Blog

How Jiquanda Johnson is building Flint Beat from the ground up

/
October 1, 2020

As part of our continuing conversations with journalism leaders centering communities of color, I recently chatted with Jiquanda Johnson, the founder, publisher, and executive editor of Flint Beat, a digital news site serving the Flint, MI, community. Johnson, a veteran journalist from the Flint area, launched Flint Beat in 2017 to fill news and information gaps in the community, after community members expressed the many ways in which existing news coverage was not meeting their needs. Democracy Fund proudly supports Flint Beat through the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund.

Below is a lightly edited recap of our conversation.

LT: Tell me about the very beginning of Flint Beat for you.

JJ: I launched the site in 2017, but I owned the domain name for a minute. I didn’t know what I would do with it, but I liked the sound of it and so I saved it for a couple of years. I grew up in Flint, and at the time of launching the site, we were knee deep in the water crisis, and news seemed to be filled strictly with crime and sports. I thought that we needed more, and I understood it as someone from there. We had a meeting at the newsroom I was working for at the time, and they’d made some decisions I just didn’t like. I didn’t like the direction things were going in. So I decided I would start my own newsroom. My last day was a Friday, and the following Monday, I kicked things off.

LT: What were some of the initial stories you saw were missing that you wanted to cover?

JJ: I had a list of maybe 40 ideas that I wrote down when I first started. For example, I remember wanting to do a story on gun violence. In the first year of launching Flint Beat, I brought that idea to Solutions [Journalism Network] and the following year, they gave me money to chase that story. We’re still extending our work there, and we’re probably the only newsroom in the state of Michigan that’s even looking at gun violence as a public health issue and also from a solutions journalism standpoint.

For me, I knew about all the cool stories and cool people, but I also knew about a lot of the issues that were plaguing the city. And when you come from a community that invested in you and made you who you are, you want to do better by them through your work. You want to take deeper dives, do investigative journalism, focus not only on problems but how to fix them too.

When you come from a community that invested in you and made you who you are, you want to do better by them through your work.

Being a Black person in journalism, you know stories that are told are not necessarily the whole story. There are so many stereotypes you deal with in a newsroom. So I want to see more people like me with our own platforms that tell the different parts and perspectives of a story.

LT: What are some ways you’ve brought the community into the work of Flint Beat?

JJ: I launched a youth journalism program that worked with Flint youth, and we had some great partnerships that are on pause now with COVID. When I got ready to look for people who could potentially work for Flint Beat or contribute, I learned that there’s no journalism program here. So how do you create this diverse newsroom that reflects the community that you cover if the talent isn’t there? I started to work with young people, trying to bring more diversity in newsrooms here in Flint and hoping that would spread to other newsrooms in the state.

LT: What were some of the challenges you encountered when you first struck out on your own?

JJ: I’m a Flint girl, so covering the city was nothing. People already knew who I was — I was already covering City Hall, living in Flint with my kids. So that was the easy part. But I didn’t think about the business itself. I started it as a journalist, not a publisher, and I didn’t even quite know what that meant. I invested in a $40 WordPress template that I’d pulled apart and recreated with my vision for the site. But I still covered stories as if I were working for any other newsroom.

I started it as a journalist, not a publisher, and I didn’t even quite know what that meant.

Six months in, my savings were depleted. I realized I needed money to make this thing work, and people were not just going to say, “Oh my gosh, you all are doing great work. Let’s invest in you.” I ended up having to work a full-time job and manage Flint Beat, all while caring for my two kids as a single mom.

It wasn’t until last year that I began identifying roles that weren’t editorial — fundraising, social media, etc. They’re not necessarily reporting, but they are still essential for building sustainability, engaging the community, and making a mission successful. But initially, I was everything to the best that I could be, not knowing much of anything at the time.

LT: That seems like a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you want to have as much knowledge and resources as possible for a venture like this. But if you take so much of that into account, it might stop you from doing the work in the first place and maybe learning as you go.

JJ: I’m not sure how much a person should have to learn as they go. I know we haven’t figured it all out. But I wish I didn’t have to later learn about the newsroom budget and how it can tell a story so that people might be more willing to invest in you. I wish I knew I could engage people with my brand through something like a newsletter before launching an entire website first. I was putting out so much content that I burned myself out.I wish I’d known the value of my work. I undervalue myself. I still do it. I’ll ask for less than I need in a grant proposal hoping funders will be more likely to invest in us. This is the first year I’ve gotten a salary, and it’s a very modest one.

I wish I’d known the value of my work.

It’s those things I wish I would’ve known beforehand. I didn’t mind learning that my audience prefers us covering City Hall instead of the school board. But I wish I had a publishing angel on my shoulder saying, “No, ask for $250,000 because that’s what you actually need for the next two years.”

LT: How are you thinking about sustainability now?

JJ: With the funding from Borealis, I’ve started to fill key roles within the newsroom to help make things more sustainable. There’s our newsletter. I kept trying to do it myself, and one day I thought, “I’m not good at this.” We hired Detour Detroit to handle it, and now our newsletter is generating donations and responses from readers saying how much they love it.We hired a community and business liaison. We hired a managing editor so I can focus on growing our brand and generating revenue. I am still part of the news conversation.And if there’s something that really interests me, I’ll cover it as long as I’m not stepping on my team’s toes. But my managing editor acts as my supervisor whenever I write, so I can be fully in the role of journalist for those times.Identifying these other roles has been so important. Now that that’s squared away, we’re asking questions like, “What are our major goals? How are we bringing in revenue?” We’ve been working with News Revenue Hub to figure out a membership model that works for us. And we’re also focusing on a combination of advertising, sponsorships, and grants.

LT: How has having these positions in place been useful, especially during COVID?

JJ: It’s been a blessing and a curse. COVID has positioned us for funding that probably wouldn’t have been there to cover communities like Flint, and it’s also opened the door for new partnerships. We’re partnering with the Center for Public Integrity doing data journalism and FOIA work through the Facebook Journalism Project. We’re able to take that funding and take a deeper dive into COVID, which is something my newsroom wanted to do anyway. We just didn’t have the capacity.

