Report of The Commission on Radio and Television Policy:Volume 4, Number 1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Report of the Commission on Radio and Television Policy
3. Working Group Preparatory Document: Television News Coverage of Minorities
4. Members of the Commission
5. Members of the Working Group

Introduction: Co-Chair Jimmy Carter

The meeting in Alma Ata of the Commission on Radio and Television Policy marked a new and important stage in the collaboration between the United States and the former Soviet Union. I was proud to serve as co-chairman, together with Eduard Sagalaev. The Commission now has been enlarged to include the major television stations of newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union and the head of an organization of independent stations. It is a unique body.

The major issue on our agenda was television and minorities: particularly television news coverage of minorities and minority conflict. All over the world, ethnic and racial tensions are dividing societies. The main source of information about the background of these events and their effects is most often television. Improving the capacity of television to ameliorate and not to exacerbate the passions and tensions of our time was at the center of our deliberations in Alma Ata.

In addition, as at the last meeting of the Commission, we developed a number of new initiatives: program exchange, professional training initiatives, and publication of the results of our work on television coverage of elections. This last, a guidebook in English, Russian, French and Spanish, broadens the impact of the Commission, making its work available in all United Nations centers in the world and in other libraries and centers as well.

We look forward to the results of the next Working Group, co-sponsored by the Aspen Institute's Communications and Society program, and to the 1993 meeting of the Commission at The Carter Center.

Introduction: Co-Chair Eduard Sagalaev

Several months have already passed since our Commission met in Alma Ata. At that time, in November 1992, we did not, perhaps, fully realize what was taking place in the capital of Kazakhstan and in what kind of event we had become participants. Following the enormous historical shocks, when in our country the long-standing ties among people and ethnic groups were weakened and a single information space was destroyed, the directors of television and radio companies of republics of the former Soviet Union gathered around a single table. To a great extent this meeting was made possible by the efforts and initiative of the co-chairman of the Commission, Mr. Jimmy Carter, who imparted a committed and constructive character to the proceedings.

The Alma Ata meeting, in the current complex conditions in the formerly totaliarian post-communist state, enabled us to see many problems of our ethnic relations in a new light. It gave us the opportunity to take a step toward truthful and objective coverage of regional conflicts and consider fundamentally important issues of the interrelationship among television companies, policymakers, journalists, and television viewers of the sovereign republics.

Soon after, in January 1993, at a meeting of heads of state in Minsk, among others, an agreement was signed about the formation of a television and radio company in the Commonwealth of Independent States to be headed by a member of the Commission, the plenipotentiary representative of Kazakhstan, Gadilbek Shalakhmetov. The aims and purposes of this company to a great extent correspond to the recommendations produced by our Commission.

Very likely, underpinning both this company and this document, is the contribution of the participants of the Alma Ata meeting. One hopes so. And that means that our common efforts, including the work of our commission, are bearing their first fruit. I hope that this is only the beginning, because the membership of our Commission was fundamentally renewed and broadened and now includes representatives of all of the countries of the former Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union is behind us, but we continue to see, hear, and understand one another.

Television News Coverage of Minorities

Report of the Second Annual Meeting of the Commission on Radio and Television Policy

Alma Ata, Kazakhstan

November 11-13, 1992

The Commission on Radio and Television Policy met in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan on November 11-13, 1992, to consider options and suggestions for the improvement of news coverage involving ethnic and racial minorities in both the United States and the republics of the former Soviet Union. This report reflects the discussion and sense of the meeting, although every participant may not agree with each point.

Definition

The Commission defines minorities as ethnic and racial groups that do not constitute a numerical majority in their sovereign state, or in the case of some former Soviet republics, may comprise a majority but lack titular status.

Underlying Values and Assumptions

The Commission's recommendations assume that the television system will be autonomous from direct government control and censorship (even if subsidized or owned by the State); that representation of minorities on television will aid the understanding of both minority and majority audiences; that it is in the self-interest of the majority to see and hear directly the expression of minority views and interests; and that the moral values of societies seeking justice will favor democracy, equal treatment of all, and the fair opportunity to hear from all sides and groups on important public issues.

Policy Recommendations: Relationship to Working Group Report

The Commission considered the Report of the Working Group, which set forth an agenda of options in the areas of programming content, access, management, hiring, education, training, and ownership. The Commission's recommendations should be considered in conjunction with the Working Group Report. The following recommendations, which diverge from the sequencing of issues in the Working Group Report, reflect the pattern of discussion at the Alma Ata meeting.

A. Separate Programming versus Mainstreaming

Participants agreed that there is a need for minorities to gain access to the mass media (television, cable television, and radio) for their own issues and in their own languages. Virtually all countries attending our meeting provided descriptions of their minority language programming. This process is aided in many cases by the use of cable television and radio - often an economical and practical alternative to broadcast television. Many countries segregate this programming in separate channels of finite time periods. On the other hand, some countries augment this coverage with coverage of ethnic issues on the major news programs and channels.

