Friday, May 2, 2008

Pease: “Still the Invisible People” Ch 3: Industry Efforts

“Still the Invisible People”
Job Satisfaction of Minority Journalists at U.S. Daily Newspapers
By Edward C. Pease (©1991)

Doctoral Dissertation
E.W Scripps School of Journalism
Ohio University • Athens, Ohio

CHAPTER 3: Newspaper Industry Efforts on Race Issues

“Since the Kerner Commission, the number of minority journalists has inched up with all the speed of a one-legged tortoise climbing a hill in a hailstorm.”
– Chuck Stone, founding president
National Association of Black Journalists

After the Kerner Commission released its report on race relations in America, assailing the media – particularly newspapers – for their failure to inform and educate the society, some progress did take place in terms of increasing nonwhite staffing and coverage of minority communities. But it has been painfully slow. As Timothy Crouse observed in The Boys on the Bus, “Journalism is probably the slowest-moving, most tradition-bound profession in America. It refuses to budge until it is shoved into the future by some irresistible external force.”1

The events of the 1960s leading up the formation of the Kerner Commission were just such an irresistible external force, and in many quarters the press did take some long, hard and critical looks at itself. Then as now, there were two kinds of concern among newspaper industry leaders in the wake of the 1967 riots. Many took the Kerner criticisms to heart, understanding that the press had failed its responsibility to society. Others sought to employ more minority reporters and to expand coverage of nonwhite communities for reasons more associated with the journalistic “game” than its philosophical underpinnings; the press had been beaten by events in the 1960s and had not had the tools to compete in the black community. Many black journalists got their journalistic starts on the day violence hit the black communities in their towns. The Kerner Commission found less than 1 percent of newspaper newsrooms were nonwhite in the ’60s;2 black journalists in the ’90s recall suddenly being drafted from non-news jobs when the papers they worked for couldn’t find anyone else to send into black areas.

Subsequent improvements in the nonwhite staffing patterns of newspaper newsrooms have been relatively sparse. Still, there is some good news to report. Many more persons of color are working as gatekeepers in the American press in 1991 than in 1968. The overall consciousness of newsrooms and boardrooms has been raised, particularly in the last five years, and those who control newspapers are much more aware of the diversity of audiences in their circulation areas than their 1960s counterparts.

Still, however irresistible the external force that hit newspapers and the nation in the 1960s, the industry’s reaction to the Kerner Commission report was not exactly a lightning implementation of its recommendations. In the 10 years that followed the violence of 1967, some more nonwhite faces appeared in American newsrooms, but overall, it was business as usual. There was little radical change in newspapers’ exercise of their franchise to inform, discuss, educate, criticize and represent society. By some measures, the Kerner charge to the industry to employ more persons of color so that newsroom staffs would be more representative of the social reality should have been the easiest to implement. Relatively speaking, hiring minority staffers is the easiest and cheapest thing publishers can do, much easier than more substantive changes in newspaper content and performance; through aggressive training and recruitment of minorities, newsrooms everywhere could soon have approached the complexions of their communities. In so doing, newspapers would have fulfilled their mandate to be more representative of all constituent groups of the society. But the 1960s’ external forces weren’t that irresistible; it didn’t happen.

Newspaper owners, publishers and editors – who had the power to implement change, both to the industry and to society – forgot or ignored the moral arguments of the Kerner and Hutchins commissions. The industry conveniently overlooked the fact that newsroom diversity is both a moral issue – providing voice to all people in democratic society – and an economic one. Analyzing press performance in 1990, Ted Pease commented that the worst fears of the Hutchins Commission may have come true. In the 1960s, the commission saw dangers of the mass media failing to fulfill their duties, thus betraying their public trust; in the 1990s, Pease concluded, newspapers themselves may be at risk because they have moved so slowly in implementing real change. He wrote:

Now, more than two decades after Kerner and four after Hutchins, what’s at risk is nothing less than survival of newspapers as a mass medium with a real and substantive role in the democratic marketplace of ideas. Ultimately, a major communications medium that fails growing segments of a society betrays that society’s democratic identity, and is left behind as irrelevant.3

The newspaper industry did make stabs at correction. Noting in 1978 that the percentage of nonwhite staffers in U.S. daily newspaper newsrooms was just 4 percent, the American Society of Newspaper Editors undertook to hasten progress on the hiring front. On the 10th anniversary of the Kerner Commission report, ASNE committed itself to a goal of achieving “parity” by the year 2000; that is, the editors said, by the turn of the century, the demographics of individual newspaper newsrooms should reflect those of the nation, or of the communities in which the newspaper circulates.4

“Progress” Since Kerner

The greatest efforts and loudest criticism coincided with Kerner’s 20th anniversary and since, but progress even in this simplest of remedial steps has been painfully slow. “[S]ince the Kerner Commission,” wrote Chuck Stone, founding president of the National Association of Black Journalists, in 1988, “the number of minority journalists has inched up with all the speed of a one-legged tortoise climbing a hill in a hailstorm.”5

How slow is slow? ASNE figures placed the percentage of minorities in the newsroom at less than 1 percent in 1972.6 John W.C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski and William W. Bowman, in their benchmark 1971 sociological study of The News People, set the proportion of nonwhite journalists in both print and broadcast at 5 percent.7 Edward J. Trayes, in a study of daily newspapers in the country’s 20 largest metropolitan markets in 1968, found that 108 of 4,095 newsroom employees – 2.6 percent – were black and only one of 532 news executives was black.8 Considering the possibility that the ratio of minorities would be even lower when smaller newspapers were considered, Trayes followed up a year later with a survey of 196 papers of less than 10,000 circulation, finding 83 of 3,691 reporters (2.2 percent) were African America; only eight of 1,467 desk editors (0.5 percent) and five of 1,219 newsroom managers (0.4 percent) were black.9 In their replication of the Johnstone study, David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit reported in 1982-83 that 3.9 percent of journalists in their national sample were black and 1.1 percent were Asian American.10

In 1991, minorities make up approximately 24 percent of the total U.S. population, with that proportion projected to hit 28 percent in 2000 and 32 percent in 2010;11 in most major metropolitan areas, where the largest and greatest of American newspapers are published, so-called ethnic and racial “minorities” already are the numerical majority. At the same time, journalists of color comprised only 8.72 percent of the newsroom staffs of all U.S. general-circulation daily newspapers at the end of 1990, and 51 percent of the country’s 1,545 dailies still employed only whites in the newsroom.12 Although the 0.96 percent gain in newsroom employment of minority journalists in 1990 was the largest increase in 13 years, representing a 218 percent increase in nonwhite daily newspaper staffers since 1978, many in the industry find scarce reason to applaud.

Compared to the anemic growth of minority representation in the newspaper industry – up an average of slightly more than one-third of a percentage point each year since Kerner – the nonwhite population in the United States is booming. “Consider that in the rest of the world the people you and I refer to as ‘minorities’ are, in fact, the majority,” wrote David Lawrence Jr., then chairman of the Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business and now publisher of the Miami Herald, in 1989. “In this country, population trends demonstrate that we are rapidly becoming the most multicultural country in the world.”14 Those population trends show that 87 percent of the population growth in the United States between now and 2010 will be in minority communities; sometime in the middle of the next century, whites no longer will be in the majority.15

The Threat and the Opportunity

The combination of growing U.S. minority populations and steadily declining newspaper penetration and circulation, particularly among those growing minority groups, presents both a threat and an opportunity to the newspaper industry. The opportunity is clear: A combination of population and press in urban centers would seem to add up to greater circulation, but has not. The threat is two-fold: Although nonwhite newspaper readers have been found to be at least as loyal as whites, metropolitan dailies are not attracting or holding minority readers. Many are “voting with their feet,” to borrow a term from political science, dropping subscriptions or not subscribing in the first place or switching to local ethnic press that serve their interests better, threatening the financial well-being of mainstream daily newspapers.

At the same time, these nonsubscribers may be cutting themselves off from the larger society in which they live, disenfranchising themselves from the larger society to form discrete, fragmented subgroups. This leads to the second threat, to an American society founded on a premise of democracy, full citizen participation and the free flow of goods in the informational marketplace of ideas. As U.S. newspaper penetration among certain constituent groups of society slips, those nonreading segments become less well-informed and so less well-equipped or interested in participating in the larger socio-political system. Further, the newspapers themselves run the risk of becoming more elite and increasingly narrow in their content focus as they try to retain what readers they can.

ASNE’s “parity” goal was morally and philosophically unassailable; the industry must increase its newsroom diversity “because it’s right,”16 Lawrence told the Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business in 1989. When President Lyndon B. Johnson formed the Kerner Commission in 1967, he said society, “fired by conscience,”17 must put straight the injustices inflicted on its members. And the newspaper business must ask itself how it can continue to be a true mass medium in a democratic society when its news product is becoming increasingly less important to a segment of the society now approaching 25 percent.

As the Hutchins Commission said almost a half-century ago, media voices reflecting all the diversity of the American cultural mix in the society’s open marketplace of ideas are necessary to a representative democracy; increasing numbers of minorities in the newsroom has been seen as a means of accomplishing that in a task-oriented industry. A key assumption was that, by increasing the number of nonwhite faces in the newsroom, newspaper content, agenda and perspective would change; the issue was not just increased coverage of different segments of society but heightened sensitivity to the cares, hopes, concerns and interests of the members of that society.18

That also was behind the Kerner Commission’s recommendation to the industry to hire more minorities:

If the media are to comprehend and then to project the Negro community, they must have the help of Negroes. If the media are to report with understanding, wisdom and sympathy on the problems of the cities and the problems of the black man – for the two are increasingly intertwined – they must employ, promote and listen to Negro journalists.19

Good Intentions, Poor Execution

Despite good intentions, the performance of the newspaper industry in integrating its newsrooms and, even more important, its managerial ranks has been for the most part as lacking as its rhetoric has been laudable. At the current pace of progress, “It looks like you’re lying,” wrote Andrea Ford, a young, black female copy editor, in 1987. She said,

Newspaper executives and editors need to look long and deeply at their own attitudes and expectations. ... If they are serious about retaining black, Hispanic, Asian and other journalists from groups poorly represented in newsrooms, they need to realize that the current pace at which hiring, retaining and promoting such journalists is occurring contradicts and is counterproductive to the stated goal.20

Many agree. “The newspaper industry ... has not proved itself capable of self-correction,” wrote Les Payne, managing editor for national and international news for New York’s Newsday and a former president of the National Association of Black Journalists. ASNE planted its 1978 goal of newsroom parity “in the mud by setting a deadline of the year 2000. During that 23-year period, the over-all percentage of minorities in the city room was to increase 13 percent. Six years later, the figure had moved but 1.8 percent, giving new meaning to the term ‘all deliberate speed.’”21

In the debate over numbers in the issue of minority hiring, promotion and retention, however, the newspaper industry may have lost sight of the central fact that numbers alone are not enough. Increasing the newsroom inventory is only one of the components of that larger issue of how well and fully American newspapers serve their function as a mirror, watchdog, commentator and conscience of the society as a whole.

Ruth Allen Ollison, then an officer of the National Association of Black Journalists, recalled the reasons for formation of the Kerner Commission in the first place, suggesting that little had changed. The lessons of 1967 have not been learned, she said; America still consists of “two societies, one white, one black; separate and unequal,” on the streets as well as in the newsrooms and boardrooms. She wrote,

Leaving blacks and other minorities out of the newsgathering and dissemination process isn’t just unfair to the minorities, it is unfair and unfortunate for members of the larger society who know little, if any, truth about their fellow Americans, whose dreams can be deferred for just so long. If we accept the adage [that] those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it, we will do well to remember why the Kerner Commission was necessary.22

Payne agrees: “The challenge of the newspaper industry is the same as the warning the Kerner Commission sounded: Desegregate while there is still time.”23 In 1967, the ferment of the civil rights movement presaged the escalating urban violence that was expression of black frustration. Although there also has been increasing racially oriented urban violence in the late 1980s and 1990 – in Miami’s Liberty Town, in Boston, in Howard Beach and Bensonhurst, N.Y., for example – there has been little unified dissent.