COVID has positioned us for funding that probably wouldn’t have been there to cover communities like Flint.

Then there’s our ad pricing. We have low overhead, low prices, and thousands of people coming to our website that are right in local businesses’ backyard. So if a business is trying to let people know what’s happening as they reopen their doors during COVID, we’re a more affordable option for advertising compared to other local outlets.COVID has been horrible. People have died, businesses have closed, communities are shut down, and we’re not living our normal lives. But I’ve gone from a team of one to six, not including our freelancers. I can pay myself. And we have more people solely focused on Flint than probably any other newsroom.

LT: That’s really inspiring to hear, because we know so many Black-owned businesses have been hit hard economically by COVID. What sort of support do you think Black-owned media needs right now — not just to weather the storm, but actually thrive?

JJ: When I launched Flint Beat, I didn’t have the money, I didn’t have the capital, nor was anybody willing to give it to me. I had to show the work first. I had to struggle through it. I found myself at the welfare office doing this just to feed my children. Another publication, run by a white man, started the same day that I did, and the local foundation gave them six figures without a thought. I can’t even get them to give me $50,000.So, one thing we do need is for people to respect that we know what we’re doing. I know news. I know Flint. I know I can make an impact. My goal was to be the number one news site in the city of Flint, and that’s where I’m heading — faster than anyone thought we would. I deserve to be respected, invested in, like anyone else in this industry. They’re willing to take risks on people that look like them doing half of the work. What’s the difference, other than me being a Black woman?

They’re willing to take risks on people that look like them doing half of the work. What’s the difference, other than me being a Black woman?

I want to see more foundations support us, without having to go through a third party to tell us what we need. Why does money have to stop somewhere else first before it gets to us? With Borealis and Facebook, I didn’t have to deal with any extra barriers. They knew I could do the work, and they trusted me to do it.When you look at how many Black and brown people are launching news agencies, so many are women. We’re out here trying to save local news. They say they support this…come on, support us.

Blog

Fighting for an internet that is safe for all: how structural problems require structural solutions

/
September 30, 2020

In 2017, a college student named Taylor Dumpson achieved what many young scholars dream of: she was elected student body president. As the first African-American woman president at American University in Washington, D.C., news of her election was celebrated by many as a sign of growing racial equity in higher education.

But day one of her presidency was anything but triumphant. The night before, a masked man hung bananas around campus inscribed with racist slogans. The neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer then picked up news reports of the incident and directed a “troll army” to flood the Facebook and email accounts of Dumpson and AU’s student government with hateful messages and threats of violence. Dumpson feared being attacked while carrying out her duties as president and attending class and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Two years later, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law helped Dumpson win a major lawsuit against her harassers. Building on the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, Dumpson’s legal team successfully argued that the harassment she faced online limited her access to a public accommodation, her university. It was a significant victory for online civil rights, but her case raises an important question: why weren’t there laws or policies to protect her in the first place?

Part of the problem is that civil rights laws have yet to be updated for the 21st century. “No one predicted the internet when they wrote these laws,” says David Brody, a lead attorney in Dumpson’s case. “Only just now are these laws getting applied to the internet,” he added. A 2020 Lawyers’ Committee report that Brody co-authored shows that laws preventing discrimination online vary widely state-to-state, leaving large gaps in civil rights protections online. 

The second part of the problem is that social media platforms are designed to optimize for engagement, — to keep people on their platform as long as possible. This sounds like a reasonable business goal, but the result is that oftentimes the platforms’ algorithms elevate the most extreme or offensive content, like racist threats against an African-American student body president, simply because it gets the quickest and most intense reactions. While Brody and the Lawyers’ Committee did not pursue this issue in the Taylor Dumpson case, experts agree that it is a major structural barrier to ensuring civil rights in the 21st century. Optimizing for engagement too often means optimizing for outrage, providing extremists and hate groups tools to spread and popularize their destructive ideologies.

Deeply rooted problems like these have created an internet that is often unsafe and unjust, particularly for people of color and women, who have long borne the brunt of online harms, leaving them with an impossible choice: stay on social media and accept daily threats and harassment, or leave the platforms altogether, giving up on participating in the 21st century public square. In 2014, Black feminist bloggers like l’Nasha Crockett, Sydette Harry, and Shafiqah Hudson warned of the rise of online hate and disinformation – two full years before “alt-right” groups and Russia-funded “troll armies” wreaked havoc on public discourse during the 2016 U.S. presidential election

The harassment of people of color and women on platforms owned by Facebook, Google, and Twitter  illustrates larger problems that should concern us all. The digital tools and technologies we have come to depend on are largely owned by private companies driven to maximize profits — even at the expense of the civil rights protections guaranteed under U.S. laws and the Constitution. When clicks and viral posts are prioritized at any cost, democracy suffers. 

Policymakers must recognize that we need to update our civil rights laws, and create new laws where necessary, to fulfill our nation’s Constitutional promises. Within the private sector, tech companies must take it upon themselves to track and combat discrimination on their platforms and stop the spread of online hate. When they do not, we must build public movements to hold them accountable and demand equal access to civil rights protections. Structural problems require structural solutions. Some possible solutions that Democracy Fund grantees have put forth include things like: 

The Digital Democracy Initiative is proud to fund groups like the Lawyer’s Committee, Data for Black Lives, and MediaJustice who work to fill gaps in law and public policy — as well as groups like Stop Online Violence Against Women and Color of Change, whose work exposing and combatting coordinated hate and harassment specifically centers the concerns of people of color and women.

Democracy Fund supports coalition building, independent research, and policy development that hold platforms accountable to the public interest, not just their own profits. If you would like to get involved, here are three things you can do: 

  1. Learn more about root causes. Take a look at our systems map to gain a greater understanding of the interconnected nature of the issues we’re working on. 
  2. Support organizations working on these issues. This is incredibly important, particularly as budgets are strained during the COVID-19 pandemic. See our grantee database for the full list of organizations Democracy Fund is supporting. 
  3. Look for ways to make your voice heard. Grantees like Free Press and Color of Change regularly organize petitions to hold tech platforms accountable

To learn more about our work, contact Paul Waters, associate director, Public Square Program, at pwaters [@] democracyfund.org. 