The Commission agreed that both types of coverage of ethnic concerns and issues were important, but, as the Report of the Working Group states, it is critical to cover minority issues on the stations with the largest audiences, in order "to assist both minorities in understanding themselves and their relations to the larger system, and the majority group's comprehension of ethnic minorities. From the latter should spring tolerance, a new understanding of and empathy for minority groups' perspectives."

However, as several participants noted, the number of minorities in any given society would make slicing up time on the main television channels simply impractical. Furthermore, the goal of attracting a large audience might well be undercut by a programming policy that simply allocates time on the largest channels to minority groups, especially when programming is provided in the minority language. A large part of the audience would surely be lost. Thus, the goal of bringing minority issues and perspectives to "mainstream" television calls for a different notion of comprehensiveness than would be the case in programming on special cable television or radio programs mainly for minority audiences in their own language.

Recommendation No. 1: A small portion of separated programming is insufficient. Large-audience channels and their most-watched news and public affairs programs must include within their responsibilities adequate coverage of issues relating to minorities among the viewers.

Recommendation No. 2: When different languages are used by minority members, the total television system should provide programming in the languages of the minorities.

In most cases, this programming would be channeled to other outlets, such as a special broadcast channel, cable television channels, or radio. The main channel or channels should nevertheless continue to provide programs on minority ethnic issues in the majority's language.

Recommendation No. 3: It is important for both minority and majority reporters and commentators to report stories about ethnic issues. It is equally important that more general stories be covered by reporters, some of whom are minority citizens.

Recommendation No. 4: To foster the understanding of minorities by majority audiences, minorities should be encouraged to make programming about their own culture for the majority audience and in the language of the majority audience.

B. Coverage of Conflict

Perhaps the most passionate discussion was evoked by the very notion of turning the light of television on ethnic conflict itself. All of the participants noted the enormous influence of television. Some regarded that influence as vital and necessary precisely during conflict; others feared the potential incendiary effect of television coverage. Some pointed to specific outcomes they thought harmful: Sh. Medzhidov from Azerbaijan Television suggested that when the entire world is watching through the eye of the camera, this "stimulates leaders of both sides not to give in," and thus prevents compromise and retreat, and perhaps long-lasting solutions. Leonid Zolotarevsky of Ostankino Television (Channel One) drew the analogy of a family clash between husband and wife which, if it is kept in the family, has a greater probability of resolution than if the neighbors are involved. One response was that abuse of wife and children should not be concealed by observers.

In spite of those concerns, there was a strong agreement that the television public must be informed about issues of ethnic tension and conflict; as co-chair Eduard Sagalaev, head of the Confederation of Journalists' Unions, said, "no one has the right to hide information...we have to talk about how to report it."

President Carter, too, spoke strongly to the need to air news and to keep the public informed in all kinds of crises: "Especially in times of crisis, citizens need to know the truth. Censorship of the news media is to be rejected. It was noted that these principles in recent years have been repeatedly violated in the United States with concealment of the facts and the issuing of reports later learned to be false or misleading. During the invasions of Grenada and Panama there was an almost complete exclusion of American news media. During the Gulf War, carefully orchestrated `news' conferences presented false pictures of pinpoint bombing and unfailing missile attacks. Most of the obfuscation was not necessary to conceal battle plans or to protect the lives and safety of military personnel. Lamentably, few news media demanded the right to inform the American public."

Oleg Poptsov, head of Russian Television, decried attempts by political authorities to limit freedom of coverage by invoking a presumed effect of this coverage on the initiation of conflict.

The issue of commentary, or summary statements made by journalists, was a point of considerable discussion. Many thought it useful and necessary to provide television viewers something more than positions of conflicting parties; the summing up of the professional journalist could add a valuable degree of understanding. Others, however, warned that precisely this commentary was likely to be subjective, biased, or ill-informed. Part of the issue was professionalism: can journalists be fully professional; can they stand above the fray and be objective observers, rather than engaged participants? Can journalists in front of the camera curb a natural tendency to become actors, whose personal pronouncements may distort the reportage? Will summary statements or commentary on state-owned television stations inevitably represent the views of the government, or can an independently journalistic view be heard?

Finally, several of the participants pointed to the difficulties in achieving balance when conflicts erupt. Edward Warwick, London bureau chief for ABC News brought up the notion of "composite" coverage. While a story is breaking and reporters are on deadline, there may not be sufficient time or information available for fully comprehensive coverage. It is the responsibility of the journalist and the television station to make sure that any imbalance is righted over the course of the conflict. Similarly, balance in composite coverage was judged far preferable to the futile enterprise of attempting stories with exactly equal time or numbers of references to the conflicting parties.

The following recommendations rest on the underlying assumption that journalists should be sufficiently informed, professional, and independent to provide reports consistent with modern journalistic ethics and practices.

Recommendation No. 1: Television stations should not avoid serious coverage of ethnic conflict in the mistaken belief that such coverage worsens the situation. In fact, failure to explain a controversial issue fosters the ignorance and misunderstanding that may be the cause of the tension in the first place, and strengthens the power of rumors.