Instead, the sense is of disenchantment, disenfranchisement and disillusionment. In many ways, the sullen resignation of nonwhites in America in the 1990s may be more ominous than the eruptions of the 1960s in terms of implications for American democratic society, citizen participation and survival of the newspaper as a mass medium. If, in fact, minorities in America have given up on the mainstream mass media, either as a source of information vital to their lives or relevant to their needs, or as a medium for expression of their hopes and dreams, then both the reality and the nation’s perception of itself as a land of equality and free expression is threatened.

Increasing numbers of minorities in the newsroom certainly remains an essential first step. But as Ted Pease commented in 1990,

Let’s be clear: It is not just fatally shortsighted but wrong for the newspapers that cover America not to employ the people of America. But adding new entry-level employees to the newsroom without giving them power is a lot like adding new rowers to the oars aboard the galley ship; they power the boat, but make few decisions about speed, direction or mission.24

Others agree. Every year, the ASNE’s employment survey reveals the number of minority and other journalists hired in newsrooms in the previous 12 months, to either hand-wringing and self-congratulation by the industry. But the nose-count doesn’t reveal what this annual inventory means. The more important and more difficult question too often overlooked is what impact those minority reporters and editors have on the newsroom and – much more critical – on newspaper content and newspaper readers in the communities newspaper seek to serve.
In addressing the larger questions of newspaper content and how well newspapers serve their publics – all their publics – as purveyors of informational goods and services in a diverse marketplace of ideas, aggressive recruiting, training, retention and promotion of minorities are only tools, a means to a larger end.

What’s been missing is an understanding of the larger aim, the question of the relationship between the news product and the consuming audience. The leap of faith has been that increasing newsroom numbers somehow would magically equate to a product more salient to the diverse audiences in a market, which, in turn, would mean that more of those diverse, nonreading publics would find a way to integrate newspapers into the contexts of their lives. The equation between numbers and press performance, however, doesn’t compute. Writes Carolyn Martindale:

By some mysterious alchemy, the whole task of providing better coverage of minority issues seems to have become tied to the effort to bring more minority individuals into journalism. The idea seems to be that if we can just get more minority reporters into our newsrooms, they will make sure that we provide more accurate and representative coverage of minorities in society.25

Dorothy Gilliam of the Washington Post, addressing the 1988 national convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, said, “Statistics don’t tell the full story of how segregation in the news business affects us all. ... We must get past the numbers game to address how we provide minorities an authentic voice.”26

The larger question is critical. The newspaper industry must address the threatening contradiction of growing minority populations – particularly in urban areas, where America’s largest newspapers publish – coupled with declining penetration, especially among those same nonwhite groups. Placing the question of newspaper use and reliance by minority audiences in the larger social and cultural context also means that individual newspapers must consider how to make their products more important to individual audience members in their individual and personal contexts.

The message may finally be getting through; certainly, many in the newspaper industry say, at least, that they understand the need for greater diversity. The Associated Press Managing Editors Association Minorities Committee declared in 1984:

We believe that our future depends on it. Without continued gains in the numbers of minorities representing us as photographers and reporters and artists and editors, we likely will eventually lose the faith of both our minority readers and any prospective minority journalists. If minority students don’t see minority journalists in the industry, they won’t see any place for themselves in it either.27

Although journalists may argue that they can cover any kind of story regardless of race, religion, color or creed, they must also acknowledge that different backgrounds breed different perspectives, and a wider range of perspectives can only benefit any newsroom.

Educational Factors in Minority Recruitment

The 1984 APME report suggested “keeping up pressure” on colleges and universities to recruit minorities into journalism and to employ those students as interns; it urged newspaper executives to “show the flag” in local schools to interest minority students in journalism careers; it suggested newsroom visits and mentor programs to “show them what it’s all about” and increased contact between staffers and students. 29

Newspapers have said they would increase the diversity of their newsrooms staffs, if only they could find candidates. Despite an increase in training programs and efforts by both universities and the newspaper industry to recruit and prepare minority entry-level applicants, the pool remains relatively shallow as compared to the population. In 1968, the Kerner Commission pointed to secondary schools as a source, saying the newspaper industry should work with schools and communities to draw more minorities into journalism. Indeed, studies indicate that decisions about college majors are made in high school, so recruitment efforts should be focused on high school students as they are in the process of career decision-making. 30

Two studies of high school students conducted in the mid-1980s provide empirical evidence of the desirability of early intervention to attract promising secondary-level students to journalism. A large-scale national study of high school students published in 1987 found that two-thirds of high school graduates had made career decisions by graduation and any subsequent changes of college major after high school tended to be to areas within the general major area of study already selected. Only 5 percent of those who said they were sure about their college majors and eventual career paths listed communication-related fields, and only one-half a percent specifically cited journalism.31

In an earlier Journalism Education Association survey, researchers focused on benefits of journalism training at the high school level. Students who had participated in journalism activities in high school – including journalism coursework and work on student newspapers, magazines and yearbooks – scored higher on all ACT tests except mathematics. Predictably, students with publications experience scored significantly higher in all phases of ACT writing tests, and the researchers found that newspaper or yearbook experience in high school, when compared with other kinds of English-class-type writing instruction, was a positive predictor of overall grade performance among college freshmen. Students participating in journalism at the high school level not only rated such experience above that of equivalent English courses, the JEA study found, but they were 10 times more likely to select some field of communication as a college major than students who had no high school journalism or publications experience.32

The newspaper industry may have started to realize that it no longer is enough to wait for candidates to come to them; more proactive, even aggressive, intervention is needed. Loren Ghiglione, president of ASNE in 1989-90, outlined the newspaper industry’s perspective in 1987 when he said indications were that higher education would “fail” to provide enough qualified minority journalists to fill newspapers’ needs in the next century.33 And there is reason for concern: U.S. college enrollment peaked in 1982, declining for the first time in 1983; the College Board projected that decline to continue at least through the mid-1990s.34 U.S. Department of Education projections confirm that there will be fewer high school graduates overall in the future. These figures show the overall number of U.S. high school graduates dropping by 16 percent from 1977 to 1987, with another 11 percent drop projected by 1992.35

In the 10-year period ending in 1986, the last year for which figures were available, overall U.S. college enrollment had grown by 13.7 percent, including a 9.2 percent rise among whites but 32.2 percent among minorities. The racial composition of full-time U.S. college students reflected those shifts, as the percentage of students who were white declined to 79.4 percent in 1986. Among minorities, more black students entered college, but their proportion of all college students declined; the number of Hispanic and Latino college students grew almost 61 percent between 1976 and 1986, and the number of Asian American students more than doubled, rising 126.3 percent.36 At the same time, trends showed more black students completing high school through the 1970s and early ’80s, but the proportion going on to college declining; in the first half of the 1980s, the number of black students taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test dropped 9.1 percent, indicating less black aspiration to attend college and paralleling the decline in black college freshmen. The American College Testing Service reported that the college “access gap” between blacks and whites was wider in 1985 than ever in the 26 years the ACT had collected the data.37

The most recent federal figures show that whites earned 87 percent of all undergraduate degrees in communication in 1986-87; of the 45,393 college students graduating in all communication fields in that year, 5,290 (13 percent) were minorities, a clear indication of the limited size of the pool of prospective minority journalists.38

Factors in Minority College Enrollment

There are at least three possible explanations for the growing disparity between blacks and both whites and other racial minority groups in terms of college enrollment trends: Socio-economic trends, government financial aid levels and university selectivity.

Socio-economic: Between 1959 and 1987, minority families lost ground against whites; in 1987, 8.2 percent of white households were below the poverty level, compared to between 26 and 30 percent of black, Asian American and Hispanic households, according to federal figures.39 Through the late 1970s and early ’80s, the median family income of all white American families rose between 3 percent and 15 percent more than that of nonwhite families.40

Between 1970 and 1989, the percentage of U.S. children living in two-parent households dropped from 85 percent to 73 percent, with the sharpest declines among blacks. Since two-family households are more affluent and, thus, better able to afford college for their children, this rising incidence of single-family households has an impact on college enrollment. “Children in single-parent households face a higher risk of poverty and they also are more likely than other children to have a parent who is less educated and unemployed,” wrote Nancy Ten Kate in American Demographics magazine in February 1991. In 1989, only 38 percent of all black children in this country lived in two-parent households, compared to 80 percent of whites and 67 percent of Hispanics.42

Financial Aid: Declining college financial aid levels are another factor contributing to declining minority – especially black – college enrollment in the 1980s. The Reagan administration cut overall federal student aid programs sharply. At the same time, a 1985 student aid study by John Lee shows that between 1978 and 1983, whites and Hispanics received more college aid, but blacks were cut.43 Lee’s data end in 1983; it may be assumed that subsequent cuts in aid to education exacerbated the problem.

Selective Admissions: A third factor contributing to declining black college enrollment may be the institution of more selective college admissions requirements at many American colleges and universities in the 1980s. Bucking general college enrollment trends, journalism and mass communication programs increased in size by 5.6 percent from 1988 to 1989, enrolling some 155,300 students in 395 programs in the United States. It was the biggest journalism enrollment jump since 1984-85. From 1976 to 1988, overall college enrollment grew by 18.1 percent nationally, compared to journalism’s 32 percent increase. One result of this growing demand for journalism is that it’s getting tougher to get into top-flight journalism schools, many of which have instituted mechanisms to limit or reduce admissions.44

At Ohio University, for instance, as elsewhere, sharply rising student demand has been both good news and bad news. On the positive side, admissions committees can be more selective. Ohio instituted selective admissions policies in 1982 to limit enrollment size and to control for quality. Some quantitative criteria used in admissions include ACT and SAT scores and class rank in high school. Between 1982 and 1991, the number of black freshmen admitted as journalism majors dropped by 58 percent, from 12 percent of declared journalism majors in the 1982 freshman class to 5 percent of the 1986 freshman class. There is evidence that students who might have sought admission to the journalism school at Ohio University have started deselecting themselves because of the high standards.45

Further, even once admitted, journalism majors typically face tough “threshold” requirements including language proficiency tests, typing tests and basic newswriting courses.46

What emerges from these data is a picture of blacks – the country’s largest minority group – being left behind educationally both by whites and by other minority groups in the population. According to Manuel J. Justiz, dean of the College of Education at the University of Texas at Austin and a member of the federal commission that produced the study A Nation At Risk in the late 1980s, the education gap between whites and nonwhites is a threat to the nation’s domestic security. “This lack of participation in education [is resulting in] a disenfranchisement of an important part of this nation,” he said in January 1991.47 Of all college graduates in 1989, he said, 85 percent were whites, compared to blacks’ 6 percent, Hispanic/Latinos’ 3 percent and 6 percent all other ethnic groups.

