White panelists appeared 7 times more often than non-Whites over the past year, data shows: Racial politics of WAMC’s The Roundtable

The study finds recent shifts in Roundtable sourcing practices added non-White panelists but did not alter overall pattern of White dominance

This post begins a series presenting research findings from my study of a full year of episodes of WAMC’s The Roundtable.¹ Whites, I will first show, made 88% of all appearances on Roundtable panels over the past year. Second, I show that Roundtable producers shifted their sourcing practices starting in September 2024, the last month of the study. That shift, I also show, added new panelists of color and likely helped to convey an image of diversity on Roundtable panels useful for branding. but did not alter the cumulative pattern set across the prior 11-months.

Today’s post explores the first research question of the study: Which racial groups appeared most over the past year of Roundtable episodes? This question informs larger questions about the extent to which The Roundtable advances WAMC’s diversification policies or reinforces Whiteness as the ‘objective’ news perspective. (Link to GitHub data at the end of this post.) Today’s findings are based on data covering all 232 consecutive episodes spanning 10/9/23 – 10/8/24. The data enables analysis of the racial politics organized by Roundtable producers’ journalistic sourcing practices, as I explain in detail in my post on the context, theory, and methods I use to guide the study. The data I present today consists of the names of all 71 panelists who appeared on the show during the time range, their racial and ethnic identities, and the specific episodes on which they appeared. I use this data, first, to examine all 792 appearances by panelists across the year. Today’s analysis sheds light on which racial groups cumulatively participated most often across all Roundtable panels.

Access to participate in Roundtable discussions is not trivial. Nielsen data (2019) ranks WAMC at 95%+ in national importance and finds the program’s morning timeslot draws some 30,000 daily listeners in 7 Northeast US states (pp. 2, 3). Given the regular appearances of political party insiders on The Roundtable and of local, state, and federal lawmakers and officials on other WAMC programs, inclusion on The Roundtable confers ability not only to reach a diverse geography of some 7 million² but also to reach governmental policy makers. These capacities to appear in political discussions and publicly address leaders of the state enable groups to contest false representations and affect policy making and are therefore fundamental to political life.

Participation in public political dialogue also shapes dominant ideological representations of which groups should be seen as ‘community members’ and should be seen as ‘others.’ As Prof. Barbara Savage, in her book Broadcasting Freedom, describes, access to radio during WWII “allowed a new black voice to be heard on the radio, a voice that challenged accepted portrayals of black abilities and placed African American contributions and culture at the heart of American history” (p. 271). Rates of racial inclusion in news media also affect popular ideas about who is authorized to participate in news discussions (Arguedas, Mukherjee, Nielsen, 2024³). The struggle to contest and reject racial boundaries to political participation, and the stereotypes those boundaries sustain, should be an urgent goal for compassionate anti-racists of today.⁴

Findings on data for all appearances on Roundtable panels, 10/9/23 – 10/8/24

Whites dominated overall appearances on The Roundtable for the past year, the data shows. During that time, Roundtable producers chose Whites for 700 of 792 panelist seats (Figure 1). In other words, Whites occupied 88% of all panelist seats, leaving 12% for all other groups combined. African-Americans and Latino/a constituted the next largest groups of panelists with 49 appearances (6%) and 34 appearances (4%) respectively. Asians appeared 5 times and Arab/MENA guests 4 times, each constituting about .5% of all Roundtable panelist slots for the year. None of the 4 Arab/MENA guests were Palestinian. No American-Indian sources appeared on any panels during the study time range. The cumulative ratio of White to non-White appearances for the past year of Roundtable episodes stands at 7:1.  

Figure 1.

Roundtable producers shifted sourcing practices in September 2024

Though the data shows Whites captured 88% of seats on panels over the year, diversity was actually slightly worse for most of the study period. This is because Roundtable producers added 21 new panelists in the final month of the study (9/3/24 – 10/08/24). While that month included only 11% of all episodes for the year, those episodes marked a 42% increase to the guest list established over the prior 11-months.⁵ In fact, the 21 new guests who joined the show in the final month of the study outnumbered the 17 new guests who appeared across all prior 11-months combined (Table 1). The addition of 8 non-White panelists between 9/3 - 10/8/24 amounts to an 80% increase in the number of non-Whites (from 10 to 18) on Roundtable’s guestlist from the prior 11-months.

