Seeing past raceGuy Berger, Caxton workshop.

23 May 2008

Points to be made

1. This thing called Race– And its offspring: racism

2. Complications– When race is relevant (and why), – and when not.

3. De-linking logics, or scrapping them?

4. Moving on

1.Locating

ourselves

History

• History is essential to give meaning• From what, to what -

– What are we trying to leave behind?– What is our ideal to which we aspire?

Race in your face

• No question, race is a reality in society.• What is a question is: how do YOU relate to

it in your job?– How staff & sources see you at first glance?– Their associated expectations of you

• Whether right or wrong. ..• Eg. your language abilities, sporting tastes?

– The stories you think are important?– The way that you read others ?– The significance you give to other’s race?

Race in your heart

• More implicit, subtle issues:– Who dominates in your stories?– In sections: crime, sports, politics, schools?– Who has voice in the stories?– “Polite” euphemisms:

• Group of teens or Gang of youths?• Ratepayers vs the community?

– Differential value of lives and deaths?– In pictures?– News agenda topics (eg. Matthews/Rusike)?– Advertising – who it addresses?

Media role

• So what do you add or subtract to the play of race in your job?

• What would you like to be doing?• In what ways, is race something that is a

conscious in your life, leading to acts of commission?

• In what ways, is race relevant by unconscious omission in your job?

A tricky topic

• Point: there are some parts of your job that should NOT be related to race as a factor,

• and there are some parts that SHOULD.

• Need to pinpoint both.

• And figure out how the SHOULD’s should be done!

2. Complications

Damned if you, if you don’t

Challenges (thrown up by MMP research):• White on black crime – race mentioned• Black on ?? – race not mentioned• Are these double standards? If so, are they

justified? What does race actually add?BUT:• MMP is also concerned when race is cited as if it

was relevant when it’s not. (eg. mugger is black).SO: • Do you have to be equi-raced, and non-raced, at

the same time? How do you judge?

Race as “primary explanation”• =14% of stories studied.

– When no other reasons given, but race is.

• MMP says this is a flawed proposition.

• But: In some cases, it could be true. • 10% of stories are about victims of racially-

motivated crimes.• In such cases, race is a primaryexplanation,

– (though not exclusive). – Race ID & racism = can be real causes!

The challenge

• Danger of political correctness:– where race is covered up, and then goes into

intra-race gossips– readers live in a fools’ paradise

• Need to judge when race is relevant – and how relevant it is. To you and your human relations and to your paper.

• Grey areas are the difficult ones.

3. De-linking logics,

or scrapping them?

Separate … but equal?

• Our past defined difference on racial lines, with a logic of inequality & inferiorisation.

• Can the two things be separated, so that there can be races without that logic?

• Should we aspire to a happy and harmonious multiracial society of different race groups co-existing with each other, valuing their diversity?

Hmm…

• Hard to see race in SA without memory:– eg. black people were/are indeed inferior, – or black people are not - but have been

unjustly treated as such. • This is why race ID today is not merely about

being different to each other - but also in some ways against each other.

• It’s due to the association of race + the logic of superior/inferior & privileged/oppressed.

Segregationism

• Papers catering to racial audiences are not racist per se, but they perpetuate a narrow outlook and thence worlds that are differently valued.

• Each racial ‘community’ is deemed to be interested only in its “own affairs”, – Eg. the death of ‘black’ people does not

traditionally make news for ‘whites’.• Mandela is only a hero for “his” people.

What this means…

• Racial difference = not just foundation, but also slippery slope to racist logic.

• This is because “race” is a socio-historical defining of features and traits – and is not biologically given.

• It is about defining sameness and difference. • That depends on power – and resistance.• You have that power!

A dictatorship of difference

• To understand things in terms of race is to define otherness – and thence exclusion.

• So, difference can become division.• There is also a tyranny involved:

– because people are expected to behave in terms of racial-stereotype scripts.