Blog

A New Coalition to Build a Congress That Looks Like America

Laura Maristany
/
September 17, 2020

Democracy Fund seeks to develop leaders among Capitol Hill staff so that policymaking and Congress reflect the diversity of our country. For me, this is not theoretical. From a paid internship that opened the doors to Congress, to full-time positions with two House members from Puerto Rico, I recall my days on the Hill, eagerly seeking opportunities for professional growth and advancement. In interview after interview, hiring managers on the Hill could not translate my experience leading work under two Committees, speaking three languages fluently and working in an office that represented over four million constituents (which in a state would be represented by six House members and two Senators), into a skill set that would benefit their office in a more senior position.  

Despite my desire to remain in public service and three promotions, I hit a wall that kept me from advancing to senior-level positions in Congress. Ultimately, I left the Hill to lead advocacy efforts at  the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), and later, the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials (NALEO). During this time, I became fully aware that the obstacles I faced in Congress were not personal shortcomings or lack of skills. These barriers to entry and advancement were part of a system of hiring that made it difficult for others like me with no personal political connections, no financial resources to supplement earnings in low or non-paid Hill positions, and no “godparents” to navigate the byzantine maze of career development on Capitol Hill. As a Latina, I saw few walking the halls of the Capitol that looked like me. As a conservative Latina, there were even fewer. Many Latinos are “firsts” in our families: to graduate from college, to work in Washington D.C. and/or to work in Congress. It can be an isolating experience and explains why staff associations are a major part of the support network for certain communities. Though we’ve made some progress, disparities still exist. This lag in numbers and representation explains why there is no formal network of Latino “madrinas or padrinos” that can support entry and mid-level staffers with job counsel and personal references. Today, I am proud to lead the Constructive Politics team at Democracy Fund, where we recognize diverse perspectives as a way to build legislative consensus that results in a stronger, more effective democracy. 

That belief drives our investment strategy at Democracy Fund. Since 2017, we have granted more than $4 million to organizations working towards a more representative, diverse and inclusive Congress. Today, those grantees have launched a new coalition, Representative Democracy, to create an ecosystem of diverse leadership talent in Congress, from interns to senior staff. This effort has been three years in the making and reflects the rich insight and learnings from member organizations. Some offer leadership programs while others generate data and execute issue-based campaigns that center diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)  and advocate for legislative change. In honor of today’s launch, I’d like to share some key learnings, shine a spotlight on the work some of these grantees have been doing over the last three years, and encourage you to learn more about how Representative Democracy can be a resource to you.

Lesson 1: Offer paid internships as one of the most direct pathways for underrepresented students into Congress.

It is a well-known fact that internships get your foot in the door. In fact, my paid congressional internship served as the foundation for my career and led to two full-time staff positions, but it would not have been an option for me as an unpaid position. Like me at that time, many students cannot afford this learning opportunity even if it offers a great entryway to the Hill. Pay Our Interns made this gap the center of their campaign that successfully garnered legislative approval for paid internships on Capitol Hill. They argued that the more you make paid internships available, the more you broaden accessibility that will create a diverse applicant pool. This summer, the group released their first report on the diversity of House interns. Beyond mapping out what congressional interns look like, the study “…found strong evidence that the congressional workplace is racially segregated. A lawmaker’s race, political party, and the demographic composition of their congressional district all have a strong effect on whom they hire as interns.”

Another Democracy Fund partner, College to Congress, has developed programs to ensure interns have meaningful learning experiences on the Hill and are able to remain engaged despite the challenges caused by COVID-19. In further testament to adaptation, they digitized their curriculum for students interested in internships and employment in public service — called C2CU — as a series of professional development courses. The approach must be working as more than 540 students from diverse backgrounds have been trained on C2CU and 90 percent of C2C alumni have been hired in political and government-related careers. 

Lesson 2: Create more real-time transparency about the demographics of congressional staff

This is a complex endeavor due to congressional election cycles and the fact that Congress does not gather demographic data about its own staff. Since 2015, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies has generated some of this data through Hill staff surveys, serving as a model to Congress of how accurate data collection can be undertaken. In fact, the Joint Center’s first Senate report found only seven percent of top Senate staffers were people of color. This report prompted Senate Democrats to focus on demographic data collection to assess the racial diversity of Senators’ offices. These findings and accountability metrics, publicly released for the first time by Congress, were a good first step but much work remains to be done to bring long-term system change and build an inclusive workplace. This summer, the Joint Center’s follow-up Senate report found that people of color make up 40 percent of the U.S. population, but only 11% of all Senate office top staff. The release was featured in the New York Times and includes stark findings on the ratio of employees by racial group relative to the U.S. population. 

When you break down the ratio of employees by racial group relative to the U.S. population, the results are alarming.

Lesson 3: Invest in leadership development to help diverse staffers advance.

Since 2017, NALEO Educational Fund’s Staff Up Congress program has trained 74 midlevel diverse staff and more than 54 percent have been promoted after participating in their program. The Aspen Socrates Emerging Governance Leaders program is helping diverse congressional staff better understand the role of Congress so they can exercise more effective leadership within the institution. Leadership development is particularly important for congressional staff because they are the behind-the-scenes force that advises legislators on policies intended to represent the interests of all Americans. Understanding the need to provide these opportunities, Congress established the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion with Democratic and Republican staff that will guide offices “to recruit, hire, train, develop, advance, promote, and retain a diverse workforce.” There’s no question about it, these organizations are helping move towards a more functional Congress. They bet on professional development opportunities for their communities and it has paid off. 

Lesson 4: Create models for systemic change, not just short-term solutions.

With increased attention being paid to issues of race and racism within the workplace and in our public institutions, we have the opportunity to create models for systemic change instead of continuing programs and policies that, while well-intentioned, ultimately foster the notion that our communities need to work around structural barriers to equity as opposed to dismantling them. Making this shift requires technical expertise and leadership across sectors. 