Table 1.

Now, it could be that adding a large number of new panelists is part of regular seasonal shifts in sourcing practices. However, my review of a similar period for the prior year (10/9/23-11/8/23) shows the addition of only 1 new panelist.⁶ Given the differences from the racial inclusion pattern of the prior 11-months of episodes and from a comparable prior-year period, it seems fair to conclude that the sudden addition of almost two-dozen panelists, many from marginalized groups, marks a change in Roundtable sourcing practices. Perhaps that change even reflects an intentional strategy of diversification, which would be welcome and sorely needed, as I explain next.

September’s addition of panelists-of-color follow 11-months of Arab/MENA exclusion — Palestinian exclusion continues

The prior 11-months (10/9/23 – 8/30/24) show complete exclusion of Arab/MENA people despite the growing worldwide importance of Israel’s war on Gaza, West Bank, and now Lebanon. While the September data show the new and welcome inclusion of 4 Arab/MENA panelists, none are Palestinian.⁷ This means that for more than a year, during which Israel killed over 42,000 Palestinians and US policies supporting that violence came into historic popular criticism,⁸ The Roundtable kept Palestinian and other Middle East voices out of discussions. Roundtable producers did so despite the fact that Palestinian and Israeli-American sources made repeated requests to appear on the show, as I previously reported. As I will document in an upcoming post, Roundtable producers continue to ignore requests to appear on the program from local Palestinian and Middle East sources as well as from leaders of Palestine solidarity organizations. Given Roundtable producers’ more than a year-long practice of Palestinian exclusion as well as inconsistent and seemingly bad-faith dialogue with community leaders seeking to end that exclusion, one is left to infer such practices enforce an intentional, and thus discriminatory, editorial policy.

Image generated by DALL-E. I would love to work human political cartoonists. If you are one, please contact me!

Roundtable’s new sourcing practices did not shift the overall pattern

While the addition of 8 panelists from marginalized groups marks potential implementation of a conscious practice of greater racial inclusion by Roundtable producers, more is needed. Looking again at the increased inclusion starting September 2024, Whites still accumulated 85% (82 of 96) of appearances. This marks a 4% improvement over the 89% (618 of 696) of appearances acquired by Whites over the prior 11-months of the study but also matches the 85% (55 of 65) of appearances taken by Whites in the first month of the study. The final month of the study, despite seeming intentional efforts to diversify sourcing, yet falls within the range of the prior 11-months and thus continues the pattern of providing Whites greater access to participate on The Roundtable. I want to emphasize that the potential of this shift in Roundtable practices will ultimately be determined by whether or not producers sustain and deepen this possible new dedication to inclusion.

Conclusion: Overwhelming preference for White sources organizes White authority, not diversification

This post explored the research question, which racial groups appear most over the past year of Roundtable episodes? The data provides a clear answer: Whites appeared most often the past year (10/9/23 - 10/8/24) and did so at a rate of 7 times more than all other racial/ethnic groups combined. As I explained previously, appearing on The Roundtable gives panelists a kind of power: an increased capacity to reach elite audiences and policymakers with narratives and ideas about policies and social issues. In this light, the above finding that Whites accumulated far more appearances on The Roundtable also reveals that program producers directed vastly more communicative power to Whites, who are already economically advantaged and over-served in mainstream news (Forbes, 4/23/23), than all other racial/ethnic groups.

The above analysis also helps respond to the original questions of this research series: To what extent do Roundtable producers tend to fulfill WAMC’s own diversification policy or reinforce White authority over news discussions? My finding that panelists-of-color accumulated 12% of appearances shows a highly limited role for non-Whites in Roundtable discussions. The data pattern indicates a journalistic practice that largely (but not completely) reinforces Whiteness as the assumed standpoint for objective news and thus the basis of authority over news discussions.

