Last Updated: March 23, 1999
Printer-friendly version
On journalism
Study of media reports on affirmative action found
women were rarely mentioned, loaded words were often used and the subject
was portrayed as a black-white issue
Arecent study raises troubling questions about whether the news media
cover affirmative action with the depth and fairness appropriate for such
a complex and politically charged subject.
Americans For A Fair Chance, a consortium of six civil-rights defense
groups, commissioned the study by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting,
a national media watch group. FAIR analyzed reports about affirmative action
by 15 major news organizations from the first six months of 1998 and found,
among other things, that women were virtually absent.
Only a small minority of the stories about affirmative action mentioned
its impact on women; only a few stories made it their focus. Women’s voices
on affirmative action were also greatly underrepresented on the op-ed pages.
Most stories on affirmative action were relatively brief accounts of
news developments, with very little independent investigation or analysis.
Most stories cast affirmative action as a “black/white” issue, ignoring
women, Asians, Hispanics and other minority groups affected by its programs.
Frequently, stories used loaded words such as “preference” interchangeably
with “affirmative action,” subtly influencing popular perceptions of affirmative
action policies. Coverage often failed to mention the discrimination against
minorities and women that prompted affirmative action, robbing the discussion
of its context.
Recently, national debate around affirmative action intensified again
as proposals to end it drew attention in various regions of the country,
such as Washington state. News developments on those stories must, of course,
be reported. But the intense political and emotional ferment around affirmative
action offer journalists a valuable opportunity to cover the issue in fresh,
complex ways.
Affirmative action is often reported in a “proponents say/opponents
say” format, which can include a lot of argument but little insight. Approaching
the subject in depth, with open-ended questions, can produce the balanced,
thought-provoking treatment worthy of such an important and controversial
topic.
Few reports on affirmative action actually explore its origins: discrimination.
Stories seem to suggest that discrimination no longer exists, so affirmative
action is unnecessary. How can remedies for discrimination be intelligently
debated when the nature of the discrimination is not understood or accepted?
Reporting on the realities of discrimination could create real public dialog,
one that produces not just heat, but light.
Discrimination and affirmative action can be examined by industry. Such
an in-depth assessment could yield information about current discriminatory
practices affecting women and non-black minorities. Women and minorities
have yet to break through the walls of discrimination. For example, one
cliche is that Asian Americans oppose affirmative action because it stigmatizes
them. In reality, that community’s opinions on such programs are much more
complicated and reveal volumes about their profound, double-edged experience
with discrimination.
Very little coverage has been given to the actual nuts and bolts of
affirmative action. What was its original philosophy and intent? How do
its programs and policies actually work? Does it require quotas and “preferences?”
Does affirmative action really help those it’s designed to help?
As valuable as in-depth examinations can be, using highly charged and
misleading language undermines them. Describing affirmative action with
words like “preferences” is misleading because it suggests favoritism and
inaccurate because the programs are designed to remedy the preferences
for white males that have long been entrenched in our society. Affirmative
action programs can be described as “anti-discrimination,” “equal opportunity”
or “anti-preference” programs. Language can help create light without heat.
It takes a greater commitment of resources to cover affirmative action
in these ways than it does to report it only with breaking-news stories.
But that commitment offers an unprecedented opportunity for fresh, intelligent
perspective at a critical time in history, when America is soul-searching
for ways to understand and ease discrimination.
Redwood is executive director of Americans for a Fair Chance.
