For two years, AJAR has been working towards greater diversity in French newsrooms, where journalists of color remain underrepresented and face discrimination. To encourage media outlets to evolve their practices, the association has developed a series of concrete recommendations based on its fieldwork with newsrooms. It has identified twelve essential ones, which we are sharing.
The 12 AJAR recommendations
1. Conduct an assessment of the proportion of racialized people in the editorial team, in each department, and their hierarchical positions. Do the same for people from disadvantaged social classes.
2. Make all job offers public.
3. Have public freelance guides with contact information and rates.
4. Train employees – prioritizing staff representatives, managers, and human resources – on discrimination and racist violence in the workplace.
5. Open positions for journalists specializing in racism issues.
6. Create a 'race editor' position within the editorial leadership, serving both as a watchdog and a driving force for proposals, tasked with harmonizing coverage of racial issues across the media so that the subject is handled properly in all publications.
7. Train editorial secretaries and editors on racist formulations and racial qualifications in writing.
8. Train all journalists in handling racist and racial issues (refer to our kit).
9. Ensure that people of color are not confined to precarious editorial positions.
10. Firmly sanction racist remarks and behaviour, within the company and in the newspaper's columns.
11. Stop restricting hiring to only people who have attended recognized schools.
12. Abolish internal regulations prohibiting the recruitment of journalists who wear the veil.
To explore the solutions available to newsrooms, we spoke with Khedidja Zerouali, journalist at Mediapart and co-founder of AJAR, to discuss their practical applications in the media.
Can you tell us how this list of recommendations came about?
Khedidja Zerouali: Our association has existed for around two years with a dual mission: to help racialized people access the media and to drive structural change in the media system so that newspapers, televisions and radio stations treat issues related to race more fairly and stop mistreating marginalized people in their articles. We believe that representation policy alone will not be sufficient to achieve our anti-racist goals. It was therefore very important for us to participate in changing the media, not just by altering their racial composition, but also by changing everyone's practices, whether marginalized or not. From the start we've asked ourselves questions about our tools to achieve this and what recommendations we could make to newsrooms. We decided we needed to structure all these ideas, make them clear and easy to understand. It would be the Holy Grail for us if a newsroom applied every single point, but we adapt when we advocate for them with newsrooms. We don't demand that they implement everything at once; we move forward point by point with our arguments.
Who are these recommendations for? Are there different levels of application for large traditional newsrooms and small independent media outlets?
KZ: There is always some degree of adaptation. The recommendations are not requirements; besides, we don't have the clout to impose them on editors-in-chief. I want to remind you that racialized and marginalized people are in a dominated position in the media landscape, so we are not in a position to demand anything.
These recommendations are aimed at editors-in-chief, human resources managers, company leaders… They provide them with tools. We also rely on employee representatives and union members to support us in making this case.
How is this document used today? Could it become a charter to sign?
KZ: I think that as it stands, it's too demanding for newsrooms to sign it. No media outlet applies all these points. We're still in the early stages on these issues in most media, and unfortunately they're too little taken into account, too stigmatized, to require newsrooms to sign a charter that would commit them. You have to come to terms with the reality of the profession: marginalized people are excluded from media and leadership positions. The leaders we speak with are almost exclusively unaffected by the issue of racism.
As for how we use these recommendations: whenever we meet with editors-in-chief or HR managers — which is just beginning since this is recent work in the association — we send them these recommendations at the end of an initial discussion in which we've already advocated for these points. We also present it in journalism schools so that students become familiar with our proposals and can adopt them if they reach leadership positions. This document could be published more widely someday.
These proposals are open to amendment. This is ongoing work in progress. What matters to us is delivering solutions, not just making observations. We've testified a billion times about the racism we experienced in the newsroom, laid out terms around racism in media coverage, and we continue to do so because we're always being asked and our observations are always being questioned. This list is a way for us to be seen not just as an organization that can make observations, but one that can also provide solutions.
Your first recommendation concerns conducting an audit of the proportion of racialized journalists in the newsroom as well as those from disadvantaged social backgrounds. Is this the essential first step in the process?