The Brain Trust for a Representative Democracy is a collaborative effort of experts and practitioners on issues related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging (DEIB) in the public sector. The members who comprise the Brain Trust bring a range of experience and knowledge on the latest theory, practical tactics, insight in how to train and change behavior, and expertise on the institution of Congress. The group was formed to develop and be thought leaders on how the concepts of DEIB can be applied to Congress and other public institutions. They are just beginning their work in September 2020 and we look forward to learning from their work.

Diversity By Itself is Not Enough

From interns to senior staff, Democracy Fund grantees are helping to make congressional careers more accessible — to ensure Congress looks like America and creates policies responding to the needs of  all Americans. Thanks to their leadership development programs, research, advocacy and leadership, we are closer to creating a more functional Congress with diverse perspectives and career development opportunities for its staff. These programs should continue to grow to help more diverse staffers engage with power in Congress. 

We also need more hiring managers to build their capacity to bring in and meaningfully engage more diverse teams. To do that, they will need more allies who can move beyond talking about creating a more diverse and inclusive Congress, to actually doing it. Diversity by itself is not enough. We need to understand how to increase inclusive decision-making. Offices must create inclusive workplaces that engage all staff and recognize the strength they bring to the table. My experience feeling “mismatched” and isolated should not be replaying itself in an institution that serves as a proud icon of our representative democracy. I am grateful that the work of our Constructive Politics team centers my passion to help congressional staffers who look like me and you. Individually, our grantees are making an impact, but the collective power they bring as an ecosystem — providing professional development opportunities and tools for inclusive workplaces — is how we dismantle systems of inequity.

Blog

Why equity should be at the center of 2020 elections coverage

/
August 26, 2020

Racial equity is the defining issue of this year, of this generation, and as a result, of the 2020 U.S. elections. Nationwide uprisings and protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd have demanded system changes to policing and incited a reckoning within newsrooms about their own systemic racism. As the journalists in these newsrooms increasingly turn their attention to election coverage, it’s important that they keep the focus on equity and seek ways to center historically marginalized communities. We need to hear directly from the people who are most affected by these issues.

It’s not a moment too soon. Racist conspiracy theories are now circulating to attack the credibility of vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris — the first Black female vice presidential candidate as well as the first Asian American.

And layered on top are the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to disenfranchise voters that disproportionately affect communities of color. Voter suppression has only increased since the pandemic, with deliberate attempts by Republicans and conservative commentators to limit mail-in voting, fear-monger, and sow uncertainty about voters’ ability to get to the polls and for their votes to count.

For all these intersecting reasons, it’s important to understand why traditional election coverage falls short on serving historically marginalized communities and what we can do to make a change in 2020.

Why Traditional Election Coverage Fails

The United States’ long tradition of election coverage relies heavily on pundits and polling: “horse race” coverage filled with stats and numbers that make audiences feel they have an insider read on who will come out ahead. But what about the issues people are facing in their everyday lives? To figure out what people care about, mainstream coverage relies heavily on polling, which rarely provides the full picture. Polling before an election often takes non-representative samples of “likely voters” (e.g., leaving out new voters), and can leave out significant portions of the population due to language barriers or differing communication methods. The same is true for exit polling: responses depend on who is asking the question, and how, to whom, and whether the person feels comfortable responding. Traditional coverage, particularly cable and broadcast news, also relies on the perspective of pundits as experts. These pundits historically do not represent the lived experiences of other Americans — particularly Americans who aren’t rich, white, male, and close to power.

There’s a Better Way

Media scholar Jay Rosen has been writing about alternatives to these traditional practices for quite a while. He proposes a straightforward approach: ask voters what they think candidates should be talking about in the election, whether national, state, or local.

Ask voters what they think candidates should be talking about in the election, whether national, state, or local.

By February 2020, we saw the success and potential of this approach in real life, and Democracy Fund made a grant to this collaborative effort to launch what’s now called Election SOS: a non-partisan project that trains journalists to provide election coverage that serves community information needs using the citizens agenda approach and tried-and-true principles of engagement and trust-building.

Election SOS deepens and expands on The Citizens Agenda guide by providing essential training, guidance, and coaching to journalists on pressing topics like fighting misinformation, building trust, and protecting election integrity. They are partnering with a wide network of experts in journalism and within specific issue areas, including the American Press Institute (fiscal sponsor), First Draft News, ProPublica, PEN America, Troll Busters, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Vote.org, and More in Common — just to name a few.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Read about over 20 newsrooms who have put the citizens agenda into action thanks to Election SOS training. Some highlights:

  • Vox Media published a video explainer on horse race coverage and invited viewers to inform their future coverage.
  • The Capital Times in Madison, WI is developing a People’s Agenda in both English and ​Spanish​ so that the community can set its own priorities.
  • Washington City Paper developed a voter guide for the 2020 DC Democratic primary. A grant from the Solutions Journalism Network allowed them to reach out to readers and incorporate responses from 200 people to inform questions for candidates.
  • WBEZ in Chicago created and published a citizens agenda titled ​12 Questions For The Candidates In Illinois’ 6th Congressional District​.”

These engagement practices are an important part of challenging the status quo of typical elections coverage. And newsrooms must continue to make an intentional effort to get input from historically marginalized people within the communities they serve, or engaged journalism will replicate the same inequities we see in traditional reporting.

What Funders Can Do

Projects like Election SOS are critical to ensuring that journalists and newsrooms are prepared to meet the information needs of their communities, now through Election Week and beyond. Funders can further support this work by:

  • Investing in newsrooms directly to publish election coverage that centers the information needs of communities.
  • Supporting news outlets led by and serving diverse and historically marginalized communities to support their elections and pandemic reporting. (You can use the DEI Tracker to identify outlets and organizations.)
  • Funding collaborative efforts such as Your Voice Ohio, a network of over 40 news organizations publishing community-centered election coverage and holding community engagement events across the state (now virtual).

The decisions that voters make will impact a wide variety of critical issues facing our democracy, and funders must help ensure that our electorate reflects the diversity of our nation. One crucial part of this is ensuring every person, especially those from historically marginalized communities that have been excluded for far too long, has the information they need to vote.

 

Thanks to Jessica Clark.

