Journalism and American Democracy

America is founded on the notion that we are a free nation, extending and promoting “Liberty and Justice for All”.  If you grew up in this country, you have known this since the kindergarten days when you place your hand over your heart and pledge allegiance to the flag and the great country for which it stands.

History shows us that “freedom” is a relative term, even in this country which takes so much pride in that ideal.  Those who live here, even today, are not free to be or choose the same things as the privileged, dominant white society of America.  Inequalities still wrench at the edges of the American tapestry, distorting the beauty that could be.

This sounds idealistic, and I don’t mean for it to.  But I do hope to demonstrate the issues that minority groups in this country deal with on a daily basis – exclusion, oppression, racism – I could go on.

According to Pamela Newkirk in “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Cause”, minority newspapers arose out of a great need for accurate, fair representation in the public sphere.  The press was, and arguably remains, dominated by white society.  The radical minority newspapers that were born of the Civil War, such as Freedom’s Journal, were just a precursor for modern adaptations of this remaining need for minority representation, such as BET and Telemundo.

The minority newspaper that I examined was the Lawndale News, “Chicagoland’s Largest Hispanic Bilingual Newspaper”, which features articles in columns side-by-side both in English and Spanish.  The newspaper obviously came about where there was a need for it.  Chicago’s Latino population is ever-growing, and at a very fast pace.  The need for minority representation pervades the community, ad this is a viable source for news that covers issues differently than mainstream media.

Although many argue that minority papers serve to further divide minority groups in this country, I believe that until we reach full integration in the mainstream media, the call for minority press will remain.

http://www.lawndalenews.com/

Before we get to the main point of the article, you’ll have to forgive two digressions related to my search for the subject of this article. Firstly, the search for minority newspaper turned up a large number of African American newspapers. Indeed, Google suggested alternatives that specifically ruled out other groups more than a couple of times. I could only speculate as to the meanings and implications of this. It surprised me certainly. Secondly, the process by which I came about the newspaper. Because I am somewhat contrary, I wanted to do a non-African American newspaper simply because it was because the opposite of where I was being directed by the Googlebeast. And because I was compelled by its very origins, that of a newspaper seeking to reach, represent a group not so widely covered, implied they should not be the regular but the relatively ignored. But mostly because I was contrary.

So, I sought to escape the world of the Googlebeast and its algorithms, and asked around among friends and acquaintances. And the answer came not from their answers but by accident. A friend mentioned the Cherokee Phoenix had not, in fact, shut down when the militia came and confiscated their printing press but was still in operation. Whether it has been in continuous operation I cannot say, but it has been in operation since at least 2003, and is financially backed, at least for the moment, by a tribal council. It was, until recently, available for all Cherokee Indians who could prove citizenship in the Nation. It was also mostly in English, which is good, because I can’t read Cherokee. This, I thought, was it. My odyssey was over, I had landed in Ithaca (or Latium if you prefer the Aeneid), but that itself was not the end.

Runner up goes to Today’s Zaman who lost on the technicality it is a Turkish paper, and thus not within American Journalism. Still, a Turkish paper that caters to English speakers with an article, albeit an opinion piece, on minority press within Turkey was a temptation.

Perhaps it is because the first bit of the Cherokee Phoenix I’d ever seen was basically mundane, specifically a man informing the community that he was no longer backing his wife’s credit, but the relatively mundane nature of the newspaper didn’t surprise me. It took on the aspects more of a community newspaper than that of an advocate newspaper, reporting on the community rather than hurling invective or persuasive articles to try and change a wider opinion. That is not to say it was similar to other newspapers, it catered to a very specific community and dealt with their issues. Those issues, now as then perhaps, were largely mundane. There was internal election news, external elections were relatively less covered. More so than either were internal event news, things about tribal politics, campaigns, building projects, employment relief, and so on. The only external election I saw extensively covered was, understandably enough, Elizabeth Warren, due to the controversy. Retreading the entire argument with all its pitfalls isn’t for this blog, but suffice it to say there were some false claims while she still in academia that Warren was a minority via being a Cherokee Indian. She is not, by the Cherokee’s own account.

