So many newsgathers, not enough news judgment

By Michaela Saunders

Michaela Saunders

A recent entry in a respected news industry blog left me baffled about the editing choices that allowed a culturally insensitive comment to figure prominently in a story about newsroom layoffs.

The headline in Jim Romenesko’s blog on Feb. 29 first shocked, and then saddened me. It read: Newsday’s ‘getting rid of more Indians, keeping the chiefs.’

While my heart went out to those who lost their jobs, I also thought of my Eastern Cherokee family and my Native American friends as I read the blog entry and the Newsday story, where the quote originated. Would they see it? Would they have a ‘not again’ feeling, or worse? Would my sister have to explain the comment to my niece?

But something else stayed with me hours later about these two attempts to relay the story of devastating loss at Newsday. There were at least three missed opportunities to exercise better judgment in filtering out an objectionable and unnecessary quote.

The comment I take issue with came from a Newsday union leader. He was trying to say that more managers would be spared at the expense of reporters, referring to the saying, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians." His attempt at an analogy only served to reduce Native American cultures to a cliché, infuriating those of us who want to see our people portrayed as 21st century Americans and not ancient relics.

I question why the Newsday reporter used the quote, and why it wasn’t flagged during the editing process. I wonder if it was discussed, or if it was given a second thought.

Maybe the quote was acceptable because the term chief has become commonplace in the corporate world. But among Native cultures, they represent a force to be revered (and would shutter at the thought of being compared to those who benefit at the expense of others).

The third lost opportunity came when the choice was made to repeat part of the quote in the blog headline announcing the Newsday layoffs. The motivation was clearly sensational. And it worked. I never would have read the entire article or seen this unfortunate comment without that jarring headline.

But the blog entry missed the union leader’s main concern, which was aimed at the paper’s circulation efforts on Long Island.

The chiefs and Indians comment underscores the responsibility of reporters and editors to examine word choice, particularly related to communities of color. Some news organizations are taking steps in that direction.

The Associated Press recently modified its stylebook entries related to the identification of African-American and Native American people to encourage more accurate word choice.

At my paper, the Omaha World-Herald, an entry was added to our style book to discourage the use the of the word "powwow" in place of "meeting" in stories and headlines. We have a sizable Native community and several powwows — Native social dances — are hosted in the area annually. Why use the word in place of "meeting" when it could be interpreted as a belittlement of Native cultures?

It’s important to note that on the same day of the Newsday story, Romenesko’s blog included a post related to National Public Radio’s Jean Cochran, who referred to Africa as the "Dark Continent" in a piece about President Bush’s recent visit there. Cochran apologized for her statement saying she "had no idea the term would be found offensive."

How ever well intentioned, insensitive comments distract from the message a story is meant to communicate.

Read the letter to Jim Romenesko »
(PDF, requires the free Adobe Reader.)

Romenesko Blog »

Michaela Saunders, Eastern Cherokee, Ottawa and British-American, is an education reporter at the Omaha World-Herald.