IF YOU were to believe mainstream American journalists and their professional organizations, the issue of “diversity” is considered a top priority.
But when you carefully examine the approach that these professional journalism organizations have taken, you recognize immediately the discussion is limited and “diversity” narrowly defined.
The premise behind the journalism approach to “diversity” is to achieve newsrooms that “reflect the communities” that journalists cover, according to a report of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE). The group began addressing diversity issues with a diversity census in 1998 that is updated annually.
But the ASNE, like all mainstream American journalist organizations, limited the discussion of “diversity” to the “Big Four” minority groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans.
In fact, the approach of mainstream American journalists and professional journalism groups has been to contradict their own mandates, limiting the discussion of diversity and being “un-diverse” in their approach to the issue.
It seems the real priority of the “Big Four” journalist groups is to force mainstream journalism, described as “White,” to open the door to professional equality, to be accepted in that profession and then to shut the door so as not to allow other journalists of other colors in.
Knocking on the door of diversity now for the past 8 years are Arab-American journalists who are from a community of color that is not recognized as a minority, but that is treated as an excluded minority from mainstream American society and mainstream American journalism.
This needs to change if Arab-Americans ever expect to force the journalism profession to fairly, objectively and comprehensively cover Arab-American issues, and to provide equal opportunities to journalists of Arab-American heritage.
The narrow definition of diversity that is embraced by mainstream American journalists is the result of racism and a history which reflects and apparent ethnic stubbornness. The ethnic groups that have seemingly entered the mainstream through the “diversity door” do not want to now dilute their influence by expanding the definition of diversity to reflect all journalists of color.
They do not want to allow journalists of color who are not among the “Big Four,” such as Arab-Americans, to be included. Their journalism fraternity, it seems, reflects the same narrow mindedness and even racism that the white journalism establishment held of them.
Ironically, “journalists of color” created their own organization called “UNITY” which was formed in 1994 by two minority journalists covering City Hall in Philadelphia, one African American, the other Hispanic.
The organization is today represented by the presidents of each of the four major ethnic journalism organizations representing Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans.
In 1999, Arab-American journalists began to organize for the first time nationally under a loose federation called the National Arab American Journalism Association (NAAJA). The first contact with members of UNITY occurred that year when officials of NAJA, the Native American Journalists Association issued a formal protest against NAAJA claiming that our “acronym” encroached upon theirs.
Since then, every attempt by Arab-American journalists to join UNITY have been rebuffed.
This discrepancy in the diversity debate, this flaw in the ivory tower definition of professional American journalism, has many ramifications.
They include reinforcing the racism that exists in this country against Arab-Americans and individuals who are of Middle Eastern heritage.
Most mainstream American newspapers have an institutional bias against Arab-Americans and Arab world issues, limiting their participation in the public debate of related issues. Ironically, the issue of the Middle East is one of the most pressing facing American society and yet Arab-American journalists are almost completely excluded from the Opinion pages where all of the related Middle East issues are discussed and debated.
In part, this bias is driven by political bias that comes from the historic imbalance in coverage of the Middle East. In fact, the coverage of the Middle East conflict and the Arab World and therefore the Arab-American community has not been fair.
In fact, it hasn’t even been professional. The bias has been intentional in many cases, with Arab viewpoints excluded in order to strengthen other opposing but more “politically correct” and acceptable viewpoints.
It is reinforced by the reticence of the “Big Four” minority journalists to expand their ranks to include Arab-Americans.
And it continues unchallenged mainly because the Arab-American community continues t be divided. Victimized by anti-Arab racism that only intensified after the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, and coming from societies where free speech is not a tradition, Arabs in America have contributed to this problem by failing to overcome their own internal differences.
Until Arab-Americans unite, they can hardly expect the mainstream Americans who now include “journalists of color” to treat them with respect, or even fairly, even if fair treatment is a fundamental premise of mainstream professional American journalism.
That mainstream American journalism is not fair is as much a result of our failure to come together as a cohesive Arab-American community as it is a reflection of mainstream American racism in society as a whole and in American journalism specifically, against the Arab-American community and the Arab world.
There are a half dozen Arab-American journalism organizations in America, and few of them are interested in working together. Instead, they reflect the same leadership flaws that have undermined freedoms in the Middle East.
We cannot be considered professional journalists until we start acting like professional journalists.
