Understanding Diversity

This week I would like to talk about my conclusion from my research paper. I researched newsroom diversity. For the last 15 years, newsroom diversity has stayed relatively consistent at around 12 percent. Honestly, I feel that this number is fine.

Obviously, minorities will not agree with me. They will argue that in order to cover a diverse populace, you need a diverse newsroom. This is simply not true. Journalists are professionals. They need to master their craft. They need to be able to cover topics that don’t relate to them. The reporters themselves can and need to cover a diverse population.

Keith Woods, the diversity guru from Poynter, helped journalists with this problem when he came up with the equation E = w (y + c + f). E stands for excellence. W is the amount of work. C is your craft and f is your frames. Woods substitutes excellence for diversity because journalism is not about diversity. In “The Values and Craft of American Journalism,” Woods explains why he didn’t put D into the equation. He says that all journalists in a free press adhere to the same principles. “They stand for truth, accuracy, fairness, courage, precision, comprehensiveness, independence, giving voice to the voiceless, holding the powerful accountable, informing, educating, taking people where they can’t or wont go” (Woods 106).

Our job is bigger than diversity. Our responsibility is to the people. To fulfill our responsibility, we need to understand them. We need to get out of our comfort zones. We need to feel comfortable asking questions. These are the things the journalism industry should be concentrating on, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. These ideas, as Woods says, are “an ageless journalistic truth, not new math” (115).