If the news is not conveyed by professional journalists, but by hearsay, the effects are likely to be far more dangerous.

Recommendation No. 2: Television journalists should, however, recognize that they have an obligation to provide their viewers with fair, accurate, and objective reporting. They should take care to explain all of the issues and positions involved in the dispute. They should carefully investigate and report claims of human rights violations and atrocities, avoiding reports of unsubstantiated rumor.

Recommendation No. 3: In the depiction of conflict, television stations should:

1. provide a forum for spokespeople from all parties in conflict, recognizing that there may be more than two sides involved and the complexity of the conflict may call for provision of contextual material.
2. balance the more extreme voices with calm voices, and aim for peaceful resolution of the conflict. Stations should consider choosing more rational or "cool" spokespeople on a given side, rather than representatives of inflammatory extremes.
3. provide commentary only when it will help understanding. If the journalist is not sufficiently informed, professional, and independent of the government, such commentary will be regarded as reflecting the position of the government. That, in turn, may undermine the credibility of the government and the journalist among viewers.
4. commentary should always be separated from news coverage and clearly labeled, with the appropriate language, grammar, and techniques of television, as commentary.

C. Development of Long-range Approaches

Because conflict, by definition, unfolds rapidly and erratically, television stations often find themselves at a disadvantage, with too little preparation, too little information, and bearing too heavy a burden as the primary information source for most people. Therefore, the Commission addressed the question of how to prepare for a potential conflict that has not yet taken place, or how to treat slippage along the fault lines of social differences so that conflict may be reduced or avoided. Developing long-range approaches may seem nearly impossible while crises seem to be the norm, but "getting ahead of the curve" is no less important during times of upheaval. Perhaps most important, the Commission judged, is developing sufficient information in advance to understand and react responsibly to a conflict. To aid in the understanding of ethnic conflict, even during periods of rapid change and crisis, the television station must take responsibility for developing a longer analytic view of ethnic groups and issues. The following are recommendations of ways for stations to improve long-range coverage.

Recommendation No. 1: Develop a special base of knowledge including research and professionally trained analysts, and prepare individuals, among them ethnic minorities, in advance of crises.

At times the use of scientific studies and recommendations can be especially helpful in (a) revealing local problems, (b) suggesting solutions to those problems, and (c) developing a specialized base of knowledge about a problem.

Recommendation No. 2: Identify problems before they become crises, providing direct access by minority group members, documentaries, and other programs in addition to news programs.

Recommendation No. 3: Avoid stereotyping of minority groups and individuals. Cover minorities in interaction with other groups. Do not always link certain ethnic groups to particular stories.

Recommendation No. 4: Expose and condemn attempts by governments or others to censor media during conflict situations.

D. How Journalists Get Information About Ethnic Groups and Issues

From the Commission's perspective, an audience is entitled to a wide range of information from diverse sources. Because the choice of and access to information is so vital for professional coverage of ethnic groups and issues, and because, especially during times of tension and conflict, information may be in very short supply, the Commission considered the sources and practices that can best serve the journalist and the public. Meeting the audience's need for comprehensive information may well require the journalist to broaden the number and kinds of sources used and to consider very seriously the contexts of the words and pictures conveyed. The very power of pictures places a special responsibility on journalists covering violence. The Commission made the following recommendations for journalists covering ethnic groups and issues:

Recommendation No. 1: Expand the number of expert news sources beyond government officials.

Recommendation No. 2: Contact several different members of the relevant ethnic groups instead of relying always on the same spokesperson.

Recommendation No. 3: Choose stories for their informative content rather than sensationalist pictures.

If stations choose to use highly dramatic and sensationalist pictures, as they often will, it is imperative that the television journalist provide suitable context and perspectives to accompany and explain such images.

Recommendation No. 4: Establish advisory boards of ethnic and community leaders who are not representatives of the government, to meet at least quarterly with management of the television station to address and evaluate issues of coverage.

In many cases, this may be the most effective opportunity for the television station to assess its policies on these issues and to gain information from these audiences.

E. Safety of Journalists

Increasingly, journalists covering conflict are placed in very vulnerable positions, as reports by the reporter's station may be unfavorably received by parties in the conflict and the reporter's safety placed in jeopardy.

Recommendation: The international community should make every effort to safeguard the lives, safety, and liberty of journalists in conflict situations. In particular, the authorities in areas of conflict should be called upon to assure access to information, freedom of movement, and protection to journalists.

F. Employment, Education, and Training

The Commission recognizes the importance of employing members of minority groups at all levels of a television station. Members of minority groups can help the station recognize issues before they erupt into conflict and also can identify new and diverse spokespeople on ethnic and other issues.

As one Commission member put it, an integrated workforce is the best way to know who the important people are in the minority community and to provide an "early warning system" to report in a timely fashion on these issues. From a purely practical or competitive standpoint, recruiting, training, and promoting members of minority groups throughout the operations of the television station may enable the station to recognize and report stories ahead of the competition.