She was, however, still dwarfed by community issues. In particular, proposals about voting rights seem to have kicked up a good deal of interest. Perhaps the greatest flaw in choosing this newspaper is that it caters to an enfranchised community with political control over a certain area, since that seems to tend it towards those patterns. But then again, that is what the newspaper was from the start. It was also what newspapers like The Republican or other abolitionist newspapers were. Of course, what they did to eventually contribute to the Civil War and end of slavery was more memorable, but the average days news was probably more mundane. Just as someone looking back at the Times in the lead up to the Iraq War will remember its articles that supported it, the eventual apology, and forget that there were also articles on a number of other topics that history will probably forget. For example, the Los Angeles Herald (with thanks to Laura) had an article reviewing a play. I say this not to criticize this type of article specifically, but to point out that if, in the future, the Herald becomes remembering as the primary force behind some widespread social change, who will remember that play article?

This is not to say that such newspapers are unimportant or do not play a role in social change, or that they will not play that role, to some degree, into the future. The limits of their audience does limit them, to some degree, though. The New York Times may, through its own ignorance, unknowingly represent an overly white view of the world. But knowingly representing a view of a minority world limits your readership, or at least I would imagine it does. Tracking down racial statistics for some of these newspapers is surprisingly difficult, but if nothing else the fact that among my friends, who are fairly diverse, few could mention minority newspapers, even if they were minorities themselves, would seem to prove my point. Thus it seems overly optimistic for them to provide some equal service to the majority newspapers, but they remain an important avenue for a community’s specific needs. Whether they will go on to become important policy makers, or no more relevant than Threads remains to be seen, and probably depends on the cohesion and maintenance of racial identity.

There’s no denying that minorities are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of their representation in the press – both the frequency with which they’re covered and the type of coverage they receive.  Oftentimes they are portrayed as criminals or helpless victims, which is problematic to say the least.  We know that news picks up on the exception rather than the rule, but that’s not what the average nightly news-watcher perceives.  As Michael Schudson has pointed out, this may be because of the demographics of many journalists, who are white and suburban.  That of course affects their worldview, which inevitably translates into what makes the news and how it’s written.

Over the years, that persistent problem gave rise to the minority press, its own separate entity designed to address issues of importance in minority communities.  In a way, that was a positive move, as it gave those minorities their own outlet through which to voice their ideas and opinions.  But in some ways, we might say it actually hurt their cause – by working outside the mainstream press, they inherently limited their audience and influence.  Although they can portray themselves the way they think they should, if virtually no one reads it, what’s the difference?

What’s more, we know that the news industry has been changing rapidly the last few years because of changes in advertising and the internet news revolution.  These factors have had a crippling effect on many news outlets, from local papers all the way up to agencies like the New York Times; undoubtedly, it hurt the minority press as well.  I actually spent some time looking at numerous minority press outlets as part of a project for another class, and the results were pretty discouraging.  Their web sites are limited, poorly designed, and difficult to navigate (and that’s just of those that do have web sites).  Few of them had comprehensive archives, which makes it difficult to find past stories.  Their presence on the internet is lacking, to say the least.

So what does all this mean?  These minority media outlets are already far behind their mainstream counterparts on the internet, even as the news industry moves increasingly towards exclusively publishing online.  Major outlets are trying (and struggling) to come up with successful online business models, and quite a few have been forced to close their doors because they could not keep up.  Likewise, I suspect that this move to internet news will spell disaster for most minority press outlets.  At the end of the day, the news business is still a business, and many minority press establishments do not seem positioned to deal with the way the industry is changing.  I’d like to think that some will survive, or perhaps that they will get folded into more mainstream outlets, but we’ll have to wait and see.

