Sign in or 
Share this
Define Then Blame Them: How The New York Times Covers Census Reports
by Lauren Gregory, posted December 12, 2007
The New York Times articles on the U.S. Census Bureau’s reports provide meager coverage on poverty and are duly reported with misleading and distorted impressions. The coverage on censuses pertaining to poverty ultimately dehumanizes the issue by emphasizing statistics, not connecting trends, ignoring human tragedy, and creating a scenario for readers to disconnect themselves from the matter. These articles do not delve into the discourses and institutions behind the numbers. Their lack of aptness to connect the issues and statistics legitimizes a homogeneous way of thinking about people.
Census reports are generally viewed as matters of bureaucratic routine and a type of national accounting (Kertzer and Arel 2). The census pigeonholes people into categories, like race and class (Kertzer and Arel 2). Articles on the census have the ability to not only reflect on the social reality that is created but they play a key role in the construction of that reality.
The mass media is arguably the most influential in molding public consciousness and therefore has a responsibility to correctly define and report on matters of public discourse (Mantsios 636). The NYT has the highest regular readership and reaches over 1.1 million readers during the week and over 1.6 million readers on Sunday. Their influence is enormous as both their Sunday and Weekday Times rank in the top 10 media that is consider to be “influential,” “credible,” and “objective” by opinion leaders.
The NYT has the ability to select the information they provide and promote certain values and ideas that shape our definition of community (Rothenberg 594). This definition is furthered by articles that cover the census reports as they create a divide in society between “us” and “them." The NYT makes inequities appear to be the result of “personal group deficiency rather than the consequences of injustice, stereotyping and ideology” (Rothenberg 594).
Defining “Them”: Word Choice
The NYT strives to develop a strong sense of “us” in their audience and consequentially a “them” is created. The “us” is composed of the people in power reflecting the interests of white, upper class, heterosexual males (Van Voorhis). The “them,” including the 36.5 million Americans in poverty, become faceless, undeserving, and inferior (Mantsios 639).
Words are vehicles for journalists to cover the news and those chosen by NYT journalists have a crucial role in setting a specific course of thinking (Cunningham). When reporting on the census, journalists should not only challenge the definitions that are given but they should consciously be aware of their own choice of words. The NYT articles covering the recent census reports are consistently written with words that “activate a mental frame or perception” (Cunningham).
Corrupt language was used in every NYT article that covered the census within the last six months and such words were prevalently used in the most recent 10 articles on the census that featured a focus on poverty and income.
For example, in Sam Robert’s August 29, 2007 article, “New York’s Gap Between Rich and Poor is Nation’s Widest, Census Says,” his choice of verbs were slanted. Low- and middle-income New Yorkers were "priced" out of Manhattan compared to poor people who were “driven” to the outer boroughs. Roberts gives an implication that the poor were not wanted and thus pushed and urged out of the city.
In Robert’s September 12, 2007 article, “Census Shows More Black Residents are Leaving New York and Other Cities,” he again uses verbs to explain the transition of moving out of the city: “Black “flight” has exceeded the “departure” of whites.” The verbs used for blacks, the “other,” define their move as an escape rather than a withdrawal like that of white people.
Defining “Them”: The Other
The ideology of racial categorization has tremendous social and political consequences and the media’s reports on the census often characterize the poor as a non-white race (Kertzer and Arel 11). The NYT census coverage helps constitute racial discourse and continues to relay an “us” versus “them” mentality because they routinely compare statistics of poor black, Hispanics, and immigrants aginst that of whites. These articles allow white people to feel superior while choosing to displace the blame for poverty on cultural traits rather then racism (Berger 610).
In Robert’s November 1, 2007 article “Census Reveals Fear Over Neighborhoods,” he alludes to the connotation of race and violence. “Over all, more than one in five children are kept indoors because they live in dangerous neighborhoods, according to the survey,” Roberts writes. “That proportion rises to 34 percent among blacks and 37 percent among Hispanics surveyed.” By not mentioning the percent of whites or the stereotyes that exist about blacks and Hispanics being crime ridden, the reader connects race with dangerous neighborhoods without any context. This leads to a disconnection between the number and racist discourses.
In Robert’s September 12, 2007 article “Census Shows More Black Residents Are Leaving New York and Other Cities” he reports on the higher costs of living but juxtaposes his statements by implying that the loss of black residents is due to the growing attractiveness it has to young white people. By not directly relating that black people are moving out of the city because of a higher cost of living he conceives an impression that their race is the factor for their move.
Robert’s article title also creates an “us” versus “them” theme but is furthered when he includes immigration, Hispanic, and Asian statistics from the census in his article. His lack of clarification in his title implies the signalization among all non-white races.
Ford Fessenden also falsely titles his article on September 16, 2007 as “Suburbs Gaining Asians and Hispanics” and creates a binary comparison when he adds the statistic: “In the suburbs, the percentage of the population that is black also increased in 2006” but does not include them in the title.
Roberts opening lines to his November 17, 2007 article “In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses,” exemplifies the tendency for NYT to depict scenarios of “us” versus “them” when reporting on immigrant census statistics. “Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau,” Robert reports. “But for the first time two Hispanic surnames – Garcia and Rodriguez – are among the top 10 most common in the nation.” Defining the origin of Garcia and Rodriguez and not defining the origin of Smith labels Hispanics as the “other” and does not focus on the trend of immigration just alludes to an invisible white standard.