Blog

Now is the moment to fund innovation for news equity

Farai Chideya
/
August 12, 2020

In 2020, journalism went from rapid economic disruption to a full-blown existential meltdown.

Already wracked by #MeToo scandals, major outlets found themselves failing to meet the political moment sparked by the killing of George Floyd.

These failures of perspective and inclusion don’t just affect communities that have historically been left out of the national debate, but they also have ripple effects for democracy. As I have said before, we cannot have a functioning civil society without racial justice. And we cannot have racial justice without real reform in newsrooms. The old ways of doing journalism simply aren’t working: we need true innovation if we want equity in journalism. Equitable news coverage — fueled by innovative new processes and the culturally-competent and empowered staff needed to produce it — is a powerful lever which can move civil society toward justice.

The Ford Foundation, where I work, has been in alignment with the overall mission of the Engaged Journalism Lab. We have worked on the launch of the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund at Borealis Philanthropy, along with Democracy Fund, the American Journalism Project, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Google News Initiative, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the News Integrity Initiative. The REJ Fund is helping to bridge the gap in funding and institutional support by supporting organizations such as Buffalo’s Fire, which is fighting for independent media and freedom of information while serving Indigenous communities that have been especially hard hit by the pandemic; La Noticia, a Spanish-language newspaper serving the information needs of over 300,000 community members in North Carolina; and MLK50, an award-winning Black-led newsroom whose investigation of flawed hospital debt collection policies in partnership with ProPublica led to the forgiveness of more than $11 million of debt.

We’d like to issue a challenge to other funders — not just to fund equity in news, but specifically to fund innovation to achieve these ends.

Now, we’d like to issue a challenge to other funders — not just to fund equity in news, but specifically to fund innovation to achieve these ends. Innovation can take many forms, including taking more risks in funding; expanding the pool of who gets funded; rethinking how we assess impact and return on investment; and more. We invite funders to consider what equity looks like within our current funding systems — and what it might look like if we built something new altogether.

To support this exploration, the Ford Foundation has recently released three research papers:

  • Reconstructing American news: Investing in the transformation of journalistic processes and power relations to strengthen civil society, written by Katie Donnelly and Jessica Clark of Dot Connector Studio, takes on the question of how the journalism industry and the funders who support it can innovate in service of media equity. Until recently, much of the focus for funders in the journalism funding space has been on supporting innovation in terms of products and platforms. It’s now time to resource new people, processes, and power relationships instead. This paper explores the challenges we’re facing with regard to how equity-centered news is currently funded — and how possible interventions might work in practice, with insights from 10 individuals in the field on how they are adapting given the upheavals in the space caused by the pandemic. This analysis doesn’t focus on journalism philanthropy exclusively, but rather approaches the entire ecosystem with a particular focus on investment, philanthropy, and sustainability.
  • Gender equity in the news media: Analysis and recommendations for newsroom leaders is a companion report that found two major challenges that prevent gender equity from becoming a reality in newsrooms: gender gaps among content creators and those who make decisions about coverage, and slow progress in women’s representation in leadership roles. The report offers key solutions for organizational and newsroom leaders, including taking a public stance, appointing organizational catalysts, and creating incentives. Ford commissioned the report from two researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government — Ariel Skeath, a Master of Public Policy candidate, and Lisa Macpherson, fellow in the Advanced Leadership Initiative.
  • Investing in equitable news and media projects, a report from Andrea Armeni and Wilneida Negrón of Transform Finance, takes a deep dive into the investment space for equity-centered news and media projects, exploring three pivotal questions: Who is currently investing in equitable media (and why)? What are adjacent investing/investor spaces that could yield additional capital, and what would be needed to attract them? And what are the major pain points for current investors (and potential adjacent investors) and news and media entrepreneurs? There has been a dearth of research into the investment space outside of philanthropy for equity-centered news projects, and this paper fills in some very important gaps in understanding. Among other key recommendations, the report encourages foundations and private investors to “jointly explore the entire ecosystem of equitable media from a holistic perspective, rather than separating investment and grant funding.”

Taken together, these three reports point the path forward: current funders and investors must approach news equity in new ways, individually and together. They also highlight the need to educate and recruit a much broader array of funders and investors into this space. We hope you will use them to explore this work from multiple angles, and to continue to bring new funders and investors into the conversation. We’re excited to work with you to build a new, innovative and equitable journalism that strengthens civil society and finally truly serves communities in the U.S. and around the world.

Blog

Beyond the statement: How journalism funders can act in solidarity with marginalized communities

/
July 23, 2020

“We stand in solidarity with Black communities. Black Lives Matter.”

Organizations, businesses, and groups across the United States sent this statement to millions of people via social media feeds and e-mail lists in early June 2020, in the wake of widespread protests for racial justice. Stating solidarity, however, doesn’t amount to much on its own.

Solidarity is a commitment to social justice that translates into collective action. This means statements need to be understood as distinct from statements attached to action. In the absence of action, declaring solidarity becomes a platitude for public relations. Talking the talk without walking the walk isn’t solidarity — it’s branding.

Funders can do more to support actions aligned with genuine solidarity in journalism.

What solidarity in journalism looks like

To assess news organizations using solidarity criteria, look at their coverage of marginalized communities. Are members of marginalized communities quoted? If so, are they quoted for their perspectives and thoughts, or solely for their feelings? Relegating marginalized people to speaking exclusively from the realm of emotion falls short of solidarity and may reinforce narratives of helpless victims who need saviors.

The Solidarity Journalism Initiative, which I lead at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, offers free training and resources to help journalists, editors, and journalism educators serve communities better by using techniques such as:

1) Ensuring that reporters always include those affected and subjected by issues, aligned with the ethos of “nothing about us without us.”

2) Placing community perspectives in dialogue with official perspectives to press for accuracy and to debunk false narratives that officials may prefer to advance.

3) Treating journalistic reporting as an endeavor to represent people’s lived experiences, rather than relying on official statements from authorities. Claims that ignore or attempt to invalidate people’s lived experiences — even if they come from officials — can therefore no longer be lionized as true.

Let’s be clear. Enacting solidarity in journalism does not mean:

1) Ignoring or expelling people in positions of institutional power from coverage.

