Make journalism awards contingent on treatment of the marginalized

Should we really hand out awards to newsrooms that fail to provide adequate and fair coverage of traditionally marginalized communities?

We do. All the time. And I predict that this won’t change in the coming year. But if we want to change how newsrooms operate on behalf of these populations, cutting off access to journalism awards should be on the table. And there’s an easy way to implement it.

Despite the rise of several forward-thinking news organizations that center community engagement and harm reduction, studies continue to show that marginalized communities, particularly BIPOC communities, receive stereotypical, extractive news coverage that focuses on problems within their neighborhoods. And this is nothing new. The bold Media 2070 report is but one of many works that lay out this problematic history, one that predates the founding of this nation.

That’s not to say we haven’t made progress. Many newsrooms, including many clients of my organization, the American Press Institute, have gone through trainings that allow them to better recognize issues with news coverage, sourcing, and engagement.

But most newsrooms don’t truly concern themselves with how they cover BIPOC communities and other marginalized populations. This happens, because, by and large, we have no measures within the industry to hold newsrooms accountable. It is a central point of a new book by my long-time collaborator, Temple scholar Andrea Wenzel. She defines an accountability infrastructure as “systems, structures or programs that facilitate a process of holding stakeholders with more power responsible for listening to and addressing the needs and concerns of those with less (power).”

Such infrastructures can exist in two ways, Wenzel argues. In the first case, newsrooms can set up internal structures that monitor, in some way, how they cover traditionally marginalized populations. Alternatively, external structures can create the transparency required to help newsrooms better connect with and serve these communities.

Ideally, all newsrooms would deal with these problems through the creation of internal accountability infrastructures. Setting up such programs represents the central goal of my own work with the American Press Institute, via what we call the Inclusion Index. Newsrooms participating in the Index undergo intensive research geared toward finding issues related to how individual news organizations cover and engage with marginalized audiences externally and how they recruit, retain, and empower traditionally marginalized voices within the newsroom. After this process, we provide recommendations for how newsrooms can build accountability infrastructures related to their internal and external practices.

External infrastructures can also have an impact on keeping newsrooms accountable. Wenzel’s book notes that a collective of news affinity organizations in Philadelphia — known as Philly J.A.W.N. — was instrumental in pressuring The Philadelphia Inquirer to execute an intensive assessment of its internal and external practices. Our work with the Inclusion Index also attempts to utilize external pressure as a means of holding newsrooms accountable.

But in many cases, public pressure, or simply doing something because it is the right thing to do for your community, doesn’t move newsrooms to action. That’s where potentially withholding awards from newsrooms may play a role in motivating action.

This idea, of course, is not new. A large group of organizations proposed a similar ban based upon participation in the News Leaders Association census. The idea was great, but a multitude of factors, including timing, ultimately sank the effort. In my opinion, though, newsrooms should face an even higher standard and be forced to demonstrate all the measures they are taking toward remediating any potential issues related to serving marginalized communities.

How can you accomplish this? It’s simple. Ahead of awards season, newsrooms are required to fill out a survey that documents efforts made during the past 12 months. To keep it simple, the survey could be universal, housed at a single digital location and utilized for any interested awarding body. It would ask to see evidence of efforts made to improve internal culture (hiring, retention, morale) or external culture (engagement, trust building, sourcing, etc.). Each survey would then be judged by a panel of experts in DEIB.

If you can demonstrate that you have actively attempted to address these issues, your applications for awards would receive consideration. If not, no awards for you.

It’s 2024. These issues should not be happening within newsrooms. We need to take stronger steps to hold newsrooms accountable for their failings. This one may work.