While reading “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Case,” it became obvious why there was a need for the minority press in the past. Pamela Newkirk outlined a strong argument for media that covers minority interest denoting the restrictions on free speech for minorities before the civil rights movement. While Newkirk pointed out that minorities are underrepresented and stereotyped in the media, she fell short of making a clear argument for why minority presses are needed in a post-civil rights movement era. I had a hard time believing that our troubles now are anywhere near the trials that were around for minorities in the previous two centuries. Contrarily, Mitchell Stephens and David T.Z. Mindich make a much stronger argument for minority press in “The Press and Politics of Representation.” In a simple short sentence, the two authors make clear that the limitations of journalism require (if not an ethnic press) a media more in tune with minority affairs. They argue that “journalism, the point is, is mindset bound and mindsets are boundless” (376). Here they state that the misrepresentativeness of media oversimplifies the complexities of important issues to stereotypes and limited coverage. To better understand the debate regarding the importance of the minority press, I had to investigate it myself.

Because the issues facing society are not as grave as they were during slavery, nor are they as severe as they were before civil rights legislation, it was difficult to see a clear need for minority media. To this end, I decided to explore the minority press of the most egregiously excluded and over stereotyped minority group I could find in contemporary society: the gay and lesbian community. Much like Fredrick Douglass’s North Star and the Freedom Journal, the Washington Blade attempts to gain rights and freedoms for an under represented community. The Blade covers topics on both the local and the national level that would be of interest to the Washington D.C. gay and lesbian community. In the local section, articles cover adoption “beats,” hate crime reports, and local health and business issues. The national section covers more political issues such as marriage rights debates across the country and how the issues facing politicians in DC affect the gay and lesbian community.

Although the Blade covers topics that are important to a minority group that is often ignored in the mainstream media, it comes up far short from serving  as an influential advocate to plead the case of gays and lesbians in the same way that the black press fought for freedom in the nineteenth century. The paper covers issues that affect gays and lesbians, but does not appear to have the same thrust as historical accounts of the minority press. This leads me to the question: if the minority press isn’t covering topics as important as slavery, what value does it serve in the modern media landscape? Given the statistics listed by Newkirk about the underrepresentation of minority reporters and minority stories in the media, it would be hard to argue that the minority press is not needed or that it does not provide valuable information. I believe that the minority press is less of an advocacy group to plead the case of each group to the world, but rather that it is evolved to be a means of interpreting stories in the context of a niche group. As much as we’ve talked about the press as a filtering authoritative institution, it is as limited as the journalists that make it up. In this sense, the value of the minority press stems from insight it offers to minority groups regarding issues of both local and national concern.

The media likes to portray itself as a mirror, an entity that reflects the state of society and represents the public it reports to. But sometimes, as Pamela Newkirk mentions in “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Cause”, the media has failed and continues to fail in properly representing a multitude of minority groups that have suffered grave injustices in the past. She concludes that this has led to the “…ever present yearning by distinct groups to assert their unfiltered voices in the marketplace of ideas”. The result is an explosion of newspapers focused on reporting news that is relevant to and represents certain minorities. These papers stretch back to the 1800s with the African American Freedom’s Journal and the Native American Cherokee Phoenix. Both provided platforms for these oppressed groups to express frustrations, ideas, and social injustices relevant to them – most of which had been left uncovered by the mainstream press of the time.
Today’s press is much more diverse but it still carries inherent biases that prevent it from reporting on issues important to certain minorities. The Native Times is in the same vein as the original Native newspaper – Cherokee Phoenix – hoping to cover news that is relevant to America’s original peoples. It is the largest independent Native American news source and is nationally distributed. The top federal news stories have nothing to do with what I had been seeing for the past week on mainstream news. No mention of the Petreus Scandal, no articles on the looming fiscal cliff, and no analysis of foreign affairs. Many of the articles had a connection to the federal political landscape but focused on legislation or issues that pertained to Native American life. The most significant and simple example was the posting of a White House press release that declared November 23rd Native American Heritage Day. This recently came out of the Obama camp and all other news sites, even local ones, failed to even mention it.
But the federal news took a back seat to reservation news. Reservations, after all, are technically a sovereign nation with their own governance and culture. The federal news is taken from AP clippings or White House press releases but articles on native land acquisition or reservation law are produced by the paper’s own writers. From my experience on several reservations, it is safe to conclude that news relevant to reservation law and governance is much more important than anything taking place nationally. Whether this stems from a remaining distrust of the government or a more localized culture is unclear but the fact remains that a native newspaper would be wise in focusing more attention towards news on the res.