Recommendation No. 1: A high-ranking member of station management should have the responsibility for identifying and hiring minority group members at all levels of employment for both sides of the camera - editorial as well as managerial positions.

Recommendation No. 2: Stations should have training opportunities for minority employees and actively attract participants.

G. Research

Though this topic is placed last in the list of recommendations concerning news coverage of minorities, the discussion of the Commission both began and ended with the need for adequate information. The need for a society to increase its fund of knowledge about its constituent parts is present in all variants of minority issues - where ethnic differences have already erupted in conflict, where minority tensions are smoldering beneath the surface calm, or, alternatively, where differences are not synonymous with conflict. And because of its centrality, information about and evaluation of television's coverage of ethnic issues is important to audiences, ethnic groups, television stations and even governments. Clearly, there is a lack of adequate information on this topic. The Commission strongly recommends expanding the base of this research.

Recommendation No. 1: Television stations should order regular assessments (not ratings) from independent and reliable research organizations.

Recommendation No. 2: Results of research should be widely shared.

Recommendation No. 3: Stations that have examples of successful practices of recruitment, training and/or advancement of minorities should share them. Stations also should share specific methods they have developed for covering ethnic minority or race issues. Commission members could do so by informing the Moscow or U.S. offices of the Commission, which, in turn, will inform other Commission members and wider audiences. Examples of particular problems and obstacles also should be exchanged.

Outcomes and Future Directions

1. Television and Elections , a publication of the Aspen Institute and The Carter Center, has been published in English, Spanish, French, and Russian. The Russian-language edition was prepared and distributed by the Cultural Initiative International Foundation in Moscow. The book was launched at a United Nations press conference on Dec. 9, 1992. This book "internationalizes" the work of the first meeting of the Commission on Television Policy by relating the policy issues to the experiences of and choices made by a large variety of countries. It places the policy options in a framework applicable to any television system in the world, particularly to emerging democracies.
2. "Television News Coverage of Minorities," the report of the second Commission on Television Policy, along with the Working Group Report on the same topic, will, similarly, be available as a guide for assessing options for covering these complex and difficult issues.
3. Television and Changing Economic Relations: Democratization, Privatization, and New Technologies, the main agenda topic of the third Commission on Television Policy, to be held in 1993 at The Carter Center, was introduced in a special session at the Alma Ata meeting. Parvez Hassan, chief of the World Bank Regional Mission in Central Asia, summarized the experience of the World Bank and pointed to the critical role of television in both information and education about the process of economic reform. In addition, issues to be taken up by the 1993 Working Group and then by the Commission include the production and distribution of programming across borders, new technological developments in telecommunications, the role of government and private entities, and related questions.
4. Recruitment and Training: President Nursultan Nazarbaev of Kazakhstan and former President Carter concluded an agreement for the training of television specialists from Kazakhstan. The ABC, CBS, and NBC bureaus in Moscow and the CNN International Professionals Program in Atlanta will each accept at least one trainee from Kazakhstan. At least one of the participants from Kazakhstan will be from a minority ethnic group.
5. Exchange of Programs: An inventory of television programs for which fees will be waived was made available. These programs, mainly documentary and children's programs, represent a first step in a larger effort to make more television programs available to the former Soviet Union. It is recognized, of course, that it is always preferable for a television system to make one's own programs for one's own needs. This effort is an interim form of cooperation to supplement the products of indigenous television programmers. Together with a request form, an agreement was attached to protect the rights of the individual programs and to cycle them on to other stations making requests. It is also highly desirable to foster the wider distribution of programs from the former Soviet Union in the United States.
6. Exchange of Experience: As noted above, in the report of the Commission meeting, participants will be asked to note their experiences in minority employment and in coverage of minority issues on the news. The Moscow and U.S. offices of the Commission will collect this information, which will, in turn, be discussed at the 1993 meeting of the Commission at The Carter Center.

Television News Coverage of Minorities: Models and Options

Report of the Working Group

April 27-29, 1992

The Carter Center of Emory University in association with The Aspen Institute

The Working Group for the Commission on Television Policy met April 27-29, 1992, to consider television news coverage of ethnic and racial minorities in the United States and in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The task was to formulate options on how television can best contribute to larger social values and goals when covering news in these two ethnically diverse societies. The options, together with an analysis of pros and cons, are forwarded to the larger Commission, which will meet in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, November 1992.

The Working Group agreed on four central social values that any television policy for covering ethnic minorities should support.

First , policy should encourage ethnic minorities to participate fully in the media life of every nation - to enable minorities to express their views to others, to enable them to fulfill the universal human need for individual self-expression, and to enable all members of the larger societies to understand the diverse peoples and experiences that compose their nations.

Second , policy should bolster the freedom and independence of the press. Any recommendations for alterations or additions to television's news practices are advanced with the assumption that journalistic autonomy must not be violated thereby.

