Stop the Cycle: Race and the Missourian

Today’s class, talking about the extent to which we’ve addressed race in our First Ward election coverage, brought back memories from this summer. I worked with another reporter, Dustin Arand, for literally two months on a story about the Warrens, a well-known family in Columbia’s black community.

It started out when Ray Warren was released from jail, where he was being held under contempt of court for refusing to sign deeds relinquishing his claim to land he said his adoptive mother, Ruth Warren, left to him. What evolved from that was a labyrinth of a story that touched on everything from family drama, to perceived racist conspiracies in city government and courts, to a simple lesson on what not to do when you’re writing a will.

The story was, as Katherine put it, just a really good yarn. And I’m proud of the article to this day.

But boy, when that story came out, the proverbial you-know-what really hit the fan. Katherine still hears about it occasionally at community events. I had people outraged with me.

This was a good story. But after the backlash from members of the black community, I realized that when it comes to covering Columbia’s entire population, the Missourian is lacking. A recurring theme emerged among those upset with the story: where’s the positive, even neutral coverage of stuff going on in the black community? Why is the only Saturday cover story we ever see that’s rooted in Columbia’s black community one that (I’ll admit) airs out one family’s dirty laundry?

Stories covering contentious topics will always stir up chatter among stakeholders. Even if the Missourian were a shining example of minority coverage, people would’ve been upset with the article. But this wasn’t just a few people. We had a man who didn’t even know the Warren family particularly well come into the newsroom to talk to editors about the story. People were frustrated.

My fear is that the story made a group of folks who already feel ignored, even conspired against, by Columbia’s media outlets feel even more alienated. And it’s a self-perpetuating cycle. If you look at the Missourian newsroom, it’s pretty homogenous. I’m not trying to make any broad statements about why so few minorities are drawn to the journalism profession, but I do have one theory…and it’s not something limited to just the Missourian. If people don’t see themselves in the news, their lives, things important to them, then they won’t pay attention to it. And if they have little reason to consume the news, I can’t imagine why they’d be drawn to the profession that produces it.

When we see coverage of almost any minority group, it’s too frequently focused on crime. Other times, a minority group is set aside — look at political coverage, for example. Too many lump statements like “Hispanics vote for Hillary” have become mantras. We don’t get to the real news in these communities. We cover them when something bad happens, or when a story involving demographics comes up. My impression is that the majority of people who read the paper are white and at least relatively well-off, financially. And let’s be real. Our coverage totally caters to those people.

Would a broader range of readers trust the Missourian if we initiated a genuine effort to broaden our coverage, especially of the black community? It sure couldn’t hurt.

I know it’s hard for reporters to cover something they’ve never been a part of. How do you capture the spirit of a community when that community feels alienated from your news outlet? Maybe sending a reporter who has a feel for the community would help. I look back on Jemimah Noonoo’s work and see a great example there. But that’s not always possible. Until we can generate feedback and story ideas from a broader range of readers, we’ll have to grow some guts and go root out those stories ourselves.

If we were really covering minority communities like we should be, we’d be able to write “good yarn” stories like the Ray Warren story without creating such a backlash because those stories wouldn’t look like isolated, negative coverage. They’d simply be facets in a wider spectrum of comprehensive news.


PROGRESS REPORT:

By the end of the day, hopefully, I'll be done with my shells coverage, except for the editing part. I consider this a huge victory; I tried to get in touch, pretty relentlessly, which four developers of subdivisions before the folks at The Village of Cherry Hill were kind enough to even bother answering the phone. (I've learned a lesson from this: stakeholders in old-news stuff that was once controversial are probably press shy.)

In the coming couple weeks, I'll be going through the Saturday cover editing process. Then, it's back to the Muse beat. I'm pretty darn excited to returning to writing traditional features.