My Sunday newspaper column
Every year, editors at the News & Record bemoan the lack of people of color working in the newsroom. Every year, we vow to do a better job recruiting, hiring and retaining minorities.
Every year, we fail.
Of the 124 fulltime journalists here, nine are minorities. Nine. That's a measly 7 percent. In Guilford County, 35 percent of the population are members of minority groups.
That comparison embarrasses and troubles me. A good newspaper reflects the racial and gender makeup of its community. It must, in order to present a true mirror of who the citizens are, how they feel, what they think and how they live.
So what does that say about the News & Record?
This month, we decided to put some muscle behind our annual pledge. Beginning now, at least 33 percent of our new hires will be minorities. If an editor hires two white journalists, the next hire must be a minority. We intend to keep that target in our sights until our staff is more representative of the community's 65-35 breakdown.
It is a daunting challenge, and it will take years. But if it were easy then we wouldn’t be talking about it.
We have less of an issue with gender. Forty-three percent of the journalists are female. We could do better with women in management, but that's a different column.
Staff diversity isn't just a News & Record problem; it's an issue for newsrooms across the country. According to a 2003 study by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 13 percent of newsroom employees are minorities.
A newspaper wields great power. It serves as a village square, presents a multitude of voices and helps set a community's image. "Do you see the story about..." is a common preface to a question. For example, everyone seemed to want to talk about the story of the Muslim woman arrested recently at Wal-Mart. (Appropriately, it was a conflict based in part on ethnicity and cultural differences.)
Because a newspaper serves those roles, it must be a model of diversity, sensitivity and fairness. The faces and voices of white people, African Americans, Latinos, Asians and others represent parts of this community's story, and it's our job to tell that story as completely as possible.
A diverse staff broadens, deepens and enriches our coverage of the world. It helps us avoid the stereotypes and misunderstandings that come with a multicultural society.
Minority journalists also bring a different energy to our reporting, simply because they see and understand stories in ways that white journalists don't. They also often connect with other minorities in ways that white journalists don't.
Some people will see this as reverse racism and tokenism. Yet, white journalists don't seem to have problems getting jobs in newsrooms. We have 115 of them. As always, we're going to hire smart, curious people who are skilled with words.
Race remains the great divider in our society. I still hear from readers who complain that our paper publishes too many photographs of African Americans. Conversely, I also hear from readers who point to omissions and bad judgments of years ago as evidence of a bias in coverage of minorities.
The fact is, the world is different for white people and for people of color. A diverse staff provides an authenticity and robustness that can't be duplicated. And if readers don't see their worlds and voices in the newspaper, they won't see the newspaper as credible.
Last week, I served on a panel with two journalists from other media outlets addressing Leadership Greensboro alumni. After noting that we were three middle-aged white men on the panel, the questioner asked about the diversity of our staffs.
I look forward to the time I can answer this way: "I'm proud to say that the diversity of our staff mirrors that of the community. We're a better newspaper because of it."
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
You know John, I was just wondering... way back when, when I was in high-school, recruiters from many different private trade schools and trade organizations-- as well as employer owned schools-- came to school in an effort to recruit us before the Army (or a four year university) got their claws in us. (I ended up going to an employer owned and operated school right here in Greensboro. As students we were also employees.) Years later I was an instructor in a private trade school that did the same thing. Perhaps newspaper publishers should band together and begin recruiting and training on their own instead of relying on students and colleges to do it for them. After all, once a student enrolls in college there's no telling what their course of study might become or how many times it might change.
Programs such as these are quite capable of targeting any group you might need to target by simply going where the targets are.
Posted on November 27, 2004 11:09 PM
You saw the Aug/Sept AJR article about this?
At http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3734 -
"Burlington, North Carolina's Times-News and Colorado's Greeley Tribune have similar circulations and hometown demographics. Yet while the staff in Burlington's newsroom is practically all white, Greeley's is diverse. What does Greeley do that Burlington doesn't? ..."
Posted on November 28, 2004 12:49 AM
Actually, Billy, we go to a variety of job fairs and make college visits. Of course, about every paper of any size does the same thing. We also have staff members teaching journalism at many of the area colleges, and we run a minority journalism workshop for high school students in the summer. But we need to do more.
Anna, I did read the article. It does seem to me that Greeley has a certain something that Burlington (or Greensboro) doesn't. No matter. What the Greeley paper has is a will to get it done. It's easy to have good intentions and then find excuses for failure. Our target is the beginning of a will to get it done. We'll adopt many of the techniques that Greeley uses.
Posted on November 28, 2004 9:38 AM
John,
You could achieve your goal in hardly no time if you agressively, while keeping standards high, recruited talented people in other newsrooms where the % of minorities is higher than yours, such as the Honolulu Advertiser.
In 1978, yes 1978, the A.S.N.E urged editors to " improve news coverage " by doing what you now promise to accelerate . Why has progress been so slow ? Is it resitance to a bad idea ? Or is it racism ? You offered a particularized justification for such a policy concluding that it would make the N & R a better paper. Several of your points are valid but others patently wrong The troubles with the diversity culture, in the NY Times for example, have been well documented. It makes everything and everyone suspect. As you are well aware a good many readers , those that despite their better instincts, have not canceled, find the news side of the paper simply lacking in credibility and decidely liberal. Thus I suggest that you hire more reporters with conservative views who would still cover the news objectively. The fact is the world is different for a small businessman who is being ground down by an oppresive government than it is for a 25 year old journalist who sees him as a exploiter or some nouveau-riche rube.
