Farai Chideya Where we put research dollars to solve medical and public-health problems will have a big impact on that. Cancer-research dollars have been flat in the public sector for years, despite some big advances in genomics and treatment. I still believe, with all the private innovators around, that government plays a key role in research.
Vivek Wadhwa Government funding for basic research is important and needed. But in this exponential era, entrepreneurs can do what only governments and big research labs could before—solve big problems.
Farai Chideya I’m a huge fan of public-private partnerships. Part of the reason for the sharp decline in African-American employment was our reliance on public-sector jobs. They need to create alliances with industry.
Until the civil rights movement, black communities were far more income-mixed. Segregation caused clusterings of black families who created some amazing communities, like two my family come from—Westmoreland County, VA (farmers), and Turner Station, MD (urban mixed-income black community, with both wealthy and poor).
Vivek Wadhwa Farai, as long as the black community looks to others to help it—in whatever form—it won’t get ahead. It has to unite and help itself.
Why does every discussion of uplifting the African-American community have to begin with government jobs or industry partnerships? Why not begin with new entrepreneurial ventures and mentorship?
Farai Chideya Black folks, in my experience, are very entrepreneurial. At one point in the past decade, black women had the highest rate of starting new businesses. But many don’t scale easily (say, daycare operator), or fail, in part due to lack of experience and/or undercapitalization.
There are businesses that feed people, and then there are businesses that build wealth for employees and investors. The barriers to access certain private jobs and private capital will require new solutions. But we should not abandon the public sector. I am no fan of the way government works. I have said to several congresspeople, “I can’t imagine going to a job every day where half of people want you to fail.”
June Cross The press has missed the calcification of social mobility. In New York, nannies and home-healthcare services are predominantly West Indian or African immigrants. They work for minimum wage, often without overtime, and until Obamacare kicks in next year, many won’t have access to healthcare themselves. (And in the nine states that refuse to expand Medicaid, there will be even more.) American society is becoming stratified in ways that summon images of India. The lack of access to a decent education has made it more and more difficult for black American children in public schools to rise above their station.
Latoya Peterson Conversations about social mobility fascinate me, because they happen in two separate spheres: the economics section, where the decline of solid middle-class jobs is documented, and the personal-interest (style) section, which illustrates the broader structural workings of poverty. I’d love to see the two converge a bit more. A [December] Washington Post piece [about Pennsylvania teenager Tabitha Rouzzo] frustrated me: The article was a voyeuristic view of poverty, with questionable items presented with no further comment or investigation. The reporter followed Tabitha’s story well, but ignored the rest of the family—and most people aren’t in poverty alone.
When Tabitha’s sister decides to stop going to school, there is no further investigation or understanding. Was she being bullied? Was she depressed? Did she, like so many others, [get] worn down by feeling like a failure each day? I feel like the relative level of privilege in the press corps leads us to miss some key aspects to stories about social mobility—links to mental health, addiction, or collapsing social systems are often under-explored. Does it make sense to have a welfare policy that discourages people from working? Does it make sense to allow a minimum wage that is not a living wage? The framework is vital.
I’ve loved the reporting on the mounting [financial] pressure on Americans, particularly the crowdsourced stories on Tumblr. Yahoo did a project called Down But Not Out, putting faces and stories to the long-term unemployed, then expanding to looking at mortgages and student loans.

No newsroom's coverage of the issues and concerns discussed here is good enough, but I'd put WNYC's up against anyone's with similar resources. People in New York and New Jersey who listened to us during Sandy - and people did, in enormous numbers, what with power out and the web and TV unavailable - heard stories about people of all colors and classes who were struggling, or helping one another, or organizing to demand government action.
Our staff covers topics like poverty and public housing on a regular basis, so that experience influenced our storm coverage - and continues to, because (not unlike in New Orleans post-Katrina) the reporting on a giant storm's aftermath, and the issues exposed, is a long-term commitment.
Maybe it's a public radio thing, but just about every one of our reporters seems to weigh issues of color and class in defining his or her beat coverage. A good example is "In Harm's Way," Kathleen Horan's reports on every child in New York City who's killed by gunfire. Talking the other day about why we're doing these stories, Kathleen and I agreed it's in part so that those in our audience who don't live amid poverty and violence are challenged to value an inner-city child's life on the same terms as their own children's.
I don't really think that mindset is so rare in the Mainstream Media that take such a beating in this roundtable. It helps to have a polyglot, diverse staff, of course - and as our newsroom grows (yes! It is!) we have to stay deeply committed to diversity. But isn't the most critical thing that we be curious and empathetic in our reporting and assigning and editing? We're all capable of that.
#1 Posted by Jim Schachter, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 06:01 PM
Hey Jim:
It sounds as if you may have taken the article as an attack, which it wasn't. It's a brainstorm about the future with people who are all inventing the future, which is the kind of conversation I like to have. Public radio, for example, tracks well with income levels but less well across demographics less educated. That means there are racial and geographic schisms in listenership... and as any good reporter knows, the people who feel you inform them often can give new leads and new perspectives. Sometimes the manifestation of the diversity of a newsroom is cultural fluency and also some b.s. detection when it comes to self-appointed leaders of "minority" communities.
I'd love to hear more about what you read in the article that sparked your comment, as well as any thoughts on my words above.
Thanks for reading,
Farai
#2 Posted by Farai Chideya, CJR on Wed 6 Mar 2013 at 07:53 PM
The lede on this story is somewhat misleading and merits clarification.
The quote cited was followed by this sentence: "John Carroll, the editor of the Los Angeles Times, who edited this newspaper from 1979 to 1991, recently proposed a correction like this one during a speech on journalism ethics."
It became the set-up quote to a lengthy piece that examined the Lexington papers' coverage of the civil rights movement, or lack thereof. It was pulled out in larger type in the display and garnered much attention.
Tim Kelly
President & Publisher (retired)
Lexington Herald-Leader
#3 Posted by Timothy M. Kelly, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 12:37 PM
Can't say enough good things about this intelligent, insightful discussion, which will hopefully spark many more in newsrooms (and exec suites) across the country. Kudos to CJR for making it cover story and then giving it so much space inside.
#4 Posted by Blue Heron, CJR on Mon 8 Apr 2013 at 02:57 PM
How much of a role do the politics and overall financial interests of the owners of the various national media outlets play in determining which news and other stories will receive coverage in the national media?
For example: If covering the news on a particular issue is likely to have an adverse impact on their overall financial holdings, will the owners of those media outlets forbid their media outlets to cover the news related to those stories in an effort to protect their financial interests?
#5 Posted by Ginny Webster, CJR on Sat 13 Apr 2013 at 02:28 PM