AA? What AA? After 25 years of trying, US media still fails diversity test

[blackice]

blackice: When was your first on-topic post in this thread? Thanks

My first one where I agree withTaki...now when was your first coherant thought...today even?

but it does exist in high level government positions

Yes big time where you been?

threatened by

Tell me do you dream this often? Back to the doctors, serious he/she may help you with this, shall we call it immaturity?

[Asher]

Well, I'll be the mature one and put an end to this.

Cya.

[Caligastia]

Why is it a problem that the majority of media workers are white? It is automatically assumed that this must be because of "racism". Where is the proof?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Tingkai
It is one industry within the US and it is an example of how industry leaders often talk about affirmative action and yet do not walk the talk.

If someone were to provide statistics showing that one specific industry had more than reached parity, would you take it as sufficient evidence that affirmative action is working? If not, then how can you provide statistics showing that one specific industry has failed to reach parity and expect this to provide sufficient evidence that affirmative action is not working?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai
A study by the Boston Globe has found that the US newspaper are still predominately white, even in communities with large non-white populations.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/10...ty_goal+.shtml

(The story includes lists of newspapers and diversity score)

This story shows that as much as companies talk about affirmative action, most companies fail to do anything about it. As well, it puts to rest the idea that the playing field is level in the United States, that whites are being deprived of jobs, or that the US no longer needs AA.


"If newspapers are a mirror that a community holds up to itself, the reflection is mostly white."

" Only because payrolls shrank in the recession, with more white journalists taking buyouts, did the percentage of minorities in newsrooms increase to 12 percent, compared with 31 percent of the US population. Nearly half of the nation's newspapers employ no minority reporters, editors, artists, or photographers."

This failure is all the more striking given that 25 years ago the American Society of Newspaper Editors set a goal of having their newsrooms as diverse as the communites served by the newspaper.

"The 1,448 daily papers include 125 that meet or exceed their community's minority diversity; 216 that are at least halfway to parity; 285 that employ some minorities but are less than halfway to the goal; 530 that reported no minority journalists on their latest survey; and 292 newspapers that won't say."

This is definitive proof that the newspapers are racist! NBA must be too. I'm sure there are a lot of great white players that are being discriminated against....

[Az]

AA for white players in the NBA!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Tingkai: Your facts backed up what I said.

My examples were all about high-level government negotiaters, where your own stats show staggeringly high numbers (was it 40%?).

Forgot to answer some of the responses due to the system going down.

What Asher wrote is not true. I think he misinterpreted the numbers.

For instance, the study says: "Overall the visible minority population within the public service occupy a higher proportion of what would be considered the knowledge jobs in the public service (63.5%) than do non-visible minorities (52.6%)."

That means that of all visible minorities working for the government, 63.5 per cent have "knowledge jobs" and the remainder have non-knowledge jobs. It does not mean that 63.5 per cent of all knowledge jobs are held by visible minorities.

The same applies to the number you cited when you wrote:
"Am I reading this right when it say "40.4%" for Visible Minorites in "Administrative & Foreign service" jobs?"

The number actually means that of all visible minority men, 40.4 per cent have jobs in administration and the foreign service. It does not mean that 40.4 per cent of all administrative and foreign service jobs are held by minorities.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Why is it a problem that the majority of media workers are white? It is automatically assumed that this must be because of "racism". Where is the proof?

The problem is that newspapers editors said 25 years ago that they wanted a more diverse workforce. They have failed to achieve their goal.

I never made the blanket statement that the problem is caused racism, although if you have a newspaper operating in a community that is 50 per cent black and all of the journalists are white then what would you conclude?

My main point is that newspapers have talked about having affirmative action for 25 years, but this study shows that this is just talk. When it comes to hiring people, newspaper editors are not practicing what they preach.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by loinburger
If someone were to provide statistics showing that one specific industry had more than reached parity, would you take it as sufficient evidence that affirmative action is working? If not, then how can you provide statistics showing that one specific industry has failed to reach parity and expect this to provide sufficient evidence that affirmative action is not working?

I never said that all AA programs have failed. I said that this is one example of how industry leaders talk about AA yet do not actually implement these policies.

The answer to your first question is no because we have a study showing that affirmative action is just talk and that it is not really being implemented. At most, a study showing AA is working in one industry would merely show that AA is getting mixed results.

The study I cited is proof that AA programs are not working in the newspaper industry. It is evidence that simply claiming that an AA program exist does not actually mean that the program is in place and being used in hiring decisions.

Can anyone prove that any American industry has come close to achieve racial equality?

[Sikander]

If you guys are through with your Maple Leaf Rag, I have a couple of points / questions.

1) What percentage of the newspaper's customers are white?

