The prominence of the National Inquirer in the Trump “Hush-Money” trial reminds me of my interaction with the tabloid years ago.
My situation was not as important or sensational as the stories revealed in Donald Trump’s trial; however, at the time, I feared it could negatively affect my academic career depending on the Inquirer’s objective. In 1977, two years after I started my academic career at Washington University, the National Enquirer called for an interview about the television miniseries Roots, which was beginning to air.
The miniseries was based on Alex Haley’s book Roots: The Saga of an American Family, published in 1976. The book tells the story of Haley’s family, from the capture and enslavement of an African ancestor in West Africa through slavery in North America to the end of the Civil War.
Haley had traced his family through many generations. Of course, he described their lives and experiences based on historical events, as there were few historical records of his enslaved ancestors except for the oral storytelling about family members over the years.
The book was usually listed as fiction, but it was often displayed in nonfiction sections of bookstores.
The miniseries was televised on eight consecutive nights. During the first night, scenes of Africans being captured and treated cruelly on the long voyage across the sea were shown. Since few, if any, such scenes had been shown in publicly available formats about specific individuals in slavery, some African Americans, especially youth, had predictable horrified reactions. Thus, sporadic minor demonstrations occurred here and there across the country after the opening night of the tv series.
During the interview, the focus became apparent. The National Inquirer was pursuing the sensational angle. Might not the scenes of the long years of brutal slavery provoke even more demonstrations, like when Martin Luther King was assassinated?
A red flag went up. Should I participate with this sleazy tabloid? Would my comments be reported accurately? On the other hand, hadn’t I become an academic to be involved in these race and social policy issues? So, I crossed my fingers and proceeded with the interview.
I had been in too many demonstrations and related activities not to have something to say. So, I went out on a limb and declared that there would be no significant demonstrations. And then I told them why I was so confident. Yes, the more militant Black youth would be angry and produce minor outbreaks, but no major demonstration would happen because the series was being shown in the wintertime, and big race-based demonstrations were less likely to happen the cold weather.
About one hour after the interview, the Inquirer’s Office called, asking me to tell them my location in the next hour so they could send a photographer to take my picture. And then I balked. Despite their entreaties, I refused to have my picture taken. I did not want my picture in that tainted tabloid, and I did not trust what would be published.
When I saw the copy of the National Inquirer with my interview, I was relieved in at least two ways. First, I was quoted correctly, which sometimes does not happen with the most reputable publications.
Second, I was pleased to see the names of the other scholars interviewed for this article—two well-known sociologists, both better known than me. They were from the East and West Coasts, respectively, and I was in St. Louis, in the middle of the country. The National Inquirer was seeking scholars from across the country, and they published a straightforward article without any sensationalism. So, I had worried needlessly–in this case.