« It's all in the numbers | Main | Surplus to requirements »

White as the driven snow

07 Sep 2007 09:51 am

Anyone who's been in journalism for a while notices the same thing. It's . . . awfully white in here. Awfully white. Even though journalism as a whole skews remarkably liberal. Even at left-wing opinion magazines. The only newsrooms that I'm aware of that aren't really remarkably white are at places like Essence.

Why is that? Racism doesn't really seem like a very parsimonious explanation. Newsrooms are, as the Jayson Blair scandal showed, very eager to have minority reporters. Being human, and primates, and all, and also living in a society that had slavery for the first 60% of its history, one can't ever write racism out of the picture entirely. But this doesn't seem like a good explanation for why there are more black accountants than black reporters.

Over at The American Prospect, Dana Goldstein wrestles with the question:


Whitewashed. That's one way to describe college newsrooms, and most of the professional newsrooms I've worked in as well. Over at CampusProgress.org, Justin Elliott, who last year completed a term as executive editor of the excellent Brown Daily Herald, delves into the vicious cycle that contributes to homogeneity in journalism: Low-income and immigrant students can't afford to volunteer time at the paper when they could be working for pay, and their parents don't see journalism as an acceptable career path. The kids who do invest time at the paper are thus more likely to be upper-income and white, and they do a bad job of covering communities of color on campus because they aren't embedded in them socially.

Students of color learn to mistrust the school paper, and then even those students of color who would otherwise be interested in journalism decide not to get involved. The effects trickle right up the journalism career ladder, especially in the magazine world, which provides fewer paid internships for college students and lower-paid entry level jobs. The result is heavily white applicant pools for programs like TAP's writing fellowship and The New Republic's reporter-researcher gig.

This doesn't, I think, quite explain it. First of all, minority students at elite colleges aren't particularly poor. They aren't as likely to be wealthy as their classmates, but at schools like Brown and Penn (where I went) less than 10% of the student body is drawn from the bottom two income quintiles. Most minority students at very elite universities are middle class or better. They don't show up in the college newsrooms either.

But I do think that money probably plays a role: not income, but wealth. Minorities--and I think what everyone's really interested in is black and Latino reporters, even though Asians are just as woefully underrepresented in newsrooms--are much less wealthy than white Americans.

An upper middle class white kid who decides to become a journalist is consigning themselves to a lower standard of living than the one they grew up with; at one time I considered writing a book on downward mobility. But it's not the same decision that a kid whose parents are a janitor and a waitress makes. Even if their parents don't give them money, the upper-middle class kid know that if some financial disaster appears, their parents can step into alleviate it. Help with things like housing downpayments in expensive urban areas will be forthcoming. Eventually, a small inheritence will provide capital for needed projects. Meanwhile, an enhanced lifestyle is generally available through parental meals, vacation homes, theater tickets, and so forth.

A kid whose parents have no assets, on the other hand, is taking an enormous risk--or at least feels as if they are. And when they accept a low salary, they're really accepting a low salary, with all that it entails in terms of risk and lifestyle.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/17274

Comments (21)

I think your diagnosis is exactly right, though I would add a factor to it. As the (white) grandson of struggling immigrants and son of middle-quintile parents, my siblings and I grew up with the unspoken assumption that we should work hard in school not so much to broaden our minds (though that was a nice side effect), but really to put oneself in position to do better than our parents. But if your parents are already doing pretty well, and the best you can hope for is to tie them, you probably don't grow up with the same sense that you're supposed to make more, and therefore will happily consider making less.

Megan,

If your explanation is right, why does this even matter? How would an upper middle class black person who went to a fancy prep school and an Ivy League college and who shares the same parentally-enhanced lifestyle you mention bring any diversity of views to journalism?

You'd get more diversity of views by hiring someone like my sister, who had her hair set on fire by a "person of color" in the mostly-black public high school we attended. You would at least understand why the average middle class white person who has grown up, worked, and gone to school with a broad spectrum of blacks and Latinos (not those cherry-picked by Ivy League schools) doesn't sit around lamenting that news rooms are "whitewashed".