2) Acting as an uncritical mouthpiece for social movements or nonprofits.

3) Replacing news reporting with opinion pieces.

My research on the role of solidarity in US journalism traces journalists’ motives for covering marginalized communities, and consistently finds that journalists understand their work as an opportunity to help people who live within dehumanizing structural conditions. Far from trumpeting neutrality or objectivity, journalists who cover marginalized communities tend to describe their work in terms of a moral obligation that compels them to focus on enduring social issues.

Industry leaders, on the other hand, display greater hesitation when faced with the prospect of acknowledging journalism’s longstanding role of solidarity. Ironically, unlike corporations that may do little to nothing aligned with solidarity and yet are quick to capitalize on the opportunity to issue a statement du jour, some prefer to position journalism’s role as reporting on acts of solidarity rather than admitting to enacting it as well.

The point of journalism in this country — and the main reason to preserve and protect it — is to serve the public interest, aligned with the country’s ideal of dignity for all.

How journalism funders can help

Journalism funders can help by supporting organizations who practice solidarity techniques. To use solidarity techniques, journalists need (1) time, (2) training, and (3) encouragement from editors to enter communities they may be unfamiliar with in order to build relationships and expand their sourcing networks.

This is where journalism funders can step up. With intensified public discourse around racial justice, funders can play a critical role through their investments in journalism using a solidarity framework.

A few examples of news organizations that are already enacting solidarity in journalism through sourcing and local representation include: The OaklandsideBroke in PhillyPittsburgh Media Partnership, and MLK50: Justice Through Journalism. In each case, the organization or partnership reports the perspectives of people whose lived experiences are at stake in the story — who are often otherwise overlooked or sidelined in corporately-controlled local and national media outlets.

Who do you serve?

Across the country and world, thousands of protestors have continued to march to demand change. When police officers approach, many protestors begin to chant:

Who do you protect? Who do you serve?”

Journalists, journalism funders, and journalism educators all need to ask ourselves these questions as well. And if we find ourselves dismayed or pained to realize our roles in upholding unjust systems, then let this be the moment when we move forward — together — to enact solidarity with communities who have been marginalized for far too long.

Anita Varma, PhD is the assistant director of Journalism & Media Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, where she leads the Solidarity Journalism initiative to help journalists implement solidarity in their reporting on marginalized communities. If you are a funder or journalist and would like to learn more about Solidarity Journalism, please contact avarma2@scu.edu. You can also follow her on Twitter.

Blog

We need fair and accurate reporting on Muslim Americans. Here’s how funders can help.

/
June 26, 2020

One of the many ways funders can support equitable journalism is by investing in fair, just, and accurate reporting on and representation of Muslim Americans. This week, a troubling story unfolded in Tennessee and in national news that demonstrates just how easily Muslim American communities can be targeted, misrepresented, and deeply harmed through lack of accountability.

Here’s what happened

On June 21, The Tennessean, the state’s flagship paper, printed a full-page ad from a religious cult in the Sunday edition, claiming that “Islam” would “detonate a nuclear device” in Nashville on July 18, 2020. Digital ads from this group also appeared online. This was not the first time the paper had printed an ad from this group.

Zulfat Suara, Board Member for the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) and Nashville Councilwoman, and Samar Ali, Founding President of Millions of Conversations, both contacted The Tennessean to raise the alarm about how Muslim Americans, particularly in Tennessee, had become targets for hate groups. Both leaders received calls from the paper’s editor with apologies and a commitment to investigation. The paper also pledged that the advertising money would be donated to AMAC.

By mid-day, The Tennessean issued a public apology and published a story indicating they would investigate how the ad was published “in violation of the newspaper’s long-established standards, which “clearly forbid hate speech.” Leadership at both the paper and Gannett, which owns the paper, condemned the violation.

That afternoon, The New York Times published a story about the event. The Times article did not include references, quotes, interviews, or mentions of Tennessee residents outside of the paper itself. It did not include perspectives from Muslim Americans in Tennessee. AMAC and Millions of Conversations, both founded and based in Tennessee, were never contacted. Instead, sources included the newspaper’s editor, a white sports reporter who had tweeted his concern, the paper’s vice president of sales, as well as out-of-state experts. The paper also included a quote from the man who identified himself as the leader of the extremist group behind the ad (who wanted a refund).

The Times article did not include references, quotes, interviews, or mentions of Tennessee residents outside of the paper itself. It did not include perspectives from Muslim Americans in Tennessee.

The next day, on June 22, The Tennessean published an op-ed by Samar Ali: “Running this disinformation ad was more than a lapse in judgment. Disinformation is Hate’s primary tool in today’s environment as it continues to mislead communities as COVID-19 spreads rapidly around our country.”

Ali goes on to explain that Millions of Conversations exists to fight this kind of disinformation and encourage Americans “to engage with trustworthy information and challenge their preconceived ideas about other communities.”

The Tennessean also reported on June 22 that Gannett had fired an advertising manager responsible for publishing the ad. Three advertising staff had chances to review the ad before publication — none raised any concerns. The article included interviews with both AMAC and the group responsible for the ad.

The same day, the Times again ran a story about the firing and The Tennessean’s plans to administer diversity and inclusion training. The article repeated the extremist group’s request for a refund. And again, no Muslim Americans in Tennessee were quoted.

What are the implications for racial equity in journalism?

Muslim Americans were deeply harmed by the lack of oversight and accountability in The Tennessean’s advertising arm. At best, this ad perpetuated ugly stereotypes, and at worst, it put lives in danger by equating Islam with terrorism. A 2016 Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) report shows evidence that as we draw closer to the November election, identity politics will increase attention on and targeting of Muslim people and communities.

A woman wearing a hijab presents information at an IPSU media training.
Photo: An IPSU media training in Chicago. Credit: IPSU.

Let’s be clear: The Tennessean took the appropriate steps. They publicly accepted responsibility, provided reparations, and made staffing changes.

The coverage in the Times, however, is a powerful indicator of how wide the gap is in understanding what it means to represent and include community voices. This national newsroom turned away from the people whose lives are impacted. It featured voices from individuals far removed from the story itself. It prioritized the voices of the perpetrators.

