Diversity at Work

The statement jars me. I'm talking to a veteran reporter. We need to get racially diverse sources for a story about older people who have re-created themselves in retirement.

The reporter says he's trying to do that. But he's having a hard time. He argues that retirees who re-create themselves — who become die-hard volunteers, who go back to school, who travel the world — have the luxury to do so because they've accumulated some wealth.

IT'S ABOUT HIRING, TOO

By Bill Mitchell Online Editor/Marketing Director Tom Huang's list of reasons why stories stay lily-white got me thinking about reasons why newsrooms stay that way, too. The lists match up pretty well. Here's a look at several points from Tom's list of diversity defenses and responses, re-cast slightly to surface issues of diversity in hiring. >>Read more

Poverty rates are disproportionately high for some minority groups, compared to the general population. That's why it's going to be tough to include minorities in this story, the reporter says.

I tell him: You don’t have to be rich to re-create yourself. And even if this were true, there are lots of upper- and middle-class minorities. And, by the way, when you look at median incomes, not all minority groups are poorer than whites.

Is it possible that the reporter has a construct in his head — that most minorities are poor and disenfranchised? That might be unfair. But it's a construct many of us hold. One way we can change that construct is by including diversity in stories like the one on retirement, by producing stories that show people of all colors, with a wide range of experiences and backgrounds.

Deadline looms. I get angry. Then I realize that, as the editor, I have failed. I should have brought up the diversity issue at the story's conception, long before deadline — long before any of the reporting even started.

* * *

We all know the arguments for diversity in news coverage. To be accurate, we have to reflect our entire community in our coverage. To be fair and balanced, we need to seek out diverse points of view. To capture a wide spectrum of readers, we must help them see some of themselves in our coverage.

We all know the challenges to making this happen. Our newsrooms aren't diverse enough. Our minority communities don't trust us. Our best and brightest journalists aren't always willing to step outside of their comfort zones.

I edit the daily features section of The Dallas Morning News. The features staff has a special responsibility in seeking diversity. We don't cover institutions. We cover the lives of ordinary people. Those ordinary people should come from all walks of life.

We do a pretty good job showing diverse faces in our section. But we still fall short. The retirement story wasn't the only one where we had trouble finding diversity. There were also stories about women facing midlife, war veterans suffering post-traumatic stress, workers who found silver linings after being laid off, and people whose lives have changed because of 9/11.

We eventually found diverse sources for each of these stories. For example, in the retirement story, we found an African-American woman who became a fitness buff in her retirement.

With this story and the others, we had to talk through the issue of diversity. In most cases, the reporter had to go back to find other people. And in some cases, the reporter argued that he or she shouldn't have to do so.

* * *

Listening to reporters and editors alike, I've heard a lot of defenses of stories that lack diversity. They're all quite good. When you're on deadline and you've got to get the section out, they sound even better. But that's the seduction: It's always going to be easier not to seek diversity.

To make a breakthrough on diversity, the first step is to understand the defenses and reason through them. The second step, once we get through the defenses, is to help journalists explore diversity in their daily lives. I'll address the second step in a future column. For now, here are some of the defenses and my thoughts on them:

This is a strong defense. Every reporter and editor wants the most powerful story possible. But that's why we need to remind ourselves to think about diversity earlier in the process. In doing so, we will probably find a compelling anecdote involving an ethnic minority.

When we ask readers to send us their stories — Valentine's Day nightmares, for example — we tend to get responses mostly from white people. I don't know why. But that means we have to encourage journalists to go out and seek minorities, rather than wait to hear from them.

This is a big challenge. We've had people of color back out of our stories. They don't tell us why. But I would guess they don't trust how they'll be portrayed. This just means we have to work harder to meet people and gain their trust, story by story. Start with schools, churches, and community centers. Find the people — the connectors — who will lead you to other people.

Find a translator or family member who speaks English. Find a community advocate who will translate in exchange for a nice dinner. Or learn the language.

It's not relevant to the story, and that's exactly why we want diversity here. We want to mainstream ethnic minorities into our stories so that they don't only appear in stories about race relations or problems in minority communities.

Diversity is an accuracy issue, and we would never sacrifice accuracy for a deadline, would we? We need to expand our source lists. We need to cultivate multicultural sources ahead of time so that we don't have to do it on deadline. We need to build relationships with other journalists — reporters, editors, copy editors, designers, photographers — who might have those diverse sources.

It's not any more artificial than the process of reporting. We decide whom we'll talk to and which stories we'll use. Reporting is filtering. Why not include diversity in that filtering process? Another thought: The more we build our multicultural source lists, the less artificial all of this will feel.

That's one of the arguments used against affirmative action: Minorities will feel patronized or stigmatized because of their inclusion. That's a patronizing argument. Minorities are not just being included in the story because of the color of their skin. They've got interesting anecdotes to tell. They've got perspectives that bring balance to the story.

Well, no, they shouldn't. We're not talking about quotas or numbers here. We're talking about being committed to diversity, and being accountable when we fall short of that commitment.

Again, we want to mainstream minorities in all stories. We don't just want to segregate them in minority-only stories.

This is the most powerful defense. Over the years, I've let pass many stories that lack diversity. It was the easier thing to do, the more efficient thing to do.

And it's true, we can always do better next time. But each story that lacks racial diversity chips away at our commitment. Our credibility crumbles, bit by bit.

At what point will it be too late to rebuild it?