Obviously, the kid who wants the loft and the Porsche is going to major in finance, business, pre-med, pre-law etc. Then there are those kids who pride themselves on their not being materialistic - they find the promise of living a bohemian existence of genteel poverty enticing. They find it enticing because they have absolutely no concept of what it costs to live what they consider a bohemian existence. I have found this to be almost an exclusively white phenomenon.

I know a number of friends who never gave any thought to how much they would make in career they chose. They work at a non-profit making 22k and they complain. My shocked response - you knew that going in. They claim they never really thought about it. I really can't understand it.

My conjecture is that many people follow the educational and career paths of their parents and relatives. For some occupations (journalist, bagpipe player), the demographic mix doesn't change quickly because outsiders are not attracted to it.

Other jobs are more aspirational. They draw in outsiders with the promise of fame, money, power, or status.

For people who aspire to do better (or different) than their parents, journalism doesn't compete well against law or medicine. It does offer the possibility of a modicum of fame, but if you really desire fame, print is not the way to go.

Newsrooms may be white, but television isn't.

You have nailed it. I would expand this to political jobs as well. Many people have told me that I should go work for some political group/campaign/Congressman, etc. because I have such a strong interest in it. But I can't afford to earn peanuts in the DC area. My family is not poor, but they have always struggled to make ends meet. I simply could not rely on them to subsidize me so I could be a low-paid staffer. So I'm an accountant, which pays me quite well, despite not having an accounting degree.

My husband tried to be a journalism major, but quit when he realized that James Fallows is right and journalistic ethics barely exist anymore.

As an economist would say: kids from money suffer softer budget constraints.

Megan,

To add another hypothesis to this:

I suspect that within the population of black and latino young people who are considering low-paying careers with social benefits, the perceived social benefits of journalism aren't as potent and appealing as other their opportunities. Based on my different (anecdotal, small data set) interactions with folks like this during- and post-college, it seemed that once they made the decision 'I want to do something more meaningful to me than make lots of money' they gravitated to things like inner city teaching, community organizing, public health causes and other opportunities that had more perceived tangible benefit for the community served. Journalism has public benefit, but I suspect that benefit is experienced as more indirect and abstract than lots of other socially-minded opportunities.

Hypothetically, if someone were powerfully motivated to improve the lot of the black and latino/a communities in the US, I could see how they might not have patience for anything they think doesn't have direct, immediate tangible benefits.

I wonder if the fact that success in journalism is a matter of subjective assessment has anything to do with it. In any profession where success and promotion are so dependent on the personal tastes of the people above you, I'd expect either actual low-level racism (yes, I mean the kind that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Pick your circumlocution.) or worry about/expectation of running into such racism to keep minorities from entering the profession and make them less likely to get far therein.

As a related data point, I work in the video game industry. Our industry is much "whiter" than the tech industry in general.

Programmers and project managers take an effective pay cut to work in games. At a typical mid to senior level career point we could make about 20% more in business/mainstream software. We still do pretty well though, so the "genteel poverty" theory doesn't apply.

I've casually speculated that it has more to do with either a drive to maximize income or for status. We middle class white types are more willing to sacrifice income or status to chase jobs in an area we love.

Funny mildly related anecdote:

My wife worked at Creative Artists Agency (CAA) her first year out of school as an Agent's Assistant in LA. They paid $17K a year. Her family cut her off the day after she graduated from UVA so she had absolutely no realistic hope or expectation of financial support while she pursued a career in entertainment.

She subsequently took the bus to work.

Her peers in the mailroom and answering calls for agents didn't understand why she took the bus, why she didn't drive a Mercedes or a Beamer to work, like they did.

Of course, it's because they either explicitly had a trust fund or they knew they could fall back on support from parents if they needed it.

