Impact and Reflections from
2019 Conference
Just as we relied on extensive listening sessions and community partnerships to inform the content of our conference, we used 3 different rounds of surveys and interviews (before the conference, immediately following the conference, and 3 years after the conference) to listen to feedback about the job we had done. Below, we share statistics, quotes, and criticisms that show where we succeeded and where we came up short.
Who attended the conference
370 people attended the 2019 conference. Of those, 57% were media professionals, 14% were college undergrads interested in journalism, and 5% were educators (predominatly journalism professors).
What media professionals told us ahead of the conference
More than half of the media professionals we surveyed said that it is “extremely important” to receive training on racial bias and similar topics. At the same time, more than half did not receive training about these topics in their formal education or in employer-sponsored trainings.
Four out of five respondents told us news media in Minnesota is doing a “poor” (31%) or “fair” (49%) job of portraying Indigenous people and people of color in local news coverage.
how attendees were transformed by the conference
60% of our survey respondents told us that they felt the conference had greatly changed their understanding of false and inaccurate media narratives.
"I am more aware of media strategies that don't work to include a wider perspective, such as expecting one person from a population to speak for the population as a whole. Being aware of the missteps of other media sources, I was more mindful in my own work about avoiding these."
"I am more aware of tangible steps I can take in hiring, assigning, and daily work to effect change. I pay more attention to microaggressions (my own and what I witness) and look at ways to proactively reframe potentially fraught aspects of work culture."
How attendees transformed their workplaces after the conference
In the 3 years since our conference, attendees have helped to create significant changes in both the stories and policies of their newsrooms.
"We started collecting demographic data from all on-air guests, so we can actively evaluate how we are doing at representation."
"We established an equity reporting beat and launched a fellowship program for BIPOC journalists. Our other reporters are required to connect to one new BIPOC source per month, and we are giving them more time to develop authentic relationships with those sources."
"I have been proactive in seeking relationships with our local tribe members. [Our] board now has 20% Native membership and has increased the programming related to Anishinaabe culture and history. We've also done human trafficking awareness programs."
criticisms about the conference
We feel proud of the 2019 conference, but it wasn’t perfect. Here are some of the biggest places that we came up short:
We weren’t clear enough about the aim of the conference and its indended audience. Every Black, Indigenous, and POC speaker and facilitator was paid for their expertise, was given thorough preparation to know what to expect, and was given space to disengage during the conference if needed. But our marketing didn’t make it clear enough what the conference would be or who it was aimed at, which led to some BIPOC attendees feeling suprised and frustrated to find themselves at an “intro to racism” training. Some reported feeling “triggered” or “traumatized”, with one survey respondent sharing that their “distrust of journalists and local media deepened.”
There wasn’t enough representation by East African speakers and facilitators. While our survey respondents overwhelmingly reported enjoying the lineup of presenters that we assembled, they also brought it to our attention that we didn’t recruit nearly enough people of East African descent. In a Metro area with such large Somali, Eritrean, and Oromo populations, there was no excuse for this.
There weren’t specific recommendations for how to change the problems. We designed our curriculum to be a first step for media professionals in identifying the ways that white supremacy shows up in their workplace and to learn about how this affects communities of color. Some attendees felt that this meant the conference didn’t go far enough, calling for “concrete steps towards change”, “specific instructions”, and “one-on-one coaching for [white journalists]”.