Session Host(s): Allison Shirk and Joy Mayer
Session Reporter (if not the host): Lauren Pabst
Discussion
Introductions and “What brings you to this session?”
Ideas include: rural and conservative areas also include communities of color; finding “the middle” is key for developing news audiences; getting a lot of pushback to coverage from conservative readers; developing voter guides that will be trusted; at the local level, issues don’t always revert to partisan siloes; opportunities to think outside of liberal/conservative frame (liberalism has done harm, too) and think about issues more realistically and complicate narratives; what can bring people together; Room to grow and listen; delivering relevant news to readers from a legacy newsroom; learning how conservatives develop their worldviews; pushback against pandering to conservatives “both sides-ism” from media organizations; reaching non-Trump conservatives; making sure a paper feels accessible to all – even though it has been pigeonholed as a “liberal” paper; reaching people beyond labels; bridging trust gaps; this conversation is missing from other national conferences; inclusion and practice change; intellectual humility needed in newsrooms; who feels “seen” and understood in news coverage?
Caveats to the organizing statement/complicating factors:
- Political, philosophical, or social conservatives?
- Does a liberal-leaning journalist automatically do liberal-leaning stories? Newsroom culture
- False both sides-ism – mis- and disinformation
- Stereotypical interviewing of conservatives in diners
- The press calls extremists conservatives when they’re not – and ignores fiscal and social conservatives
Conservative vs. Liberal has become very politicized since 2016 – many people hold complex personal views that do not fit neatly into one or the other but they are being lumped into a binary. People agree on local issues, but the national political frame dominates and takes the air out of the room when people identify as one or the other. Fraught terms with a lot of baggage.
Fox News and MSNBC have been part of creating this split – bias, viciousness, anger, hostility, distrust comes from both sides. The news is where the polarization happens and influences peoples.
People from all political affiliation are losing trust in the news.
What is a newsroom’s responsibility?
Some journalism pieces seem designed to make the “other side” angry.
Cities governed by liberal democrats can be hostile towards Black people, marginalized communities. It appears that confusion benefits people in power – the historical sides of “conservatives” and “liberal” have changed. Reporting doesn’t have historical grounding and biases can be apparent. Example: affordable housing conversations. Media perpetuates and creates political narratives and is run by powerful interests.
National politics muddies the water – local is more complex. AND the national talking points and strategies (anti-trans, anti-“CRT”) are also making their way into local policies. So, not as clear of a separation between national and local.
How to gain trust of conservatives, so they will agree to be interviewed, so that they can be reflected in the coverage
How we see the world as an individual colors what we see as relevant, important, etc. What we choose to shine a light on. Example: a series on mental health not including anything on faith.
Worldviews that aren’t part of partisan politics
How to create a space where everyone feels comfortable? Is it possible?
How do you create a space where everyone feels uncomfortable? Even progressives (who have a problematic history that they don’t own up to)
What angers people about reporting is that it makes them question their framing of an issue. Example: Reporting on a community foundation’s available budget for participatory grantmaking VS its total endowment and comparison with city budget angered people because they thought it wasn’t relevant.
We allow ourselves the luxury of dehumanizing people – not allowing ourselves the habit of doing it.
Critiquing journalism is also important. Coded language aimed at liberal audiences loses people. Clarity and transparency about language.
Rather than talking about “coverage of conservatives” talking about coverage of each issue to understand whether reporters have multiple perspectives about it. (Usually, no) Nuance and complexity needed.
Being precise about language and how others interpret terms differently.
Historical context is usually missing. People don’t develop their own opinions, often.
Right wing politicians have found it effective to mobilize people against the media – what to do with this?
Newspaper publishers who get pushback against readers who don’t agree that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen.
If you lose these readers, they will go into the right-wing media ecosystem. What then?
Some people believe the election was stolen; some people don’t have good information. Approach: providing explanations instead of using short hand (like “Trump’s false election claims” – actually explain, provide the receipts)
Important to look at terminology and how it lands with audiences (using “pregnant person” or “birthing person” made people angry). Switched to “patient” or “parent.” Are there any surveys or studies around lightning rod terms?
Generally, explaining more is better. Whose language are we adopting? Always subjective.
Offensive headlines about conservatives happen too, often from national media.
What is the practice of engaging rural audiences?
At events, not responding right away to people who make disruptive remarks – engage them outside of that comment (who were you before the election?)
This work is one-on-one – it feels overwhelming. Can it be scaled?
Field canvassers surveying populations (Borderless Field Canvasser’s Guide Playbook)
Hate speech is rampant on social media – when reporting on immigrant communities. Makes you not want to reach those people.
Closer connections between reporters at differently oriented media organizations to find more common ground, share approaches, and reach conservative audiences.
Do people actually know conservatives? Creating exchanges across different communities (Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska example)
Major effort needed to do better engagement with communities of color because they have been misrepresented and disengaged – many newsrooms are on board to find out how to do this. Many of those same ideas and techniques can be used in any community in the nation. Rural communities also feel this sense of misrepresentation from media. Must overcome the trepidation of dealing with difference. A playbook for engaging one community could be used in other communities.
David Plazas (opinion reporter) does focus groups. Can share perspectives that reporters hear with one another (even though you can’t talk to everyone).
Some newsroom assignments tokenize people “go talk to a Latino about this.” Understand that people don’t automatically have expertise about elections just because they have one political persuasion (for example).
Marginalized peoples’ feelings about social changes that might change material opportunities for them – these are complex and might not have language to express it. But this colors their perspectives – everywhere.
Anand Giradharadas, THE PERSUADERS (book) – making room for the people who are not yet on board and not excluding them in the way coverage is crafted.
Newsrooms using language that is adopted by a small fraction of the population can lose people.
Jonathan Hayt (?), THE RIGHTEOUS MIND (book) – there are a lot of complex explanations for why people believe what they believe.
Focusing on what people do have experience (expertise) with – outside of political coverage – might lend itself to more people seeing themselves
A lot of news coverage probably does appeal to conservatives, but reporters don’t hear about it, or have a way of knowing about it. (farming stories, e.g.)
A tool: flipping a frame “if I said this same statement about X people, would it be a problem?”
How can we just tell the truth?