I hear book publishing is the same way as are jobs in fashion. The pay structure means that only people that already have money, or access to money, can reasonably afford to take the risk.

LizardBreath, Jayson Blair appears to have gotten much farther than he deserved on merit because he was black so I doubt this explanantion.

Are most occupations all that diverse? Thomas Sowell points out in a bunch of his books that various occupations end up dominated by the ethnic groups that initially dominated them, even a century or more later, and that you'll often have the same ethnic group dominate the same occupation in a bunch of different countries.

Add in to the mix the intense recruiting that exists by the higher paying professions (and professional schools) for minority students.

I graduated from one of the top private universites not on the East or West coast almost 30 years ago, when AA was becoming a hot topic. One of my friends was a Chemical Engineering major and had 5-6 job offers at graduation in the mid to high teens. For several of them he was flown out to interview and flew Coach and took taxis to the hotel and the interview site. One of his fellow ChemE students was a Latina. She had 20 or so offers in the low to mid 20s, flew First Class (or was picked up by a corporate jet), and had limo service to the hotel and interview. This story was well known on campus and certainly influenced career choices.

A slightly different take:

One of the reasons why there are so few people who understand business or science in journalism is that people who know business or science have better job opportunities available to them than journalism. The number of blacks and Latinos who have the educational credentials, curiosity, and (modest) literary ability to work as journalists are a relatively small part of the workforce and are in high demand in all industries that actively value diversity. So they're bound to have much better job opportunities than journalism as well.

The issue here is the income distribution in higher education in general, and not the total income of the students' parents but their disposable income. Even middle class parents can't afford to pay for their kids expenses, so those kids can't volunteer at the paper or take unpaid internships. Further, kids take on a lot of debt to pay for college, and thus are precluded from taking poor paying jobs straight after graduation. So yes, there is, in fact, a good reason that careers whose entry points require volunteering - journalism, publishing, any of those unpaid internship gigs - end up significantly whiter.

But - if we're using wealth as a proxy for race here, which is pretty sloppy - this isn't different from racism. It's just racism that's been incorporated into the structures of institutions. And I fail to see how that's much better.

Megan,

Let me add another explanatory variable.

As an undergraduate at Pomona College I was once editor in chief of The Student Life newspaper, did all the hiring, didn't use race as a factor and wound up with a mostly white staff because the applicant pool was almost entirely white.

I actually had a few people protest the whiteness of the staff ("You need more diversity!"), to which I responded, "I'm still understaffed, show me an applicant of any color who is qualified and interested and I'll hire him or her immediately."

Even then no one was forthcoming, something I couldn't figure out, especially because I personally knew a few talented non-white journalists who hadn't come out for the school paper.

When I investigated I discovered that numerous non-white students were working for a newsletter published by the Asian American Mentor Program, a 'zine published by the Office of Black Student Affairs and other similar outlets for their writing/journalistic talents.

At least at a small school like Pomona (where total enrollment is about 1400), the student newspaper was mostly white partly because the non-white students who were interested in journalism participated on more activist-like publications within their particular identity group.

I don't know what has happened in the years since graduation. Perhaps some of them have gone into mainstream journalism. Perhaps those who still write do so for activist groups or publications targeted at their identity group. But I do know that one factor that explains the whiteness of college newspapers is that in an environment that's already majority white many non-white students who would otherwise probably work for the campus paper pursue alternatives like the ones I've named.

"Perhaps some of them have gone into mainstream journalism. Perhaps those who still write do so for activist groups or publications targeted at their identity group."

Perhaps the casual assumption that "publications targeted at their identity group" aren't "mainstream journalism" has something to do with the fact that few minority reporters end up in "mainstream journalism?" Or, not much better, maybe that's not an assumption so much as a correct description of "mainstream journalism" as not being "targeted at their identity group" - again, not a real compelling reason to pursue "mainstream" journalism.

Just sayin'.

