Search

The ways in which journalists frame stories about disparity and inequality help to shape the ways in which the general public understands social problems. Increasingly stories about racial disparity are framed in terms of comparative risk. These stories consistently present an image of African Americans who are more likely to be victims or losers in some societal game of chance. Through an analysis of stories submitted for competitions among investigative journalists and their publishers, this article reveals the ways in which systematic editorial constraints appear across a broad range of story types. Despite what might be assumed to be an attempt by journalists to win sympathy for African Americans, these stories tend to blame these victims for their status. Although charges of institutional racism are relatively rare, this analysis also reveals that stories about racial disparity in the area of finances are far more likely to be framed in terms of discrimination than are stories in the area of criminal justice, education, or health care. These observations suggest the need to pursue a better understanding of ways in which these journalistic constraints come to be institutionalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]