The potential result of such trends, said Ernest L. Boyer, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, in 1987, is an educationally separate and unequal society of uneducated minority underclasses and educated, professional white upper classes. “We end up again with race and class dividing up,” he said. “That’s the formula for disaster in the nation.”48

A 1986 Newsweek On Campus poll offers further insights into other facets of the minority recruitment problem. In 516 personal interviews of minority students surveyed at 100 different college campuses, 42 percent cited reduced financial aid as the most important reason for declining minority enrollment; 31 percent said “minorities don’t try hard enough to get in,” and 21 percent cited “poor high school education.”49 An increasing number of black students opt for predominantly black colleges because of their homogeneity. In spite of continuing budgetary problems at most black colleges, enrollment levels are high, and some black students say they feel more comfortable and develop a better sense of personal identity at such institutions.50

Implications for Journalism Education

Aligned against this national trend of declining overall college enrollment and reduced black representation is a general shift of career field interest among journalism majors. From 1983 to 1989, the number of undergraduate degrees in news-editorial sequences dropped from 25 percent to 17.1 percent of all journalism degrees; there were 14,816 news-editorial majors in 1989, 17.7 percent of total journalism school enrollment, down from 19.5 percent (15,280 students) the previous year. Some 15.6 percent of all journalism majors in the United States in 1989 were minorities, up from 13.1 percent the year before. But only 11.6 percent of the bachelor’s degrees granted in journalism and mass communication in 1989 were to minorities, down from 12.6 percent in 1988.

“Overall, there is more bad news than good in the projected data on ethnic and racial minority representation in journalism and mass communication programs,” Becker reported. “The good news is the number of black undergraduate students seems to have increased by 2.1 percent from 1988 to 1989. This same increase is not in evidence in terms of degrees granted.”51

Of concern to some in the newspaper industry is a continuing shift in journalism enrollment, with more “journalism majors” actually concentrating in public relations, advertising and other generic communications sequences. The 1990 enrollment survey shows news-editorial ranking third in enrollment behind advertising and public relations.52 At the same time, 85 percent or more of newspapers’ entry-level newsroom hires are news-editorial graduates, and the job market is improving for such students, according to a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund study.53

Because of salary and other considerations, the overall pool of news-editorial students has shrunk, and newspapers no longer vie for the best candidates. Newspapers must change their image as an industry of low pay, long hours and poor opportunity for advancement, educators say, an image that has filtered down to college applicants who select other fields over news-editorial journalism.54

The overall decline in minority college enrollment, when coupled with declining news-editorial enrollments generally, adds up to bad news for an industry whose expressed goal is better representation of America’s racial and ethnic diversity. Journalism must compete for the best qualified candidates in a shrinking population of minority college entrants with other fields that offer better salaries and working conditions and present more encouraging images to high school seniors as they make decisions about college and career.

Even once minority students are attracted to college-level journalism, however, some fear lack of role models and a sense of disenfranchisement on campus may be enough to keep minority students from staying with journalism majors. In 1986, blacks comprised about 2 percent of the faculty at colleges and universities that are not predominantly black, undoubtedly a result of both structural barriers and a general lack of applicants with Ph.D.s to fill teaching and research positions. Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, William B. Harvey argues that the lack of black faculty members poses several serious threats, including a lack of role models, which could tend to reinforce racial stereotypes in the attitudes of both young blacks and whites. Harvey writes,

Black professors are becoming an endangered academic species. The higher-education community must take action to reverse that ominous trend, not only for moral or political reasons, but because it is in our own practical self-interest, as well as that of the larger society, for us to do so.55

The lack of minority journalism educators may contribute to a lack of minorities working on student newspapers. According to some anecdotal evidence, minority journalism students find structural impediments to breaking into the white-dominated cliques at many college newspapers.56 A combined lack of role models among journalism faculty and on campus newspapers makes print “alien” to minorities, says Tom Engleman, executive director of the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund. “The college press is not attracting minorities in proportion to the needs of the professional press,” he said. Campus papers are seen by many minority students as elitist and white. That structural barrier to minority student involvement in student newspapers not only mitigates against those students seeking newspaper careers upon graduation, but it serves to propagate an elitist image of the press among students; like the professional press, how can a student paper adequately cover the needs and concerns of a portion, at least, of the student population with which it is unacquainted?57

A joint study by the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund and Ohio State University’s journalism school in 1988 found that 62.9 percent of all 20,560 journalism graduates in 1988 had worked for their college newspapers; 78.2 percent of news-editorial majors had been campus reporters and editors.58 Further, a 1989 study by Kent State University researchers Barbara Hipsman and Stanley Wearden found that newspaper editors valued clips – evidence of newspaper work – second only to interviews in evaluating entry-level applicants.59

In 1989, a survey of all 90 accredited journalism programs in the country found that 16.8 percent of student newspaper staffs were minorities, more than double the national average in the profession; the percentage dropped to 12.8 percent, however, when historically black colleges and the University of Hawaii were removed from the sample. Further, 62.2 percent of the papers had no minorities in upper management positions. The authors concluded that, although this “pipeline of minority workers to commercial papers is open,” minorities still experienced resistance in trying to join college papers and in attaining management positions.60

What Readership Research Shows

Beyond recruiting and training of new minority journalists, the larger question concerns how much newspaper performance has changed in regard to covering the underclasses since the Kerner Commission released its report. The answer: Not much.

In the past two decades, newspaper readership studies have identified certain distinct demographic characteristics of nonreaders: Jeanne Penrose, David Weaver, Richard Cole and Donald Shaw found in 1972 that “there is some discouraging evidence that over the last 10 years significantly larger numbers of people – especially the poorer and less educated – have decided not to read the paper.” Further, they found that blacks in their study were disproportionately more likely to be newspaper nonreaders than whites.61

Leo Bogart confirmed in 1972 that blacks read far fewer newspapers than do whites.62 Two major studies also found that, in addition to leaving the newspaper audience, the urban poor had shifted their media reliance to television, relating this shift to low socio-economic status: Bradley Greenberg and Brenda Dervin found in 1970 that low-income blacks and whites alike spent significantly more time watching television than the general population;63 In their 1978 book on media use , George Comstock and his co-authors concluded from their evaluation of the literature that minorities, blacks in particular, had cut their ties with newspapers – “[T]he shift of blacks toward television as a news source is a major phenomenon of audience behavior of the past decade.”64

One ramification of this shift has been in participation in politics by nonwhites. “Blacks ... pay considerably less attention to newspapers than whites,” wrote Doris Graber in 1980. “Since newspapers are the medium which supplies the most ample amounts of standard political news, average black citizens lack this information.”65 In 1983, Margaret Latimer suggested that blacks may have “lost sight of the newspaper during presidential election season because it is a captive of television.”66 Declining newspaper circulation among minorities appear to correlate with the phenomenon of those kinds of individuals to “vote with their feet,” to sit out their communities’ political process, recent voting trends as an example.

Other readership studies have examined newspaper readers as a whole for their content preferences, not differentiating by race.67 A 1972 coorientation study concluded that although editors thought they perceived readers’ views, readers said newspapers were biased and did not represent their views.68 Lee Becker and his colleagues found that media use is a factor of age, income and education and is highest among white males; clearly, an individual’s lack of exposure, combined with lack of understanding of the media’s workings, would tend to reduce that individual’s involvement in media content.69

Other studies, however, have found the readership gap between whites and non-whites narrowing; although newspaper penetration and readership among all Americans are in decline, black readership has fallen half as much as white readership since the mid-1970s. Further, once they start the newspaper habit, black readers have demonstrated greater loyalty to their newspapers than white readers, and higher interest levels in education, health, entertainment, major crime, computers, fashion, consumer news and home improvement content than their white reader counterparts.70

Taken together, these studies of readers and their needs present a picture not unlike that offered by the Kerner Commission in discussing newspaper content in the 1960s. Reflecting the social structure in which they operate and the “market” for their research, these and other researchers concentrate on readers as a mass, with little internal differentiation, by and large ignoring nonreaders altogether. Those studies that have examined nonreaders have found, not surprisingly, that these tend most often to be minority, low SES, low education level; what has not been examined has been what caused the flight of these audiences in the first place, and what, if anything, has replaced newspapers as an informational “component” accommodated into their daily lives.

What Newspaper Content Studies Show

Another part of the numbers game – newspaper content research – provides a measure of the relative volume of the voices of nonwhites in the newspaper industry. Studies of newspaper content about and coverage of persons of color since the 1950s show little increase in terms of raw amounts of coverage, although there is evidence that the quality of coverage – how minorities are portrayed – may slowly be changing in American newspapers. It is important to recall that the primary emphasis of both the Hutchins and Kerner commission reports concerned media portrayal of constituent groups in society. The media are responsible for full, accurate coverage of news, in a context that gives it meaning, of everyone in America, the Hutchins Commission said; the news media had a moral responsibility to provide a forum for discussion of ideas and views from all segments of society.71 And the Kerner Commission condemned the press for reflecting the “paternalism [and] indifference of white America,” in the process alienating blacks from both their news products and society.72

Black perspective toward the “white press” was expressed in interviews conducted by Kerner researchers, who surveyed blacks about their media use and attitudes. One of those interviewed told the Kerner investigators:

The average black person couldn’t give less of a damn about what the media say. The intelligent black person is resentful at what he considers to be a totally false portrayal of what goes on in the ghetto. Most black people see the newspapers as mouthpieces of the “power structure.”73

The Kerner Commission surveys found that

1) The media generally were distrusted and disliked, but blacks mistrusted newspapers more than television.

2) Blacks saw the media – newspapers in particular – as tools of the white power structure; their sources were white, they were white, and they “support and defend these interests with enthusiasm and dedication.”

3) The media reports on black issues were shallow at best, but more often “totally false.”

4) Blacks used television and radio more as an information source than they did newspapers; more often, however, other information sources were used: 79 percent of 567 “ghetto residents” interviewed said they’d heard about developments in their communities by word of mouth.

5) The media failed to provide background or balance about events in the “ghetto” and didn’t report bad things about whites (such as vigilante groups and police brutality) or good things about blacks (such as blacks assisting police or treating the wounded).74

In conclusion, the Kerner Commission said,

These failings of the media must be corrected and the improvement must come from within the media. A society that values and relies on a free press as intensely as ours is entitled to demand in return responsibility from the press and conscientious attention by the press to its own deficiencies.75

Subsequent analyses of newspaper content found little improvement, however, in terms of how and how deeply the press covered minorities in America. In 1976, Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen examined eight major metropolitan newspapers and found that coverage of social trends and issues – McCombs’ “broad secular sweep of history, the major trends and thrusts of the times” – accounted for only 8.8 percent of the total newshole; the majority of all news coverage was traditional spot news coverage.76

Carolyn Martindale’s 1990 study of the coverage of blacks in four leading U.S. metropolitan newspapers – the Atlanta Constitution, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times – found that coverage of blacks accounted for 5 percent or less of the newspapers’ total newshole from 1950 through 1989. Although these four newspapers’ devoted more space in the 1980s to blacks than they had previously, the coverage was highly stereotypical and lacked depth.77 An earlier Martindale study found that stereotypical coverage in the same found papers had risen from 1960 to 1970s, representing between 8 percent and 18 percent of the paper’s total coverage of black Americans. Martindale concluded that white editors “may unconsciously convert stereotypes about blacks into a sort of mental grid or framework through which they filter news about blacks.”78

A longitudinal content case study of the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch coverage of minorities in 1965 and 1987 by Ted Pease found that not only did event-oriented, or spot news, dominate content, but that the amount of minority news content as a proportion of the total news hole had not changed at all over the 22-year period. “[I]n Columbus, at least, minorities have made little progress since 1965 in terms of having their voices and concerns heard, their problems discussed, their triumphs and sorrows reported and their opinions considered,” he concluded.79 In their study of Los Angeles Times content between 1940 and 1966, Paula Johnson and her colleagues found that coverage of blacks did not keep pace with growth of the black population except in times of racial unrest.80 Thom Lieb’s study of the Washington Post Sunday Magazine in the context of demonstrations by blacks in 1986 against the magazine’s anti-black tone concluded that “biased and deficient coverage still exists in the media, even among the most prestigious and enlightened outlets.”81

These and other studies conducted before the Kerner Commission echo the commission’s findings: Press portrayals of minorities are predominantly negative or stereotypical, focusing on spot-news events and ignoring the kinds of stories that might provide greater understanding of multicultural issues throughout society.

