Type: Blog

As part of our series of conversations with journalism leaders serving communities of color, I spoke with Alvaro Gurdián, Vice President of Operations at La Noticia, on how they’re adapting to COVID-19. La Noticia is a for-profit, print and digital news outlet that has served the Latino community in North Carolina for over 23 years. Alvaro and I met on the journalism conference circuit last year, and Democracy Fund proudly supports La Noticia through the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund.

Below is a lightly edited recap of our conversation.

LT: We’re now several months into COVID-19, and La Noticia has been serving communities across North Carolina since the start. What has this moment brought to light for you around the role of community media during crises?

AG: It’s only highlighted how important it is. We have readers who tell us, “I don’t know where to find food,” or “I don’t know where to find masks.” And really, that’s what we’re doing on the day-to-day. We’ll take one question and assume that if one person asks, there are probably dozens or hundreds of readers that have the same question. So we try to build content around that.

We know it resonates because we have people writing to us privately, saying, “Wow, thank you,” at a volume that we didn’t have before for things someone might consider very basic. So people are really taking to heart the value of this work. And that’s uplifting, because we’re obviously working far more hours than we were before.

LT: It’s really great that y’all have been able to continue to do this work and that folks are seeing its value. Are there any common themes coming from your readers right now?

AG: I don’t think the needs have changed that much, they’re just more pressing. Where we are, in North Carolina, Latinos have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. So they need help. For example, the North Carolina Restaurants Association had set up a fund to help people in the industry. But there was so much need, it closed within 24 hours. So what’s the next wave? Where else can we get help?

These things are changing so fast, and social media is a firehose. It’s great if you find what you need in the moment, but how do you search for it later on? That’s been a bit of a disconnect for us. So we’ve been putting more resources on our website, newsletters, and social media so people know where to reach this information again when they need it.

LT: How else are you staying connected with readers?

AG: Believe it or not, we’ve been reaching them through print. Our advertising may have gone down, but our take-up rate has only increased. Think about it: Even if you live in a metro area, not everybody has broadband at home. Many of our readers are used to getting their Internet from work, school, church, wherever they shop. Most of those are gone completely, so they need the newspaper now more than ever. Or they have basic plans where they’ll have social media but not actual Internet. They’ll get headlines, but they don’t have the details. So our print has become much more important than before, and we know it is still a core part of our mission to inform our community through print.

Many of our readers are used to getting their Internet from work, school, church, wherever they shop. Most of those are gone completely, so they need the newspaper now more than ever.

LT: How are you balancing that tension between the continued need for print and drop in ad revenue?

AG: We try to view it all as a whole. We’re for-profit, but as long as we’re not burning cash, we’re willing to stretch a little here and make it up somewhere else. For example, events are usually big for us, but those are obviously not a thing for us right now. I think that’s a serious conversation we need to have with funders. We have readers who are disadvantaged, and it’s not enough to say, “Alright, let’s put it online.” Data plans cost money. And that’s assuming that everyone has phones and knows how to operate them. There are a lot of barriers that people don’t consider from the 40,000 foot view. So that’s part of why we’re continuing to reach out through print. Of course, our digital has gone up, but not enough to make up for the print.

LT: Keeping some of those challenges in mind, what do outlets need to do to continue serving their communities, particularly those that have been historically marginalized?

AG: Most of these outlets already know what they need to be doing. Sometimes it’s less of the “what” and more of the “how.” That could mean coaching or getting up to date on workflow automation. As I get further into this, I’m amazed at how much we were missing. We’re using new data software that does 90% of the work of posting new articles. It saves maybe five minutes, but when you have to do several stories a day, that counts.

I also think funders could focus more on bringing communities up to speed on digital — not only connecting them to the tools and technology, but training them on how to use it. People tell us, “I didn’t know I could save that story for later,” or “I don’t know how to search it for later.” I think that often goes unnoticed.

I also think funders could focus more on bringing communities up to speed on digital — not only connecting them to the tools and technology, but training them on how to use it.

