A deeply troubling piece of journalism and an equally troubling publishing decision by Philadelphia Magazine is garnering lots of attention. From all of us.

The cover story of Philadelphia Magazine's latest issue is garnering a lot of attention. It's been the subject of an official four-page letter by the mayor, calling it out for its negative portrayal of race relations in the City of Brotherly Love. The article even prompted a summit of sorts at the National Constitution Center, bringing together the magazine's editor and the writer of the incendiary piece with members of the African American and Latino communities. Add to it that both Philadelphia Weekly and we —a member of Philadelphia's ethnic media — have tweaked Philly mag's cover for our own.

"Being White in Philly" is a deeply troubling piece, and an equally troubling publishing decision.

It's possible that the author of "Being White in Philly," Robert Huber, believes his piece has achieved something new by focusing the article about race relations on this: "white people have become afraid to say anything at all about race." His editor, Tom McGrath, certainly makes the case that the article breaks new ground with this approach. He also implies there is journalistic bravery in this, given that the magazine has no people of color as full time editorial staff.

New ground? Bravery? Let's call it what it is: fear of "the other" and journalistic arrogance.

To begin with, there is nothing at all novel or groundbreaking about white people's take on race relations. The mainstream media is a very white place, particularly when you look at the ranks of editors, executive editors and publishers. Unless you are reading or getting your news from an ethnic media source, chances are what you are seeing and reading is being vetted, assigned or okayed, and filtered through white journalists. This is nothing to celebrate or crow about. When Philadelphia Magazine specifies that they are an all white newsroom running a story about how bad race relations are in the city, and in which only white people are quoted ... it begins to resemble those court dramas where it's clear the defendant won't get a fair trial because neither jury nor judge consider him/her a peer. 

Further, it is disingenuous for anyone with internet access to claim that whites — in Philadelphia or anywhere else — don't make known how they think, or what they believe, about race relations. The blogosphere and twitterverse are alive with white people who write about race specifically in a way to counter what they call "P.C. policing" as well as those with more considered takes. Talk radio and TV are full of white commentators who are not the least bit shy in talking about race usually, it has to be said, to the detriment of people of color and the president we overwhelmingly supported for reelection.

Plenty of people have posited that the decision to run the incendiary story was made with an eye to putting the somnolent and increasingly irrelevant magazine in the spotlight again. We couldn't care less about whether the choice was a brilliant marketing move or not, the magazine has consciously inserted itself into the news. Worse, the article has encouraged an outpouring of unabashedly racist comments on the web site. It's impossible to believe McGrath and Huber are so innocent they couldn't have predicted that.

Now, about the article itself...

It conflates race and criminality, which is bog standard racist and xenophobic fare. Horror stories of escalation of crime as white neighborhoods "change" has long been code for the "more-people-of-color-more-crime" mindset, and the efforts and desire to keep "the other" out. In an article about race from a white point of view, the focus on criminality serves only one purpose. It insulates the interviewees of charges of bias — because they're reacting to crime, not race. Except, of course, that only white people in the neighborhood are interviewed. Because the article is about race not about crime. Got that?

The Gordian Knot Huber ties himself into when writing this piece just gets tighter and tighter as the piece progresses. 

Even the most sympathetic of voices Huber allows in his piece ends up offering insult. A young mother asserts that getting to know your neighbors and your community is the most crucial aspect of building good relationships between races. In that, she echoes what community organizers of all races say. But then this: she is quoted as recalling a moment when she really connected with the neighborhood's children at the swimming pool. Seeing her teaching her young child to swim makes the other young people in the pool engage with her, and later, model their actions to hers. Huber is so tone deaf he doesn't recognize that he's written this anecdote very much as a "white savior" moment — essentially when all the "motherless" children see what it is to have a mother in the pool with them and then model themselves on the nice white lady. 

The offense in this Philadelphia Magazine piece was mostly directed at African Americans, but we stand beside them in condemning it for reinforcing notions of people of color as the scary "other." As journalists we call out Huber for shoddy journalism, and McGrath for his unadulterated hubris in thinking of opening up this discussion with only white voices.