Prior to reading Newkirk and Stephens & Mindich, I wasn’t even aware that there were minority newspapers (ignorant, I know). After reading, I definitely understand the importance of minority press, historically, and hence why there are still minority publications today.

Newkirk got me thinking, though with this quote: “While the nation’s racial landscape has radically changed between then and now, and the mainstream press — including television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet — is more diverse than ever, many believe the need for a racial minority press “to plead our own cause,” persists.  (82)

She also wrote, “While a need for a viable alternative press is apparent, the diversity, however slight, of the mainstream media has contributed to the decline of the traditional black press. As mainstream newspapers and television began covering the civil rights movement, black readers became less reliant on the black press for news and information.” (Newkirk 82)

My question is, if minority reporting is being integrated into the mainstream media, and if we as a democracy are striving to achieve an America that is not racist, why would there be a problem with mainstream media being more incorporating when it comes to minority reporting? Shouldn’t this be what we want, if we are seeking a public that is not white-normative? I would think that diversity within mainstream media is a good thing. Yes, it is still extremely important for minorities to be represented in these publications, but I would think that having entire publications devoted to minorities would further the separation of races, instead of bringing them together. Maybe I am showing my ignorance again, but it just seems sort of logical.

Secondly, how can media that is explicitly published for minorities be written without bias or framing? I found the website for the Los Angeles Sentinal, and although it has been two weeks since the Presidential Election, the headline reads, “Young, Gifted, Black and Brilliant! BARACK OBAMA RE-ELECTED.” I understand that the audience the newspaper is being written for was generally supportive of President Obama’s re-election, but come on, the headline has an exclamation point in it. If that’s not bias, I don’t know what is.

I understand what the point of explicit minority news was during times when minorities were more oppressed by the American Public. For example, Newkirk wrote, “While the independent spirit of the minority press is taken for granted today, it is difficult to fathom the kind of limitations on free speech that were, at the birth of the nation, imposed on African Americans and Native Americans and  those who supported them.” (84) And that’s not to say that minorities aren’t oppressed now; I do realize that racism still exists and that there is still much inequality in our nation. However, I just don’t see how a movement towards minority press within the context of mainstream media could be a bad thing. Representation in such news outlets would seem to be a good thing for these smaller publics.

Stephens and Mindich said in their essay, “The inherent blind spots and prejudices of journalism, along with the often unrecognized blind spots and prejudices of its practitioners, are themselves, in many instances, the “message,” the factor that changes our view of the political world. We have to battle, the point is, against the bewitchment of our politics by means of journalism.” (377) I can see the importance of what is being reported in the Sentinel. There are stories that pertain exclusively to African-American audiences, and they are important things that both African-American, as well as white (if we are to be a truly progressive nation) audiences should be aware of; however, it would be more progressive if these stories were printed in a section of the Los Angeles Times rather than in a newspaper that will mostly be read by African-American readers. I understand that there are limitation on media such as ad space, revenue, and other logistical aspects such as time and human capital, however if it were possible for minority papers to integrate into mainstream media. I am not saying they should transition their stories to be mainstream — rather, they should maintain their race-specific voice and be printed alongside other stories for a general public.

If anyone thinks I’m really wrong or just missing something, please point it out. I felt kind of bad writing this post, but these are questions I have and I’m just curious why our readings didn’t necessarily praise the integration of minority press with the mainstream media.