KZ: An assessment provides an objective picture before bringing solutions to the table. Many newsrooms tell us they don't have a problem when in reality there clearly is one. To be able to address it, we first need to quantify it with figures, and that's the purpose of this type of assessment, which is often quite enlightening, whether in independent newsrooms or not, public or private. The proportion of racialized people, people from disadvantaged social backgrounds, or people with disabilities is still quite low, particularly as you move up the hierarchy. Contrary to what we often hear, ethnic statistics are not forbidden in France—they are heavily regulated and governed. If you anonymize the people surveyed and follow certain guidelines, it's legal and necessary for effective anti-racist policies. For now, almost no newsroom is willing to do it each time we propose it, including in left-leaning independent media. So we have to rely on what we observe visually. That's a shame and it's not precise enough.
What slows down editorial teams in implementing this process?
KZ: Some don't see the point and are comfortable in their own bubble, that's the case for the majority. Others mistakenly think it's illegal without having looked into it. We also meet people who fear that it will assign racialised people to this position, an argument that's somewhat fallacious because this assignment already exists in society. We don't need a questionnaire to know we're assigned to a racist position in French society where fascism is only accelerating, particularly in public and media spaces. An extra questionnaire or one less won't fuel discrimination, especially since it's done with an anti-racist objective and better representation in mind. It echoes the question that came up with INSEE which added this year a question about the country of birth of parents in census questions. Trade unions and left-wing organisations considered that this could lead to discrimination and that they should not answer these questions. I understand their concern about racial profiling. That said, these are independent researchers who have access to this data with the aim of better understanding France and having figures that allow us to objectify the question of racism. Although I understand their concerns, whether it's for the INSEE census or for our AJAR proposal, I think it's an indignation that's misplaced. It's being used for an anti-racist purpose.
So far, hardly any newsroom has wanted to do it, except Libération, and that didn't come from our request, but from their works council. They're conducting a survey to find out how the newsroom is composed. It was a lengthy debate that we were involved in because we met with the works council about it. Libération had actually already done that work in the past, with Iris Ouedraogo, who is now our co-president.
In France, we don't see colors and that's quite convenient because it allows us not to see racism. There's an exacerbated universalism that suggests we're all the same. But when your name is Khadija or when your name is Karine, you don't have the same chances of getting the apartment, the job, or of being stopped on the street. There are those who live in an idealized, universalist France and there are us, racialized people, who live in France as it actually is, that is to say in full fascist acceleration, where racism is everywhere.
In your recommendations, you mention two key topics: job postings that are not shared publicly and systematic recruitment in schools recognized by the profession. Why is this crucial?
KZ: The current makeup of newsrooms is overwhelmingly white and comes from privileged social classes. When job openings aren't public, they're shared within networks made up of the same people, if not their friends. The profession is admittedly somewhat more diverse than it was a few decades ago, but we're still far from where we need to be.
Regarding journalism schools, I support the system of school accreditation. It's important to have objective and rigorous criteria, and the fact that this work is done by other journalists is very important to me. At the same time, private schools are ruining their students, sometimes from disadvantaged social backgrounds, who don't know about this school accreditation system. They take out loans for several thousand euros for training that teaches them little, doesn't give them access to a network. In the end, they can't find work and we find them somewhat lost, applying to schools—this time accredited ones—while carrying debt. But entrance exams for accredited schools are socially selective. The questions focus on bourgeois general knowledge but not popular culture. Oral exams are often socially violent and you still need to be able to attend them. Students follow prohibitively expensive preparatory courses. There's a monstrous social and therefore racial cost right from the entrance to journalism schools. As a result, there are very few racialized people in these programs, except for a few foreign students who pay exorbitant fees, meaning they come from very privileged backgrounds. A few racialized people, through a combination of circumstances, luck, hard work and self-sacrifice, have managed to carve out a place in these schools, but they experience unparalleled discrimination there.
There's talk of opening hiring outside these recognized schools because they perpetuate in-group exclusivity. Senior editors often tell us there's the Equal Opportunities Preparatory Program at ESJ and the Bondy Blog, La Chance… But that's a drop in the ocean. I'm myself a volunteer at La Chance and I love this organization. But these structures do work that journalism schools have abandoned—namely trying to diversify their cohorts. These are small cohorts, and that's not going to change the face of media.