2) What are the relative statistics for those who receive journalism degrees (ie how are these recipients broken down by race)?


In regards to #1 above, in a competitive industry which has a shrinking customer base and has been consolidating for many years now a lot of anomolies can occur. For one thing industries which are shrinking tend to have abnormally large numbers of older employees, which in this case may translate into white employees. If the customer base is unusually slanted toward whites there may be an unconscious tilt toward viewpoints which agree with the customer base (a sound principle in a shrinking market), which in this case is more likely to provided by white journalists. This could easily occur by polling, and without anyone knowing what race the writers they prefer are. Finally, though most newspapers take the name of a large city, most of their readership is spread throughout the state and the suburbs of the city. This is why it's important to look at who the readers of the paper are rather than who lives in the city that the paper purports to serve.

How many minority journalists are being turned out by journalism schools? If there are a good deal fewer than 31% of the total it may be that the education establishment is partly to blame for the discrepency. Of course it might just mean that minorities don't value journalism as a career as much as whites. It certainly doesn't pay all that well, which is a larger consideration for people who are often the 1st in their families to attend college.

All in all I give this a not proven. As you know Tingai, I already believe that the journalistic profession has been one of the most homogeneous of professions for decades. It wouldn't surprise me that in the same way that so many journalists are cut from exactly the same mold demographically and politically that this same tendency would also have an effect upon the racial makeup of journalists. The truth is probably a combination of all of the above and I'm sure even a little purposeful discrimination. But with the low esteem most Americans hold for journalists, the low pay, and to whatever extent the old boy network dissuades newcomers from the profession, I can see why many minorities would avoid the field altogether.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
For one thing industries which are shrinking tend to have abnormally large numbers of older employees, which in this case may translate into white employees.

The study claims that minority representation has increased because older white journalists are taking buy-out packages as the industry shrank last year.

Originally posted by Sikander
If the customer base is unusually slanted toward whites there may be an unconscious tilt toward viewpoints which agree with the customer base (a sound principle in a shrinking market), which in this case is more likely to provided by white journalists. This could easily occur by polling, and without anyone knowing what race the writers they prefer are. Finally, though most newspapers take the name of a large city, most of their readership is spread throughout the state and the suburbs of the city. This is why it's important to look at who the readers of the paper are rather than who lives in the city that the paper purports to serve.

IIRC, the parity goal set 25 years ago was based on readership.

The study looked at readership and the community as a whole. In both cases, the industry as a whole has failed.

There are newspapers that have achieved the parity goal.

The Globe reported:
"In the (Sacramento) Bee newsroom, 29 percent of the journalists are minorities, nearly matching the 32 percent in its circulation area. So its parity score is 88 percent.

"In the St. Petersburg Times newsroom, minority employment peaked in 1995 at 14 percent, slipped to 10, and is now back up to 12. That's barely half of the 22 percent minority share in its circulation area, so its parity score is 52."

"The (Boston) Globe has a minority staff percentage of 18, in a broad circulation area that is 16 percent minority. The City of Boston, however, is 51 percent nonwhite."

Originally posted by Sikander
How many minority journalists are being turned out by journalism schools? If there are a good deal fewer than 31% of the total it may be that the education establishment is partly to blame for the discrepency. Of course it might just mean that minorities don't value journalism as a career as much as whites. It certainly doesn't pay all that well, which is a larger consideration for people who are often the 1st in their families to attend college.

From the Globe story:
"But it's also true that there are plenty of minority college students studying journalism and mass communications: 27 percent of students in those majors are minorities, or enough to double the number of minority journalists in about five years>'

Originally posted by Sikander
But with the low esteem most Americans hold for journalists, the low pay, and to whatever extent the old boy network dissuades newcomers from the profession, I can see why many minorities would avoid the field altogether.

The supply of wanna-be journalists exceeds demand.

That's because:
a) journalists tend to be creative with not much interest in making money so the low salaries are not a disincentive;
2) While the media as a whole is loathed, journalists are respected. The same thing happens in law. we make lots of jokes about lawyers, but law schools are filled.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

The study claims that minority representation has increased because older white journalists are taking buy-out packages as the industry shrank last year.

This may have been a factor over more time though, say for instance over the 25 years since the goal was set. Thus the market for new blood may have been depressed for many years, and only now the last of the all-white cohorts are reaching buy-out age, and hence the recent upturn in minority hires.

Originally posted by Tingkai
IIRC, the parity goal set 25 years ago was based on readership.

The study looked at readership and the community as a whole. In both cases, the industry as a whole has failed.

There are newspapers that have achieved the parity goal.

The Globe reported:
"In the (Sacramento) Bee newsroom, 29 percent of the journalists are minorities, nearly matching the 32 percent in its circulation area. So its parity score is 88 percent.