LT: How do you see that as a part of media equity?

AG: Well, it’s not enough to simply put out information, whether it’s funded or not. People need to be able to access it and know how to access it. We’ll get comments saying, “I didn’t know how to get to that information,” or, “I called the number you told me but they weren’t picking up.” There are a lot of these resources we’re trying to connect them to, but they’re not always user-friendly — especially government ones. We try to condense that information, but when we refer back to them, it’s easy to get lost.

LT: As a final question, I was wondering what are some pivots you’ve made, or wish you could, to continue meeting those needs?

AG: We were already pivoting to digital, improving our website, adding a membership model. We just had to do it a lot faster than we thought we were going to be doing. Eighty-five percent of our [digital] readership is mobile, so those updates were critical. So we did that, and we launched the membership right away.

Moments like this show that if you [have the resources to] get started on this earlier, the better it is. It just so happens that we embarked on most of the things that we needed to do already. It just meant that we needed to speed up a lot of things we had already planned. We did have a plan in place, we just didn’t plan to have it in place so quickly.

In late September, the LA Times editorial board wrote, “For at least its first 80 years, the Los Angeles Times was an institution deeply rooted in white supremacy.” This editorial was the start of an eight-part series interrogating the Times’ history of racist coverage and its failure to represent the communities it purported to serve in staffing, stories and sources. This deep reflection is a good first step for the paper, and a necessary one for the entire industry. But the next step must be action — from the LA Times, from other newsrooms, and from the journalism funders who support them.

The next step must be action — from the LA Times, from other newsrooms, and from the journalism funders who support them.

One year ago, a group of concerned program officers from foundations across the country (many of whom are former journalists) sat down together in a classroom at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY to talk through not only the racist structures that undergird traditional outlets like the LA Times — but also those that shape philanthropic efforts aiming to transform journalism. We wanted to connect the dots and find opportunities for action. And we did — in a newly released report called, “Equity First: Transforming Journalism and Journalism Philanthropy in a New Civic Age,” created by Frontline Solutions.

The report comes as our nation marks eight months and more than 210,000 deaths from the coronavirus pandemic, which has disproportionately affected Black, Latino and Native American communities, and as the country continues to reckon with the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd. Together, these events have sparked a massive racial justice movement in the United States and across the world, and as advocates continue to march, journalists of color are demanding accountability in their newsrooms.

Journalists of color are demanding accountability in their newsrooms.

For years, many of these journalists have felt a dissonance between the kinds of reporting they know communities need, and the false “balance” and harmful narratives white newsroom culture have perpetuated. And now they’re taking action. In June, journalists of color at the Philadelphia Inquirer called in sick and tired in response to a tactless headline that belittled the nature of protests around Black Lives Matter. Staff members called for the resignation of a New York Times opinion editor for publishing an op-ed that suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to snuff out protests following the death of George Floyd. And then union members at the LA Times put together a list of demands for its new owner to transform coverage and staffing.

Many of us are not surprised by what is happening in newsrooms right now. “Equity First: Transforming Journalism and Journalism Philanthropy in a New Civic Age” is rooted in what The Kerner Commission of 1968 found: that the extreme lack of media diversity and equity is a driving force of inequality. As we marked Kerner’s 50 year anniversary in 2018, journalists noted how little progress the field overall has made in centering stories from historically marginalized communities. And philanthropy has persistently underinvested in organizations that are led by and serving these communities.

It’s time to do more. Our new report outlines three longstanding barriers to equity-centered journalism and grantmaking within journalism philanthropy:

1) Journalism’s prized ethics and values aren’t translating to DEI best practices.

Despite journalism’s stated values of accuracy, upholding the truth and elevating unheard stories, there is not enough acknowledgment that it is impossible to live these values in a newsroom whose leadership does not reflect the diversity of the country. The result is newsrooms that are ill-equipped to create resonant and relevant content for their constituents — much less protect them from disinformation actors (such as Russian interference campaigns) that have disproportionately targeted Black audiences. These failures widen the trust gap between communities of color and newsrooms.

