends far beyond Washington, influencing our daily lives in numerous ways. Many Americans are now echoing the hostility often displayed by political leaders. Surveys reveal that members of different parties frequently see each other not just as rivals, but as enemies. This perspective can deepen divisions within communities, workplaces, and even among family members.

 

Furthermore, gridlock often hinders genuine progress on important issues that affect all of us. Topics such as climate change, healthcare reform, and gun violence are areas where bipartisan efforts could, in theory, lead to fair and practical solutions. Unfortunately, these vital issues stay stuck because committees tend to focus more on scoring political points than on working together to find common ground. The real cost is paid by the public, who must live with the consequences of this ongoing deadlock inaction.

 

For task forces to truly fulfill their purpose, they must avoid being drawn into partisanship. This can be achieved through simple changes in how they’re organized and how they operate. For example, appointing members from both sides or even nonpartisan experts can make them more trustworthy. Being open about their work, accountable for their actions, and setting clear deadlines for recommendations can help build public confidence. Culturally, leaders should embrace the value of compromise, understanding that no single party holds all the answers or solutions.

 

A hopeful example can be found in local governance. Throughout America, community-level task forces—covering issues such as policing reform, opioid addiction, or economic development—sometimes bring people together by focusing on local realities rather than national party agendas. These models show us that collaboration is still possible when leaders prioritize shared interests over ideological differences.

 

Partisan politics has always been a core part of America’s story, but these days, our divisions are putting the idea of a united nation to the test. Task forces, which are intended to solve problems, sometimes end up exacerbating divisions instead. By looking back at history and recent setbacks, we can gain a deeper understanding of the dangers of unchecked partisanship and find hope for renewal. If America is to heal these rifts, task forces need to return to their original purpose: bringing together diverse voices, carefully considering evidence, and working on practical solutions that benefit everyone. While partisan politics will always be around, it shouldn’t control every conversation. Leaders and all of us must remember that our strength isn’t in everyone thinking the same, but in our ability to hold different views and still work toward a shared future.

 

 

 

 

The Politics of Black & White Churches vs. Secular Politics!

The role of politics within the church—both Black and White—has long shaped American life, often in ways that mirror, resist, or diverge from secular politics. Black churches historically served as centers of community empowerment, resistance, and collective action. Born out of necessity in a society that denied African Americans equal rights, they became spaces of political education, moral courage, and social organization. From the Civil Rights Movement to modern struggles for racial justice, Black churches provided not only spiritual sustenance but also the organizational backbone for movements seeking to reform secular politics. Their theology often tied freedom to faith, merging the sacred with the political in ways that emphasized justice, dignity, and equality.

 

Looking at the rich history of the Black church fills me with pride. To me, the church isn’t just a place to gather on Sundays; it’s been a sanctuary in challenging times. It’s been the voice for those who couldn’t speak for themselves. It’s served as a rallying point for justice and change. From the secret meetings of enslaved people, who prayed for freedom, to marches and movements that reshaped our laws, the Black church has always been a powerful force that ties faith to action. We truly believed that our prayers weren’t just words—they had to be actions that walked, spoke, and moved to make a difference.

 

White churches have often reflected the privileges of the dominant culture. Historically, many White congregations aligned with maintaining social order and, at times, defending the status quo, including aspects like slavery, segregation, and policies of exclusion. Over time, White churches tend to express their values through issues such as abortion, marriage, and education, emphasizing cultural conservatism. This political engagement is often seen as a way to uphold morality and tradition rather than push for systemic change. While there is diversity among White churches, many often support political leaders and policies that aim to preserve stability rather than challenge societal structures. Sadly, the pulpits have sometimes emphasized maintaining traditions over speaking out against injustice. The gospel was sometimes used to support the powerful and silence the oppressed. I share this openly, not with bitterness. There have been some brave White brothers and sisters who have stood up for justice, but overall, the pattern has leaned more toward preservation than equality for all.

 

Compared to secular politics, which is often focused on compromise, negotiation, and power—rather than morality or theology—religious communities bring different perspectives to the table. Black churches have frequently championed inclusion and reform in the political arena, while White churches have tended to focus on shaping cultural values and preserving traditions. While secular politics asks, “What is possible within the law?”, Black churches have challenged us to consider, “What is just before God?”, and White churches often wonder, “What safeguards our core values?” Significant church politics should delve deeper. “What is just? What honors God? What shows love for our neighbors?”

 

When I think about all of this, I feel one thing clearly: politics isn't just an option for the church—it's an essential part of it. You can argue for keeping the church and politics separate, but it wouldn’t last for long. Whether we realize it or not, we're always sharing our voice in the world we believe in. The Black church has inspired us with its fearless cry for freedom. The White church has gently, and sometimes painfully, shown us the risks when faith becomes too cozy with power. And secular politics remind us with warmth that while laws can change systems, only love has the power to change hearts truly. The tension between these three groups—Black church politics, White church politics, and secular politics—continues to shape America. Together, they reveal how deeply faith and power intertwine, how communities interpret morality differently, and how the nation’s political struggles are as much spiritual as they are legal.

 

So, what do we take away, church? We see that politics is never just a neutral ground. Every pulpit, every vote, every platform reflects a vision of the world we’re striving to create together. The Black church teaches us beautifully that faith without action is incomplete, reminding us that the Gospel calls us to step up and make a difference. The White church, sometimes painfully, reminds us of what can happen when religion is used to safeguard power instead of uplifting the oppressed. Secular politics also offers us an important lesson—that while laws can transform society, only love, understanding, and honesty truly have the power to change hearts.

 

Our call today isn't about stepping back from politics, but about finding ways to enrich and redeem it. It's not really a question of whether the church should be involved in politics—because it always has been—but instead, whose politics are we reflecting? Are we leaning toward fear and self-preservation, or are we embracing justice, mercy, and humility? If we genuinely want the church to transform, we need to stand with Moses instead of Pharaoh, with Christ instead of Caesar, and with the people God has called us to serve, rather than with the powers that be. And we must not bow to the pressures of worldly powers; instead, we are called to serve the people that God lovingly calls us to nurture and support love.

 

That, to me, is the politics of faith. That is the call of the church. And I believe if we walk in that, then the church can still be the moral compass this nation so desperately needs.