In the final days of spring term, the School of Journalism and Communication quietly distributed new copies of Mosaic, a publication devoted to exploring diversity issues in college newsrooms.
But the periodical, which purports to use journalism to explore a tremendously complex and sensitive issue, got it all wrong. Mosaic neither provides a balanced view, nor does it provide an accurate picture of the diversity in the Emerald newsroom. Yet it does warn of the dangers of advocacy journalism.
Advocacy journalism seeks to bring about change by arguing a stance, and we feel it has no place in any journalism-school-sponsored program. Reporting through a lens does not clarify – it distorts.
First, Mosaic ignored key journalism precepts. Avoiding conflicts of interest, a cornerstones of objective journalism, was swept aside as Emerald staff members working on Mosaic were asked to shoot photos and contribute interviews about the Emerald. Similarly, many “reporters” for the publication held ties to advocacy groups on campus, a clear conflict of interest and a violation of ethics.
Second, at least in the case of the article regarding the Emerald, the reporting was not only flawed but openly biased. We understand that, “It was simply not feasible for (Mosaic) to mount our own comprehensive survey of newspaper staffs.”
Yet making concessions that your reporting is not up-to-snuff does not excuse it – it should invalidate it.
Proudly, the Emerald was the paper where “one student editor simply refused (to disclose racial data), arguing that minority status was not a criterion for employment and that furthermore, it was an invasion of privacy.”
The Emerald values talent, not skin color.
The Mosaic reporter used an undisclosed method to calculate that minorities composed “6.5 percent of the newsroom staff,” and he did not contact many members of the staff who consider themselves minorities. The article reported that “students of color make up 16 percent of about 16,000 undergraduate students at the UO,” but those figures, based on two-year-old data from the National Center for Education Statistics, also included international students.
We agree that international students increase diversity, but if Mosaic can argue that diversity can come from a different world view, then it’s not a stretch to say that diversity is more than country of origin or race.
The Emerald employs nontraditional students, students from different ethnic, religious, political and economic backgrounds, and students of different genders and sexual orientations. These factors all contribute to the diversity of our coverage.
We acknowledge that this University has serious inequalities and deficiencies in regard to racial minorities, and we should all call for the rectification of such problems.
However, Mosaic makes one last logical fallacy – that “parity” between the ratio of ethnic minority students and those on college newspaper staffs leads to better coverage. It’s certainly easier to report on things you know personally, but the reporter’s job is to think beyond his or her personal bubble.
Many journalism professors espouse framing stories properly – considering all of the possible viewpoints within a story and how they will be presented. It’s unfortunate that the Mosaic staff chose to frame this story in such a narrow and misleading manner.
Mosaic’s definition of diversity misleading
Daily Emerald
September 26, 2005
0
More to Discover