This is a fascinating (but potentially uncomfortable) topic and should puzzle all who believe that the future will bring even more globalization and not less.

There are enough middle-class homes and even rich homes of color to produce journalists. It does seem to be mainly a cultural/historical issue and not an economic one? And if there is a cultural barrier - it resides on BOTH sides this time .

I implore you to read this bright African-American's thoughts on Affirmative action. I see many parallels to the issue at hand. (He himself is a fine example of the quality that we are missing out on and not merely the quantity.)

Here a teaser:

I have reluctantly come to suspect that the conviction in question is this one: a quiet but fundamental sense among many African-Americans of influence that the black student who aces the SAT and tolerates nothing less than top grades is stepping outside of what it is to be a proper African-American.

This is a depressing charge to make, but the blank expression on these advocates' faces when issues of class or merit are ever brought up even politely, as if someone had brought up wallpapering technique or the latest dinosaur finds in Mongolia, admits no other explanation. In short, we are seeing the adult manifestation of black children's distrust of the "nerd"; namely, a sentiment that even middle class black America, at the pain of losing its essential blackness, should only be expected to produce so many of them. Nothing makes this clearer than the fact that I have heard not a single word of congratulations for the 255 African-American students who were offered admission to UC Berkeley this spring.

As it happens, a week after I first wrote this, one of the black students involved in recruiting black prospectives explicitly confirmed my suspicion. When I asked her why no one seemed to be terribly excited about the black students who did make it in, the student responded that there was a general fear that black students who performed at such a high level would be unconcerned with nurturing an African-American presence at Berkeley. In other words, Affirmative Action was instituted to allow African-Americans to surmount the legacy of disenfranchisement and perform at the same level as whites, but victimology and separatism have since become so pervasive that the black student who bears out the intentions of the policy and attains this performance level is now suspected of being a sell-out.
__________________________

Here is a scientific debate about this arguments.

All arguments presented above also echo the the post by Joe Magarac: As the grandson of struggling immigrants and son of middle-quintile parents, my siblings and I grew up with the unspoken assumption that we should work hard in school not so much to broaden our minds, but really to put oneself in position to do better than our parents.

PS: I can understand that there is still a very strong separatism mentality ingrained in African-Americans (more than might consciously admit it?). Many African-Americans have not forgotten the hypocrisies and double-standards? These wounds will take long to heal but they will.. as all national, cultural, racial, sexual identity crisis will blur?)

Two comments,

It's more of an anglo & european thing to give a lot of prestige to news writers, I think. So for whites the prestige makes up for the pay, in other cultures less so.

Less important: generally student papers (and other practice publications) are better the bigger they are, and at least at my schools a few ethnic groups fractured off their own papers which meant the contributors got a wider experience with less practice in any one job.

"Even though journalism as a whole skews remarkably liberal."

Yglesias used to regularly observe that even by the coarsest measures, Americans (as opposed to the American political system), don't have attitudes that map well to a 2D axis of liberal conservative. That said, insofar as we can use "Republican/Democrat" for "conservative/liberal":

- we all tend to see ourselves as closer to the median than we are
- your socioeconomic peers are substantially more, not less, Republican than the median American
- among your socioeconomic peers, journalists are more Democratic than the median *of that group*, but not of the countray as a whole
- if journalists really are "remarkably" liberal-qua-Democratic -- say, at least as l-q-D as John Edwards, it doesn't show up in their work

And Edwards is hardly the second coming of William McGovern, let alone Eugene Debs. By general consensus the left-est of the major Presidential candidates, Edwards has no more radical a set of policy preferences * relative to the polling-expressed attitudes of the American people* than Thompson, Huckabee, or McCain.

Perhaps you meant "a remarkably large majority of journalists are moderate/centrist Democrats." That I would believe.

Why are the HTML embedded links not working?

THE DEMISE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT UC BERKELEY: DISSECTING THE STALEMATE
An Essay by John McWhorter
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mcwhorter/index.html

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.