\doc\web\97\05\hisptv.txt
From:             SDRAOUL@aol.com
Subject:          TV Brownout


11 June 1997


To:		Friends & Associates


From:		Raoul Lowery Contreras
  e-mail:  sdraoul@aol.com


Subj:		Piece on network news


This is ripe fruit for the New York Times. 


Raoul Lowery Contreras


THE NETWORKS CALL THE TUNE, AND IT'S NOT LA BAMBA


  If you watched network television news this week, you were exposed to
230 news stories.   If you watched network news, you came away with the image
of
Hispanics that was and is negative.  Hispanics are bad.
  Hispanics, according to network news, are illegal immigrants
demanding job preference or committing crimes or selling and/or using drugs. 
Intentionally or not, but most probably intentionally, this is the image most
of
America receives of Hispanics on television's network news.
  So concludes a comprehensive study conducted by a Connecticut
research firm, New Media Concepts, that was commissioned by the National
Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Council of La Raza, a
conglomerate national group representing over two hundred Hispanic groups.
  "We commissioned this study to bring attention to the fact that, while
Latinos are the fastest growing group in the United States, they are largely
ignored
or mis-characterized by network news," Hispanic Journalist board president
Dino
Chiecchi, a San Antonio newspaperman, told the Seattle Times.  
  Vice President Dianne Alverio, a Connecticut radio station general
manager, goes even further when she points out that the mis-characterization
and
lack of attention to more than 10% of the population, is directly
attributable to the
lack of employment by the networks of Hispanics, both behind and in front of
the
camera.
  "The networks won't reveal their employment statistics and they don't
have to because they are program providers, not on-air broadcasters", she
declares,
while pointing out that while every on-air broadcaster, such as her station,
must
provide employment statistics to the public record, the networks don't. 
  So, she declares, the lack of stories, while important, is not as
important as the content and analysis of the few stories that do make the
evening
news.  If, she says, that there aren't any Hispanic employees to direct, film
and write
stories about Hispanics, the stories either won't be done, or will be
presented badly
and ignorantly.
  For example, of the estimated 12,000 stories that appeared last year
on network news, only 139 Hispanic stories made it to the tube.  Of those, 55
were
immigration stories; twenty three were on affirmative action, 12 were about
politics
(Loretta Sanchez beating Bob Dornan for a California congressional seat) and
12
were about drugs, the smuggling and use of, of course.
  On consecutive recent weeks, highly-rated CBS's 60 Minutes, had two
stories about Hispanics; one was how drugs are smuggled from Colombia and the
other was of negative comments from a Puerto Rican activist in New York who
objects to the City's crusade against crime.  So, if one only watched CBS on
Sunday
nights, one would think that all drugs come from Colombia, directed by and
actually carried into the U.S. by Hispanics.  Or, one would think that all
New York
Hispanics consider the anti-crime crusade as bad or anti-civil liberties.
  This is the tenor of national television news.  Such a  tenor results in
how most of the country perceives Hispanics, for most people tell us that
they
receive most of their news from television.  Thus, if the coverage is bad or
negative,
so are the resulting perceptions by the average American.
  Ms Alverio suggests, for example, that as New Hampshire gets its
national news from these very ignorant-of-Hispanics-network broadcasts, it's
no
wonder that former Republican Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan could
carry the state, a small, almost all-White state with few Hispanics.  If, she
concludes,
the people of New Hampshire don't have any daily contact with real Hispanics,
the
only image they have of Hispanics is what they see on Dan Rather, Peter
Jennings or
Tom Brokow.  Bad network presentation, thus, breeds a bad perception.  Thus,
Pat
Buchanan, who runs on the backs of all immigrants, wins in a state with fewer
voters than my county has and does so with the help and of network news.
  On the other hand, when television portarys Hisapnics as real people,
real contributing community people, as in Los Angeles, positve things happen.
 For
example, there are far more Hispanic journalists working in English-speaking
television in Los Angeles than in the national networks.  Plus, there are a
number of
Spanish-only LA television stations that actually outdraw the English-only
stations
at news time.
  The results:  Victories such as a huge school bond passing last April
with an 80% Hispanic majority and a whopping 61% Hispanic majority voting for
a
rich, White, Catholic, Republican incumbent mayor, Dick Riordan.  These
results
flooded the newspaper and television reports in Los Angeles but weren't given
a
passing mention on network news.
  Both of these stories were of national significance and show what
informed Hispanic electorates will do and how they eagerly cross party lines
to vote
Republican when given a good candidate and good campaign news coverage,
honest
campaign news coverage.
  There may be little anyone can do about the lack of positive stories on
television until there are more Hispanic people working at the networks, both
in
front of the camera and behind it.  But, that isn't in the cards, for we
don't even
know how many are working there now, for the networks won't tell anyone,
including the government.  What are they hiding?  
  Fact:  Less than 1% of all television newscasts are about Hispanics
and 85% of them are negative stories.  What are they hiding?  		
  The networks identify themselves by their initials, but what do the
initials really stand for, or mean?  Could NBC stand for No Body Colored, or
ABC
stand for Any Body but Colored and CBS stand for Colored Be Silent?  Could
that
color be Brown? ###