• So, there is a need to continuously question our racialised views of the world.

Digging down

• You cannot say that to be Indian is, by genetic destiny to be business-oriented.

• So, race is only a very rough guide to social understanding.

• More deeply, it is the historical associations with race that give it apparent meaning: like wealth, power, place of residence, language.

• But there is no intrinsic connection between these – especially as South Africa changes.

Racial ID comes and goes

• Note that there are two dimensions to race: objective and subjective.

• Both can be relevant – or not relevant. – Realities may likely be coincidental. – Perceptions may correspond or not.  

• This is why there is waxing and waning of race and racial identity as a social factor

Get to the real roots

• Look into when these associations are the motor forces at play – and remember that they only coincide (at a particular point in history) with race.

• That’s even when race seems to have a life of its own.

• Don’t help constitute racial consciousness in a disproportionate way to its reality.

• Recall that race is a lazy explaination.

Summing up

• Race is not something given, fixed, permanent or inherently significant.

• Avoid negative associations of race, balance with positive.

• But recognise when race is “neutral” – because then it loses any relevant meaning.

• That is ideal of non-racial society. • Celebrate other differences, but not as the

exclusive asset/curse of specific races.

4. Moving on:

Identity at the centre• Race = a moving target … with three

dimensions:– A. How a journo feels addressed by a story

(Is it perceived in racial terms?)– B. How that journo responds to this.– C. How in turn the journo addresses the audience.

• A & B can differ…• C can be yet another thing• D – how audience reacts is another.

Summing up

1. Define problem – and solution historically

2. Be very aware in regard to commission and ommission, the conscious and the unconscious.

3. Don’t “reify” race – make it into fixed thing.

4. Check if taking short cuts by ascribing things to race?

5. Do I perpetuate or reduce racialisation?

Race guidelinesGuy Berger, Caxton workshop.

23 May 2008

THE SA PRESS CODE

• Freedom of expression does not extend to …Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm

• Avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people's race, colour, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or preference, physical or mental disability or illness, or age.

THE SA PRESS CODE (2)

• The press should not refer to a person's race, colour, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or preference, physical or mental illness in a prejudicial or pejorative context except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported or adds significantly to readers' understanding of that matter.

Sunday Times Charter

• Report on race issues where:– there is a demonstrable public interest; – when race is a central issue of the story.

• Racial identifications should be used only when they are important to the readers' understanding of what has happened and why it has happened.

• not unjustifiably offend others in reporting on sensitive issues relating to race, religion or cultural difference

• actively seek diversity in sources • In crime reporting, will not make mention of

the race or religion of either victim or alleged perpetrator, unless that information is meaningful and in the public interest;

Sunday Times checklist 1

• What is the public interest in this report? • Has this report been treated differently

because of race? If so, why? Is this justified? • Is the report - even if factually correct -

likely to fuel xenophobia or prejudice? If so, is this justified? Is there any way around this?

Sunday Times checklist 2

• Is the report likely to offend people? If so, why? Is this justified?

• What about the language used in the report? Does it unnecessarily reinforce stereotypes? If so change it!

• What about the voices in the story? Have we actively sought out diverse opinion from ordinary people and experts alike?

Sunday Times checklist 3

• Are there quotes in the story that are racist or possibly offensive? Are these comments balanced by others? Are we justified in using these comments? If so, why?

• Is the report sensitive to possible cultural differences or values? How do we know? Should anything be changed to be sensitive to these differences? If so, why?

Sunday Times checklist

• In crime reporting, have we mentioned the race of perpetrators and victims? If so, is it information which is meaningful and in the public interest? Why?

• Has any pressure been brought to bear in reporting this story? Has the issue of race been mentioned? If so, what and why? Do any of these arguments have any bearing on the reporting of the story? Why?

Keith Woods: Poynter 1

• Flag every racial reference• Is it relevant? • Race is relevant when the story is about race.

Just because people in conflict are of different races does not mean that race is the source of their dispute.

