Lack of Diversity in Newsrooms vitiates Media Coverage of Dalit Issues 

The Kerala media’s coverage of the state-wide hartal on April 9, called by a group of Dalit organizations, was, to put it charitably, highly indifferent. It shows how far removed media institutions and media persons are from the problems of the marginalized sections of the population.

The state has a plethora of newspapers and news channels engaged in mutual competition, which is sometimes more imaginary than real. Decades ago, as print media competition intensified, there was a shift in emphasis from quality to quantity, and the newspapers decided they would rather be  larger than better, and raced ahead, knocking down the walls between mainline journalism and tabloid journalism. Sensationalism became second nature to them as well as to the channels which entered the scene later.  Since the state does not produce enough sensational stuff daily they not unoften feel compelled to blow up ordinary events into material of Live and Breaking News kind.

Hartals called by political parties which are a dime a dozen in the state generally receive far more media coverage than they deserve because they offer scope for sensationalization. It is, therefore, possible to make out a case, on professional grounds, for scaling down hartal coverage. But it is difficult to see the playing down of this hartal as  a result of professional rethinking. It has to be viewed in the context of the subtle manifestation of anti-Dalit, anti-Adivasi sentiments in Kerala society, which is currently in a state of regression, after registering remarkable progress under the influence of visionary reformers in the closing stages of feudal-colonial rule. 

The April 9 hartal was not just another ine of the kind that Keralites routinely  honour in recognition of the proven capacity of the lumpen elements deplotd by the sponsors to enforce it.  The CPI-M, which currently heads the state government, and powerful organizations of merchants and bus operators took the unusual step of making it known in advance that they want to defeat this hartal. The government also did some unusual things: it leaked an alleged Intelligence report about the possibility of violence and made preventive arrests of several Dalit leaders.

The bid to defeat the hartal failed. Considering the lack of muscle power of its sponsors, the response the hartal call evoked has to be rated as good. Even newspapers which consciously played down the event had to concede it was a “partial” success.

The largest circulated Malayalam newspaper, Malayala Manorama, proudly recalls that when it began publication in 1888 it had written an editorial calling upon the government of Travancore to grant educational facilities to Pulayas, the largest of the state’s Dalit groups. Sadly 130 years later it has been found wanting in its appreciation of the status of Dalits in the state. In 1888 it could identify itself with those seeking a just, inclusive society. Today, it is part of a big media cillective that stands with the official and political Establishment whose approach is characterized by renewed social exclusion.

The poor coverage of the hartal, and indeed of all developments relating to Dalits and Adivasis, cannot be viewed in isolation from the fact that these communities are excluded from the mainstream media in the state, as in the rest of India.

After Robin Jeffrey mentioned the absence of Dalits in Indian newsrooms there was a cursory discussion of the subject in some media circles, but the editorial and managerial leaders of the media made no effort to remedy the situation. Two decades ago the state-funded Kerala Press Academy conducted a journalism course especially for Dalits. None of the successful trainees could find a job in any major newspaper.  

The apathetic attitude of the Indian media establishment to the lack of Dalit representation in the media is in sharp contrast with the manner in which newspapers in the United States have been persevering for the last four decades to ensure that their newsrooms reflect the diversity of the society.

After the problems of the black minority came into sharp focus following civil disorders, the US administration appointed a commission to look into the issue. The commission, in its report, warned that the country was moving towards two separate societies—one black and the other white. The journalists’ profession, it said, had been “shockingly backward in seeking out, hiring, training and promoting” blacks.  

This prompted the American Society of Newspaper Editors to set up a Minorities Committee. This body recommended recruitment, training and hiring of blacks. “This is simply the right thing to do,” it said. “It is also in the newspaper industry’s economic self-interest.”

ASNE decided to undertake an annual accounting of minority employment, including not just total jobs but types of position held. Accepting a proposal of leaders of minority journalists, ASNE also set a goal of raising minority employment by 2000 to the percentage of blacks in the population.

While blacks constituted more than 10 per cent of the population, in 1968 black journalists were only one per cent of the total. Thanks to ASNE’s sustained efforts, black representation rose but parity could not be achieved by 2000. The target date was, therefore, pushed back to 2025.  As new minority groups achieved visibility ASNE brought them also within the ambit of the diversity project.

In 2000, the representation of minorities in US newsrooms was as follows: African Americans 5.31 per cent, Hispanics 3.68 per cent, Asian Americans 2.35 per cent, Native Americans 0.52 per cent. (Total 11.86 per cent). There was a decline in the representation of all these groups the following year: African Americans 5.23 per cent, Hispanics 3.66 per cent,  Asian Americans 2.30 per cent, Native Americans 0.44 per cent.  (Total 11.63 per cent).

The decline in minority numbers, the first in 23 years, was attributed to the departure from the business of an unusually large number of minority journalists.

ASNE viewed this as both a disappointment and a challenge and launched major initiatives to increase flow of talented minorities into the journalism pipeline. It recognized that recruitment to the profession was not enough and decided to focus on retention of staff.

ASNE is continuing its effort to make newsrooms representative of the society. The 2017 Diversity Survey report, released last October, said minorities accounted for  16.6 per cent of joirnalists. This was higher than the percentages recorded for much of the last two decades but ASNE wasn't happy as this was a half percentage point less than in the previous year.

On the positive side, 25.5 per cent of US news organizations reported having at least one minority journalist among their top three editors. Also, minorities accounted for 24.3 per cent of online-only news organizations, an increase from the previous year’s 23.3 per cent.

Different from the previous years, the 2017 survey included open-ended questions asking news organizations to provide specific examples of stories and other best practices that showed their commitment to diversity recruitment and retention. 

Currently, the ASNE survey also covers the representation and status of women in the newsrooms.

The Neiman Reports, in a cover story, quoted Kevin Riley, Editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as saying, “As a white man, I can avoid race if I want. I live with that white male privilege. Unless you are exposed to the idea that people of color do not have that option, and race is in front of them all of the time, you don’t have that awareness, and therefore it makes it much harder to compel yourself to act, to hear the kind of things you need to hear to take action in the newsroom.” Substitute "caste" for race,  “Caste Hindu” for white and “Dalits” for people of color and you get a fair picture of the Indian scene.

Stressing the importance of diversity in the newsroom, Riley said, “When you have a diverse staff, and people are comfortable around these topics, you get a better outcome. That’s sort of the business payoff. This is beyond just a nice idea, beyond the right thing to do, and beyond recognizing our troubled history around race. It’s a business imperative.”

ASNE's and Riley’s economic arguments may not be relevant in the Indian context. In capitalist America, promise of business payoff may make sense. In India, caste reigns over economics and politics. The ancient emperors and merchant princes submitted themselves to its rules. So do today’s political rulers and industrial barons.