Diversity efforts missing readers

I can see the need for the Tribune to look for new audiences among minority communities. As the paper has moved farther and farther to the left in its editorial and even hard news bias its traditional base has evaporated.

I first subscribed to the Tribune in 1993. I stopped the daily subscription a few years ago. Not only did I find the paper lacking a degree of balance that I found acceptable, but on some issues I saw the Tribune actively working against my rights. Why should I fund that? By the way, I am a libertarian and I never voted for Bush, etc. so It's not like I want some print version of the Rush Limbaugh show. I support progressive civil rights but have a Barry Goldwater/Ron Paul view of the dangers and waste of a big federal government, whether its Republican or Democrat.

Then you have this paragraph: "In the same vein, middle-class, well-educated journalists of every color generally look at poverty through their own eyes and may fail to see its restrictions and frustrations through the eyes of the poor. The same is true of media reports on issues of aging."

I would strongly disagree. The tone of the coverage in the mainstream media (supported by studies) shows that even if they didn't live it, they are extraordinarily supportive of progressive social policy.

Given the cost to attend the big J schools you can assume that while the graduates might be bright, they also come from a sheltered background. They grew up, by and large, in upper middle class neighborhoods (as did I, so I have some knowledge of the environment) where they received a fairly left leaning education and came from generally socially progressive households; they likely never had to work with their hands; they likely never served in the military; they likely never encountered a firearm except on television; they never had to compete with an illegal immigrant for a job; they were taught by professors that statistically have an overwhelmingly established left leaning bias; and they bring that progressive filter to their coverage.

You look at the Tribune editorial board and you see a tremendous diversity of race and gender. But, you read the official editorial positions and you see absolutely no cultural diversity. Sure, as studies indicate in general, there is some degree of fiscal conservatism. And, you typically see the Republican endorsed for president (even if the tone of coverage on the other 364 days of the year supported his or her opponent). But otherwise the Tribune seems to be in some race to the left with the Sun Times. So good luck with those new audiences -- you’ll need them.

What kind of statement is it that non-caucasians have "conflicting value systems"? What exactly is that supposed to mean?

The article talks about minorities being distrustful and even hostile towards the media. Nothing unusual there, non-minorites are distrustful, and even hostile towards the media as well. Rightly so.

So 2/3'rds of Chicago's population is in a racial minority group, most crime occurs in and around Chicago, as well as more law enforcement being there.

That might explain why minorites get asked to search their cars more when stopped. Its not racial profiling, its common sense.

Minorites and non-minorities are not all that much different. It has more to do with education level I expect then race. Its not about diversity, its about illiteracy.

The one point of "diversity" not mentioned is political outlook. Example: the Washington bureau of the Tribune appears to be 100 percent liberal and the members' writing reflects that appearance. Of course, this is true of journalists overall. A report issued today by IBD Editorials based on federal tax returns shows that journalists contributed $315,533 to Democrats and $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain). Is it any wonder there is an imbalance in reporting? The main question is why media prize their "diversity" in everything except politics.

How can I tell a reporter is Black or Hispanic or Greek or Polish or whatever group the Tribune is trying to mollify?

If 70% of the reporters were Black, and they did their job, REPORTING rather than editorializing the news as most Tribune reports do, no one would care.

The sad thing is that people like McNulty always twist diversity to mean skin color and heritage. It is sad because it is the opposite of the Dream that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so beautifully expressed. It is in fact a total distortion of that dream.

I suppose the Tribune is not mature enough to understand that yet.