Are there newsrooms that have implemented processes to prevent these discriminatory practices?
KZ: If we want to look at concrete examples, we're talking about only five or six newsrooms in France taking action in several ways. First, by systematically publishing job openings and diversifying their freelancer pool. It's important to be proactive in seeking out talent, for example from the Bondy Blog, which is truly a good training ground for people from working-class neighborhoods, mainly in the Île-de-France region, who are often subject to racial discrimination.
Editorial teams can also reach out to organizations like AJAR that have CVs of talented people. For people who haven't yet grasped how their media outlet works and who don't have all the codes, you need to be willing to perhaps proofread a bit more carefully on their first pieces. Training isn't just a matter of school—it also needs to be provided by companies themselves. You can't expect new collaborators to be fully ready from day one.
In particular, we'll have a meeting in March with the magazine La Déferlante. I reached out to all the freelancers at AJAR asking who was interested in this media's work and would like to work there someday. I got about fifteen responses. We're going to arrange a meeting between La Déferlante's leadership and these people to meet and discuss.
After having closed the doors for decades, you're not going to make things work all of a sudden by cracking them open a centimeter. You have to rebuild a relationship of trust, reconnect with people in minority situations. We're a tool to do that, we make ourselves available to editorial teams to do it. And generally, it works.
As with census-related questions, are newsrooms hesitant about implementing these processes? Why?
KZ: It's illegal to hire based on race, newsrooms can't do that. For us, asking newsrooms to hire people of color doesn't mean giving them preferential treatment. We're asking them to stop discriminating against them. For years, they were kept out of these professions, pushed away for who they were. When qualifications are equal, if a person from a minority background is favored and hired more often, it's simply repairing a wrong we've suffered for years. It's exactly the same issue with women. Today, the profession is becoming more feminized. If tomorrow, a newsroom of men said that with equal qualifications they would hire women, it wouldn't be a scandal. On the question of race, we have a significant lag in French newsrooms. For white people and those from privileged social backgrounds, the mountain of privileges they've been sitting on since birth won't collapse overnight. We're just restoring a tiny bit of representation. We're doing it because we think it will produce better media and better articles.
You mention opening specific positions such as Editor for racial issues (race editors). Few newsrooms in France have taken that step. How can we do it?
KZ: We advocate for specialized journalist positions covering racial issues because there are so few of them. When they exist, these journalists are expected to cover all forms of discrimination—that is, ableism, racism, which includes antisemitism, Islamophobia, or anti-Black racism, sexism, LGBTQ+ phobias… It's enormous work. We believe that's insufficient given the state of French society, a colonial country steeped in major racist ideologies. It's a major social reality that requires at minimum a full-time position, if not several. You notice this when scandals occur, when another Black person dies at the hands of police, when there's a major protest against police violence or state racism and you don't hear about it because there aren't racialized people who could have seen the information. During the Yellow Vests movement, many journalists initially dismissed the movement and didn't understand it. Some newsrooms woke up during Black Lives Matter. Some—very few—woke up when Nahel died. But it's periodic. Afterward, they forget and do nothing to change the structure. They write two or three articles and feel good about themselves. Having specialized journalists dedicated to this issue is very important, and for now, it's even better if they're directly affected by these issues.
The role of Race editor is somewhat different. It's both a watchdog and a voice for constructive change. It's someone who brings an anti-racist perspective to all content produced. It's someone who, for example, asks a colleague who writes 'ratonnade' whether they know where that word comes from. Do they know it stems from the 1990s when Arab people were perceived as rats? Is this term explained? It's someone who can review articles before publication and offer guidance, who can call a meeting with the editorial team to discuss the language being used. At AJAR, we're absolutely committed to engaging with these people in their reflection, meeting with them, working alongside them and ensuring that the right words appear in every article.
For now, there's only one in France, Sabrina Kassa at Mediapart, and we're very happy about it. We hope it will become more widespread, because for now, those doing this work are us at AJAR. We do it through our media monitoring on social networks, we call out media outlets publicly when they've written something racist. But we don't have the time and we're not paid to do it.
Do you provide support on recruitment drafting for these types of positions?