• An article about interracial dating, however, is a story about race.

• Have I explained the relevance?

Keith Woods: Poynter 2

• Journalists too frequently assume that readers will know the significance of race in stories. The result is often radically different interpretations. That is imprecise journalism, and its harm may be magnified by the lens of race.

• Is it free of codes? Like welfare, inner-city, underprivileged …

Keith Woods: Poynter 3

• Are racial identifiers used evenly? – If the race of a person charging

discrimination is important, then so is the race of the person being charged.

• Should I consult someone of another race/ethnicity? – Broaden your perspective by asking someone

who knows something more about your subject.

Difficult conversation

Guy Berger, Caxton workshop.

23 May 2008

Gill Geisler: Poynter 1

What you will need for you to be trusted:

• Your expertise (to achieve results)• Your ethics (to act with integrity)• Your empathy (and concern with

individuals).

Geisler: Approaches…

• Avoidance: tactically useful, but not viable in the long term

• Control: depends on your power, not the best resolution.

• Compromise: for when the goal is not so important, often a reserve option and an enabler in keeping relationships.

Gill Geisler: Win-win

• Collaboration: • Get beyond expressed positions (such as

about behaviours, decisions or processes), • Address underlying interests through

exploring alternative options. • Get down to issues of identity and

relationships, and trying to find new ways to meet these deeper concerns.

Gill Geisler: Poynter 4

• don’t deal in issues around attitudes, focus instead on behaviours which are more easily changeable.

• Rule no. 1: Don’t avoid the difficult talk, unpleasant as it is. Very seldom do problems correct themselves on their own.

• Rule no. 2: What happens before and after are as important as the conversation itself. Prepare for the conversation, and also do a minute of the outcome.

Trisha O’Connor: Poynter

Principles for: • Before the meeting:• During the meeting• After the meeting

Trisha O’Connor: Poynter

• Before the meeting:• Is it your call, or should the parties involved

be asked to first of all seek resolution at peer level or at lower reporting levels (where these exist)?

• If the problem is rightly on your desk, separate out the key points as far as you can see them – and do a list.

Before the meeting 1

• Clarify your aim of the meeting: – is the conversation to clarify information

and hear the person’s side of the story, or – to go further and establish protocols or

systems for addressing an issue?

• Ask yourself: what could happen that I don’t expect?

Before the meeting 2

• Be specific for what you want to see as the optimum outcomes,

• but clarify to yourself what you’d settle for.• Notify your superiors, and consult with HR

if need be, about the impending meeting. • Rehearse with a colleague in a role-play

scenario if it’s really serious.

During the meeting

• Clarify that it is not (yet) a disciplinary hearing.

• Convey the reason for the conversation, and express the hope that the occasion will establish clarity for going ahead.

• Meet in a private place. • Be aware of your body language and words

chosen.

During the meeting 2

• Set tone by refreshing mutual understanding, interactively, about the common goals of the organisation, and each of your roles in it.

• Outline what particular behaviour is at issue• Explain how it inhibits the individual’s

advancement.

During the meeting 3

• Get the person’s reaction by asking “What do you think about what I have said?”.

• Probe further: “What do you think should have happened?”, “How did this come about?”, and finally “What do you think should happen from here?”

During the meeting 4

• If the person raises other problems …• Or goes onto the attack (as a form of

defence) and starts blaming others,• Indicate that these matters can be handled

in a different discussion. Then bring things back to the original focus of the meeting.

• Be helpful: offer suggestions, and ask what you can do to assist.

During the meeting 5

• Summarise at the end, • Ask the person to provide a written plan for

the next steps. These steps should be specific and, as much as possible, tangible, so that progress can be monitored.

• Express confidence in a successful resolution.

Afterwards:

• Make notes for your files• Maintain optimism, good will and trust

arising from the interaction.• Do what you said you would, and require

the same from the individual concerned. • Praise progress, but deal swiftly with

further or continued problems.