But wait a gosh darn minute! Doesn’t the method I use (measuring the total number of appearances by racial/ethnic groups over the year) overlook how Roundtable sourcing practices may instead aim to consistently include diversity on each daily panel? In other words, Whites might appear more overall but daily panels might consistently include small numbers of panelists-of-color. Hmmm, could be . . . I better check that out.

I investigate that possibility in the next post by analyzing the average daily racial balance on each of the 232 panels that aired during the year of the study time range. By doing so, I will be able to count the frequency of racially diverse panels as well as racially homogenous panels. Those measures define normal daily patterns of racial inclusion but also provide a basis to identify changes in daily patterns over time — and that enables me to quantitatively assess whether daily racial diversity improved or declined on The Roundtable over the past year.

This is an important question, especially given the recent on-air claim (9/19/24) by regular Roundtable panelist Nic Rangel (Executive Director of the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York) that, “The Roundtable has gotten much more diverse in the last year, year and a half”.⁹ I would very much like for her hopeful conclusion to prove true. Please remember, I’m just the messenger.

Data analyzed in this post (GitHub).

1. The Roundtable includes a daily news-panel program, which I study in this series, and an interview program that is not included in my data or analysis.

2. WAMC’s broadcast area encompasses part or all of over 37 counties with a total population of 6.94 million, according to American Community Survey 2022. Those 37 counties are: Capitol Planning Region, Connecticut, Northwest Hills Planning Region, Connecticut; Berkshire County, Massachusetts; Franklin County, Massachusetts; Hampden County, Massachusetts; Hampshire County, Massachusetts; Worcester County, Massachusetts; Cheshire County, New Hampshire; Sullivan County, New Hampshire; Albany County, New York; Clinton County, New York; Columbia County, New York; Delaware County, New York; Dutchess County, New York; Fulton County, New York; Greene County, New York; Hamilton County, New York; Herkimer County, New York; Montgomery County, New York; Oneida County, New York; Orange County, New York; Putnam County, New York; Rensselaer County, New York; Saratoga County, New York; Schenectady County, New York; Schoharie County, New York; Sullivan County, New York; Ulster County, New York; Washington County, New York; Westchester County, New York; Addison County, Vermont; Bennington County, Vermont; Chittenden County, Vermont; Franklin County, Vermont; Grand Isle County, Vermont; Rutland County, Vermont; Windham County, Vermont.

3. Ross Arguedas, A., Mukherjee, M., & Nielsen, R. K. (2024). Race and leadership in the news media 2024: evidence from five markets. DOI: 10.60625/risj-d119-xb11

4. I offer this inquiry into The Roundtable to increase awareness of otherwise hard to recognize processes of racial exclusion. I hope this research can give compassionate listeners a reason to act for greater racial and ideological inclusion on the program and on WAMC. I below document that Whites accumulate far more appearances on the program than all other racial/ethnic groups combined. I also document The Roundtable’s ongoing exclusion of two peoples: American Indians and Palestinians. Both groups offer insight into processes of settler colonization, with the former surviving a historic genocide and the latter currently enduring a genocide funded by US taxpayers. (See noted scholar on the Holocaust and genocide, Dr. Omar Bartov, The Guardian, 8/13/24.)

5. Total panelists by 8/30/24 = 50, with 21 added 9/3-10/8/24. 21/50 = .42

6. White GOP activist and Sienna College student Lucas Helms. Sienna College’s website lists him as Chair of the student Republican Club. Here is his LinkedIn page where he posts a photo of himself with Betsy DeVos at the Take Back Title IX rally.

7. The 4 Arab/MENA panelists are Iranian-American Alex Nowrasteh (included 9/18/2024), Iranian born Ali Vaez and Fariba Pajooh (both on 9/26/2024), and Israeli Dr. Shai Lavi (10/8/2024).

8. Sympathy for Israel among Americans fell 50% since the October 7 attacks, comparing a 10/23 538 poll and an 10/24 AP/NORC poll. A 6/24 CBS and YouGov poll found 61 percent of all Americans opposed U.S. sending weapons to Israel, including 40% of Republicans.  

9. Rangel’s comment occurs at about 1:23:00 in the audio recording provided by WAMC (https://www.wamc.org/podcast/the-roundtable/2024-09-19/9-19-24-live-panel-at-the-linda).