Third , policy should serve the societies' moral values, which include most pertinently a commitment to inform all citizens, and a commitment to democracy and equal treatment of all peoples.

Finally , the Working Group urges the recognition that beyond these altruistic ethical goals, societies that give respectful and full voice to ethnic minorities serve the self-interests of all, including those of the ethnic majority by helping to ensure stability and forestalling the effects of pent-up frustration.

The Working Group identified three general policy goals that would help to implement these values:

1. Increase the amount of news programming that is shaped by minority group members and focuses on the needs and interests of minority audiences. News that is informed by minority sensibilities can perform invaluable functions for minority communities. Seeing news from the particular ethnic perspective can enhance the self esteem and security of minority members and provide role models to encourage members to aspire to upward mobility in society. Minority-generated programming can enhance the political interest and knowledge levels of minority members who might otherwise withdraw from the democratic process in confused or angry alienation. As a side benefit to the larger society, such results can enhance minority groups' feelings of self-confidence in dealing with majority culture, reducing hostility and misunderstanding on both sides.
2. Provide more access within majority-oriented media for minority perspectives, consistent with the values and practices of professional and independent journalism. The aim here is to assist both minorities in understanding themselves and their relations to the larger system, and the majority group's comprehension of its system's ethnic minorities. From the latter should spring tolerance, a new understanding of and empathy for minority groups' perspectives.
3. Avoid stereotyping. The Working Group believes that as a general rule it is better to cover than to suppress news; it is better to risk the wrath of certain groups or individuals who might be offended or even inflamed by a report than to engage in censorship of news. However, this general rule does not preclude a heightened sensitivity to the ways in which news can be conveyed without reinforcing painful and socially damaging ethnic stereotyping. Journalists rightly cherish accuracy; but genuine accuracy in this context means conveying complex, differentiated, and balanced portrayals of minority groups and individuals.

Problem Statement

The Working Group defined "minority" strictly as consisting of ethnic and racial groups that do not constitute a numerical majority of a given CIS Republic or of the United States, or in the CIS, lack of titular status. The Group recognizes that this definition leaves aside many complex issues of terminology and conceptualization. But the purposes of the Group are best served by avoiding these complexities.

Given this definition of "ethnic minority," the Group sees a number of problems to which current television practices may contribute. For example, even when accurately conveying actual events that are newsworthy by conventional standards, television news may reinforce negative stereotypes. Standard news practices may lead television to focus the bulk of its attention to ethnic minorities on the negative consequences of their members' actions (such as crime). Television tends to depict more positive and more frequent images of majority groups, while neglecting representatives of less powerful or powerless minority groups. Indeed, given definitions of newsworthiness, television news may ignore smaller ethnic groups altogether unless they are involved in violence or natural disaster. Finally, typical definitions of relevant expertise and legitimate opinion may tend to exclude or underrepresent many minority views.

Options for Change

In recognition of these kinds of problems, the Working Group devised a series of options for change in television news practices and policies. The following are options and the advantages and disadvantages that might be attached to each. These ideas, not necessarily mutually exclusive, are grouped under the following categories: content; access; management and employment; training and education; and ownership.

A. Content

1. There should be no government censorship.
2. For coverage of ethnic crises and conflicts the following suggestions are offered:
   1. The Working Group specifically rejects the option of limiting coverage to simple, brief disclosure of facts, without commentary or detail. Although this practice is often designed to prevent television from inadvertently heightening ethnic tensions, the Group believes such an approach more often has the opposite effect. It has other negative consequences as well. Among the other outcomes of deliberate information restriction are diminishing the likelihood of comprehensive public understanding, fostering the ignorance and misunderstanding that may be the cause of the tension in the first place, and reinforcing the power of distorted rumors that may exacerbate volatile situations. The Group suggests that there are other, less harmful options for media assistance in diffusing crisis situations.
   2. Develop special teams of individuals (including ethnic minorities) who will be prepared in advance for knowledgeable coverage of crises.
   3. Consult immediately leaders of those minority groups directly involved in the crisis for an opportunity to express views themselves on the air.
   4. Follow-up crises even after they no longer are producing breaking news to provide deeper understanding of causes and consequences.
   5. Undertake post-crisis evaluations of coverage to learn from them and improve future performance.
   6. Encourage a focus on long-term trends, news that identifies problems before they become crises. Where news time is scarce, use documentaries and public affairs shows, not just regular news programs to air such reporting.

   Pros and Cons for 2. b-f:

   Pro: All these options, which are not mutually exclusive, should enhance the contribution of television journalism to peaceful resolution of serious ethnic conflicts.

   In addition, the suggested programming should promote general understanding among ethnic groups, whether or not there is a perceived crisis.

   Con: Some of the options are expensive and may be beyond the ability of a station to implement without substantial reallocation of resources.

   Television organizations might focus too many resources on crisis coverage and put too little emphasis on improving normal daily news.