In her piece “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Cause,” Pamela Newkirk quotes the inaugural editorial of the Freedom Journal from almost two centuries ago: “… From the press and the pulpit we have suffered much by being incorrectly represented.  Our vices and our degradation are ever arrayed against us, but our virtues are passed by unnoticed” (81).  Thus, this journal, among other African American newspapers, aimed to provide a platform through which black people could “plead our own cause,” as was not possible through mainstream media. The Minneapolis-based news outlet Insight News is a modern version of the minority press, with the following mission, as described by Founder and CEO Al McFarlane: “Editorial Mission: Information, Instruction, Inspiration in a user-friendly, culturally relevant communications vehicle. Business Mission: Providing preferred access to Black consumers for businesses, agencies, and organizations.” Insight News, which was founded in 1974 as a color-cover magazine, began printing as a community newspaper in 1976.

This picture illustrates the format of the Insight News site with today’s headlines.  Although minority news outlets are not necessarily as radical or politicized as in the past, publications such as this one demonstrate that “the continuing desire for an alternative minority press reveals both the unmet promise of media diversity trumpeted in the 1960s and the ever present yearning by distinct groups to assert their unfiltered voices in the marketplace of ideas” (Newkirk, 89).  The Minneapolis College Preparatory School advertisement featured above indicates that the source is not intended just to provide news to minority readers, but also direct advertisements to black consumers and spotlight African American businesses and organizations, as indicated in McFarlane’s mission.  The headline for the reelection of President Obama is particularly interesting in that more mainstream media sources, such as the Minneapolis Star Tribune, featured such headlines as “Re-elected, Obama heads back to a divided government.”  Insight News, however, another Minneapolis-based publication, features the title “Justspeak: Presidential slam dunk – Obama wins electoral landslide re-election.”  While the Star Tribune takes a much more neutral stance on the President’s re-election, instead focusing on the challenges he will face with a divided government, the title of the Insight News has an overtly celebratory tone, which many would view as more acceptable coming from an African American media source, especially being that Obama garnered 93% of the African American vote.  In the subtitle, the word “Black” is also bolded, illustrating the emphasis on his shared heritage with the readers of the publication.  While mainstream media outlets are often criticized for the lack of diversity they include, such niche publications as Insight News are able to address issues of specific interest to readers of their cultural, racial, or ethnic group.

http://www.insightnews.com/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/types-people-who-voted-obama/58794/

I looked at two minority newspapers—the Indianapolis Recorder, an African-American newspaper, and EXTRA, a bilingual Hispanic newspaper based in Chicago. Both contained an interesting variety of stories from different news topics, but it was also apparent that both operate off smaller budgets than most newspapers, as the amount of articles was small compared to mainstream papers, and the design and layout of the websites were very simple. However, these papers report on important issues with great fervor from unique perspectives.

Both of these newspapers contain stories from genres such as sports, entertainment, and community events, but both also carry a healthy dose of stories on politics and public policy, and they display concern for needs of underprivileged citizens facing financial difficulties or discrimination. EXTRA published an article describing an online guide that provides information on what health care benefits the new Affordable Care Act will bring to citizens. The article notes that Latinos often face additional challenges regarding health care, such as a language barrier and a lack of insurance benefits from their jobs, and it emphasizes that the online guide is available in Spanish as well as English. EXTRA’s informative article on health care coverage has a clear aim of providing important information to Latinos who may have trouble acquiring the health care they need.

An article published by the Indianapolis Recorder addressing the significance of President Obama’s reelection for African Americans contains some explicit comments and quotes reflecting concerns about racial inequality and discrimination in America. The article mentions that an effigy of Obama in a noose had been hung from a tree in Lebanon, Indiana, and seemed to take an angle that Obama’s reelection was an expression of America’s rejection of racial prejudice. It states that Obama’s reelection “indicates that the country is not turning its back on the racial progress made when he was entrusted with the presidency in 2008.” The director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture is quoted as saying, “In many ways, Obama’s reelection can be seen as resilience on the part of the African-American community.” This angle on the presidential election shows that this newspaper is interested in increasing awareness of racial discrimination and fighting to prevent its negative effects. Another quote in the article demonstrates the intense feelings many African Americans have about race relations and politics. A professor of African American Studies at IUPUI, in addressing Obama’s difficulties promoting social and economic improvement for African Americans, states, “We are in a war. The same war we’ve been in for the past 40 years. We are dealing with white supremacy.” This type of perspective on a presidential election would likely not be found often in a mainstream newspaper, and its presence encourages questioning of whether ideals of equality and social justice are being fully extended in America. This article provides insightful evidence of how the Indianapolis Recorder and other minority newspapers view power structures in America along racial lines and aim to encourage minority citizens to make their voices heard in the public sphere.