These kinds of descriptive studies help translate the numbers game into support for changes in newspaper structure and suggestions for policy change both in the newspaper industry and in society as a whole. While simply counting minorities in the newsroom doesn’t translate into coverage and performance, an inventory of minorities in positions of gatekeeping authority over news content and editorial agenda-setting may indicate progress toward the goal of forcing the newspaper industry into the 20th century.

Marilyn Gist, examining the impact of negative media content about minorities from a social learning perspective, discussed the question of perspective in a 1990 article. Citing two proprietary newspaper content studies, she said most newspaper content about minorities is “consistent, revealing and disturbing.” Most coverage of minorities is negative – about gangs and drugs and crimes, low achievement, poverty and broken homes, she said; coverage that is not negative tends to portray minorities as having triumphed over negative, as anomalies. Gist discussed the impact of such images on readers:

To the extent that it is a common practice to portray African Americans most frequently in a negative light ... or as positive examples from a negative context, strong signals are being sent to developing African American youth about what they can become. ... [And] where does a white child learn what to expect of minorities, how to think about them? Again, the media present powerful images, and often quite biased ones. Nor are the children the only ones influenced by these messages; many adults, who have never known or cared to see the balanced picture, find reinforcement of their beliefs in the daily media.82

The key to finding a way to present less consistently negative images of minorities, she concluded, is to expand the ethnic and racial diversity of media gatekeepers. It’s not that white media gatekeepers are wrong or evil, but that their perspectives are limited. She wrote:
For much of its history, this country was mono-cultural and, with the exception and frequent exclusion of African Americans, it was racially homogeneous. It is rarely necessary to think of one’s culture, values and perspectives when they rarely contrast with those that may be different. As we shift to a culturally pluralistic society, we see more contrasts and begin to recognize that the dominant group in society is culturally unique, as is each minority group. We must recognize that this dominant group has its own values, assumptions and perspectives on events – often an exclusionary perspective – and its own cultural anchors for many of its judgments.83

Clearly, one of the keys in altering the content of American newspapers, in making the press live up to the Hutchins Commission’s vision, will require more minority gatekeepers in positions to help white news managers see and understand the news more completely. The American Newspaper Publishers Association Foundation’s 1990 study found that 9 percent of news/editorial managers and executives were racial minorities.84 But ASNE’s 1991 employment survey, focusing specifically on newsroom positions, found that just 5.8 percent of newsroom gatekeepers were nonwhites.85

Respondents to a 1988 ASNE nationwide survey of upper-echelon minority news executives – assistant managing editors to publishers – “painted a bleak picture for other persons of color” in newspapers. That study found just 45 persons of color in upper-echelon positions. Some 86 percent of respondents said they had encountered racism and resistance to their rise through the ranks; many of those said those attitudes were “a reflection of society as a whole.”86

This theme is reflected in a 1988 Louis Harris poll for the NAACP and the Colored People’s Legal Defense Fund, which found that although 53 percent of American adults thought George Bush should do more for minorities, responses on that question were sharply divided along racial lines. The poll showed that perceptions between the races were “worlds apart.” Half of whites said they thought the Reagan administration had helped minorities, but 78 percent of minority respondents said the Reagan administration had “tended to keep blacks down.” In response to the report findings, Julius Chambers, director of the Legal Defense Fund, said, “If you look at the questions where there is disagreement, most of them indicate one’s racist attitudes.”87

Many of those attitudes are spawned by ignorance, which breeds fear and perpetuates the separation that has, if anything, increased since Kerner. Les Payne told a meeting of leaders of the National Association of Black Journalists in March 1988 that media coverage of minorities is in large part to blame for social attitudes, just has it had been in the 1960s:

The offering pattern has African Americans disproportionately included in negative coverage – as prostitutes, drug dealers, welfare recipients, second-story men, unwed mothers. It is a strange place, this black world the media project by commission and omission. Within the feature pages of many newspapers, snowstorms and floods rarely disturb black residents. Gypsy moths don’t attack their lawns or eat the leaves of their trees. Their children don’t run away from home or go on vacation. Or get married. Or shop at suburban mall. Or ice skate. Or take in a play.88

Beyond the societal attitudes toward race described by Payne and the Harris poll results and by the anecdotal evidence contained in the Pease-Stempel survey, Martindale suggests that another barrier to full diversity in newspaper content is structural. The expectation that increasing numbers of minorities in the newsroom will somehow magically solve problems of biased and uneven coverage is unfounded, Martindale says; although nonwhite reporters and editors do and must bring new perspectives and heightened sensitivity to the newsroom, the scarcity of nonwhite news decision-makers and attitudes of society make personnel practices only part of the solution. The form in which American newspaper journalism has evolved, she says, works against equality. She wrote,

The way journalists perceive news – as discrete events and as controversy – tends to produce a distorted picture of black Americans and race relations, as does the way news is gathered and written – with reliance upon official sources and emphasis on objectivity. These traditional news values and news-gathering practices, although they have served American journalists and their audiences well for many decades, often seem to produce a kind of coverage that is detrimental to relations between the races. In addition, the media’s economic nature and place in society seem to further inhibit the media’s ability to present an unbiased portrayal of black concerns and other matters.89

The problem goes back to who the news gatekeepers are, Austin Long-Scott told a meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in 1990. Traditional news values, priorities and practices – isolated event coverage, the importance of conflict and controversy, reliance on official sources and the power structure and economic reliance of newspapers on advertisers and their affluent customers – all conspire to warp the news, he said.

Those priorities require that journalists make a large proportion of their news coverage judgments by reaching back into their cultures for the values, knowledge and understanding that will tell them where to go next. The cultures in which they were trained, the cultures they have learned to be comfortable in, both empower their news judgments and limit them. We talk in this profession as if journalism is governed by rational rules. When in fact what the public gets to know is often determined by the absence of a clash of different cultures within the newsroom. All of us are both supported by and prisoners of the cultures we know, the cultures in which we are comfortable, the cultures we believe in. We run all our critical decisions, the personal and the professional, from marriage through hiring and front page decisions, through cultural filters before we act on them. What is a cultural filter? It is a way of using your ignorance to deny my experience because it is not your experience.90

Conclusions and Research Agenda

Place the reports of the Hutchins and Kerner commissions on the table beside the newspaper content, readership and personnel research and one conclusion comes clear: Despite all the good intentions of leaders and others in the newspaper industry, the press in America is failing in its mandate to provide society with the information it requires to function. Recruitment programs have begun to add diversity to American newsrooms, but the questions remain about how willing those long-entrenched in the business will be to share power and perspective with journalists of other cultures and viewpoints.

If what Carolyn Martindale describes as the “mysterious alchemy” of minority hiring programs is to work in changing newspaper performance, then examination of the roles played by newly hired minority gatekeepers is required. What positions do these relatively new additions to the American newspaper social system hold? What aspirations do they have for their careers as newspaper journalists? How satisfied are they with their choice of newspaper careers? And what role does race play in the new newsroom climate?

Past research and the history of efforts to provide broader perspective and more inclusiveness in American newspapers seem to point in some obvious directions for further examination of issues of race and newspapers. The ultimate question, of course, is how well the “alchemy” alters the final newspaper product. But a related question is what role do journalists of color play in American newsrooms, and how do their new perspectives inform the performance of newspapers. If a primary strategy is, first, to hire a more diverse newspaper workforce, then the next logical question is how well America’s new workforce functions within the structural context of the old.

These and other questions about issues of race and job satisfaction in the newsroom direct this study of both white and nonwhite newsroom professionals at American newspapers. Broadly speaking, the study seeks information on these questions:

1) What is the racial, cultural and ethnic makeup of American newspaper newsrooms in the 1990s?

2) Are minority journalists at American daily newspapers more or less satisfied than their white co-workers with their choices of newspaper careers?

3) How do the career aspirations and expectations of minority and nonminority journalists differ?

4) Are minority journalists more or less likely than their white co-workers to leave the profession?

5) How satisfied are minority and white journalists with their career prospects?

6) What role does race play in the newsroom, in assignments, advancement, promotions and the overall climate for journalists of color in the newspaper workplace?

Answers to these questions will provide information on how well newspaper industry efforts at improving performance to serve a more pluralistic society are working, and a benchmark barometer reading on questions of job satisfaction that affect the overall newsroom climate for journalists of color.