3. Television organizations should make an explicit commitment to avoid ethnic stereotyping.
   1. Identify stories that reflect interaction of minorities with other groups; do not depict the group in isolation from others.
   2. Show minority members regularly in the news, not sporadically.
   3. Provide better balance of portrayal of minorities in the news. At times, it may be necessary to show people on the news, whether minority or not, in an unfavorable light. However, consistent with professional journalistic principles, journalists should avoid visual images that repeat and reinforce ethnic stereotyping (for example, using only pictures of blacks in the United States to illustrate stories about drug abuse). Where appropriate, use images of majority group members.
   4. Reflect the social diversity and variety of political views that exist among minority communities; do not convey the false sense that all members think and live alike in every sense.
   5. Multiple spokespersons should be sought from ethnic groups, rather than repeatedly quoting the same one or two ethnic representatives.
   6. Ethnic group members should be covered in "soft" news, such as human interest feature stories, not just "hard" news.

   Pros and Cons for 3. a-f:

   Pro: These options are supported by scholarly research on how prejudiced thinking arises and persists. If followed, they should help to counter negative generalizations about others, among majority and minority groups alike.

   Con: Television journalists may resist the options as leading to distortion of reality or treating ethnic minorities more gently than majority groups.

4. Journalistic decisions should be based on the intrinsic significance of stories, not the availability of visual images. Attempt to develop more creative visual images and use the medium in interesting ways to illustrate stories about minorities that might otherwise be neglected for want of exciting visuals.

   Pros and Cons for 4.:

   Pro: Allowing stories to be pursued or dropped based on visual criteria invites distortion or neglect of important matters that happen not to lend themselves to visual representation.

   Con: Television is a visual medium and stories that lack visual interest may not attract viewers' interest.

5. Television organizations should establish a review group that meets regularly and includes journalists, members of minority groups, and other citizens, but not representatives of government. The group would evaluate progress in TV coverage of minorities.

   Pros and Cons for 5.:

   Pro: Television journalism is a public institution and should obtain and welcome feedback from representatives of its audience.

   Con: Such a group could raise fears of censorship and in any case bring pressure on television organizations that compromises autonomy.

   Audiences provide feedback on a constant basis by choosing which programs to watch and by making their views known in other ways. There is no need for such a monitoring group.

6. Television organizations, in cooperation with schools, foundations, and other institutions, should encourage establishment of research programs on the production and reception of images of ethnic groups in the media. Television institutions should make available to researchers data on programming practices and content and (if available) audience opinions and behavior in response to programs.

   Pros and Cons for 6.:

   Pro: Systematic research is the most reliable way to understand the products and effects of the media.

   Con: Statistics can be misused and lend a false legitimacy to discussions of complex issues where the data do not necessarily provide a good basis for conclusions.

B. Access

1. To assure fairness and reduce recrimination against television stations in dealing with minority interests, several strategies for including minority voices should be followed:
   1. Expand the roster of expert news sources and commentators to include more members of ethnic minorities.
   2. Provide more opportunities for ordinary members of minority groups to voice their views.
   3. Provide opportunities for minorities to purchase time outside of news programs to broadcast messages on television.
   4. Allocate free time outside of news programs (subsidized by government) for minority groups to voice their perspectives. Time allocated can range from one-minute messages aired over a period of time to longer documentary films.
   5. Where different languages are used by different minority members, expand programming in the languages of the minorities.

   Pros and Cons for 1. a-e:

   Pro: Increases diversity of media information and sources.

   Offers more opportunities for expression of minority views in members' own words and images.

   Con: May be expensive.

   There is no guarantee of audience interest in such programming, either among minority or majority groups, especially when funding limitations mean production quality may be low.

2. Where there are few stations, allocate control of one broadcast channel among different ethnic groups; for example, different groups might control the station during different times of the day, or treat the channel as a common carrier facility open to all.

   Pros and Cons for 2.:

   Pro: Where broadcast facilities are limited, provides greater opportunity for expression and diffusion of minority perspectives.

   Con: Lack of continuity and coherence in programming.

   Potential reduction of audience size and satisfaction.

   Number of ethnic groups may exceed available time.

C. Management and Employment

1. Develop explicit employment guidelines for hiring members of ethnic groups. Among the mutually exclusive options:
   1. Hiring based on percentage of workforce population of each ethnic group.
   2. Hiring based on percentage of each ethnic group in the population.

      Pros and Cons for 1. a-b:

      Pro: Gives ethnic group members direct access to the media production process and allows them to share in the selection and shaping of messages transmitted.

      Minimizes unconscious racism in the news-room.

      Con: It may be difficult to decide how to implement the goals.

      Limits autonomy of stations.

   3. General goal of hiring more minority members with no specific numeric target.

      Pros and Cons for 1. c:

      Pro: Grant stations more flexibility in hiring practices.

      In some countries in the CIS, migration patterns may result in minority status for titular ethnic groups. Depending on unique circumstances, hiring in strict proportion to workplace or population may be less appropriate than adhering to more flexible goals.

      Con: May lead to ineffective or unfair results.

