Changing World: Latinos and the Media

During my years at The Times I have often heard from Latino activists complaining about the kind of coverage that ethnic minorities and minority-related issues get in the news media.

In honesty, I often find the complaints unjustified. People misread straightforward news reports and conclude that journalists are biased against them simply because reporters don’t take their views on some controversial subjects. But there have been times when I’ve read news clippings that were unbalanced, incomplete or just sensationalistic. Not the kind of journalism that I want to be associated with.

But I am associated with it by the very nature of my work. As a professional journalist, I am acutely aware of the strengths and weaknesses of my craft. While I take considerable pride in our achievements, I must answer for our shortcomings, too. And one area in which we need to improve is how we report on Latinos and other minority groups.

Almost 20 years ago the Kerner Commission’s report on the urban rioting of the 1960s placed part of the blame on the news media, which had ignored America’s ghettos until they exploded. As a result of that criticism, many news executives pledged to help integrate the nation’s newsrooms. Yet journalism remains a highly segregated profession; only about 8% of the professionals working for newspapers are members of minorities, while 18% of the nation’s population is minority.

On the whole, I would argue that the news media are covering the problems and aspirations of this nation’s minorities better than they did before the 1960s. But I worry that, with the minority population growing and the issues becoming more subtle and complicated (equal economic opportunity as opposed to racial segregation, for example), we risk falling behind again.

I make no secret of my concern to colleagues in the news business. But when I talk to Latino activists on the subject, I offer what must seem like very conservative advice. I urge them to try to understand the inner workings of the media, and to cooperate with reporters and editors rather than criticizing them. I also advise against confrontation-style tactics, such as boycotts, which can be counterproductive.

If the news media are going to change, the most effective pressure for change will come from inside the profession, among journalists themselves, rather than from outside pressure groups. And the best way to make the news media more sensitive to minority groups is to have more Latinos and other minority people in the newsroom.

When more Latinos, blacks and other minorities are writing and reporting the news, or making decisions about what will be covered as news, there will be a better balance in the reporting about minority communities. Controversial stories about gangs, illegal aliens, drugs, welfare and the like will still be written and broadcast, because these issues are too important to be ignored. But they will be balanced by positive stories, the kinds of upbeat features that now are sometimes overlooked.

What prompts these musings is the fact that this week hundreds of Latino journalists from across the nation are in Los Angeles to participate in the annual conference organized by the California Chicano News Media Assn. and the National Assn. of Hispanic Journalists. A key topic will be getting the media to hire more Latinos, and improving the career opportunities for those already in the field.

But while those meetings are going on, a group of local activists, calling themselves the National Hispanic Media Coalition, are using the occasion to publicize their complaint against television station KCBS, which, they say, has a poor record in the hiring and promoting of minorities. They expressed their feelings by holding a demonstration outside the station.

As noted above, these ‘60s-style protest tactics are not that useful. On the other hand, a cynic could argue that conferences where minority participation in the news media is discussed in moderate, measured tones aren’t doing that much good, either. But I persist in believing that pushing from the inside is preferable, not just because it is more likely to succeed but also because outside pressure on the media jeopardizes freedom of the press.

After all, if angry Latinos pressure a TV station one day, the shoe could easily be on the other foot the next day. This week, for example, the news department at KNBC is getting lots of angry phone calls from English-speaking viewers who don’t like the fact that its series on a new immigration law is being broadcast in Spanish as well as in English. KNBC refused to change the decision to broadcast in two languages, to its credit. It can do that because the First Amendment guarantees the news media’s independence. And that independence is the source of some of the media’s finest achievements. It is what allows reporters to challenge government authority, or society’s conventional wisdom, when necessary.

Editorial independence does not mean that the news media can ignore criticism, of course. If they do a poor job, we must be willing to listen to protests. And if the criticism is valid, we must be willing to change. But there is enough good sense in this profession to make those changes without outside pressure.

Of all people, journalists know that freedom of the press carries with it responsibilities. One of them is a duty to be fair and balanced in our work, and when it comes to minorities in U.S. society, we still fall short on both counts. That will change when American newsrooms better reflect American society. We’re working on it.