• • •

NOTES

CHAPTER 3 – INDUSTRY EFFORTS ON RACE ISSUES

1. Timothy Crouse, The Boys on the Bus. (New York: Ballentine, 1972), p. 321.
2. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, op. cit., p. 113.
3. Ted Pease, “Ducking the Diversity Issue: Newspapers’ real failure is performance,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (3): 24-37 (Summer 1990), pp. 24-25.
4. American Society of Newspaper Editors Minorities Committee, Achieving Equality for Minorities in Newsroom Employment: ASNE’s goal and what it means, (Rochester, NY: American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1986).
5. Chuck Stone, “Journalism Schools’ Students and Faculty in the Year of Kerner Plus 20,” Kerner Plus 20, National Association of Black Journalists meeting, March 16-18, 1988, p. 7.
6. ASNE Committee on Minority Employment, cited in “ASNE on Minorities,” Columbia Journalism Review, 11:1 (May/June 1972), p. 51.
7. John W.C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski and William W. Bowman, The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976), pp. 26, 198.
8. Edward J. Trayes, “The Negro in Journalism: Surveys Show Low Ratio,” Journalism Quarterly, 46:5-8 (Spring 1969).
9. Edward J. Trayes, “Still Few Blacks in Dailies, But 50% More in J-Schools, Recent Survey Indicates,” Journalism Quarterly, 47:356-360 (Summer 1970).
10. David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p. 23.
11. U.S. Census Bureau and Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business, Cornerstone for Growth: How minorities are vital to the future of newspapers (Reston, VA: American Newspaper Publishers Association Foundation, 1989).
12. ASNE Minorities Committee, “1990 Annual Employment Survey,” April 5, 1991.
13. Ibid. Despite an economic downturn in 1990 that resulted in the first decline ever in the total number of journalists employed at U.S. daily newspapers, the nearly 1 percent increase in the number of minorities in newspaper newsrooms brought the total percentage to its highest level ever. In 1991, America’s 1,595 newspapers employed 55,700 news-editorial professionals, down from 56,900 in 1990; 4,900 of those were nonwhite, 400 more than the previous year. In 1990, minorities accounted for 22.5 percent of all new newspaper hires and 33.8 percent of all interns.
14. David Lawrence Jr., Preface, Cornerstone for Growth: How minorities are vital to the future of newspapers. (Reston, VA: Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business, 1989), p. 3
15. Ibid.; Judith D. Hines, The Next Step: Toward Diversity in the Newspaper Business, (Reston, VA: American Newspaper Publishers Association Foundation and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, 1991), p. 3.
16. David Lawrence Jr., chairman, Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business, address to annual meeting, January 26, 1989.
17. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, op. cit., p. iii.
18. The Commission on Freedom of the Press, op. cit.
19. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, op. cit., p. 212.
20. Andrea Ford, “At the current rate of progress, ‘It looks like you’re lying,’” ASNE Bulletin, May/June 1987, pp. 20-21.
21. Les Payne, “Desegregation in the City Room: 20 Years After Kerner,” Kerner Plus 20, National Association of Black Journalists meeting, March 16-18, 1988, pp. 11-12.
22. Ruth Allen Ollison, “Electronic Media 20 Years After the Kerner Report,” Kerner Plus 20, National Association of Black Journalists meeting, March 16-18, 1988, pp. 9-10.
23. Payne, op. cit., p. 12.
24. Pease, op. cit., p. 25.
25. Carolyn Martindale, “Improving coverage of minorities,” Minorities in the Newspaper Business, 4:3 (August-September 1988), pp. 2-3.
26. Dorothy Gilliam, address to the national convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, July 3, 1988, Portland, Oregon.
27. Associated Press Managing Editors Association, “Preface,” APME Minorities, (Miami: Associated Press Managing Editors Association, 1984).
29. Ibid.
30. Judee K. Burgoon, Michael Burgoon, David B. Buller, Ray Coker and Deborah A. Coker, “Minorities and Journalism: Career Orientations Among High School Students,” Journalism Quarterly, 64, Nos. 2-3, (Summer-Autumn 1987), pp. 434-443; Judee K. Burgoon, Michael Burgoon and David B. Buller, “APME Research: Why minorities do not choose journalism: Academic and career orientations among students,” Minorities, (Miami: Associated Press Managing Editors Association, 1984).
31. Ibid.
32. Journalism Education Association, High School Journalism Confronts Critical Deadline: A Report by the Journalism Education Association on the Role of Journalism in Secondary Education. (Blue Springs, MO: Journalism Education Association, 1987), pp. 9-11.
33. Loren Ghiglione, “Shrinking pool of minority applicants demands early intervention,” Minorities in the Newspaper Business, January/February 1987, p. 1.
34. Interview with Patricia Patten Cavender, Associate Director of Admissions, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, October 21, 1987; The College Board, Measures in the College Admissions Process: A College Board Colloquium, (New York: The College Entrance Examination Board, 1986).
35. U.S. Bureau of Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1987 and 1986,” Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 428; National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education and Digest of Education Statistics, 1989.
36. The National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1989), p. 193, Table 175; Solomon Arbeiter, “Minority Enrollment in Higher Education Institutions: A Chronological View,” Research and Development Update (New York: The College Board, May 1986). pp. 1-3.
37. Arbeiter, ibid.; Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, (Washington: Department of Commerce, 1990).
38. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1989. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1989), 25th edition.
39. Ibid., p. 25.
40. Pamela Christofel, “New Dimensions in Education and Work,” in Arbeiter, op. cit., p. 6.
42. Nancy Ten Kate, American Demographics, February 1991, p. 11; See “Marital Status and Living Arrangements, March 1989,” Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projections Series P-20, No. 445. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991); Ibid.; Statistical Abstracts, 1990, op. cit.
43. John B. Lee, Student Aid and Minority Enrollment in Higher Education, (Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, January 1985), p.16.
44. Lee B. Becker, “Enrollments increase in 1989, but graduation rates drop, Journalism Educator, 45:3: 4-15 (Fall 1990); See also, Cynthia F. Wilson, “Getting in Gets Tougher As J-Schools Swell,” presstime, November 1990, pp. 6-9.
45. Data from Ohio University Office of Institutional Research, 1990
46. Wilson, op. cit.
47. Manuel J. Justiz, “Changing Demography and Implications for Free Society,” the Poynter Institute for Media Studies conference, “Redefining the News: Reaching New Audiences Through Diversity,” St. Petersburg, FL, February 6-8, 1991.
48. Quoted in John Schwartz and Paul Wingert, “Why the Decline?” Newsweek on Campus, February 1987, pp. 16, 18.
49. “Poll on Racial Issues,” Newsweek on Campus, February 1987, p. 18. Poll conducted by Gallup Organization for Newsweek on Campus of 516 personal interview surveys on 100 college campuses between Oct. 21 and Nov. 6, 1986. Claims margin of error of +/-6 percent.
50. Connie Leslie, “A Separate Peace,” Newsweek on Campus, February 1986, pp. 21-22.
51. Becker, op. cit., pp. 11-14.
52. Ibid.; Ben H. Bagdikian, “Three Problems With J-Schools,” presstime, November 1990, p. 32.
53. Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, 1986 Journalism and Mass Communications College Graduates – Where They Went to Work: 23rd Annual Survey Conducted by the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, (Princeton, NJ: The Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, Inc., 1987). See also Raleigh C. Mann, “What’s Wrong With News-Editorial (Print) Journalism? Students Reject it as a Curriculum or Career Path and State Their Reasons,” presented at 1987 Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, August 3-6, 1987; Mary A. Anderson, “Tough Times May Be Ahead For Attracting Top J-Students, presstime, October 1987, pp. 28, 30.
54. Ibid.; Bagdikian, op. cit.; Mann, op. cit.; Wilson, op. cit.
55. William B. Harvey, “Where Are the Black Faculty Members?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22, 1986, p. 96.
56. Rick Greenberg, “The College Press: Why minorities are turned off,” Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 1987, p. 43.
57. Lee B. Becker and Thomas E. Engleman, “Enrollments in Programs in Journalism and Mass Communication, 1987-88,” The Ohio State University and Dow Jones Newspaper Fund annual report, pp. 12-13.
58. Ibid.
59. Barbara J. Hipsman and Stanley T. Wearden, “Skills Testing at American Newspapers,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (1): 76-89, Winter 1990.
60. Stanley T. Wearden, Barbara J. Hipsman and John Greenman, “Racial Diversity in the College Newsroom,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (3): 8-95.
61. Jeanne Penrose, David H. Weaver, Richard Cole and Donald L. Shaw, “The Newspaper Nonreader 10 Years Later: A Partial Replication of Westley-Severin,” Journalism Quarterly, 54:4 (Winter 1974), p. 638.
62. Leo Bogart, “Negro and White Media Exposure,” Journalism Quarterly, 49:1 (Spring 1972), pp. 15-21.
63. Bradley S. Greenberg and Brenda Dervin, “Mass Communication Among the Urban Poor,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 34:2 (Summer 1970), 224-235.
64. George Comstock, Steven Chaffee, Nathan Katzmann, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Roberts, Television and Human Behavior, (NY: Columbia University Press, 1978) pp. xv., 300.
65. Doris Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980), p. 125.
66. Margaret Latimer, “The Newspaper: How Significant for Black Voters in Presidential Elections?” Journalism Quarterly, 60:1 (Spring 1983), pp. 16-23.
67. See, for instance: Judee K. Burgoon, Michael Burgoon and Miriam Wilkinson, “Dimensions of Content Readership in 10 Newspaper Markets,” Journalism Quarterly, 60:1 (Spring 1983), pp. 74-80; Gerald C. Stone, “Community Commitment: A Predictive Theory of Daily Newspaper Circulation,” Journalism Quarterly, 54:3 (Autumn 1973), p. 509.
68. Ralph K. Martin, Garrett O’Keefe and Oguz B. Nayman, “Opinion Agreement and Accuracy Between Editors and Their Readers,” Journalism Quarterly, 49:3 (Autumn 1972), pp. 460-468.
69. Lee B. Becker, D. Charles Whitney and Erik L. Collins, “Public Understanding of How the News Media Operate,” Journalism Quarterly, 57:4 (Winter 1980), pp. 571-578,605.
70. Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business, Cornerstone for Growth: Why minorities are vital to the future of newspapers. (Reston, VA: American Newspaper Publishers Association, 1989); see also, Ted Pease, “Cornerstone for Growth: Why minorities are vital to the future of newspapers,” Newspaper Research Journal, 10 (4): 1-22.
71. A Free and Responsible Press, op. cit.
72. The Report of the National Commission on Civil Disorders, op. cit., p. 203.
73. Ibid., p. 206.
74. Ibid., pp. 206-207.
75. Ibid., p. 203.
76. Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, “A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues,” Journalism Quarterly, 53:4 (Winter 1976), pp. 634-647.
77. Carolyn Martindale, “Coverage of Black Americans in Four Major Newspapers, 1950-1989,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (3): 96-112, Summer 1990.
78. Carolyn Martindale, “Changes in Newspaper Images of Black Americans,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (1): 40-50, Winter 1990. See also, Carolyn Martindale, “Coverage of Black Americans in Five Newspapers Since 1950,” Journalism Quarterly, 62:324-325 (Summer 1985).
79. Edward C. Pease, “Kerner Plus 20: Minority News Coverage in the Columbus Dispatch,” Newspaper Research Journal, 10 (3): 17-37, (Spring 1989).
80. Paula B. Johnson, David O. Sears and John B. McConahay, “Black Invisibility: The Press and the Los Angeles Riot,” American Journal of Sociology, 76:4, p. 707, 712.
81. Thom Lieb, “Protest at the POST: Coverage of Blacks in the Washington Post Sunday Magazine,” presented to the Minorities in Communication Division of AEJMC, 1988 National Convention, Portland, July 1988.
82. Marilyn E. Gist, “Minorities in Media Imagery: A Social Cognitive Perspective of Journalistic Bias,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (3): 52-63, Summer 1990, pp. 58-59.
83. Ibid., pp. 56-57.
84. American Newspaper Publishers Association, “Annual Employment Survey, 1990,” June 1, 1990.
85. “ASNE Newsroom Employment Survey,” 1991, op. cit.
86. Ted Pease and Guido H. Stempel III, “Surviving to the Top: Views of minority newspaper executives,” Newspaper Research Journal, 11 (3): 64-79 (Summer 1990).
87. Louis Harris, Inc., “The Unfinished Agenda on Race in America,” January 11, 1989; see also, “Poll: More ought to be done for minorities,” Columbus Dispatch, January 12, 1989, p. 1.
88. Payne, op. cit., p. 12.
89. Carolyn Martindale, The White Press and Black America, (Westport, Conn: Greenwood, 1986), p. 32.
90. Austin Long-Scott, address to Plenary session, “Meeting the Multicultural Challenge of the 1990s,” Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication national convention, Minneapolis, August 12, 1990.
Chapter 4.

Pease: “Still the Invisible People” Ch 2: Philosophical and Historical Context

“Still the Invisible People”
Job Satisfaction of Minority Journalists at U.S. Daily Newspapers
By Edward C. Pease (©1991)

Doctoral Dissertation
E.W Scripps School of Journalism
Ohio University • Athens, Ohio

CHAPTER 2: Philosophical and Historical Context

“The ‘white press’ . . . repeatedly, if unconsciously, reflects the biases, the paternalism, the indifference of white America. This may be understandable, but it is not excusable in an institution that has the mission to inform and educate the whole of our society.”
The Kerner Commission, 1968

The 1947 report of the Hutchins Commission – or, more formally, the Commission on Freedom of the Press – enunciated a new sense of the role and responsibilities of the American press toward its readers and society. More than 20 years later, the Kerner Commission – the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders – analyzed press performance in its coverage of race relations in America. In part, the Kerner Commission employed the Hutchins social responsibility yardstick to gauge how well newspapers measured up in serving American society. These two extraordinary documents provide important philosophical and critical standards against which to evaluate the press’s role, performance and expectations.

Philosophical Underpinnings

In a society based on individual rights and participation, democracy may be defined as a process of dialogue among all constituent groups. The philosophy on which this nation was founded holds as central to its basic democratic structure the importance of the individual vis a vis society. This includes a presumption of the individual’s power of rational thought and concepts of individual natural rights – including religion, speech and press.1 These concepts were the prevailing notions of Locke, Milton, Mill, Paine and other 17th- and 18th-century thinkers whose writings combined eventually into marketplace-of-ideas theory, from which the First Amendment developed.