Prior to doing this bit of online research, I was unaware of the large number of minority newspapers across America, and it was interesting to see how these papers’ articles promoted the interests of their readers with bold candor. Most journalism aims to present only the facts surrounding a story with little editorial perspective, but these news sources openly present stories based on the interests of the populations they represent. These newspapers play an important role in American democracy by communicating the opinions and interests of minority groups that may not be printed in most mainstream papers.

The emergence of African American newspapers forever gave African Americans a voice, even though not always loud or powerful, a voice nonetheless. Coming from the birth of the nation where “It is difficult to fathom the kind of limitations on speech that were imposed on African Americans” (The Press page 84), a media outlet exclusively available to African Americans is a great stride in civil rights.

Today, African American newspapers still function similarly as they did in the 1960’s, catering to the African American community, and raising awareness of injustices to their race. In the Louisiana Weekly, based in New Orleans, there are sections such as Entertainment, and Classifieds but also article dealing with major issues such as racial profiling and unfair treatment of blacks in the workplace. I found an article called “The Hard Truth.. Recognizing the face of evil” by Min. J. Kojo Livingston. It comments very heavily on racism of African Americans, and cites America as “a nation built on lies, theft, and oppression.” The freedom of speech allows for negative comments about out country, even if it may be looked bad upon in conventional main strem media. And African Americans, after their years of oppression, have gained the right to publish what they like, even if it may be against the foundations of our government. The important thing about African American newspapers in the past and today is that they allows African Americans to publish what otherwise might not be published in a main stream media outlet. Mainly because of the constraints of the media we have learned about throughout our class, such as demographics, fear of loss of revenue and competition between media outlets.

Overall, I believe that the one of the main goals of journalism, to serve as a function of the common good, lives within African American newspapers. Which I also believe was ultimate dream for African American newspapers by popular advocates of this cause such as Frederick Douglas and Ida Wells.

There exists an undeniable parallel between the level of cultural acceptance of a racial group and the amount of news coverage devoted to them. Journalism has remained dominated by coverage of white men and white issues since the concept of media was invented. To compensate for the uneven representation, racial groups fought back by creating alternative newspapers published by different racial minorities. Such newspapers have allowed members of racial minorities to find their niche in the news, but this does not compensate for their failure to give fair coverage to all minorities. The unequal representation has serious effects on society. In her article “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Case,” Pamela Newkirk quoted a National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders panel that stated, “By failing to portray the Negro as a matter of routine and in the context of the total society, the news media have, we believe, contributed to the black-white schism in this country,” (The Press, 88). By leaving the racial minority groups out of press coverage, journalists misrepresent reality to Americans. Although African Americans have fought back by creating their own newspapers and media outlets, such as BBC or The Chicago Defender, the racial minorities are still not fairly acknowledged in the press. It is 2012, approaching fifty years past the civil rights movement. In this modern day, it is appalling to see such a bold example of inequality as this one.

