MSNBC questioned on diversity after reducing airtime of journalists of color

Is Alex Wagner's future at MSNBC shaky?

IS MSNBC the latest poster child for #JournalismSoWhite? Rep. Luis Gutierrez thinks so.

In an unusual move, the Chicago representative took to the floor of Congress on March 2 to ask publicly and for the record: what the heck is happening at MSNBC which seems to be trimming the air time of their journalists of color.

What precipitated his question was the resignation of MSNBC television host Melissa Harris-Perry but it also was spurred by the reduction in airtime given to Asian/American journalist Alex Wagner, whose mother is Burmese, and Cuban/American Jose Diaz-Balart.  

“Last week, ... MSNBC television host Melissa Harris-Perry was abruptly pulled from the airwaves without even a chance to say goodbye” on her weekend interview program, said Gutierrez.  “NBC said they wanted a show that was more about politics.”

The congressman also mentioned Alex Wagner, one of the very few Asian/American journalists who hosts a news program on one of the national networks. She lost her weekday show on MSNBC last summer and subsequently was supposed to be in line to host another show this spring. However, last week MSNBC announced that that proposed programming had been cancelled as it shifts its efforts to covering the political campaigns.

MSNBC had to let go Melinda Harris-Perry

People close to Harris-Perry compiled a list of other minorities who've been dismissed or assigned to lesser roles in the past year. Besides Harris-Perry and Wagner, the list includes program hosts such as Al Sharpton and Joy Reid, and African-American contributors and pundits such as Michael Eric Dyson, Touré, Karen Finney and Goldie Taylor. 

Also, veteran Cuban/American newsman Jose Diaz-Balart has seen his daily show frequently bumped in favor of election coverage and is reportedly excluded from the networks coverage of the Florida primary, even though he and his show are based in Florida.

Three other African/Americans who have appeared as panelists and pundits - Janet Mock, Dorian Warren and the Rev. Jacqui Lewis - now mostly appear on Shift by MSNBC, the network's little-viewed digital channel.

RELATED: New journalism needed for a new America

Indeed, Washington Post media writer Eric Wemple noted that in 2014, there were five journalists of color hosting weekday programs from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on the "left-leaning" network. Compare that to today, only two minority hosts remain, everybody else are Euro/Americans.

In interviews, MSNBC President Phil Griffin and Yvette Miley, the network's senior vice president of talent and diversity, say they have not stepped back from the network's commitment to presenting different faces and points of view.

"MSNBC has been a leader when it comes to diversity," said Griffin."We're in transition now, but that doesn't mean our commitment has changed. We're rebuilding, but our principles are unwavering."

The cutback of prominent journalists of color at MSNBC comes at a time when the news industry, broadcast and print, is being questioned about their lack of diversity in their newsrooms and studios.

Since the programming shakeups, there have been some minority reporters introduced but they lack the executive influence to drive the programming or determine the guests to interview.

RELATED: #JournalismSoWhite born out of #OscarsSoWhite

Filipino/American journalist Jose Antonio Vargas launched the #journalismsowhite hashtag on Twitter which trended nationally and has sparked lots of conversation about the power of diversity in the media. He is trying to fund an effort that would cover the issues that concern communities of color.

“This is not about quotas, window dressing or checking the diversity file," said Guiterrez. "Journalists of color bring a different texture, a different perspective on what issues matter and what should be discussed and debated on television.”

“The reality is that our nation has become more diverse,” Gutierrez stated, “and our television and our news media and our political institutions -- including the Democratic and Republican parties -- have not kept up.”

Media's double standard flares up when covering violence

MAINSTREAM MEDIA likes to see itself as the Public Watchdog, the Fourth Estate and enjoys "exposing" corruption, malfeasance, government officials, and the like but they most enjoy exposing hypocrisy. But who watches the watchdog?

The choice of words is important. See the difference how how the media handled Ferguson and the violence that broke out during a pumpkin festival in Keene, New Hampshire held last weekend (Oct. 18). The difference is - of course - the protesters in Ferguson were black "thugs." The rioters in Keene were "rowdy" white college students.

Don't think it wasn't noticed. The Twitterverse was ... uh, ... atwitter at the obvious discrepancies in how the two events were reported.

News.Mic collected a lot of the tweets about the Keene pumpkin riot. Most were of the sarcastic variety: 

The above photo looks more than harmless kids just being kids.

The article pointed out the obvious: 

"They deftly point out a sad truth: The media discusses acts of violence and vandalism by primarily white college students in a starkly different manner than black youths." 

"Michael Brown — the unarmed black teenager killed by a police officer in August — was 'no angel.' He was a 'criminal and a thug.' He flashed gang signs. But the white teenagers involved in Saturday's riots? They were just a "rowdy crowd." They were 'unruly.' People simply 'got too drunk.'" 

In Keene there were few arrests. Police referred the kids to their parents. The police - who were mocked on national TV by John Oliver for purchasing an armored vehicle - overreacted. But they did get to use their armored truck and other cool stuff they got from the military. 

The media is not solely to blame. The public itself showed their true colors (pun intended) as described in this article from Salon, which also referred to tweeters.

The problem with the boys-will-be-boys news coverage is the editors, reporters and publishers were blind to their own inherent bias. Some might call that "institutional racism," a buzz word sure to generate a defensive response. What say you, media folks?

The the long term solution is a bit more daunting. It's well known about the diversity problem in our country's newsrooms.  It is more prevalent in the print media since TV is a visual medium, in areas where there is great diversity, it only makes sense to have your anchors and reporters look like the people they are reporting on.

Harried reporters, pressured to produce more and more stories, find it easier and faster to do the majority of their work on the Internet or the phone. Most of the time, their readers  don't know what they look like.

When I worked for the Bob Maynard-owned Oakland Tribune, the news staff was truly integrated, from the copy kids to upper management.  Maynard hired the best reporters and editors, no matter what color. Men and women of color had management positions, their concerns were taken seriously and they reflected the people of Oakland. It was my first experience in mainstream media and for a journalist of color, it was the best and most stimulating working experience I had ever had. Little did I know that the diverse newsroom  was an aberration, not the norm.

For the few years he owned the Trib before his death, Maynard's conviction on hiring the best and brightest demonstrated that the quality of the staff. They were as good as any in the country - eventually resulting in a Pulitzer for their coverage of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Publishers are well aware of the diversity problem and for years have talked a good game about their concern, but any progress towards achieving a more diverse news staff seem to be moving backwards.  Unfortunately, as the country grows more diverse, the newsrooms are cutting their news staff because of the economic woes caused by the growth of the Interenet. And so it goes: the most recently hired - you know the reporters and editors of color - are the first to be fired. So the problem gets even worse. 

As the news coverage of Ferguson and Keene shows, it's one step forward and two steps back. It is disturbing that the editors didn't catch the double standard themselves. Instead, it took tweeters to expose the mainstream media's shortcomings.

###