Central to the theory is the entirely free and unfettered exchange of ideas, including a free press operating within a social system in which all opinions had equal chance to be heard, the assumption being that truth would emerge from a robust and wide-open debate on issues of public importance. As Milton put it in his Areopagitica, “Let Her and Falsehood grapple; who ever heard of Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”2 From Milton’s perspective, and that of other libertarians, it was preferable to permit false opinion in the marketplace of ideas than to limit open exchange of ideas, any one of which might contain or lead to truth; free discussion was a self-righting process from which truth eventually would emerge. As Carl Becker explained it:

The democratic doctrine of freedom of speech and of the press ... rests upon certain assumptions. One of these is that men desire to know the truth and will be disposed to be guided by it. Another is that the sole method of arriving at the truth in the long run is by the free competition of opinion in the open market. Another is that, since men will invariably differ in their opinions, each man must be permitted to urge, freely and even strenuously, his own opinion, provided he accords others the same right. And the final assumption is that from this mutual toleration and comparison of diverse opinions the one that seems the most rational will emerge and be generally accepted.3

Drawing on the work of his father, James Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill’s brand of libertarianism was pragmatic and utilitarian: To achieve the greatest good for the greatest number in society, he said, society must insure that all its members have the right to think and act for themselves. Limiting expression, Mill suggested, would limit society members’ ability to think for themselves. Mill made a four-part argument: First, suppressing opinions – however disagreeable they might be to others – might result in suppressing the truth, he said. Second, even an erroneous opinion might contain a kernel of truth, leading to the larger truth. Third, even if the generally held opinion is truth, the public may cling to it irrationally, solely because of rote and tradition, unless forced to defend it. Finally, Mill said, unless the commonly held opinion is challenged occasionally and those holding it are forced to reaffirm it, even truth loses its strength and positive effects on individuals and society.4

As Mill wrote in his essay, On Liberty:

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ... If the opinion is right, [people] are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.5

By the beginning of this century, however, pure libertarianism was on the wane as newspapers and other media grew in size and influence, and the concept of the wide-open debate among individuals was supplanted by the reality of mass communication driven by technological advances. Public resentment of the size, scope, influence and excesses of the press gave rise to efforts to legislate limits on them; the media’s occasionally irresponsible exercise of their First Amendment freedom thus threatened all rights of individual free expression. Theodore Peterson argues that, just as libertarian theory was founded on the principle of a “negative freedom” – that is, freedom from external restraint – new thinking in the 20th century saw a need for a press both free from restraints but also responsible to larger society.6 What became known after publication of the Hutchins Commission report as social responsibility theory rests equally on a negative freedom from restraints, as well as on a positive freedom of the press to be proactive – freedom for social good, freedom to help society attain its goals.7 J. Edward Gerald agreed: “Mass communications media are social institutions, the product of social demand,” which include predictable expectations of performance.8

The new social responsibility perspective of the press added to libertarianism the concept of the public’s right to know, at the same time placing moral responsibilities on publishers, who themselves had begun to link responsibility to overall public good with their constitutionally mandated freedom. Because liberty carries with it obligations, the greater freedom accorded the press in a democratic system carries with it responsibilities to fulfill certain functions in society.9

Leading newspaper publishers already had come to similar conclusions on their own regarding the role of the press in the new, industrial age. Joseph Pulitzer, legendary publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, told his staff in 1907 that his paper should be

. . . an institution that should always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice and corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.10

In the inaugural issue of his Detroit Evening News in 1873, James Scripps enunciated a similar vision of the role of the crusading press that was reminiscent of Milton:

Nineteenth Century Americans need not have their opinions molded for them by the newspaper press. Give the public the facts and arguments on both sides, and they will quickly determine the right or wrong in each case as it occurs. The vox populi, in the long run, will pretty certainly be found to be the vox Dei.11

His younger brother, E.W. Scripps, in his first issue of the Cleveland Penny Press in 1878, addressed these same issues of independence from special interest pressures and voiced libertarian confidence in the rational abilities of the reading public. He wrote:

The newspapers should simply present all the facts the editor is capable of obtaining, concerning men and measures before the bar of the public, and then, after having discharged its duty as a witness, be satisfied to leave the jury in the case – the public –to find the verdict.12

Adolph S. Ochs, upon assuming control of The New York Times in 1860, had a similar vision for his paper:

...[T]o give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interest involved; to make the columns of the New York Times a forum for the consideration of all public questions of importance and, to that end, to invite intelligent discussion for all shades of opinion.13

But despite the sensibilities of publishers such as Pulitzer, Scripps and Ochs, as the press grew in size and influence, it came under increasing criticism. By 1900, the criticisms had fallen into seven basic themes:

1) The press and its press barons had wielded power to their own ends, at the expense of opposing views and discussion.

2) The press had become subservient to big business and advertisers.

3) The press resisted social change.

4) The press stressed the superficial and sensational over the significant.

5) Press content endangered public morals.

6) The press invaded individuals’ privacy.

7) And the press was controlled by a single socioeconomic class, further endangering any chance for robust and wide-open debate in the free and open marketplaces of ideas.14

Following World War II, the American public was frightened by the images of thought manipulation through mass communication, brought on by the Nazi propaganda machine. Those fears, coupled with the growth of the mass communications industry and the social and technological changes that followed the industrial revolution, led Henry R. Luce, founder and publisher of Time, to commission a group of scholars in 1947 to examine the prospects for a free press in America.

The Hutchins Commission

Echoing Mill, the chairman of the Commission on Freedom of the Press, Robert M. Hutchins of the University of Chicago, described concerns about the role of the mass media in the 20th century this way: “The tremendous influence of the modern press makes it imperative that the great agencies of mass communication show hospitality to ideas which their owners do not share. Otherwise, these ideas will not have a fair chance.”15

The commission said freedom of the press in 1946 was in danger for three reasons. First, the press’s importance to society had increased with its capacity to communicate to mass audiences; at the same time, however, the proportion of people able to communicate their opinions and ideas through the press had decreased. Second, those with access to the press “have not provided a service adequate to the needs of society,” the commission said. Third, press performance had so outraged some segments of society in the 1940s that threats of regulation had surfaced.16

The commission said:

When an instrument of prime importance to all the people is available to a small minority of the people only, and when it is employed by that small minority in such a way as not to supply the people with the service they require, the freedom of the minority in employment of that instrument is in danger.17

More precisely, Gerald wrote, as the press evolved into big business, its priorities also shifted, from dissemination of diverse ideas to bottom-line economic issues. The Hutchins Commission concluded that such emphasis on profits threatened the media’s likelihood of providing “the variety of information and debate that the people need for self-government,” he said. Further, he said,

[i]n such media, entertainment takes precedence over matters of importance to social understanding and self-government. The urgencies of conciliation between nations and between racial and religious groups at home are minimized or overlooked by media with such a distributive goal. Salestalk through advertising and propaganda in the news constitutes a hazard to clear description and understanding of human problems.18

Press barons for years had recognized that shift themselves. E.W. Scripps, for instance, who never was shy about making a buck, wrote a year before his death in 1926:

There was a time in this country when newspapers were run for the purpose of moulding public opinion and their owners were deemed lucky if they gained an incidental profit. Now newspapers are run for profit and only incidentally are moulders of public opinion, leaders of the people in politics, and teachers.19

The Hutchins Commission considered free expression the central freedom of American democracy, but feared that a press seen by public and government as both unfettered and irresponsible risked losing its First Amendment franchise. To preserve its freedom, the report concluded, the press must serve the society that has accorded it that freedom. “The freedom of the press can remain a right of those who publish only if it incorporates into itself the right of the citizen and the public interest,” the commission wrote.20 After four years of hearings, the Hutchins Commission released a five-point guideline for press performance that represented a new view of the relationship between the mass media and society. The American press should provide

1) a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning;

2) a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism;

3) a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society;

4) presentation and clarification of the goals and values of the society; and

5) full access to the day’s intelligence.21

Consistent with the thinking of some newspaper leaders, as indicated by the statements of Ochs, Scripps and Pulitzer, the recommendations outlining changes in the way journalists should look at their jobs and at the media’s role in society. The five points also provide the first of two frameworks here for evaluating press practices and performance.

The Hutchins Commission Charge to the Press

The Hutchins Commission’s guidelines were, on the one hand, direct, straight-forward and commonsensical. At the same time, they enunciated a press function from which the media had sometimes strayed: “The first requirement is that the media should be truthful. They should not lie,” the commission report said.22 The commission also cautioned the press to separate fact from opinion, while acknowledging that that requirement cannot be absolute: “There is no fact without context and no factual report which is uncolored by the opinions of the reporter.”23

The second recommendation, that the press provide “a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism,” underscored the commission’s view of the media’s responsibility as “common carriers of public discussion.”24 These public discussions should include even – perhaps especially – ideas with which the media owners might not agree. “Their control over the various ways of reaching the ear of America is such that, of they do not publish ideas which differ from their own, those ideas will never reach the ear of America,” the report said.25

The third recommendation, particularly relevant to the issue of minorities and the media, underlined the media’s responsibility to present “a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society.”26 “People make decisions in large part in terms of favorable or unfavorable images,” the report said. “They relate fact and opinion to stereotypes. [The media] are principal agents in creating and perpetuating these conventional conceptions. When the images they portray fail to present the social group truly, they tend to pervert judgment.”27

Such representations of all segments of the American society was seen as a means toward greater understanding and harmony: “The Commission holds to the faith that if people are exposed to the inner truth of the life of a particular group, they will gradually build up respect for and understanding of it.”28

The fourth press function, as the Hutchins Commission saw it, was one of education, “the presentation and clarification of the goals and values of the society.”29 The press had both an opportunity and a responsibility to help maintain community standards and preserve the society’s values. Finally, the commission said, the press must provide the public with “full access to the day’s intelligence,” something with which no journalist would disagree. “We do not assume that all citizens at all times will actually use all the material they receive. ... But [that] does not alter the need for wide distribution of news and opinion,” the report said. The press must provide the public with enough complete and truthful information that citizens can, “by the exercise of reason and of conscience,” make the decisions necessary to maintain an orderly society, the commission concluded.30

After 1947, the press reassessed its role and responsibilities, increasingly operating from the Hutchins Commission’s vision of a two-way relationship between the press and society, encompassing both the rights of free expression ascribed to Milton and marketplace-of-ideas theory, as well as a new expectation of the media’s responsibility to the social system that had accorded such rights. In one way, however, little had changed, the commission report said: “We need a market place for the exchange of comment and criticism regarding public affairs. We need to reproduce on a gigantic scale the open argument which characterized the village gathering two centuries ago.”31

In the Hutchins Commission’s view, press freedom was balanced by the press’s responsibility as a public servant. “We suggest that the press look upon itself as performing a public service of a professional kind. ... that the press must take on the community’s objectives as its own objectives.” [emphasis original]32

It was with this image of the media-as-public servant that America entered the 1960s and their growing clamor for racial equity. In very many ways, the events of that decade represented the first test of the Hutchins Commission vision of press performance. It was a test the media failed.

Press Performance in the Civil Rights Context

The summer of 1967 forced America finally to acknowledge a spreading sickness within its society that most Americans had done their best to ignore. Certainly, violence and “inter-racial unpleasantness”33 already had accompanied the Civil Rights movement; since Rosa Parks, resolutely clutching sacks and purse, had refused to move to the rear of that bus in the mid-sixties, the numbers of both blacks and whites recognizing discrepancies between the Bill of Rights and American social reality had grown.