2. Owners should be held accountable for fulfilling ethnic hiring goals, for example, by conditioning renewal of their licenses or of state subsidies (for state-owned systems).
3. It should be an explicit goal to promote minorities into management positions that provide control of key business and journalistic decisions.

   Top executives should be given incentives for hiring and promoting minority group members.

   Pros and Cons for 2. and 3.:

   Pro: Adds teeth and incentives for stations to comply.

   Con: May limit station's flexibility, and in the case of 2 above, add a level of government regulation to their operations.

4. Minority members should be well represented in "on-air" as well as behind the scenes journalistic decision-making positions at television stations.

   Pros and Cons for 4.:

   Pro: It is important for majority groups to see minorities functioning in these prestigious and powerful roles.

   May provide another path for the entry of minority perspectives into the media messages.

   Highly visible "on-air" minority television journalists can serve as role models and inspirations to minority members in the audience.

   Con: Putting minority faces on television does not solve all problems.

   May produce tokenism; may falsely symbolize responsiveness to larger minority interests.

   Minority members may not in fact behave differently from members of majority groups placed in similar positions and faced with similar incentives and constraints.

5. Television stations or other entities should issue regular statistical reports to the public on employment of ethnic group members.

   Pros and Cons for 5.:

   Pro: Provides the only systematic way to keep track of employment practices and results of attempts to hire more minority group members.

   Con: Extra paper work for television executives.

   May overemphasize hiring as a goal and cause distraction from other goals.

6. Television industry organizations (not just stations but also production organizations, unions, and other entities involved) should regularly consult with ethnic minority representatives to determine minority needs and interests, by utilizing such options as:
   1. Minority advisory boards.
   2. Minority liaison.
   3. Regular meetings with minority group leaders in the community or communities they serve.

   Pros and Cons for 6. a-c:

   Pro: Provides a regularly updated stream of information to station owners on minority perspectives and interests that can inform programming decisions.

   Con: Could degenerate into an empty bureaucratic process that distracts executives without informing them.

   Could serve as excuse and rationalization for not doing more than merely consulting.

Training and Education

1. Stations should create training opportunities for minority employees, such as high-level internships for junior executives, and management internships for students.
2. Television industry entities should provide support to minority college students studying journalism, as well as summer employment and internship opportunities.

   Pros and Cons for 1. and 2.:

   Pro: Non-minorities in management and throughout the organization become more informed by minority viewpoints.

   Reveals existence of options to minority members who might otherwise be unaware of career opportunities in the media.

   Opens a path to high-level executive leadership by minority members.

   Con: Internships may raise false expectations of rapid promotions.

   May create the appearance of favoritism for minorities and resentment on the part of majority group members.

3. Top managers should be attentive to the need to encourage the process of mentoring (experienced senior leaders advise new minority recruits in their organizations).

   Pros and Cons for 3.:

   Pro: Reduces possible isolation and alienation among minority members; may speed acculturation to organization.

   Con: Minority members may perceive over encouragement of mentorship as paternalistic or intrusive.

4. News programming produced for children in schools should be particularly attentive to the needs of minority children.
5. Television organizations, in cooperation with schools and other institutions, should encourage establishment of courses in media and visual literacy.

   Pros and Cons for 4. and 5.:

   Pro: The output of media organizations co-exists alongside other source of information and socialization, especially schools, which can contribute to the fulfillment of the social goals established for television.

   Majority and minority members alike will gain information and learn how to "read" television messages in a more analytical fashion, and to convey messages more effectively on television.

   Con: Overly didactic approaches to news programming or media literacy courses can alienate and confuse students, and undermine the legitimacy of a media source.

6. Journalism training should include business courses.

   Pros and Cons for 6.:

   Pro: Trains aspiring journalists in other aspects of business of concern to management.

   Would make trainees more effective and better prepared for assuming higher positions in industry.

   Con: May overemphasize the place of business concerns in a journalistic enterprise.

E. Ownership

1. Create more television stations and channels owned by and serving ethnic minorities.

   Pros and Cons for 1.:

   Pro: Gives ethnic minorities opportunities to address issues of importance to them, while serving interests of self-expression and other vital goals.

   Con: Minority owners, subject to economic market pressures, may not act differently from majority-owned stations.

   Potentially fragments public dialogue.

2. Within a state-owned television system, develop strategies such as competing independent production units that are buffered by arrangements to protect autonomy from political control.

   Pros and Cons for 2.:

   Pro: Competition in and of itself produces more information choices, which may create better opportunities for covering ethnic issues.

   Con: Competition for audiences can result in uniformity and avoidance of controversy.

3. As new media and technologies develop, major efforts should be undertaken to provide control of some new outlets to minority group representatives.

   Pros and Cons for 3.:

   Pro: Minorities would receive assured opportunity to participate in new and potentially important mass media.

   This is a means of providing minority ownership that would not require displacing entrenched interests.

   Con: Giving any ownership preferences to minorities raises equality of opportunity issues for members of the majority group.