When looking at African American newspapers such as The Chicago Defender and The Chicago Crusader, the substandard quality is shocking. I say this not to put down the people who have formed these newspapers, because they have obviously done so out of determination for equality, which is honorable and admirable. However, it is undeniably disheartening to compare newspapers like these to The Chicago Tribune or even The Chicago Sun Times. The differences in quality are stark, and they epitomize the perceived difference in “American-ness” between African-Americans and whites. The African American public should have access to a reputable paper that will provide them news that is relevant to their lives. After the Civil Rights Movement, large steps were made in changing laws to make America a more accepting place for African Americans. However, changing public opinion to accept African Americans as an integral part of our country is a war that continues on. The difference in the newspaper quality provided for African Americans than that provided for whites is comparative to the difference between the facilities, such as water fountains or public bathrooms, provided to African Americans and whites during the years of segregation.

I believe Americans easily convince themselves that the racial tension that divided our country in the past is behind them. However, looking at the difference in the publications for African Americans and those provided for white readers clearly proves that these problems are ongoing. The first amendment of the United States constitution provides freedom of the press to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to remain informed through the media. African Americans are being denied this right because they are ignored by reputable newspapers and unable to form their own because of the widespread discrimination in the industry. They deserve equality, especially equality of information provided by the press.

Democracy as established in the Constitution of the United States of America should have protected the minority from majority rule. But during the antislavery movement, states went as far as to make laws abridging the freedom of speech. Illinois lawmakers, for instance, decided that the First Amendment did not apply to abolitionists. Editors for papers serving the African American community were attacked and their printing presses were destroyed. Nevertheless, people like Frederick Douglass persisted in their pursuit of equality.

Today, media outlets still seek to serve underrepresented populations in the United States, but not necessarily in the fight for equal treatment. In Washington D.C., the Washington Hispanic (c.1994) publishes with the motto “The voice of the Hispanic community in Washington, Maryland and Virginia” and the coverage I sought out seemed to be exactly that: coverage about the community not picked up by the major media conglomerates. The Washington Hispanic prints 55,000 copies per week. According to its Wikipedia page, the publication is headquartered in Adams Morgan, making it the only Spanish language outlet in the actual district.

On its homepage on 11/13/12, I found the following five stories – all related to the election – rotating in the top page element:

“The Latino electorate turned out in impressive numbers to the polls -15,000,000-and 70% gave their vote to Obama.”

“Maryland already has a Dream Act. They also legalized gay marriage and the expansion of casinos.”

“America is changing, and the results of the last presidential elections prove it.”

“In Ecuador, Rafael Correa announces his candidacy for reelection, and he rides a bicycle.”

“In January there will be automatic cuts in the national budget and tax increases if Obama and Congress fail to reach an agreement.”

What I like about the Washington Hispanic is its commitment to civic engagement, focusing on the aspects of the election that are a.) most important to its audience but b.) will inevitably increase voter turnout next time. One of the headlines – the third – seems to lack a tie to a news element, but when I clicked to read the story it explained how Latinos can become a very influential population in the election process, giving their growing numbers and growing voter turnout (a story which fits into the current national narrative that the GOP must do something about their Latino disconnect).

If the mass media aren’t covering these kinds of issues in a way that caters to all minority communities, then they need to start by diversifying in their newsrooms as Pamela Newkirk suggests in her essay about the minority press. One of the problems with newsrooms remaining largely white and male is that the homogenous makeup reinforces limited coverage, and as the electorate – and society – diversifies, journalism as a mirror must do so as well. It makes me wonder – will newspapers like the Washington Hispanic eventually fold because the mainstream press must broaden their coverage and steal readers? Or will the mainstream press buy out papers like the Washington Hispanic to gain diversity in the organization? Or will we eventually see a “Washington Post – Hispanic section?” Perhaps the most important question is, though, will the U.S. Latino population follow the coverage of their community to the mainstream papers? Because while it is the responsibility of the media to hold a mirror to society, they also need to sell papers, and if their readership continues to reflect a homogenous population rather than changing with the growth in minority populations, it seems unfair to ask them to change their coverage. But perhaps they need to change their coverage to get the new Latino readers. Or perhaps the homogenous population of subscribers needs to read about the Latino population, regardless of whether the coverage helps business or not. Unfortunately, the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question comes into play, and it might take a few guinea pig publications to test it before the media figures out how to best cover the diversifying community.