Diversify Your Newsrooms and Stop Harping on 'Objectivity,' Says Soledad O'Brien

In her recent New York Times op-ed, award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien spoke of a welcome “MeToo” moment for journalists of color across the country, speaking out against racism in newsrooms. And to emphasize her point, O’Brien drew on her own experiences at the start of her on-air career here in the San Francisco Bay Area — where colleagues at her first job referred to her as the “affirmative action hire.”

After years with major news outlets like NBC and CNN, O’Brien runs her own production company. On Twitter, she doesn’t hold back with her criticisms of shoddy journalism.

O’Brien appeared on KQED Forum to discuss how newsrooms should address racism in hiring and their coverage, her personal experiences in the Bay Area and why the idea of “objectivity” is standing in the way of good journalism.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

On joining KRON in San Francisco in 1993 as a ‘woefully underpaid’ new reporter and hearing her new colleagues talk about ‘the new affirmative action hire’

At that moment that I’m in, everybody sort of stops talking — and I realize that that’s me. “The new affirmative action hire” is me.

Very rarely are new reporters — who are often young reporters — framed that way. They might be framed as a new reporter, the young reporter, the person from Texas, Chicago, wherever. But often when you’re talking about Black reporters, the idea is that they’re here for a reason and that reason is they “don’t really belong here.” It’s this sense of, well, “you don’t really deserve to be here.” And I think it’s not an unusual experience for reporters of color.

I think it’s annoying more than upsetting in a lot of ways. And maybe it’s just that at age 53, I’m no longer upset by those little things.

On a story that exemplifies the ‘psychic energy’ discriminatory comments demand from people of color

I used to do the morning show at WBZ-TV, and because it came on before the “Today Show,” I had to finish my show and then run to the morning meeting, which started at 7 o’clock. So I got in, stopped to the bathroom, got in at 7:03. And there was a guy in my meeting who used to say every time, because I’d come in three minutes late: “Oh, she’s on C.P. time” — for “colored people time.” Because my show didn’t end till the start of the meeting.

I just remember how annoyed and frustrated I was: like, that was hurtful. That was a first job of mine, and so upsetting. And it really pissed me off. I’d go home and strategize, like, “What clever comeback could I say? What sassy remark could I say back to him?”

After a while I got promoted. I left to go to NBC News, and I never saw the guy again in my entire life. And you realize how much energy that drains from you, to go home and think about clever comebacks? Do you complain to somebody? Do you strategize? Do you ignore it day after day? And it’s that psychic energy piece of it that I find sometimes just sucks you dry.

On hearing KRON colleagues joking about ‘taking their lives into their hands’ after driving through Oakland 

It didn’t strike them as even slightly odd, inappropriate and wrong to be framing Oakland that way. And it was a joke, but not really a joke. And I remember thinking like, so this is why our coverage is always going to be about crime and bad things, because this is (their) point of view on Oakland. Oakland at the time did have some crime, but it also had great stories, too. Every city does. There’s crime, there’s hope, there’s joy, there’s fear.

I just remember, number one, thinking, “Wow, this is so interesting that they don’t even see that this would be an inappropriate thing to say — as they’re heading into the meeting to discuss how we’re going to think about stories.” Number two, I understand why any of my stories that counter the “normal narrative” (about Oakland) are really hard to get accepted. Because everybody believes this thing, and they believe it so much that they’re more than happy to joke about it in front of me, who lives in Oakland!

And if you’re going to then be in those meetings, you have to be able to say: “So, I just want to point out to you what you’re doing.” It’s a challenging conversation because those are usually the conversations that lead you to lose your job. Not immediately, but six months, nine months down the road — people think you’re a pain and that’s it. You disappear.

On what ‘bringing your full self’ to work means to her, and the importance of using your voice

What does that mean to bring your full self? We don’t frame it that way (at Soledad O’Brien Productions.) In our company it is: “You’re here and your voice is important. So if there’s something you’re thinking, you need to say if you get to be around this table, then the onus is on you to speak up.”

I don’t have all the answers. And if I’m wrong, you need to say, “I disagree with you, and here’s why.”

Why journalists need to commit to giving their audiences more context

Our jobs should be about explaining things. We do a lot of covering of stories frequently, but with no context. We’ll go into a poor community, but we won’t talk about how they got that way. We don’t talk about disinvestment, or what happened here 50 years ago or anything that would set up and give you explanation.

I don’t think that stories without context are helpful to an audience to understand, when really we should be giving far more context, and really pushing back on the simplistic telling of a story — as opposed to what’s usually a little more complicated.

On the problem with journalistic ‘objectivity’

Sometimes we think of objectivity is not having a point of view, ever. I think that that’s problematic. I’d rather understand where someone’s coming from and what their experiences are.

Often our objectivity conversations are “don’t say anything, so no one knows that you have a point of view on something.” I think that’s weird because people do have a point of view. They do have an experience. I’d much rather have a reporter say “I grew up in these projects, actually. So I actually have some insight on the story for you.” I don’t think that makes the reporting worse. I think it makes it more interesting.

Now objectivity is “don’t have a point of view”, which brings you to “Well, he says this. But he says this.” And that’s really terrible reporting.