Seattle Times Uses Direct Approach in Minority Coverage : Journalism: Acknowledgement of apparent salary disparity sparked discussions on a variety of issues. The result was that more diversity appeared in the newspaper.

Four years ago, editors at the Seattle Times were instituting a “pay-for-performance” salary system when they discovered what they thought was a troubling disparity--many minority staffers generally appeared to be paid less than their white colleagues.

Most editors--most executives in any business--would probably have concealed that data or, perhaps, tried to quietly correct the situation. But Michael Fancher, executive editor of the Seattle Times, circulated the information to the staff, hoping it would stimulate discussion and perhaps reveal other inequities and problems that required attention at the paper.

The appearance of racist literature on the desks of two blacks at the Seattle Times shortly before release of this information had already created some uneasiness among blacks in the newsroom, so there was indeed much discussion about salaries and other racial matters. Although subsequent analysis showed that the salary disparity was smaller than it appeared, other inequities and problems were found in minority coverage and employment. Committees were formed. Reports were written.

Result: Even though minority population in Seattle is substantially less than in most big urban centers--about 29% in the city, 15% in the metropolitan area, mostly blacks and Asian-Americans--the Seattle Times has been far more resolute and innovative than most papers in trying to cover that population adequately and in trying to diversify its newsroom to help achieve that objective.

“Seattle is a richly diverse community,” says Fancher, a white, “and we wanted that diversity reflected in our newspaper.”

When Fancher released the information on salaries, minorities formed a committee, interviewed outside consultants and brought in Marilyn Gist of the University of Washington to study the paper.

“Everyone liked Marilyn,” said Lee Moriwaki, editor of one of the paper’s suburban bureaus, “but I think there was some sense that there were too many meetings, too much talking.”

Nevertheless, out of Gist’s interviews with 22 staff members and her report came 17 one-day racial awareness seminars and a series of recommendations for diversifying the staff and news pages. Meanwhile, there were considerable staff discussions, more meetings, memos and a Diversity Committee was formed.

Over the past two years, the paper has made a major effort to cover more minorities in routine stories. Photographs of minorities increased 45%--and photos of minorities in a positive or neutral context more than doubled--during one 14-month period, according to the paper’s periodic content review.

Some staff worried that this emphasis would lower the paper’s news standards, that quotas would replace news judgment. Fancher says the paper is not lowering standards, just “re-evaluating them.”

As members of the paper’s Racial Awareness Pilot Project said in a May 31 memo to the staff:

“We’re not interested in ‘token’ reporting on minorities or producing ‘good news’ that otherwise wouldn’t make it into the paper.”

Many at the paper were skeptical. Some worried that management would begin to measure--and reward--performance based solely on coverage and inclusion of minorities.

Thus, Marsha King, a white reporter at the paper and coordinator of the pilot project, was convinced that the program would work only if it were “a grass-roots effort, not something imposed from the top down.” She did not want it seen as “an effort on the part of the paper to be a social missionary but as something to make us a better paper.”

When King sought volunteers for the first stage of the pilot project, she found only eight--and only one minority.

“Many people of color felt they were already doing things to bring diversity to their stories,” said Jerry Large, a black assistant city editor. “This was a chance for others to do it.”

The pilot project began May 1, with the volunteers consciously emphasizing diversity in their daily work whenever possible and monitoring the results. Members of the project team attended minority meetings, read minority publications, developed a list of minority sources to be consulted on various subjects, and questioned minorities who had written letters to the editor critical of the paper’s minority coverage.

The project opened many eyes and many doors, but it was not as successful as had been hoped, in part, because “we were basically a bunch of white folks talking about issues we probably didn’t fully understand,” team members said in a written report to the staff in October.

That report cited a number of stories and photographs either made possible or enriched by team members’ heightened awareness. The team also gave a slide show presentation to the staff, discussing “what had worked and what didn’t and . . . sharing our own fears (about the project),” King said.

That presentation “crystallized for the rest of the staff” the objectives and potential of the program, King said, and a second, larger phase is under way, with less skepticism, less resistance and about twice as many participants, including several minorities.

The paper has a newsroom staff that is 16% minority, and minorities make up 10% of the editors--both numbers more than double the industry average. But Fancher says he feels frustrated by the paper’s inability so far to bring minorities in “at the highest levels of the newsroom,” and that is where attentions are focused, both in recruitment and in-house training.

Two months ago, Managing Editor Alex MacLeod sent a letter to 400 minority journalists around the country, asking for applicants and recommendations in trying to fill two key editing jobs.

He said he has had more than 50 replies and conducted “about a dozen in-depth telephone interviews.” Two prospects have been flown to Seattle for interviews, and both were offered jobs. One declined, the other is considering the offer, he said.