Opinion: DEI efforts must consider reporters’ mental health and online abuse

The 2020 brutal murder of George Floyd by white police officers was an impetus for many newsrooms across the country to re-energize diversity efforts. These reckonings around racial justice and equity promised internal mentorship programs, diverse event programming, more open conversations about systemic racism, additional funding for the recruitment and retention of diverse news workers, and new positions focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the newsroom.

But in the rearview mirror, 2022 is a picture of slow progress. Many of the DEI promises have not been fully realized. Feedback from journalists is familiar and enduring — some change, not enough. And results fromNorthwestern’s 2021 survey show journalists of color are more likely to have concerns about the DEI efforts in their newsrooms.

In particular, journalists hired into roles that emphasize some kind of diversity and equity struggle to find consistent support.

As reported in an ongoing research project, a diversity and community editor who had been in the job for about a year said, “I’m tired, I’m always tired. This work is the work of change, work of equity change at a legacy organization is daunting, right? There’s no question about it. You know it’s going to take forever. Sometimes it feels like it’s never going to happen.”

Women journalists of color, plagued by slow DEI progress within organizations, also find themselves targets of abuse and harassment online. In a survey of women journalists in the U.S. conducted by the Committee to Protect Journalism in 2019, 90% of respondents cited online abuse as their most significant threat. Just a year later, in an international survey fielded by UNESCO and the International Center for Journalism, 73% of women journalists reported experiencing online violence because of their work. This threat is aggravated for women with multiple identities, with Black, Indigenous, Jewish, Arab, Asian, and LGBTQIA women, in particular, facing the most severe and highest rates of online violence, as well as reporters who write about race.

The consequences are profound for the profession, which is already struggling to recruit and retain diverse talent. A survey conducted by TrollBusters International Women’s Media Foundation found that 40% of women journalists reported changing their behavior as a result of online violence, and nearly a third of respondents considered quitting the profession entirely.

The threat of online violence and the cost of deferred DEI efforts have one thing in common: News workers of color bear the burden, and these costs take a mental and physical toll. Without efforts to promote the well-being and safety of journalists of color, DEI initiatives — particularly those focused on recruitment — can create more harm.

In 2022, and likely in 2023 and beyond, it is clear that, for journalists of color, the field of journalism is hazardous.

A reporter working in DEI said it best: “Racism doesn’t just kill us with a rope around our necks. It kills us little by little. The health disparities, and the trauma, and the mental fatigue, the emotional fatigue. So those are the risks for all of us. All of us in this world who are trying to tell some of these stories. We can’t separate ourselves from them.”

Despite the grim picture, 2023’s DEI goals can support the mental health of BIPOC newsworkers, including tangible measures to address online abuse. Resilience in the face of slow progress must be supported.

Danielle K. Brown is the Cowles Professor of Journalism, Diversity, and Equality at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Kathleen Searles is an associate professor of political communications at Louisiana State University.

 

Subscriptions Drive Inequitable Access to Trustworthy News

Thomas Jefferson believed that the transparency provided by journalism was virtually a fourth branch of government, serving as a check and balance on the constitutionally-defined three.  But he also recognized that the news must be available to all, and that all Citizens must be able to understand the news that is published (implying a minimum level of education). 

Subscriptions violate both these important considerations.  The poor cannot afford to pay for economically regressive subscriptions, and therefore do not have access to the same quality news as the wealthy.  This deficit is perpetuated when their children do not grow up with quality news from which to learn about their rights and best interests under American democracy.  For these reasons subscriptions for news may be the most economically-divisive commercial concept under the American economy and political system.

Subscriptions farther out of Reach

Since the turn of the century the newspaper industry, and to a lesser extent electronic news broadcasting, have lost both the majority of their audiences, and their advertising revenue.

Total estimated weekday circulation of U.S. daily newspapers was 55.8 million in 2000 and dropped to 24.2 million by 2020, according to Editor & Publisher and the Pew Research Center.

As newspaper consumption declined this century, the news product became uncompetitive, with the exploding search and social media digital products gobbling up news media’s lunch, while also creating a new medium which has co-opted and corrupted the very concept of trustworthy journalism.

 

 

The advertising revenue for newspapers peaked in 2005 just before the iPhone and social media emerged, an event to which news media was unable to effectively respond to maintain a sustainable news ecosystem.  The following graph shows how the industry lost the vast majority of ad revenue in the last 15 years. 

While the industry lost over 60% of its ad revenue, circulation revenue continue to grow at a much slower pace, not nearly replacing the ad revenue decline.

It doesn’t take complex math to see that when circulation dropped by more than half and circulation revenue increased only slightly the amount each Citizen pays for newspapers has more than doubled in the last 15 years. 

Quality news is not becoming more accessible through affordability, it is becoming less so. 

This fact, combined with the erosion in the number of newspapers, journalists, and communities with any news coverage has meant that access to quality news is limited well beyond the rising cost of subscriptions.

In Jefferson’s time early newspapers were growing in number, circulation and diversity of opinion.  He and the other founding fathers cannot be faulted for not better planning for the sustainability and universal access of news media in their drafting of the US Constitution.  However, it is clear they would have done so under today’s dire circumstances for news media and American democracy.