Trusted, responsible news must include the voices of people who have been left out of — and often harmed by — traditional news coverage. And we must do more than include more voices: We must shift power, leadership, and funding to historically marginalized groups in order for news to serve its purpose as a critical community resource. These are just some of the groups funders can support who we can count on to help us bridge the gap:

  • Millions of Conversations is a national nonprofit working to counteract harmful narratives about Muslim Americans, including the myth that Islam is in any way a threat. They are changing the story about what is a threat, in Ali’s words “COVID-19, systemic racism and polarization.” (Millions of Conversations is a Democracy Fund grantee.)
  • The American Muslim Advisory Council promotes civic engagement, community-building, and provides media training to support accurate reporting on and representation of Muslim Americans in Tennessee.
  • 8.5 Million, a project by ReThink Media, is a robust database of sources and experts on Muslim, Arab, and South Asian issues with contact information for reporters. (ReThink Media is a former Democracy Fund grantee.)

Funders can advance racial equity in journalism and support fair, just, and accurate reporting by investing in this work. Democracy Fund is proud to be part of the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, which is currently supporting 16 grantees led by and serving communities of color. And there are many more organizations working to ensure journalism is more reflective of all communities, particularly those that have been historically stereotyped or harmed by media. We hope you will join us in supporting this crucial work.

Blog

It’s Time for an Internet That Supports Our Democracy

/
June 15, 2020

Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google play an essential role in our democracy. They provide a way for communities to organize and speak directly to politicians. They enable companies to find customers and allow customers, in turn, to pressure companies to live up to higher standards. And they allow news outlets to reach households and create venues for friends and family to discuss current events.

But, far too often, these same platforms provide cover to unlawful practices and malicious actors that harm people and weaken our democracy, because the algorithms they run on are designed and managed without any public oversight. These algorithms are weaponized by foreign governments to inflame hatred and suppress voter turnout. They’re used by hate groups to create online mobs that harass and intimidate people of color and women. And they allow conspiracy theories to go viral. This kind of discrimination and manipulation would be unacceptable for other basic services we rely on, like telecommunications, electricity, or voting systems.

These are just a few of the harms inflicted through social media, and they stem from one fatal flaw: platform companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not accountable to the public. Their unchecked power also extends far beyond their own platforms, as they have acquired countless other companies like Instagram, WhatsApp, and YouTube and have spread their tracking software across the web.

It doesn’t have to be like this. At Democracy Fund, we believe that the digital tools and platforms we all rely on can support democratic systems and protect human rights, rather than undermining them. This belief is at the core of our Digital Democracy Initiative, which funds advocacy, research, and innovations that work towards three concrete goals:

  1. Improve civil and human rights practices online
  2. Strengthen public interest journalism
  3. Reduce inauthentic and coordinated disinformation campaigns

For these goals to become a reality, we must see specific actions from policymakers to adopt a civil and human rights framework — a way of thinking that puts the needs of people first — focused on changing the terms of service to better support people of color online and serve community information needs.

To achieve these goals, Democracy Fund partners with civil rights groups, technologists, university researchers, and policy organizations working to improve our public square. Some use policy and litigation to protect people of color and hold platforms accountable to the public interest. Others, like Data for Black Lives, mobilize networks of grassroots activists to develop policies to protect users. And organizations like Free Press work to increase funding for news outlets, track and debunk misinformation, and strengthen and diversify news outlets. In particular, the Digital Democracy Initiative supports efforts led by or serving the people most frequently harmed online: people of color and women.

The 2016 US presidential election made clear the power of social media on our politics when the Russian-controlled Internet Research Agency flooded social media with fake groups and posts to divide, harass, and confuse the American public. But this was only the most high-profile case. For years, white supremacists and other hate groups have tested and developed tactics to disrupt our democracy, using the platforms’ tools for targeting individual users based on characteristics like race, gender, political affiliation, or economic status. All the while, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have expanded their reach into nearly every area of life with little to no oversight. Less obvious issues like algorithmic discrimination have led to civil rights violations, like real estate companies excluding people of color from seeing their online ads for housing. Journalists and academics need new tools and transparency laws to help them track and expose these hidden harms, just as they did with the great issues of prior generations, from segregation and Jim Crow to pesticides and big tobacco.

The pattern is now clear. Every few months, another problem with the platforms makes headlines. At first, the companies deny it or announce minor changes. Company leaders promise the public and Congress that they will do better. But once the headlines fade, little has changed.

We aim to keep the pressure on by supporting a wide range of efforts with diverse focus areas, leadership, and strategies. The platforms must enact strong policies that uphold democratic norms and prioritize quality information over misleading content and opaque systems. And in the meantime, users need tools to protect themselves and expose bad actors while navigating online spaces and discussions.

It’s time that we reclaim the digital tools and spaces that shape our democracy. Our elections, our lives, and our liberty depend on it.

If you’re interested in learning more about our work, contact Paul Waters, associate director, Public Square Program.

Statement

Our commitment to being part of the solution

/
June 3, 2020

Democracy Fund stands in solidarity with our grantees, partners, and those across the nation who are outraged and grieving over the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many other Black lives that have been lost or harmed by racism, white supremacy, and police brutality. That includes the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected communities of color.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that a healthy democracy requires that historically targeted communities have power and equal protection under the law. This means police brutality must end, and it means Black communities, social justice organizers, and allies across the country must be able to peaceably assemble to protest another attack on a Black man. These protests should be joined and amplified, not shut down nor met with police aggression. We have to center the experiences of Black people and other marginalized communities as we work to build a more equitable democracy. Many of us need to confront our own privilege to work in solidarity to actively dismantle racism.

Instead of helping us to forge a path forward, our nation’s leaders are threatening to deploy military force against fellow Americans, condoning attacks on journalists, and using social media to stoke division. This is a violation of the very principles of an open and just democracy, and further endangers our nation.

There is significant work to do to protect the lives of Black people to ensure they have power in our democracy. Philanthropy, including Democracy Fund, must do better at attacking the racism and injustice built into our society and institutions — including our own. We are committed to being a part of the solution.