We were asked once, but since it wasn't for a journalist position, we couldn't do it. We're an association of journalists, so we don't necessarily have the contacts or expertise for other players in the media system. We can help and offer advice, but we're not going to do the recruiting on behalf of HR professionals who are paid to do that. We support as best we can within the limits of our availability.
For example, if someone is looking for an Education journalist and decides to diversify their hiring for once by asking us if we have CVs, we can pass along profiles of journalists of color we know. We can serve as a database and help guide toward less discriminatory hiring.
If it takes a lot of our time and energy, it needs to be paid. Most of our members are freelancers who spend a huge amount of their personal time keeping this organization running. To avoid making them even more precarious, we help and support them, but within the limits of our availability.
Is there a risk that journalists of color will be confined to covering discrimination and racism in newsrooms?
When we talk about more diverse recruitment, we're talking about all editorial positions, all specialties. We don't want Arab people, Black people, Asian people, and Jewish people to be confined to covering topics about working-class neighborhoods, rap, urban culture, and so on. We advocate for the fact that racialized people can be hired for all positions, including management positions. We also advocate for all editorial staff members, including white people, to receive training in antiracism. At Mediapart, we took part in a very interesting training program offered by Solène Brun, a CNRS sociologist.
At AJAR, we also offer targeted training on specific issues to develop deeper knowledge of particular topics, such as overseas territories or anti-Black racism. We believe that all staff in a newsroom should receive this training. We also need to train illustrators on anti-racist issues, because that's how racist imagery can be spread, as well as staff representatives so that when they receive a report of racial discrimination, they can respond to it. Like the issue of mental load, we don't want the burden of addressing racism to fall only on those already experiencing discrimination.
You mention the question of internal regulations, and in particular the wearing of headscarves. Can you tell us more about it?
This is not a recommendation, it's a heartfelt plea. France has a long history of punitive exposure of racialized people in the colonies. Since the 2004 law, we have seen an escalation in the exclusion of women who wear the veil, and French media have not been immune to this trend.
First, women cannot wear a veil in their press card photo. It's discrimination, a choice made by the Professional Journalists Press Card Commission
, people who represent us — which is simply sexist, racist, and Islamophobic. The CCIJP justifies this decision by referring to the French ID card and its rules while claiming they are completely independent from the State. This has served to legitimize a form of discrimination that consists of not hiring them, not accepting them as interns, asking them about their veil when they manage to secure an interview, facing remarks in the field without support from their management, and even dealing with comments from colleagues and supervisors…
The worst part is when it's set in stone. France Médias Monde bans its employees from wearing headscarves. France Télévisions does too, based on the law against separatism from August 2021. It's not in their internal regulations but it's in their practices, which was confirmed to Mediapart. In the private sector there's also TF1. Last year, unions at Ouest-France reacted after the change to the internal regulations banning anyone who works there and has contact with the public from wearing headscarves. It doesn't say "ban on wearing headscarves," it's about religious symbols, but it amounts to the same thing.
Some talk about fighting terrorism and separatism. Yet those who are practicing separatism here are the editors-in-chief and media executives who decide to cut off a portion of the population out of ideology. I don't understand why someone wearing a headscarf would be a worse journalist. In reality, it's pure racism, Islamophobia, sexism, and a colonial desire on the part of white leaders to control the bodies of racialized women. I want to tell these media outlets, if they want to be increasingly despised by the public, they should keep sidelining people who don't look like them.
Secularism is not the absence of religion, it's respect for those who believe and those who don't. When I hear certain editors-in-chief, I feel the need to repeat that it's not a fight against Islam. We're all shaped by history, belief, social background, our gender, or our sexual orientation. This impacts the way we see the world and describe it as journalists. What they call objectivity is the vision of the powerful, of the wealthy white man. We're all infused with so many things, and it's with all these subjectivities that we manage to create a narrative of France that's as close to reality as possible.
To go further:
- An interview with Lénaïg Bredoux about her role as genre editor at Mediapart : « Changing things is sometimes difficult and takes time ».
- An exchange with Rémi Kenzo-Pagès, co-founder of AJAR, on the association's first year.
- An interview with Ariane Lavrilleux, investigative journalist for the online media outlet Disclose, on the 10th anniversary of the Prenons la Une association of which she is Secretary General