2) The inherent cultures of journalism and philanthropy commonly reinforce white masculine norms.

Journalism tends to reinforce the myth of objectivity without considering who gets to decide whose narrative is grounded in reality…meaning that the white, male perspective is the default. Adding to the problem, journalism prioritizes urgency over taking the time to be inclusive, thoughtful or nuanced. And it upholds the paternalistic idea that newsrooms should decide what communities should know rather than practicing deeper engagement and relationship building.

Decision-making within philanthropy has similar flaws. It can occur in a vacuum and in ways that can be paternalistic and lack nuance. This is especially true when funders deploy rapid response funds — as many did during the early part of the pandemic — without taking time to diversify potential recipients and challenge our existing networks. Funders also tend to assume that resources are fairly allocated without critically examining structural inequities around accessing capital.

3) Foundations focus on addressing diversity because it feels most tangible. But what about inclusion and equity?

A diverse staff does not automatically make for an equitable workplace. To get there, power and decision-making authority have to shift. This work requires inclusion, and prioritization, of communities who have not had a seat at the table. Because both journalism and philanthropy have hierarchical structures that makes this kind of shift difficult, they tend to preserve power where it already is.

These challenges are complex, longstanding, and at the core of both philanthropy and journalism. But they are not insurmountable. The report highlights several steps that funders can take to change their internal structures and practices in order to address inequity, which will help make the news that we support more equitable as well. Our recommendations include:

1. Center equity in our definitions and funding of innovation;
2. Invest in leadership and emerging talent within communities of color;
3. Map and then move decision-making power to affected communities.

This past year has tested the spirit, health, and lives of communities of color, especially Black communities. But we know this fight for justice has endured for centuries. Early data suggests a long-needed shift in dollars is underway: Over $4.2 billion philanthropic dollars have gone to racial equity in 2020, compared to $3.3 billion dollars between 2011–2019. That’s 22 percent more funding this year than in the past nine years combined.

The question now is, “can philanthropy and journalism sustain this change?”. These investments must be matched by new systems, practices, and thinking. They must be sustained, not sporadic. They must put communities directly affected at the center of decision-making rather than an afterthought. And they must trust that these communities have solutions to the problems they face, because they have been working to solve them for as long as they have existed.

This is the only way philanthropy and journalism can invest in communities of color if we hope to be a part of the solution.

Liz Baker
Senior Manager, Independent Journalism and Media, Humanity United

Lolly Bowean
Media and Storytelling Program Officer, Field Foundation

LaSharah S. Bunting
Director of Journalism, Knight Foundation

Paul Cheung
Director of Journalism and Technology Innovation, Knight Foundation

Farai Chideya
Program Officer, Creativity and Free Expression, Ford Foundation

Jenny Choi
Director of Equity Initiatives, Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY

Angelica Das
Senior Program Associate, Public Square, Democracy Fund

Tim Isgitt
Managing Director, Humanity United

Manami Kano
Philanthropy Consultant, Kano Consulting

Maria Kisumbi
Senior Advisor, Policy and Government Relations, Humanity United

Lauren Pabst
Senior Program Officer, Journalism and Media, MacArthur Foundation

Tracie Powell
Program Officer, Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, Borealis Philanthropy

Karen Rundlet
Director of Journalism, Knight Foundation

Roxann Stafford
Managing Director, The Knight-Lenfest Local News Transformation Fund

Lea Trusty
Program Associate, Public Square, Democracy Fund

Paul Waters
Associate Director, Public Square, Democracy Fund

This letter was updated with new signatories on October 19.

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.

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.

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.

Rosen calls this the “citizens agenda,” and in the fall of 2019, Hearken, Membership Puzzle Project, and Trusting News collaborated to publish and distribute The Citizens Agenda guide for reporters and newsrooms.

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.

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.