Moving forward, we commit to four things:

  1. Providing more dollars with fewer barriers to support Black-led organizations fighting for social justice and anti-racist policies;
  2. Directing financial support to local newsrooms and Black reporters so that they can keep telling important stories, including those that shed light on injustice and racism;
  3. Using our influence with other philanthropic organizations to improve funding strategies — including our own — that eliminate barriers for Black-led and -supporting organizations to receive resources; and
  4. Working with foundations and donors across the country to find every resource possible to remove barriers and ensure that everyone is able to vote safely in November.

Black Lives Matter,
Joe Goldman

Blog

How Buffalo’s Fire is serving American Indian communities in COVID-19

/
May 12, 2020

As part of our series of conversations with equity in journalism leaders to see how they are adapting in light of the current pandemic, I recently chatted with Jodi Rave, executive director of the Indigenous Media Freedom Alliance (IMFA), a nonprofit media organization that aims to fill information gaps for American Indian communities in the Great Plains. Democracy Fund proudly supports IMFA’s publishing arm, Buffalo’s Fire through the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund.

In 2018, Democracy Fund published American Indian Media Today, a report authored by Rave that took a deep dive into the history and current state of Native media in the United States. The report describes how press freedom is a key challenge, with tribal governments controlling an estimated 72 percent of tribal newspapers and radio stations. This means that tribal press “largely promote the tribe’s messages rather than serving a watchdog role that holds tribal governments accountable to the community.”

Below is a lightly edited recap of our conversation.

LT: For most of the world, we are living in unprecedented times. What is the role of media in a moment like this, specifically community media?

JR: Media operations across the country are playing a critical role in delivering news to their communities. Local journalists know their communities better than those who parachute into our homelands, and they’re doing important work to help community members navigate this pandemic. The Navajo Times, for example, has done an excellent job in delivering up-to-date news to Navajo citizens, the hardest hit American Indian community in the country.

Local journalists know their communities better than those who parachute into our homelands, and they’re doing important work to help community members navigate this pandemic.

For nearly four years, the president of the United States has criticized the national media. I think this has had a trickle-down effect for all media. It’s a bit more difficult to advocate for press freedom in tribal communities when anyone watching the evening news or reading Twitter hears a continual lambasting of media. That said, a global health pandemic has allowed all media, including community news organizations, to shine.

LT: How are you staying connected with your communities, and what are you hearing from them about their information needs?

JR: We are using Zoom, drones, the phone, and Marco Polo to stay connected with community members. We have two types of media on the Fort Berthold Reservation here in North Dakota. The Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation owns and controls the tribal radio and newspaper. My organization, the Indigenous Media Freedom Alliance and our publishing arm, Buffalo’s Fire, are independent and nonprofit. We have never asked the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation for money.

In a recent interview, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation CEO Scott Satermo told Buffalo’s Fire that the tribe created a COVID-19 Task Force at a time when the state and counties were still slow to react. Like the rest of the country, it’s still difficult for the tribe to test for the virus, but Satermo credited his team for setting up shelters for those who tested positive and want to quarantine away from their family. Satermo said he’s proud of the work that’s been done, but much seems to be lost on tribal citizens who go to the tribe’s Facebook page or the tribal newspaper.

Some have pointed out that the information isn’t always the most up to date, and that the online updates haven’t been consistently published in the tribal newspaper, which is where a lot of people go for their news.

LT: Have you been able to pivot your operations to reflect some of those needs?

JR: In the past, Buffalo’s Fire has printed stories that will never appear in the local tribe-owned newspaper. Through spiritual leaders locally and across Indian Country, we know we have to shift our message beyond the basics of social distancing, where to get tested and making sure we wash our hands. It’s predicted a second-wave of coronavirus will sweep through our lands, locally and nationally. It’s important to hear from our American Indian spiritual leaders at this time, so we are changing course and reaching out to them — from New York to North Dakota — for words of encouragement and enlightenment.

LT: We know COVID-19 has created economic challenges for many industries, including journalism. What do outlets need, especially ones serving historically marginalized communities, to weather this storm and continue serving their audiences?

JR: COVID-19 continues to take a toll on communities across the country. News organizations across the country have reported heavily on hotspots. We have learned that an overwhelming number of those hotspots are in communities of color. The third hardest-hit metro area in the United States to be ravaged by coronavirus is Gallup, N.M., a city bordering the Navajo Reservation, a popular hub close to Navajo Nation tribal headquarters. Independent American Indian media organizations and newsrooms of color need general operating funds to operate at full capacity, because there will be more reporting that needs to be done when the second wave hits.

Independent American Indian media organizations and newsrooms of color need general operating funds to operate at full capacity, because there will be more reporting that needs to be done when the second wave hits.

Our American Indian communities are historically marginalized. We typically experience hardships, such as poor housing, inadequate health care systems, high unemployment and high rates of diseases like diabetes. All these issues make us highly susceptible to testing positive. Our newsrooms should be reporting on these local issues, rather than having to wait for the mainstream press to show up in crisis mode.

Our newsrooms should be reporting on these local issues, rather than having to wait for the mainstream press to show up in crisis mode.

LT: Has this moment brought anything new to light for you around media equity? If so, what?

JR: For me, media equity means we need to do more to support independent tribal media outlets to better serve our rural and urban American Indian communities. I’ve seen COVID-19 news move slowly through tribe-managed filters. Greater independence to gather and track that news for independent media means a lot of work needs to be done to create channels for freedom of information, such as the enactment of independent press ordinances. Right now, only a handful of tribes have free press ordinances.

For me, media equity means we need to do more to support independent tribal media outlets to better serve our rural and urban American Indian communities.

LT: Where is one place that you’re finding inspiration for your work right now?

JR: I am finding inspiration from spiritual leaders of different tribes. They are a grounding force in a time when a lot of social media and mainstream media information on the global pandemic is centered in fear. This is a time to be careful, not fearful. As for media inspiration, I admire the work of the Navajo Times, a newspaper — once controlled by the tribe — that has put up a good fight through the decades to operate independently of the Navajo Nation.

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036