Posted on November 29, 2004 2:56 PM
John, to be an efficient business you must hire the person best able to do the job. Race should not be a determining factor. If you feel the need to explore a point of view not represented by your staff, why not have a "guest" editorial or story written by a guest reporter?
Social experiments don't lead to business success, you'll never fail by picking the best.
I look at the "diversity" of President Bush's cabinet members, and realize that they're there not because of their race or enthnicity, but in spite of it.
Posted on November 29, 2004 10:42 PM
John, I agree that hiring the best is the primary determinant. The presumption that by hiring minorities means otherwise is wrong-headed. But the business imperatives in having a diverse staff are also clear. It's not a case of EITHER hire the best OR hire a minority. I believe you can get both.
Fred, even after all these years, I still can't tell if you're serious or simply being provocative. I appreciate that you've boiled the challenges of maintaining a diversified workforce to being either a bad idea or racism. As someone who has wrestled with the issue for 20 years as a hiring manager, I think it's a bit more complex.
Since it always seems to come down to our liberal bias, I am happy to hear from you whenever you have a specific -- as opposed to sweeping generality -- example of that bias creeping into our news columns.
Posted on November 30, 2004 5:48 AM
Racial diversity in the newsroom is important, especially in Greensboro. I'm glad you're working on it.
But ideological diversity is just as important. Your editorial page selection is pretty balanced (though I wish you'd dump Cal Thomas in favor of Jonah Goldberg). How about the newsroom staff? How many lean right?
Posted on November 30, 2004 8:20 AM
John, my point was that if you hire the best, you undoubtedly get minorities, too. It's not an either/or situation. If your house is on fire, do you want the BEST firefighter to respond, or the best that was available from a limited minority pool?
Minorities strive to achieve, as do each of us, and should not be treated with a racial bias. My examples of cabinet members (Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice) shows that if you judge people based on ability and not race then the minorities are represented.
I believe it was Dr. M.L. King who wished to see people judged on their ability and not the color of their skin. It works both ways...people should neither be granted or denied opportunities because of minority status.
Posted on November 30, 2004 10:54 AM
Mr. Robinson,
Indeed it is a far too complex issue to fully explore given the constraints of this blog. I did however take the liberty of sending you an article ( 5000 plus words ) from the July 2004 issue of " Editor & Publisher " by Joe Strupp which examines, inter alia, why conservatives feel unwelcome in most newsrooms. I trust you will speed read it.
Private industry and government have, since the 60's, made great strides in bringing on board qualified minorities. In some cases ( 1970's ) law enforcement moved too fast by waiving traditional standards, with disastrous and tragic results. Lessons were learned.
I'll say it again. Twenty six ( 26 ) years ago
ASNE urged more minority hiring. I was not boiling down anything . It was a return serve to your side of the net asking for an explantion or excuse for the slow progress. It must be more difficult in the newspaper business than other sectors of our society and commerce. Give us a report card on your plan next year at this time.
Posted on November 30, 2004 12:13 PM
John, I agree with you. What I'm saying is that we're going to get the best we can AND a third of them are going to be minorities. In fact, I believe that minorities bring a different and needed perspective to news coverage that majorities sometimes can't. And I want the quickest firefighter to respond to my burning house, not necessarily the best.
Mr. Gregory, heck, why didn't you say that you wanted an explanation on why we're not doing as well as we should? (I'll let your "qualified minorities" description pass.) Lots of reasons, but the main one is that it's hard -- few papers have done it -- and we haven't tried hard enough. That's what we're going to do now. And of course, I'll report on our progress next year. I'll report on it whenever you ask, my friend.
Posted on November 30, 2004 8:03 PM
John,
The reference to my use of the term " qualified minorities " was harmless and perfectly legitimate. Obviously you have some problem with it.
FYI I was involved in an agressive affirmative action program for the organization I worked for in the late 60's. We found for example minorities with 4 year degrees sorting mail and in other jobs where they were " over qualified ". I can think of 3 of these individuals that we recruited in a span of several months who went on to successful careers, finishing in management. It was a "quota " system under another name but nonetheless still a numbers game. We did a through screening of the pool and on closer examination some were simply not suited for this type of work, yet as I recall we met our goal. These were sensitive positions that reqired a through background investigation. Some were eliminated in this phase.
Now I know of other organizations in the same line of work during the same time period who were under pressure to hire "minorities" period. And that did just that without regard to qualifications and especially limited character fitness. You reap what you sow. Many of those brought on the job in this hurried manner had to be fired or arrested for crimes such as drug dealing and murder .
I trust this clears up any confussion and disabuses you of an apparent misunderstanding regarding the plain language of the term in the context in which it was used and the nature of my work experience. There was no pejorative intent nor should any offense be taken by you or anyone else reading this comment.
Posted on December 1, 2004 9:18 PM
Why must the Newspaper be a snapshot of the demographics of the readers? Should you now hire people from all income brackets? From all religions? From all ages? You know, to represent the diversity of the readers.
Why stop at a goal of hiring 35% minority? Shouldn't you determine the breakdown of all ethnicities in Greensboro, and hire the same percentages? 6% Asian, 10% Mexican, 15% Black, .5% Icelandic, etc. Those percentages are probably way off but you get the idea. The whole concept seems arbitrary and silly to me. I think hiring the best person for the job regardless of their demographics is a far better plan.
Posted on December 1, 2004 10:16 PM