Good news on broadcast news front

The Center for Media and Public Affairs recently announced the results of its annual survey of how often minorities and women correspondents get on the network news.

The good news is that the level of minorities and women reporting stories for the network reached its highest level since 1990.

For example, 15 percent of all network stories were reported by correspondents of color. Twenty-eight percent of all network stories were reported by female correspondents.

Again, there’s still much work to do. But the trend is good.

To read the entire report, go to

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit
  • ceo_of_gamergate

    It would be fantastic if the debate over the final ten or final three were broadcast somehow (podcast, etc). That would make the decision making exceedingly open and very informative to the audience and the nominees. For an example of that, see GiantBomb’s annual “GOTY podcasts” where they put out 20hrs or more of podcasts in a single week all covering their deliberation son the site’s top games. The process and discussion is more insightful and valuable than the actual consensus they reach.

  • Vetarnias

    “Before they choose three finalists, those judges will review public
    comments, looking for factual errors they may have missed in their own
    research. (Yup, we’re crowdsourcing our fact-checking.)”

    This I think is a serious mistake. The shortlists will end up being brigaded to dispose of any article which happens to be from an outlet blacklisted by the GG ‘consumer revolt’, regardless of the actual worth of the article in question.

    So, expect the judges to be fed massive amounts of bull by disgruntled gamers who couldn’t care less about the accuracy of an article unless it served them to nitpick it.

  • Hedger

    Fact check the fact checking?

    I don’t think the purpose is to find or correct actual errors, but simply to narrow the scope of the judges required research down to the most contentious issues.

    And I think you underestimate or misunderstand the principals at play within gamergate communities. The content of the articles is of little importance, what’s in question for those communities is how those articles put together their arguments. Are they trying to inform? Are they trying to have actual discourse? (having discussion is a rediculous idea when communicating only goes in one direction) Or is the goal simply to drive traffic by playing to emotions?

    All you have done here is attempt to poison the well. Now if what ever personalities you wished to win dont. It’s not because there were better entries or that their piece didn’t qualify, is because goober grabbers rigged the vote or conned the judges, as if the judges are so incompetent as to not account for such obvious attempts to tamper with the process.

    No matter the result, you will never be satisfied because you are not looking to be satisfied, you are looking to complain.

  • Gamergater #7230

    You have a terribly low opinion of gamers.


Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn

© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