Thread by @bencasselman

A year ago, I did a thread on my efforts to diversify my source list. I tracked the race and gender of my sources again this year. In the interest of accountability, here's an update on my progress.

Here's my original thread for reference:

https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1212049682991591425

Topline findings: Roughly half of my 400+ sources this year were women, including a hair over half of the people I quoted as experts (and just under half of the people I quoted as "regular people" -- workers, business owners, etc.).

(Note: I also have a category for elected officials, spokespeople, etc. They're included in the totals here but not broken out separately.)

About 20% of my sources were people of color, including about 17% of experts and 27% of "regular people" anecdotes.

About 12% of my sources in 2020 were Black (fairly similar to the share of the U.S. population, though not clear that's the right benchmark). A smaller share were Hispanic or Latinx, Asian or in other racial/ethnic groups. (I didn't collect detailed racial data in 2019.)

About 40% of my sources in 2020 were white men, compared to 49% in 2019. 9% of my sources were women of color, up from 6% in 2019.

So overall, my source list was more diverse this year than last. But worth noting that this was a very different year. I wrote far more stories (about 50% more), and the subject matter obviously changed dramatically. So I don't want to read too much into these comparisons.

At the same time, I would argue source diversity was more important than ever this year. This is a crisis that has disproportionately affected Black and brown people and women (and especially Black and brown women). So coverage and sourcing *should* reflect that.

Among unemployed people I quoted in 2020, about 60% were white, 20% were Black and 12% were Hispanic/Latinx. For comparison, BLS statistics show the unemployed pop. in November was ~50% non-Hispanic white, 20% Black and 20% Hispanic.

Close to 2/3 of the unemployed people I quoted were women. The crisis has hit women disproportionately hard, but not *that* disproportionately.

Last year I found that my sources were less diverse when I was on deadline, suggesting I fell back on a core group of white men. I made a conscious effort to diversify that group, with some success.
(Though note that 1/3 of my 2019 stories were on deadline, vs 2/3 in 2020.)

Technical notes:
- These numbers are for people I quoted. Ppl I interviewed but didn't quote aren't counted.
- This is only for final versions of full stories, not coverage that existed only in our "live briefing"
- I counted everyone quoted, even if a colleague did the interview

- I tried to be more diligent this year about asking sources their racial/ethnic identity. But some of these still reflect my best guess (esp. when interviewed by a colleague), and there are several people coded as "unknown."

In my thread last year, I talked a bit about why I did this exercise and what I learned. I'm not going to repeat that all here, other than to say this: I remain more convinced than ever that tracking my sources in this way improves my journalism.

https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1212049723277955072

Last year's thread generated a lot of discussion, some of it really valuable and productive and some of it ... not. I'm going to try not to spend my weekend fighting about this on Twitter. But I'll preemptively respond to a couple of the most common questions from last year:

Q: "Why don't you just quote the best people?"
A: My goal is always to quote the best/most relevant people. Tracking my sources helps reveal blind spots and biases that prevent me from doing so. I firmly believe I am finding better sources by paying attention to diversity.

Q: "What about ideology/religion/geography...?"
A: Gender/race definitely aren't the only forms of diversity that matter, but they're two of the clearest dividing lines in our society, and are especially relevant to my beat. And they're pretty easy to track in a standardized way.

Q: "How do you decide what the 'right' number of women/POC to quote is?"
A: I don't have a quota, and I don't ever quote (or not quote) anyone because of their gender/race. I'm mostly trying to identify gaps: Why am I quoting so few Hispanic economists/female biz owners/etc?

Q: "Economics isn't diverse, so of course your sources aren't."
A: There are plenty of economists with relevant expertise who aren't white men. And there are lots of experts who aren't economists. (Privileging economists' expertise over all others' is part of the problem.)

Since my thread last year, I've heard from lots of journalists who track their sources, either on their own or as part of a newsroom-wide initiative. If you've been thinking about doing so, the new year is a great time to start. My main advice: Keep it simple and stick with it.

(Thinking about tracking your sources and have questions? My DMs are open.)

With that, thank you reading. And to all my sources this year, of all genders and races, thank you for talking to me and trusting me with you stories. Happy new year, all!

Interested in learning more? @ACWalker620 at @thegrade_ had a nice story recently about the benefits of these kind of source-tracking efforts. (Story focuses on education journalism, but the lessons are broadly applicable.)
kappanonline.org/source-diversi…

Ooh, one last one:
Q: “Diversifying your source list isn’t enough. You need to diversify your newsroom/your story subjects.”
A: Amen. Source-tracking is one small piece of a much bigger challenge.