What overcoming 'fried and frozen' means for Latine and BIPOC newsrooms

I really appreciated Richard Tofel naming a phenomenon that I recognize so well from my time in nonprofit news — the idea that smaller newsrooms are both "fried" (ie: burned out) and "frozen" (ie: incapable of accepting help that could ease burnout due to, you guessed it, capacity constraints).

It's a cousin to the tail-wagging-the-dog issue that nonprofits face when prospective grants may help meet budget goals but don't align with real needs (often operational) or strategic objectives, and thus, tradeoffs are made, deals are struck and eventually ... what was our mission again?

But the "fried and frozen" issue is real, and something I have thought so much about as I've transitioned more into partnerships and capacity building for independent newsrooms and members of the Latino Media Consortium. Here are a few more observations I'd like to offer for consideration, based on many conversations with Black and Brown publishers who have outsized challenges?going after a ridiculously small share of those funds.

As Dick puts it, "everybody understands the 'fried' part…But I think many people structuring national initiatives to aid local newsrooms aren’t taking the 'frozen' part sufficiently into account." I happen to agree. Here are some additional takes on Dick's suggestions, as laid out in Help for Local Newsrooms Needs to Meet Them Where They Are:

"If you are offering stories or story ideas or resources from which stories might be created to local editors, you need also to ask yourself if they have the bandwidth to think about those possibilities or the capacity to execute on them. If they don’t, you simply aren’t offering enough, or offering a genuine resource. You should augment or transform your offer into something that will produce real results."

YES, AND: what about also acknowledging that many BIPOC publishers usually have something legacy partners do not: community-first story ideas that resonate with audiences national partners can't and don't reach. They don't need story ideas! They need capital and the trust of funders to meet their community's information needs without having to opt into (often) extractive initiatives or partnerships.

"For specialized services like data journalism or audience tools, national players need to better recognize that many local newsrooms don’t yet have either the people or the skills to make use of what may be on offer. It may be that such tools will, at least for a time, have to be accompanied by individualized assistance putting the tools in place and even operating them."

YES, AND: specialized services around data journalism and audience development are great, but indy publishers often have even more fundamental needs, like process and systems design; time and energy to evaluate tech solutions that work for their budgets/teams/capacity (vs opting into one-size-fits-all solutions); help managing staffs that include more freelance and contract help across geography (including other countries with entirely different market rates/expectations), etc. So yes to "individualized assistance" that meets publishers where they are, but also to funding and hands-on support for basic services.

"One technique I hope funders will avoid is offering small sums of money for large blocs of newsrooms’ time. Editors and publishers starved for cash may take you up on it, but the trade-off for them may be harmful— at least in opportunity cost."

YES, AND: This is a big one. Who ever has the time to do one more webinar? Training? Cohort? Grant application? And yet, doing all of these things and being in alllll of these places are what publishers do to maximize their chances of receiving financial support.

But I would argue that BIPOC publishers are under even more pressure to say yes to "bandaid" grants — the 10k and 20k that come in exchange for a few hours spent training here or lending your brain there — for fear of being overlooked when an opportunity that is more suitable or impactful comes along (or worse, closing a funding door altogether). It's not easy for anyone in fundraising to say "no" when money comes knocking, but for BIPOC publishers that "no" carries even more weight.

I appreciate that more folks (thank you, Dick!) are bringing attention to the ways national initiatives to bolster local news are framed and function to the detriment (sometimes) of the publishers they seek to help, and how they could be more attuned to the operational realities of independent publishers.

But I would raise one more important consideration for benefactors of news, based on my more recent work with Latine publishers, specifically.

Funders understandably expect to measure the impact of their investments with measurable results and tangible outcomes. But they are less inclined (in my experience) to trust publishers to define those results and outcomes, or at least, to listen when those measures don't conform to standard ideas of success.

What I know about the future of news is that it rests in the brilliant minds and vibrant newsrooms of Black and Brown leaders who KNOW THEIR AUDIENCES and have demonstrated their ability to package and adapt the news for these communities. What they need —?in addition to funding —?is the time and partnership to develop new models for measuring success, with room to experiment and fail.

I led a panel this summer at NAHJ about product leadership, and asked a question about how newsrooms might better adapt a culture of "experimentation and freedom to fail." Nancy Flores, who left legacy news to reboot the digital news and culture platform Austin Vida in 2020, paused before answering: as a Latina, I don't have the option to fail.

This has stayed with me, in so many conversations with other Latine and BIPOC publishers since. It's fantastic that more newsrooms (and funders) are embracing product frameworks that center user needs to drive impact and outcomes. But not everyone is afforded the same opportunities to test and experiment toward those outcomes (see, again, the 6% of news funds invested in "racial and ethnic" groups). With fewer opportunities to prove yourself, the pressure to demonstrate results for each is infinitely greater —?and the ability to pursue non-standard measures of success less likely.

But if there has ever been a moment to open ourselves to new definitions of "success" in the news business, it is now. Latino Media Consortium members are fighting to build a news ecosystem that is fundamentally more responsive to our communities than mainstream media has ever been, with much greater pressure (internal and imposed) to succeed. Scale is of course an important measure of growth, but it is by no means the singular measure of success. We are just as concerned with the composition of our audiences, the accessibility of our journalism by language and platform, the trust that vulnerable community members place in us to have their interests at heart as much as our own.

My hope is for more conversations to start with this in mind, and with a respect for the capabilities and vision of publishers who know who they serve and usually know and what they need, but lack the kind of supportive partnership that would translate such knowledge into a realistic, actionable plan that in turn drives results. Because if there's anything we all agree on, it's that the status quo isn't working.

Let's build for transformational change by trusting more Latine and BIPOC publishers to name their north stars, and fund them accordingly.

PS: If you want to learn more about what we're building at Latino Media Consortium, check out our deck and sign up for our newsletter at wearelatinomedia.org/newsletter.