How white reporters can better cover diverse communities

A guide for journalists based on interviews and analysis of coverage in Madison, Wisconsin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and other progressive enclaves.

By Sue Robinson

Persistent racial disparities between white people and people of almost all other colors tinge every beat or specialty from business to education to culture.

Yet the community conversations around race have proven awkward at best and vicious at worst as people’s defensiveness awakens, their sense of “fairness” is questioned, perceptions of bias rear, and core identities and ideologies are challenged.

Reporters must navigate these tricky discussions that often stem from singular controversies such as a new report on K-12 achievement gaps or a police shooting and find they have neither the time, the space, nor, sometimes, the cultural aptitude necessary to do the dialogues justice.

Reporters must navigate these tricky discussions that often stem from singular controversies such as a new report on K-12 achievement gaps or a police shooting and find they have neither the time, the space, nor, sometimes, the cultural aptitude necessary to do the dialogues justice.

Editor’s note: This is an excerpt from a 2016 report, How to better cover community as a white reporter: Rethinking relationships with “sources” to “citizens, based on the book “Networked News, Racial Divides.” Excerpted with permission of the author.

For the last five years this research has explored how white reporters can better cover communities that are becoming increasingly diverse.

This major, multi-method study explored the obstacles to covering race as white reporters in order to suggest some recommendations toward more inclusive stories with this goal in mind.

Data from five U.S. cities with significant achievement disparities, mostly white newsrooms, and small-to-mid-sized media outlets were analyzed.[1]

In all, this work entailed the analysis of nearly 4,000 pieces of content (news articles, comments, blogs, etc.) and more than 130 interviews with journalists, public officials, activists, and “regular” citizens as well as international experts on facilitating community conversations around issues of race.

First, we interviewed journalists from across the country in mid-sized cities to understand the challenges innate in amplifying marginalized voices under tight deadlines.

We also talked to more than 100 community members – particularly people of color — to explore where connections with local media break down.

This work has revealed what many reporters already knew: namely, that many in communities of color harbor intense distrust of mainstream journalists and of their broader cities, hampering the ability of reporters to understand and write about the issues facing people of color in a thorough way.

This work has revealed what many reporters already knew: namely, that many in communities of color harbor intense distrust of mainstream journalists and of their broader cities, hampering the ability of reporters to understand and write about the issues facing people of color in a thorough way.

This distrust manifested in many ways:

Some community members told us they worried that if they talked to reporters using their name that teachers might take it out on their kids, that neighbors will talk, or that employers might hold it against them.

Others doubted reporters wanted to hear their perspective, would get what they said wrong, or waste their time.

When journalists brought in experts or cited reports, some citizens felt intimidated, as if they lacked strong enough “evidence” to have valuable participation. When reporters asked for sources, some people were reluctant to offer names and worried about ramifications and retribution.

When citizens heard the same voices representing “their” perspective, they began to disengage completely. When they saw people of color only represented in mug shots or in race-related stories – and rarely portrayed as community movers and shakers – they felt ignored, even victimized.

When news stories about issues such as racial disparities failed to mention systemic racism or long histories of institutional bias, citizens distrusted all the information. When activists invited reporters in and no one showed, the cynicism mounted.

These attitudes and perceptions combined with reporters’ own challenges and dwindling newsroom resources to marginalize entire groups of people in our society in journalism.

When news stories about issues such as racial disparities failed to mention systemic racism or long histories of institutional bias, citizens distrusted all the information. When activists invited reporters in and no one showed, the cynicism mounted.

Utilizing all of this data, this report provides a menu of offerings for journalists interested in covering all of their communities in more comprehensive ways in a manner that can help citizens solve public problems.

The report draws from not only what did not work in the cities examined such as why distrust manifested, but also from successful examples that can shed light on a new path for reporters looking to try something different:

In Ann Arbor, MI, M-Live reporters closely moderated article commenting sections. In Madison, WI, one local news organization co-sponsored community forums about issues involving race and also collaborated with community leaders. In Evanston, IL, school board members participated in informal “listening sessions” where they attended community events and talked to constituents about concerns — without the microphones turned on.

Key to these and other successful exemplars analyzed included: asking directly and explicitly for feedback in organic, authentic ways; building relationships with individuals (as opposed to audience members); and following through after the story ended.

Furthermore, this work suggests that journalists strive to utilize social media networks and other online spaces to augment offline sourcing. Such offline-online relationship building can help anchor reporters as citizens themselves within their own communities.

Thus, this report asks reporters to recommit to foundational journalistic principles such as providing forum space for all communities to discuss the public affairs of the town and to share information in as balanced a manner as possible, transparent about any biases and as full an accounting as warrants.

This involves rethinking traditional journalistic notions such as “critical distance” and re-conceptualizing established relationships to sources and audiences so that source networks expand.

Rather than following rote routines or sticking to traditional formulas, this research posits that reporters engage deeply in communities of coverage and change up how the goals of fostering democracy could be met.