"In the St. Petersburg Times newsroom, minority employment peaked in 1995 at 14 percent, slipped to 10, and is now back up to 12. That's barely half of the 22 percent minority share in its circulation area, so its parity score is 52."

"The (Boston) Globe has a minority staff percentage of 18, in a broad circulation area that is 16 percent minority. The City of Boston, however, is 51 percent nonwhite."

Circulation areas are decent statistics, though readership is the most crucial as it eliminates the impact of large groups of people who don't speak english as their first language, or groups of people who are not part of the newspaper reading demographic for other reasons such as education level. A statistic about the makeup of the City of Boston is practically meaningless though, as the circulation area of the Globe is several times larger in population than Boston itself. The fact that different measures were applied to come up with these percentages makes them only useful for propoganda purposes, and almost completely useless as comparative statistics.

Originally posted by Tingkai
From the Globe story:
"But it's also true that there are plenty of minority college students studying journalism and mass communications: 27 percent of students in those majors are minorities, or enough to double the number of minority journalists in about five years>'

Interesting. How long has this been the case I wonder? I also wonder whether some of these people are finding jobs in alternative media or as PR people for corporations. It seems like a lot of wasted education otherwise.

Originally posted by Tingkai
The supply of wanna-be journalists exceeds demand.

That's because:
a) journalists tend to be creative with not much interest in making money so the low salaries are not a disincentive;
2) While the media as a whole is loathed, journalists are respected. The same thing happens in law. we make lots of jokes about lawyers, but law schools are filled.

Well there is the fame angle I suppose, and that will draw the usual self-aggrandizement junkies. I don't buy the comparison with Law School though. The general perception is that lawyers make good money, and getting accepted into and graduating from Law School carries with it a degree of intellectual prestige that is not nearly matched by Journalism School. But I do agree that the fame angle does have a positive effect on recruiting.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
Interesting. How long has this been the case I wonder? I also wonder whether some of these people are finding jobs in alternative media or as PR people for corporations. It seems like a lot of wasted education otherwise.

I don't have any statistics, but for my journalism program (10 years ago), that average is about right.

As for alternative media and PR, I think it would be safe to assume the same number of white people compared to visible minorities want to go into these professions.

Originally posted by Sikander
Well there is the fame angle I suppose, and that will draw the usual self-aggrandizement junkies. I don't buy the comparison with Law School though. The general perception is that lawyers make good money, and getting accepted into and graduating from Law School carries with it a degree of intellectual prestige that is not nearly matched by Journalism School. But I do agree that the fame angle does have a positive effect on recruiting.

You're right about the intellect aspect, but journalists have the creativity angle.

I was on a on journalism bulletin board recently and posted a thread saying what the hell are we doing. We're in an industry that has been shrinking for 10 years or more, the pay is lousy compared to our education, we have no job security and the hours are terrible (Most newspaper editors work Sun-Mon 3-11).

The general response from the young journalists was: we're not in it for the money and we don't mind workin long hours. The older journalists were pretty much in agreement with my question, particularly those with families.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The problem is that newspapers editors said 25 years ago that they wanted a more diverse workforce. They have failed to achieve their goal.

I My main point is that newspapers have talked about having affirmative action for 25 years, but this study shows that this is just talk. When it comes to hiring people, newspaper editors are not practicing what they preach.

I guess they decided to stick with merit hiring! Oh darn!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The problem is that newspapers editors said 25 years ago that they wanted a more diverse workforce. They have failed to achieve their goal.

I never made the blanket statement that the problem is caused racism, although if you have a newspaper operating in a community that is 50 per cent black and all of the journalists are white then what would you conclude?

My main point is that newspapers have talked about having affirmative action for 25 years, but this study shows that this is just talk. When it comes to hiring people, newspaper editors are not practicing what they preach.

Ok, fine, they arent practicing what they preach, but should they have been preaching diversity just for the sake of diversity in the first place? Why are they making promises they cant keep?

I never made the blanket statement that the problem is caused racism, although if you have a newspaper operating in a community that is 50 per cent black and all of the journalists are white then what would you conclude?

I wouldnt necessarily conclude its due to racism. Not saying that racism isnt a factor, but how big of a factor is it? As GP and Dalgetti pointed out, the NBA has by far a majority of black players. Would you say that this is in any way due to racism?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Asher
Affirmative Action: Reverse Racism at its finest.

2 Even Urban Ranger could do it.


Better PM me, I don't read responses.

[Tingkai]

Look folks, this study is a strong indication that affirmative action is an urban legend.

More than 1,000 companies have claimed that they have had affirmative action programs for 25 years and yet a large number still have all-white newsrooms. The majority have not reached parity. Of the top 100 newspapers, only seven have achieved parity.