Jackie Bacon, author and writer for a variety of audiences including Extra!, the magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, said in an email interview that “a responsible journalist needs not just to report what numbers emerge from data but what the larger context for the data is and how and why trends emerge and persist.”
Immigrants are also placed in the “them” category as they are frequently attributed in NYT coverage of the census as the reason for the drop in wages. In both August 29, 2007 articles by Goodnough and Roberts they report that competition for low-wage jobs in the city depresses incomes because immigrants are willing to work for less. By not explaining the pretext as to why immigrants take low paying jobs due to reasons such as legal status and language barriers the journalists are not fulfilling their responsibilities to fully report the news (McGoldrick 233).
Meghan Daum, op-ed writer for LA Times, said in an email interview, “it's the job of the columnist to synthesize the data and extrapolate as to what it might or might not say about the cultural and social climate. That's true for census data as much as it's true for any other news item or topic.”
Blaming “Them”:
Institutions and discourses fabricate class distinctions in almost all aspects of life, which help determine work, schooling, health, and the availability of resources. When journalists report on the statistics and ratios of poverty from the census they create a notion that the poor are accountable for their own plight and the poor become undeserving.
The January 25, 2007 article “Childhood Poverty is Found to Portend High Adult Costs” by Erik Eckholm opens with a loaded statement on a census report that found that “children who grow up poor cost the economy $500 billion a year because they are less productive, earn less money, commute more crimes, and have more health related expenses.” This statement generates a feeling of resentment to the poor because they drain societal resources. Later in the article Eckholm quotes Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who explained his solution to this problem, which is not giving “a bunch of money to poor people”, but instead the poor need to change their “behavior, neighborhoods and parents’ actions.” Eckholm never gives an alternate solution to help stop the trend of poor children becoming inadequate later in life nor does he look into institutions that do not provide the resources needed to help unlock this social pattern. By giving such weighted statements without follow up, Eckholm leads the reader into finding justification for blaming the poor.
Eckholm in an email interview defended his writing by stating that he thought it was “natural that many immediate news stories on census findings about poverty might just focus on the numbers.” When asked about delving into issues not the numbers he responded: “When there is a striking trend – or lack of progress or backward slippage, then it makes sense to go out and find the affected people and write about their lives, and...to explore the causes.”
In Abby Goodnough’s August 29, 2007 article “Census Shows a Modest Rise in U.S. Income,” she conveys an “us” versus “them” scenario by noting that the uninsured need help from “us”: “The new data on the rise in the number of those uninsured prompted advocates for the poor to step up their call for Congress to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides subsidized insurance to children of the working poor.”
Fessenden in his September 2, 2007 article “Rich Get Richer While Poor Hold Their Own,” gives statistics and summaries on the census income data. He then states that “people with means move to places that have better services, paid for by higher taxes, stratifying income and privilege by geography.” Although stated, Fessenden does not explore how these geographic areas that are filled with better resources are a direct result from wealth. By not further addressing this reality Fessenden hurts his readers into believing that the answer is simple: move to a better area and you won’t be poor. The limited mindset does not mention that many people do not have the means to move to such places and instead the outlet for reasoning blames the poor’s immobility as the reason for their cycle of poverty.
Nicholas Katers, a media criticism writer and historian on 451press believes readers “want food for thought in trying to explain why America is facing a problem with poverty” and not articles that only editorialize in explaining data because they “fail to follow a story beyond the superficial.” In an email interview Katers vented his frustration on such newspaper articles featured in the NYT by stating, “census numbers, polling data and other figures are given to the public without analysis is irrefutable proof of an empirical truth.”
Conclusion:
These NYT articles on the census present their readers with an idea that poverty is either an “aberration of the American way of life” by becoming just another number or “an end product of the poor themselves” because they have brought their predicament upon themselves (Mantsios 638-639). The “us” versus “them” ideology has dominated the NYT coverage of the census in recent months and has created a reality where privilege and power are perpetuated for some and deprived to others. Journalists should work to keep political and social discourses clear and make readers aware of the issues behind the numbers.
Sources:
Bacon, Jackie. Email interview. 3-4, December 2007.
Daum, Meghan. Email interview. 3-4 December 2007.
Eckholm, Erik. Email interview. 4, December 2007.
Katers, Nicholas. Email interview. 2-4, December 2007.
Kertzer, David, and Dominique Arel, eds. Census and Identity – The politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Mantsios, Gregory. "Media Magic: Making Class Invisible." Eds. David Kertzer and Dominique Arel. Census and Identity – The politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
McGoldrick, Monica, Joe Giordano, and Nydia Garcia-Preto, eds. Ethnicity and Family Therapy. 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2005.
Rothenberg, Paula S. Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2007.
Van Voorhis, Rebecca. "Journal of Social Work Education." Culturally Relevant Practice: A Framework For Teaching The Psychosocial Dynamics of Oppression 32(1998): 121-133.
|
laurengregory |
Latest page update: made by laurengregory
, Dec 12 2007, 7:59 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by laurengregory
104 words added 59 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