In doing so, journalists will expand source networks, easily meet market pressures to diversify, inspire cross-group conversations and as a result bolster deliberative practice in their towns and cities.

This would be a relationships-based journalism that reinvigorates citizens in community life through the press, shoring up its importance as a staple American institution in democracy.

Recommendations

Re-examine relationship of reporters to their community.

In this research, people of color distrusted media at high levels, and this resulted in refusal to be quoted and absence from public discussions about problems facing the community.

Here it is suggested that reporters rethink what critical distance means exactly, embracing their role as within community, as actors with as much of a stake in what happens there as their sources.

This research suggests people felt reporters didn’t understand the issues residents had been working through for years and that their insistence on certain protocols such as only using named sources or finding people to talk to only in institutional settings such as municipal meetings meant whole groups of people would not be included in public news accountings.

For example, beyond the once-a-year diversity workshop some newsrooms provide, we suggest training on an on-going, individual basis so that each journalist is explicitly aware of the ways their own background might guide how, what and who they report as well as how they can reconnect to the community.

This effort helps reporters understand how communities and issues have been structured historically and how institutional racism might explain present-day challenges.

Expand networks.

This research shows most active citizens are highly networked both offline and via social media, but little communication occurs between groups so that a truly inclusive conversation can be had.

Reporters’ contacts circulate in power realms – officials, experts, highly engaged individuals. Yet all of these sources also “bridge” other networks of people whom reporters can tap.

For example, sources of color such as activists can serve as conduits to typically marginalized communities that reporters have had a hard time accessing.

Using a combination of social media platforms and offline presence, reporters can engage with different parts of communities beyond officially sanctioned community members, translating into richer, more representative stories.

Consider people such as activists or highly networked citizens as bridges rather than punctuation points or a singular quote in a story.

Reconsider “typical” reporter protocols and routines

Citizens reported feeling that media focus too much on negative happenings in their communities, such as crime.

Meanwhile, many journalists understand objectivity in the negative such as: no agendas, no personal perspectives, no bias.

Rather, journalists might consider defining ethical journalism as adopting practices that include all voices, proactively: listening, building relationships in all communities, being self-aware, embracing nuance and subjectivity so citizens can govern society in all of its complexity.

Part of this might include seeking out stories that highlight micro-level problem solving. Working actively to create a communication environment in which every citizen feels empowered to participate in the community dialogue is a fundamental role for journalists.

Involve community members at each stage of story development.

The citizens we talked to felt ignored. They stated that reporters did not understand their life experience and were not a part of their community (not a single one was of color, for example; and indeed many journalists we talked to had only been in the town for a year or two and planned to move on quickly).

Some citizens felt they rarely saw any positive effect of contributions to new stories. Some reported having no idea how to reach a reporter even if they wanted to. Those who had positive relationships with reporters spoke of the individual journalist as someone who listened, admitted ignorance, allowed the story to emerge organically and without a lot of manipulation, and followed up after stories were complete.

My research suggests involving citizens throughout the reporting by thinking about the story as a process rather than a product, expanding the brand of the news organization – and the reporter – beyond the website, and propelling that process into the community.

Such an approach has the added benefit of opening alternative revenue opportunities from sponsorships and enhancing the brand itself.

Help Citizens Solve Community Problems.

By re-conceptualizing the roles of reporters to their communities and sources, journalists can double back on a fundamental aim of the profession: helping democracy thrive through governing by the people. Journalists are in a unique position to help citizens solve their community problems.

However, the ways journalists report on problems and potential solutions frame how citizens think about the root causes – when they think of them at all — and some common frames seen in the news can sometimes limit deliberation.

Our research shows that many citizens feel their “names” for community issues such as racial disparities, personal stories, and perspectives are dismissed by reporters, policymakers and others; thus, citizens never reach a place of ownership over either the problem or any proposed solution.

Also, when sources, particularly official sources, strategize around language and the media adopt that language, that can also marginalize people. Journalists might enable citizens to engage and help in community problem-solving by publicizing how the process is working at micro-levels, connecting citizens with experts and policymakers, and reframing discussion around proactive measures that citizens themselves can perform.

Furthermore, well-networked journalists can amplify a wide variety of causes of the problem as well as help bring different frames for a solution into a shared discourse that has a lot of different perspectives represented. Reporters might articulate a sense of hope and individual empowerment for their community in the process of reporting on social problems.

Sue Robinson is a member of the faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose work explores the intersection of journalism and communities. Networked News, Racial Divides: How Power and Privilege Shape Public Discourse in Progressive Communities came out in 2018. You can follow here at @suerobinsonUW.

Previously from The Grade

Canopy Atlanta’s 5 key elements of community-driven education coverage

A white parent’s perspective on media coverage of Black schools

Nice white journalist

Making education journalism more accessible and inclusive

How insufficient sources & lack of interest marred schools coverage