   New entrants, minority group members among them, may have limited financial resources and may therefore be weak competitors to more established firms.

Commission on Radio and Television Policy

Co-Chairs:

Jimmy Carter: Thirty-Ninth President of the United States

Eduard Sagalaev: President, Moscow Independent Broadcasting Corporation President, Confederation of Journalists' Unions

Members from the United States:

Roone Arledge: President, ABC News

Bruce Christensen: President, Public Broadcasting Service

John Danforth: Member, United States Senate

Michael Gartner: President, NBC News

Tom Johnson: President, Cable News Network (CNN)

Ellen Mickiewicz: Fellow, The Carter Center; Director, International Media and Communications Program and Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science, Emory University

Eric Ober: President, CBS News

Monroe Price: Professor, Cardozo Law School

Alfred Sikes: Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Al Swift: Member, United States House of Representatives

Daniel Yankelovich: Chairman, DYG, Inc.; President, The Public Agenda Foundation

Members from the Newly Independent States:

Tigran Akopyan: Chairman, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Armenia

Tatyana Bolshakova: Executive Director, International Association of Radio and Television (MART)

Vyacheslav Bragin: Chairman, Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company-Ostankino

Mikhail Fedotov: Ministry of Information and Press, Russian Federation

Boris Grushin: Director, Vox Populi; Member, Presidential Consulting Council, Russian Federation

Vitaly Ignatenko: General Director, Information and Telegraph Agency of Russia (ITAR-TASS)

Bobozhon Ikromov: Chairman, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Tajikistan

Mamed Ismailov: Chairman, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Azerbaijan

Vakhtang Khundadze: General Director, Television and Radio Broadcasting Department of Georgia

Bella Kurkova: General Director, Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service, "ROSSIYA"

Aygar Misan: General Director, "MOSKVA"

Sherkhan Murtaza: Chairman, Kazakhstan Television and Radio Broadcasting Company

Nikolai Okhmakevich: President, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Ukraine

Kadyr Omurkulov: Director, State National Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Kyrgyzstan

Annageldy Orazdurdyev: Chairman, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Turkmenistan

Mikhail Poltoranin: Director, Russian Federal Information Center

Nugzar Popkhadze: Vice President, Moscow Independent Broadcasting Corporation

Oleg Poptsov: Chairman, Russian Federation Television and Radio Company

Imands Rakins: General Director, Latvian Television Company

Gadilbek Shalakhmetov: Vice President, Union of Journalists, Kazakhstan; Chairman, Inter-State Television and Radio Company - "Mir"

Khagi Sheyn: General Director, Television Company of Estonia

Aleksei Simonov: Secretary, Union of Cinematographers and Chairman of the Board, Glasnost Defense Foundation

Sergei Stankevich: Advisor to Russian Federation President Boris N. Yeltsin

Aleksandr Stolyarov: Chairman, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of the Republic of Belarus

Laymonas Tapinas: General Director, Lithuanian Radio and Television Company

Mikhail Taratuta: San Francisco Bureau Chief, Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company-Ostankino

Adrian Usaty: General Director, National Radio and Television, Moldova

Shavkat Yakhyaev: Chairman, Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Uzbekistan

Anatoly Yezhelev: President, "Telemak" Television and Radio Corporation; Chairman, Union of Journalists of St. Petersburg

Tatyana Zaslavskaya: Director, Russian Center for Public Opinion Research; Member, Academy of Sciences of Russia

Yassen Zassoursky: Dean, Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University

Leonid Zolotarevsky: Director, Department for International Relations, Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company-Ostankino

Working Group on Television News Coverage of Minorities

April 27-29, 1992

The Aspen Institute River House

Participants from the U.S.:

David Bartlett: President, Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)

Edith Bjornson: Program Officer, The John and Mary R. Markle Foundation

Robert Entman: Professor of Communications Studies, Northwestern University

Charles Firestone: Director, Communications and Society Program, The Aspen Institute

Bradley S. Greenberg: Professor of Telecommunications, Michigan State University

Jennifer Lawson: Executive Vice President, Public Broadcasting Service

Ellen Mickiewicz: Fellow, The Carter Center; Director, International Media and Communications Program and Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science, Emory University

Wilhemina Reuben-Cooke: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law

Johnathan Rodgers: President, CBS Television Stations, CBS, Inc.

Jorge Reina Schement: Associate Professor of Communications, Rutgers University

Stephen Sharp: Of Counsel, Patton, Boggs & Blow; Former Federal Communications Commissioner

Margaret Beale Spencer: Professor of Educational Studies, Emory University

Jay Suber: Vice President, Features Programming; Executive Producer, CNN News

Tracy Westen: Executive Director, Center for Responsive Government; Assistant Professor, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California

Participants from the C.I.S.:

Mikhail Guboglo: Deputy Director, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Moscow

Andranik Migranyan: Senior Fellow, Institute of International Economic and Political Research, Moscow

Sabit Zhusupov: Director, Republic Center for the Study of Public Opinion, Alma Ata