Whether AA is right or wrong is not the point. The real point is that a lot of companies claim to have AA programs when in reality they do not have these programs.

If you can't understand that then you're in denial

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GP


I guess they decided to stick with merit hiring! Oh darn!

Out of 1,448 daily papers surveyed 530 reported no minority journalists. That's one-third of all newspapers.

That ain't hiring on merit. That's racism.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Look folks, this study is a strong indication that affirmative action is an urban legend.

More than 1,000 companies have claimed that they have had affirmative action programs for 25 years and yet a large number still have all-white newsrooms. The majority have not reached parity. Of the top 100 newspapers, only seven have achieved parity.

Whether AA is right or wrong is not the point. The real point is that a lot of companies claim to have AA programs when in reality they do not have these programs.

They probably claim to have AA programs because if they admitted to not having one they would be labeled as "racist". This just goes to show that - like the drug war - you cant stop people from doing what they want by making laws. I guess AA isnt law in the same way as drug laws are, but you could say it is an unwritten law.(if you know what I mean)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The majority have not reached parity. Of the top 100 newspapers, only seven have achieved parity.

I'm not suprised. Quotas are illegal and have been for quite sometime. Have you considered the possibility that there is simply not enough qualified minority journalist for every newsroom to reach parity?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tingkai

That ain't hiring on merit. That's racism.

As I said before:

I wouldnt necessarily conclude its due to racism. Not saying that racism isnt a factor, but how big of a factor is it? As GP and Dalgetti pointed out, the NBA has by far a majority of black players. Would you say that this is in any way due to racism?

[Tingkai]

The real question is: Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this study shows racism is alive and well in the newspaper industry.

You seem perfectly happy with the idea that there is discrimination against white basketball players and yet when there is evidence of racism against visible minorities, your response is "I wouldn't necessarily conclude its [sic] due to racism."

My conclusion is that when there is a suggestion of racism against whites, you're all happy to accept it. But when there is strong evidence of racism against visible minorities, you close your eyes and say "not true, not true, not true."

[TCO]

Cal, don't waste your time. We've had this discussion before and even the AA propenents made more sense than Tingkai. I think he is a little slow...doesn't understand the point that numbers do not mean racism. Look at his comment on the NBA. He thinks I really suspect racism there. What an idiot.

Let him go...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GP
Cal, don't waste your time. We've had this discussion before and even the AA propenents made more sense than Tingkai. I think he is a little slow...doesn't understand the point that numbers do not mean racism. Look at his comment on the NBA. He thinks I really suspect racism there. What an idiot.

Let him go...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You seem perfectly happy with the idea that there is discrimination against white basketball players and yet when there is evidence of racism against visible minorities, your response is "I wouldn't necessarily conclude its [sic] due to racism."

I never said there was discrimination against white basketball players, I asked if you thought there was. You havent really answered.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I'm not suprised. Quotas are illegal and have been for quite sometime. Have you considered the possibility that there is simply not enough qualified minority journalist for every newsroom to reach parity?

Well if quotas are illegal, and I don't know if that is true, then AA does not exist.

The newspaper industry has had 25 years to train minority journalist and yet a third of all dailies have not hired a minority reporter.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I never said there was discrimination against white basketball players, I asked if you thought there was. You havent really answered.

And you haven't answered my question.

As for your question, I doubt it. These days it is very hard to make a case that there is racism in sports simply because it is very easy to measure merit in sports.

I don't know of any white basketball player who has fantastic stats in say college, but who has not been taken by an NBA team. But then I'm not a basketball fan. If you know of any white college player with decent stats, but who could not make it into the NBA then I would have to wonder if racism was a factor.

So I've answered your question. How about answering my question: Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this study shows racism is alive and well in the newspaper industry.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tingkai

So I've answered your question. How about answering my question: Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this study shows racism is alive and well in the newspaper industry.

I think Im going to take GP's advice.

[Solly]

"Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this study shows racism is alive and well in the newspaper industry"

Because there are other factors to consider first. You're making a wild accusation without thoroughly examining these other factors.

Posters in this thread have done you a favour and pointed out some factors which could lead to the situation where minorities are "under-represented". Read their posts rather than just seeing them as material to argue against.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Boddington's
"Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this study shows racism is alive and well in the newspaper industry"

Because there are other factors to consider first. You're making a wild accusation without thoroughly examining these other factors.

Posters in this thread have done you a favour and pointed out some factors which could lead to the situation where minorities are "under-represented". Read their posts rather than just seeing them as material to argue against.

All of the excuses made by other posters have been shown to be incorrect.

There is no reason why one-third of all American dailies employ and all-white news team.

The only reasonable explanation is racism.