Did the Argus do any checking on diversity of political thought?

The Argus Leader is busy clucking today as they pat themselves on the back for trying to represent their community better based on the color of people’s skin and their gender:

Our challenge was compounded by the fact that we haven’t spent enough time building meaningful relationships in the Black community or working to include our Indigenous, Latinx and Asian neighbors in our coverage.

and..

The Argus Leader team has seven women and eight men. Our management team of three has one woman on it. We are closer to parity on gender, but still have work to do.

Read that here.

If they’re concerned with representing the diversity of their community, I can’t help but wonder how many Republican/Conservative reporters they have on staff, and what they’ve done to increase the representation of conservative voices?

They can’t make hiring decisions that way? Well, they’re going on about their racial and gender initiatives, and I didn’t think they were supposed to make hiring decisions based on that, either.

Just holding them to account, as they asked.

(I might yank his chain on occasion, but I do have to say that their current political reporter Joe Sneve is head and shoulders above the prior political reporter in that regard. Now if the entire newsroom would reflect the political makeup of the community. )

16 thoughts on “Did the Argus do any checking on diversity of political thought?”

  1. You mentioned Sneve and also Jonathan Ellis, who are both more libertarian than anything.

    They also didn’t put out age statistics – that newsroom has gotten very young.

    Perhaps they’d be best off just hiring the best, most qualified people.

  2. If they want to represent their community, they might want to go out into the Latino community and see how many refer to them as Latinx.

    And, finally, to the bigger point. Most Latinos refer to themselves and identify by their heritage as Mexican, Guatamalan, Dominican, Cuban, etc. Just as the Asians refer to themselves as Hmong, Burmese, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, etc. Do us white folks refer to our heritage as “European” or German, Irish, Italian, etc?

    This identity stuff is just virtue signaling in an attempt for them to feel better about their own bigotries.

    1. “Do us white folks refer to our heritage as “European” or German, Irish, Italian, etc?”

      You must not have ever met a recent white immigrant from those countries who still has close ties to their homeland through family and friends. Your rural isolation and ignorance is showing. We don’t see it much around here because most white people here have been here for multiple generations. Your lack of identity doesn’t make everyone else’s virtual signaling. That might be the dumbest post I have read of yours in a long time.

      1. I must not have been clear as you totally got the opposite of what I intended to say.

        My point is we don’t refer to ourselves as European but our actually cultural heritage (and I don’t think there is a limit as both sides of my Irish, Dane, German/Bohemian ancestors were here before 1900). Same as those I mention.

        That said your attribution of what you thought I said as “rural isolation” is not only wrong (I live in Sioux Falls) but sounds really bigoted against people from rural South Dakota.

        Finally, I stand by the Argus’ self-aggrandizement of their attempt to be diverse is nothing but virtue signaling.

        1. Yeah, you live in Sioux Falls. Rural isolation. There isn’t a town in SD that I wouldn’t consider rural and isolated. They are using latino no different than they would use european or asian or african. I find your argument based on the terminology to be elementary. When we discuss groups like those who discovered and settled here, we say white europeans. We don’t get into specifics.

          1. So you admit you use terms common in your community. Go for it and your rural bigotry is your problem.

            But, the Argus says their goal is to be closer to this community where whites don’t call themselves Europeans, people from central and south America mostly don’t call themselves Latino, and the Indians (yes they use that term) often reference their tribe (Dakota, Lakota, Ree, etc.). Well, to do so, using your terms is contrary to the terms here and dooms the Argus’ attempt right out of the chute (by the way, this is a rancher phrase)

            1. P.S. in this town were most of our recent immigrants from Africa are Somali or Sudanese, you do not want to lump them together or reference them as a group.

          2. Troy’s point was pretty clear and well-made. Journalism employs too many rhetorical shortcuts and broad-brush strokes these days.

      2. I think you misunderstood Troy. He is saying that people generally refer to themselves as “German” or “Norwegian” or whatever; no one claims “European” heritage.

        The point he is making is that, likewise, people of Latino heritage generally use a more specific ethnicity like “Mexican,” “Cuban,” etc.

        1. Same with Latinos who claim they are mexican or guatemalan, but when discussing those entire areas which encompasses many countries, we describe it as Latino. We use white European’s as a descriptor all the time when we group them all together. Troy’s argument is petty.

    2. I’m german and italian descent and say so all the time. But, fundamentally, from a political perspective, I largely agree/kinda disagree. My stance is this: if I know your political leanings as a reporter, you’ve made yourself part of the story and are no longer a reporter, but a columnist.

  3. So shouldn’t they, by their logic, only be doing news important to the African-American community equal to only 13% of their coverage.

    What a bunch of nimrods; it’s no wonder a lot of people don’t look to the Argus Liar for news or, frankly, anything.

  4. Judge a man by his character not by the color of his skin.
    Lets go with that and let the cards play out.

Comments are closed.