After the Civil Rights marches and demonstrations of 1964-66, largely in the South, the urban violence that rocked the country in 1967 should have come as no surprise to American society. But it did. “The summer of 1967 again brought racial disorders to American cities, and with them shock, fear and bewilderment to the nation,” the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders recorded in 1968. “Discrimination and segregation have long permeated much of American life; they now threaten the future of every American.”34

The violence of June and July 1967 swept inner-city neighborhoods in more than 27 cities from Florida to New York, Massachusetts to Michigan, Illinois to Missouri. The issue was race and opportunity; the reason, the Kerner Commission concluded, was America’s inexorable movement “toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and unequal.”35

In July 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the 11-member panel that would be known as the Kerner Commission to look into the root causes of the violence sweeping America. The threat, said the president, was “the continuing polarization of the American community and, ultimately, the destruction of basic democratic values.”36 LBJ’s charge to the commission was three-fold and simple: “What happened? Why did it happen? What can be done to prevent it from happening again?”37 In appointing his blue-ribbon commission, President Johnson delivered this charge:

...The only genuine, long-range solution for what has happened lies in an attack – mounted at every level – upon conditions that breed despair and violence. All of us know what those conditions are: ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs. We should attack these conditions – not because we are frightened by conflict, but because we are fired by conscience. We should attack them because there is simply no other way to achieve a decent and orderly society in America. 38

Over the next nine months, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders undertook what remains among the most comprehensive and wide-ranging sociological studies ever of American society. The result was a compelling laundry list of recommendations for America’s people and institutions. High among them were recommendations and blame for the news media, which – the panel found – had shown a systemic institutional myopia toward the plight of minorities in American cities on nearly every level.

Entrenched American Attitudes Toward Race

As the Kerner Commission report acknowledges, the events of the summer of 1967 were not just the next stage of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, but rather the logical culmination of American attitudes toward persons of color that dated back three centuries.

Since 1776, when every sixth person in the newborn United States was a slave, nonwhites – blacks in particular – have had to come to terms with their de facto status as second-class citizens in American culture. The Declaration of Independence holds that all men are created equal, but rarely in America’s history has this seemed true in practice. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson approved a state law recognizing the legality of “separate but equal” facilities, acknowledging segregation by race as an established fact by law as well as by practice. Separate but equal extended not only to the lunchrooms, restrooms, buses, hospital and churches well known from events of the 1950s and ’60s, but to the law and death; in many courtrooms, whites and blacks were administered the oath on separate Bibles, and, even in death, “undertakers for Negroes” aided survivors in burying their dead in cemeteries far from the burial plots of whites.39

And the violence occurring in the mid-1960s was nothing new, although for the most part, Americans had tried to ignore the black underclass; in most communities in both the North and South, “Negroes” were invisible to whites. By the 1960s, a pattern had long been set between American society’s dominant whites and the black underclass. Conditions were ripe for open revolt, and some historians and contemporary commentators point out that, had the violence of 1963-1968 been more systematic and organized, America might have seen a new civil war, based on race, that could have threatened the Union along the same lines as does the sectarian violence of Northern Ireland or Lebanon today.40 Three sociologists examining the violence of the mid-60s wrote,

There was a people who had outgrown their slave history, but not its bonds. Though they were “free” under the law, blacks were still slaves to a political, economic and social system that would not acknowledge them as free. Forced to live in the ghetto tenements that were the government’s 20th century equivalent of slave shacks, the “projects,” given second-class status in education, jobs, their role in American society, blacks in the 1960s were little better off than their fathers had been under “massuh.” 41

In March 1965, nationally syndicated columnist Alice Widener described the growing racial conflicts as a threat to the nation’s middle-class morality. Widener’s column expressed a view not uncommon among whites, either in the 1960s or before, a sort of tremulous hand-wringing that was one response of a white American society that didn’t understand why black Americans were so dissatisfied. “Our nation is in the throes of a social revolution, and nobody can predict whether we will be the better or worse for it,” she wrote. That was in 1965, two years before the worst of the urban violence that spawned the Kerner Commission. The society’s narrowness of view and lack of understanding of the conditions and pressures under which blacks in America lived and had long lived were manifest in Widener’s statement that “future historians ... [will] have to determine why it was that a nation grown so great as ours is today was plunged into such disorder.”42

That “disorder” was the civil rights movement and the freedom marches of Alabama, Mississippi and other largely Southern states. Like Alice Widener, most of white America didn’t understand.

Los Angeles in 1965 was an example of how much white America – and the white press – didn’t understand. What began as a traffic infraction grew into days of widespread rioting and looting in Watts. John D. Lowry, UPI bureau chief in Los Angeles in 1965, recalled it this way:

The enormity of Negro rioting that erupted in South Los Angeles Aug. 11 caught by surprise a city that had been proud of its race relations. ... In a holocaust that kept the city tense for more than a week, 37 lives were lost, 900 persons were injured and 4,270 Negroes were jailed. Damage was estimated at $50 million.43

Concluded the Kerner investigators, “The Los Angeles riot ... shocked all who had been confident that race relations were improving in the North, and evoked a new mood in Negro ghettos across the country.”44 That “new mood” was not good.

From the following description of day-to-day conditions in Tampa, characteristic of the straits of blacks nationwide, it is not difficult to understand how frustration, anger and violence might result. Kerner Commission investigators filed this report:

Although [Tampa] officials prided themselves on supposedly good race relations and relative acceptance by whites of integration of schools and facilities, Negroes, comprising almost 20 percent of the population, had had no one of their own race to represent them in positions of policy or power, nor to appeal to for redress of grievances.

There was no Negro on the city council; none on the school board; none in the fire department; none of high rank on the police force. Six of every 10 houses inhabited by Negroes were unsound. Many were shacks with broken window panes, gas leaks and rat holes in the walls. Rents averaged $50 to $60 a month....

The majority of Negro children never reached the eighth grade. In the high schools, only 3 to 4 percent of Negro seniors attained the minimum passing score on the State’s college entrance examination, one-tenth the percentage of white students.

A difference of at least three-and-a-half years in educational attainment separated the average Negro and white. Fifty-five percent of the Negro men in Tampa were working in unskilled jobs. More than half the families had incomes of less than $3,000 a year. The result was that 40 percent of the Negro children lived in broken homes and the city’s crime rate ranked in the top 25 percent in the Nation.45

The summer of 1967 was the peak of racial violence that had spread throughout that country over the previous few years. The worst violence took place in Newark and Detroit over a two-week period in June-July 1967; in 14 days, 66 people were killed in rioting and confrontations between blacks and police and National Guardsmen in the two cities. In Newark, 1,454 people were arrested and millions of dollars in damage was done by fire. In five days in Detroit, 7,253 people were arrested; 43 people died, including 33 blacks; initial damage estimates in the $500 million range eventually were scaled down to about $85 million.

Hundreds of homes and businesses were burned and thousands of heavily armed National Guardsmen patrolled the streets. An Associated Press dispatch from Detroit on the fourth day of the riots paints this graphic picture of an unreal scene more to be expected in a war zone or a Hollywood movie than on the streets of a major American city:

DETROIT, July 27 (AP) – Two National Guard tanks ripped a sniper’s haven with machine guns Wednesday night and flushed out three shaggy-haired white youths. Snipers attacked a guard command post and Detroit’s racial riot set a modern record for bloodshed. The death toll soared to 36, topping the Watts bloodbath of 1965 in which 35 died and making Detroit’s insurrection the most deadly racial riot in modern U.S. history....46

Reports of snipers were rampant, and National Guardsmen, tanks and police roaming the Detroit streets fired indiscriminately at the slightest provocation. One night close to midnight, hearing shots, a tank machinegunner fired on a house where he had seen a flash of light, which turned out to have been the cigarette lighter of 19-year-old Bill Hood, who was standing at a window. The Kerner testimony read: “The machine-gunner opened fire. As the slugs ripped through the window and walls of the apartment, they nearly severed the arm of 21-year-old Valerie Hood. Her 4-year-old niece, Tonya Blanding, toppled dead, a .50-caliber hole in her chest.” Ten blocks away, Helen Hall, a 51-year-old white businesswoman, opened the drapes of her fourth-floor hotel window, said to a friend, “Look at the tanks!” and was gunned down from the street by a passing National Guard unit.47

Much of Detroit’s violence was attributed to poor relations between the predominantly white police force and ghetto blacks. Back in 1961, then-Detroit Police Commissioner George Edwards predicted, “Detroit is the leading candidate in the United States for a race riot.” Four years later, then a federal appeals court judge, Edwards explained why; his assessment is particularly troubling 26 years later in the wake of the videotaped beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers. Edwards wrote in 1965:

It is clear that in 1965 no one will make excuses for any city’s inability to foresee the possibility of racial trouble. Although local police forces generally regard themselves as public servants with the responsibility of maintaining law and order, they tend to minimize this attitude when patrolling areas that are heavily populated with Negro citizens. There, they tend to view each person on the streets as a potential criminal or enemy, and all too often that attitude is reciprocated. Indeed, hostility between the Negro communities in our large cities and the police departments is the major problem in law enforcement in this decade. It has been a major cause of all recent race riots. 48

Kerner’s Assessment of Press Performance

It was the Kerner Commission’s task in 1967 to explain these events, both to a strong-willed and increasingly embattled president and to an apprehensive nation. The national reluctance to acknowledge racial pressures in society was reflected in the press, whose indecision over how to cover what clearly in every traditional sense was news, but about a formerly inconsequential and ignored segment of society – blacks – was painfully evident.

The press did cover the events themselves fully, the Kerner Commission found, although some sensationalism and inaccuracies did occur. The commission said the media had tried to give a balanced view of the 1967 disorders, and that many of the factual errors occurring in published reports of the violence were the result of inaccurate facts handed out by authorities. In fact, most of the shooting was by National Guardsmen and police, the commission found.

The commission had more criticism for the press in how it had prepared the nation for the kind of events that rocked it in 1967. Like Alice Widener, most Americans were shocked and confused by the rising violence, at a loss to explain and understand it because they knew little or nothing about the issues and concerns existing in the black ghetto; few, in fact, had any idea of what life was like in the ghetto and, naturally, preferred not to think about it. “Segregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans,” the Kerner Commission wrote in 1968. 49

As a result, America was a nation with its head buried, ostrich-like, in the sand, preferring not to know rather than to acknowledge the facts of civil unrest and race issues confronting the United States in the 1960s. The American ostrich was shocked, surprised and scared when the Civil Rights movement burst into violence and death in 1967 and could be ignored no longer. Widener’s 1965 column may be representative of a nation; Americans were surprised and confused by the racial violence of the mid-1960s – how could this have happened and where did it come from? The press played a role in that confusion by failing fully or completely to fulfill its function of watchdog and surveiller of the societal environment; society was uninformed.

From the perspective of the five-point Hutchins Commission guidelines for responsible press performance, the press in the 1960s had failed miserably when evaluated in terms of its function as a public servant of society, whether black or white. Although the Kerner Commission found that the press had provided “a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events” during the events themselves, there was practically no “context which gives them meaning.” Clearly, perspectives of black Americans were foreign to the newspaper pages whose job it was to provide a “forum for the exchange of comment and criticism” on issues affecting society, and the media had not at all offered the “representative picture of the constituent groups of society” that might have headed off the violence and certainly would have forewarned people like Alice Widener. Finally, newspapers had for years failed in the fourth Hutchins Commission requirement of a responsible press, to “present and clarify the goals and values of the society.”

