I put my house on the market last spring and learned surprising lessons — not just about home valuation but also about how the journalism and philanthropic industries value audiences and communities.
I’ve put a lot of time, money and effort into my home’s upkeep, as do many of my suburban neighbors. Our community is transitioning from primarily white educators to a mix of Black and white residents and Latino, African, and Asian American immigrants who are members of America’s growing middle class.
Around the time I listed my home, a white woman on the opposite end of our cul-de-sac did the same. Our houses have a similar layout, except mine has more square footage and a more private backyard.
The only significant difference between the two houses is that one is owned by a white woman and the other by me. Her home valuation was $100,000 more than mine; hers sold, and I took mine off the market.
Structural racism in the U.S. housing market goes back to the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in the 1930s, which created maps of cities that set home values based on race. Journalism also has a proven track record of undervaluing Black and Brown audiences. In both cases, systemic forces decide who matters and who doesn’t. The parallels between racial bias in home valuations and audience valuations in journalism are striking.
As newspapers chased record profits in the 1960s and 1970s, they courted advertisers by following the “white flight” to the suburbs and opening news bureaus in affluent areas. Even after being called out by the Kerner Commission in 1968 for not including Black people in coverage beyond crime, little changed in terms of putting reporters on the ground in Black communities.
Just as Black homeowners had seen their neighborhoods redlined, Black audiences were systematically excluded from investment in community news coverage. Newspaper editors, for their part, remained disproportionately white (and male) compared to the U.S. workforce, meaning “objective” journalism was viewed through a white, middle-class lens.
This approach should have collapsed in the 2000s when digital disruption forced media outlets to rethink their revenue strategies. Yet, even now, the same mistakes persist. Algorithmic bias ensures that digital ad dollars still favor white audiences while philanthropy continues to disproportionately fund white-led media organizations. A 2021 Democracy Fund study found that less than 6% of media grants go to newsrooms serving communities of color. The Knight Foundation explored how the flow of journalism funding going to white-led outlets leaves BIPOC-led organizations struggling to compete.
This is not just bad for the fabric of democracy, it’s bad business. The mass market that newspaper publishers chased in the 20th century has been shattered by digital media, and community news outlets have the authentic audience connection that most marketers dream about. The idea that communities of color can’t support profitable news businesses is a myth that’s deterring investment.
Take Pivot Fund grantee Pasa la Voz, in Savannah, Georgia. In less than three years since our investment, publisher Elizabeth Galarza took it from a Facebook group to a robust news outlet serving Spanish speakers along the Georgia-South Carolina coast and built an events and music production business projected to earn $500,000 this year.
To break the cycle of underinvestment, media organizations and funders should consider the following steps:
- Invest directly in BIPOC-led media. Support newsrooms led by Black, Latino, Indigenous and Asian journalists with unrestricted, multi-year funding that allows for sustainability and growth.
- Reevaluate audience metrics. Traditional advertising models often overlook the economic and cultural impact of Black and Latino audiences. Updated measurement tools should accurately reflect their engagement and influence.
- Expand ownership opportunities. Encourage cooperative and community-led media models that give underrepresented communities control over their own narratives. In our landscape analysis research in the Midwest, we’ve heard a lot from local community members about their desires for cooperative media models.
- Increase transparency in funding. Philanthropic institutions should publish annual reports on how their journalism grants are distributed and implement accountability measures to ensure equitable investment.
Reversing these disparities won’t happen overnight, but prioritizing these changes will create a more inclusive and financially sustainable media landscape.
As I navigated the home-selling process, I saw firsthand how these valuation gaps play out in real time. Just as Black homeowners must push for fair appraisals and equitable treatment in real estate, BIPOC-led media organizations must continue advocating for fair funding and representation. Whether in journalism or housing, real equity requires more than just awareness — it demands action.
Comments