Echoing the concerns about the media’s role and responsibility in society, urban expert Shepard Stone testified before the Kerner Commission in 1967 that the press might “... be responsible in part for erosion and disintegration” of American cities and the multiple societies that knit them together if it did not drop its social blinders and expand its coverage. “A race riot is news,” he said. “But there was news, significant news, in the city before the riot, news of the conditions and forces that led to it. The U.S. press generally . . . has not reported the underlying facts.”50

Stone’s remarks touched on a long-standing and continuing dilemma in news reporting, the distinction between spot-news coverage and process-oriented coverage what lay behind the Hutchins Commission’s distinction between half-truths and whole truths. As mass communications scholar Maxwell McCombs and others have noted, the media tend to respond well to individual, isolated, time-bounded and distinct events, “[b]ut when it comes to reporting the broad secular sweep of history, the major trends and thrusts of the times, the press often lags significantly behind other public institutions.”51

This clearly had been part of the problem when the fires and violence of 1967 and earlier broke out. The press had not noted the growing pressures building in the black community. Even as the Congress had been working for years on legislation to improve equality for blacks in areas of housing and voting, among others, the press had been satisfied simply to cover developments, without probing beneath the surface, without reporting the time-bound facts in any kind of context that might give them meaning.

In convening the Kerner Commission, Johnson also specifically it to examine and evaluate the influence and performance of the news media in the events leading up to and including the summer riots of 1967. In its March 1968 report, the Kerner Commission said the media had

...failed to report adequately on the causes and consequences of civil disorders and the underlying problems of race relations. They have not communicated to the majority of their audience – which is white – a sense of the degradation, misery and hopelessness of life in the ghetto. 52

Like those of the Hutchins Commission 21 years before, the Kerner report’s conclusions in 1968 remain good today. In many of those conclusions, the Kerner Commission echoed issues and concerns raised by the Hutchins report:

Our . . . fundamental criticism is that the news media have failed to analyze and report adequately on racial problems in the United States and, as a related matter, to meet the Negro’s legitimate expectations of journalism. By and large, news organizations have failed to communicate to both their black and white audiences a sense of the problems America faces and the sources of potential solutions. The media report and write from the standpoint of a white man’s world. The ills of the ghetto, the difficulties of life there, the Negro’s burning sense of grievance, are seldom conveyed. Slights and indignities are part of the Negro’s daily life, and many of them come from what he now calls the “white press” – a press that repeatedly, if unconsciously, reflects the biases, the paternalism, the indifference of white America. This may be understandable, but it is not excusable in an institution that has the mission to inform and educate the whole of our society.53

Kerner Commission Criticisms of the Press

This core criticism by the Kerner Commission of the press in 1968 may be broken down into five basic areas, all echoing in the specific context of press coverage of race in America the more general, philosophical concerns enumerated in the Hutchins Commission’s five guidelines for a responsible media in a free society:

1. Performance. From a standpoint of both minority groups and society as a whole, the press “failed to analyze and report”; white America was taken by surprise when black Americans exploded in anger. The press had failed in its surveillance role.

2. Lack of depth. When the press did report race issues, it failed to communicate – to black and whites alike – much depth or insight about the problems or possible remedies; the media did not – in the Hutchins Commission language – provide full access to the day’s intelligence. Said Kerner: “The ills of the ghetto, the difficulties of life there, the Negro’s burning sense of grievance, are seldom conveyed.”

3. Exclusion. “The media report ... [from] a white man’s world,” the Kerner report found; new, nonwhite perspectives were needed. In its corresponding recommendation, the Hutchins Commission had stressed the media’s obligation to open its communications channels to provide access to discussion of comments and criticism from all perspectives. The press in the 1960s and before had largely ignored the black community, both as a source of news and as an audience. From the pages of America’s newspapers, the Kerner report said, one would think racial and ethnic minority groups didn’t even exist; they were people separate and unequal in the eyes of the white press, as they were in the eyes of other American institutions.

4. Bias. Beyond the need for new viewpoints, the Kerner report said, the “white press” is too often biased, reflecting “the biases, the paternalism, the indifference of white America.” The third Hutchins recommendation had been for a full and representative picture of the constituent groups in society to appear in the media. “Far too often,” the Kerner report said, “the press acts and talks about Negroes as if Negroes do not read newspapers or watch television, give birth, marry, die or go to PTA meetings.”54

5. Social responsibility. As discussed, the Hutchins Commission formulated a view of the press’s responsibility to society. The Kerner Commission said the press had failed in its “mission to inform and educate the whole of our society” or, in Hutchins Commission language, failed in its responsibility to give society a context for the events of the 1960s that would give them fullest meaning.

Further, the Kerner Commission recommendations in 1968 included two specific charges for the press with which newspapers still struggle today:

1) Expand coverage of minority communities and of race issues through permanently assigned reporters and establishment of more and closer links to and with the minority community. And,

2) Integrate minorities into all aspects of news coverage and content, recognizing the various multi-ethnic and multicultural influences and constituencies within newspapers’ larger circulation and coverage areas. 55

Echoing the Hutchins charge of a concomitant responsibility to accompany the socially-given right of press freedom, the Kerner Commission said the press’s shortcomings in the 1960s were “not excusable in an institution that has the mission to inform and educate the whole of our society.” In short, the Kerner Commission urged the newspaper industry to acknowledge the existence of racial and ethnic minority groups within their communities, to recognize their needs and to provide coverage of issues about and for those groups as aggressively and fairly as the newspaper covers the rest of the community. Clearly, such coverage had not been standard.

Applying Hutchins & Kerner Recommendations

It was easy for the media in the 1940s, ’50s and early ’60s to subscribe – genuinely and wholeheartedly – to the five-point Hutchins Commission plan for a more socially responsible press. For one thing, there was nothing in the recommendations to penalize newspapers that did not follow the Hutchins precepts. But there was little not to like, in the abstract, in the commission’s charge to newspapers to report fully, provide context to make news more understandable, promote wide-open debate among all members of society, and to do a better job of covering the society’s constituent parts. Agreeing to those recommendations in theory is a lot like pasting the Golden Rule on your refrigerator – does anyone not subscribe, in principle, in the Golden Rule? But there’s a long step between saying you’ll do unto to others, and actually putting it into practice.

So the press continued doing things pretty much as it had been, pretty much unaware – like the rest of white America – of conditions in black America, such as those described from Tampa by the Kerner investigators. Lacking a mechanism to put into practice the Hutchins Commission precepts for press responsibility, newspapers required events such as those of the 1960s to get the message. Because newspapers had failed to project for the larger society a picture of other constituent groups – who they were, how they lived, what injustices they endured – the larger society was able to ignore their existence.

The press’s potential to ignore the concerns of those groups out of the white “mainstream” is just as great in the 1990s as it was in the 1960s, despite generally wider awareness of at least the existence of America’s growing pluralism. Living far – attitudinally and geographically – from cultures unlike their own, human beings become and remain insular, isolated, unaware of news, attitudes, concerns, trends and topics of interest that are not their own. The Hutchins Commission told the press that it was its job in a free society to help isolated subgroups in society learn about one another, to help them communicate and understand one another. The Kerner Commission told the press that it had failed in that task, that in order to help society learn about itself, newspapers themselves had to become less insular and more interactive, less isolated and more inclusive, less monocultural and more multicultural.

It is with that goal that newspapers in America have undertaken to diversify their newsrooms, to become more inclusive and less exclusive in their hiring and promotion practices, to bring into their newsrooms journalists whose perspectives can help readers broaden theirs. The goal is nothing less than to change the way newspapers cover America, to change the content of American newspapers to provide more of that representative coverage of constituent groups, to open their pages to more and different opinions.

NOTES
CHAPTER 2Philosophical and Historic Context

1. Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson & Wilbur Schramm, Four Theories of the Press (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1956).
2. John Milton, Aeropagitica, 1644.
3. Carl L. Becker, Progress and Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949), p. 33, as cited in Siebert, op. cit., p. 44.
4. Siebert, op. cit., p. 46.
5. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, edited by Alburey Castell (New York: F.S. Crofts and Co., 1947), p. 16.
6. Theodore Peterson, Four Theories of the Press, op. cit., p. 93-4.
7. Ibid.
8. J. Edward Gerald, The Social Responsibility of the Press. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963), p. 7.
9. Peterson, op. cit., p. 74.
10. Joseph Pulitzer, message to his staff, April 10, 1907, cited in Edward L. Bernays, Public Relations Problems of the American Press. (New York: National Newspaper Promotion Association, 1952).
11. James Scripps, Detroit Evening News, Aug. 23, 1873. Cited in draft of Vance Trimble, The Astonishing Mr. Scripps. (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press), in press.
12. E.W. Scripps, The Cleveland Penny Press, Vol. 1, No. 1, November 2, 1878, p. 1.
13. Adolph S. Ochs, The New York Times, August 18, 1896, cited in Bernays, op. cit.
14. See Peterson, op. cit., p. 78.
15. Robert M. Hutchins, Foreword, in The Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press: A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines and Books. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947), p. viii.
16. Ibid., p. 1.
17. Ibid., pp.1-2.
18. Gerald, op. cit., p. 104.
19. E.W. Scripps, “The Wisdom of an Old Penman,” June 1, 1925, p. 6. (The Scripps Archive, Alden Library, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio)
20. A Free and Responsible Press, op. cit., p. 18.
21. Ibid., pp. 20-29.
22. Ibid., p. 21.
23. Ibid., p. 22.
24. Ibid., p. 23.
25. Ibid., p. 24.
26. Ibid., p. 26.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., pp. 26-27.
29. Ibid., p. 27.
30. Ibid., p. 29. Peterson suggests that this recommendation assisted in the evolution of the principle of freedom of information and the public’s right to know; if the press has a mandate to provide the fullest possible access to the day’s intelligence, it must also possess a right of access to such information. It is the logical underpinning of press demands for free flow of information from the public sector. See Peterson, op. cit., p. 91.
31. A Free and Responsible Press, op. cit., pp. 67-68.
32. Ibid., pp. 92, 126.
33. The Hartford Courant. “Storm Warnings.” September 19, 1965. p. 24.
34. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968) p.1
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., p. 4.
37. Ibid., p. 1.
38. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Address to the Nation,” in ibid., p. iii.
39. Ibid., p. 100.
40. Paula B. Johnson, David O. Sears and John B. McConahay, “Black Invisibility, the Press and the LA Riot,” American Journal of Sociology, 76: 698-721 (January 1971).
41. Ibid.
42. Alice Widener, “A New Revolution: Social Upheaval a Danger to Middle Class Morality,” The Columbus Dispatch, March 25, 1965, p. 2B.
43. John D. Lowry, “Worse than War,” The Quill, October 1965, pp. 16-19.
44. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders , op. cit., pp. 20-21.
45. Ibid., p. 23.
46. The Associated Press, July 7, 1967.
47. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders , op. cit., p. 57.
48. George Edwards. “The Role of Law Enforcement in Race Troubles.” The Michigan Law Review. 57: 42-51(November 1965.)
49. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders , op. cit., p. 1.
50. Shepard Stone, “The U.S. Press: A Critical View,” in Raymond L. Bancroft, ed., City Hall and the Press (Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 1967.) p. 30.
51. Maxwell McCombs, “All the News...,” in Maxwell McCombs, Donald L. Shaw and David Grey, eds., Handbook of Reporting Methods. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976) p. 30.
52. The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, op. cit., p. 111.
53. Ibid., p. 203.
54. Ibid., p. 10.
55. Ibid., pp. 10, 14.
Chapter 3.