The lawsuit brought by a white reporter against Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for racial discrimination because of the Mayor’s decision to grant interviews only to journalists of color, increases the discussion about what are acceptable ways to address diversity, inclusion and equity issues in Chicago.
Thomas Catenacci, a white journalist, and his employer, the Daily Caller News Foundation, are suing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot,claiming that she is discrimination against the reporter based solely on the color of his skin. In the lawsuit they claim that Lightfoot violated their First Amendment rights and Catenacci’s right to equal protection by not responding to an interview request on the day of her second anniversary in office or in the days that followed. The suit was filed Thursday in federal court in Chicago by the conservative organization Judicial Watch.
“On information and belief, Defendant is aware that Plaintiff Catenacci is not a ‘journalist of color,’ and Defendant has denied Plaintiff’s interview request pursuant to her announcement that she will only grant interview requests from ‘journalists of color,’” the lawsuit states.
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone told the Chicago Tribune that he expects the lawsuit to be thrown out by the court. He stated that public officials normally pick and choose which media outlets to favor, and that Lightfoot said the decision applied to one date and wasn’t a blanket policy.
“Given that she’s talking only about one day, it seems to be blown out of proportion, to make a fuss over it,” Stone said.
Others don’t agree. It is also unclear whether Lightfoot intended the policy to continue for just one day until after the frenzied backlash occured.
The Controversy Begins
The controversy began publicly on May 18th when NBC 5 Chicago political reporter Mary Ann Ahern took to Twitter over the mayor’s new media policy:
"As @chicagosmayor reaches her two year midway point as mayor, her spokeswoman says Lightfoot is granting 1 on 1 interviews - only to Black or Brown journalists," Ahern tweeted.
Other reporters echoed Ahern statements, including WTTW Chicago Tonight anchor and correspondent Paris Schutz, and Chicago politics reporter Heather Cherone. None of them mentioned being told that the policy was just for a day.
There were countless responses to these tweets, and no one, even those in favor of the policy, mentioned an understanding that the policy was intended to last for only a single day.
To the contrary, there were a number of replies that indicated an understanding that the Mayor would “no longer” be giving interviews to white reporters. There was no clarification from anyone at City Hall that this wasn’t the case.
Lightfoot confirmed on May 19 that she was in fact, granting interviews exclusively to journalists of color. She said it was intended to draw attention to the fact that the City Hall press corps is “overwhelmingly white” and male in a city where white people make up only about one-third of the population. Her statements on Twitter, once more, were unclear as to how long this policy was intended to last.
Original tweets by Lightfoot don't explicitly state policy is for one day:
No Clarification About Length of Freeze Out
It was, however, clear from the responses that again, readers didn’t take the tweets to mean it was for a single day, and again even those who supported her, failed to bring up this point. No one in Lightfoot’s administration clarified this impression.
It wasn’t until later that day after there had been hundreds if not thousands of tweets, news stories and other negative press, with some people going so far as to call for her resignation that a spokesperson clarified that the policy would only pertain to interviews about her anniversary in office. At this point, it seemed like it wasn’t as much how long it would last, but the topic of conversation.
Catenacci’s lawsuit is in line with this as it states that not only did he email requests for a one-on-one interview with Lightfoot on May 20, 21 and 24, but that he had not received a response from her office as of the filing of the lawsuit on Thursday May 27th. So it’s possible the policy did not begin and end on a single day.
Some did that it was unclear when this practice was first put into place. In response to questions from the Washington Post about the announcement, including what prompted it, how broadly it applied and how long it would remain in place for, Lightfoot’s office provided a copy of the same letter already sent to reporters but did not respond to any follow-up questions.
Could There Have Been Another Purpose Behind Lightfoot’s Actions?
Some also suggested that this was a case of “wag the dog,” whereby a politician creates an act creating a diversion from the act of creating a diversion from a damaging issue. Multiple journalists of color who spoke to The Post said that when they have tried to question Lightfoot or her administration on issues such as police violence, public schools and housing, they have been met with silence or dismissal. An email hack in April also revealed messages between Lightfoot and her staff in which they derided outlets and individual reporters.
There were also complaints from news agencies who had reporters of color that had requested an interview who were also turned down. Paris Schutz, who co-anchors “Chicago Tonight” for PBS affiliate WTTW, said Lightfoot’s criteria for interviews were unclear. Schutz, who is White, requested an interview last week and was turned down. When he was told the policy, he noted to Lightfoot’s press team that his co-anchor, Brandis Friedman, is a Black woman who was also turned down. According to Editor in Chief of Jacqueline Serrato of the South Side Weekly, they did request an interview with the mayor, and despite having plenty of black and brown reporters, they”unsurprisingly” received no response and no fancy letter.
Those who were granted interviews were not told about the new policy.
As this idea took hold, some have questioned whether Lightfoot’s move was to stack the deck with reporters most likely to ask questions that she could answer in a way that made her look good or who she could refuse to answer without fear that there would be repercussions. This would be considered worse than her speaking with only with reporters of color because she truly believed it would help re-establish equity, as she’d be harming other journalists just so that she wouldn’t have to answer anything she didn’t want to.
It has also been suggested that this was a case of “wag the dog,” whereby a politician engages in the act of creating a diversion to shift public attention away from a damaging issue. Multiple journalists of color who spoke to The Post said that when they have tried to question Lightfoot or her administration on issues such as police violence, public schools and housing, they have been met with silence or dismissal. An email hack in April revealed messages between Lightfoot and her staff in which they derided outlets and individual reporters in order to end up with a press pool who wouldn’t ask the tough questions.
Statement by Lightfoot Staffer Raises Questions
Another interesting point arose when Ahern was discussing the course of events as they occurred. She said that she was first told of the policy by Lightfoot’s communications director Kate LeFurgy on Tuesday
“[LeFurgy] said three out of six reporters covering City Hall are people of color and not a single one is a woman of color” Ahern said. Others commented that this meant that half of the reporters covering City Hall are people of color even if none are women. There was no information about how many white female reporters cover City Hall.
This statement is not consistent with what was said by the mayor and many are curious about the implications of the comment, since inequity was what the mayor based the freeze out on. It is unclear where this statement came from since Mayor Lightfoot and others have suggested that there are practically no reporters of color covering City Hall.
Politicians Deciding Who Gets to Ask Questions
NBC Ahern added in response to what she’d been informed of by LeFurgy, that along with the obvious racial implications, there are other troublesome issues regarding the suggestion that media outlets aren’t the ones who will decide who does or does not cover the mayor’s office. The NBC reporter said that news agencies certainly won’t allow a politician to force a news station to send a more junior reporter who would then be put above a more senior staff member, based strictly on the color of her skin.
Ahern said that if a decision about who is granted an interview is made solely on racial grounds, that her station would decline the interview.
“Our station would not send anyone,” she said. “I’m the political reporter ... they would not usurp me and send someone else over.”
Charles Whitaker, Dean of Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, expressed a similar sentiment when he stated that he worries about politicians being allowed to choose the people they talk to.
“I appreciate that the mayor is using her bully pulpit to shed light on an issue that many of us have decried and bemoaned for decades,” Whitaker said. “However, this is a really slippery slope. Having a politician attempt to sort of dictate coverage in this way is problematic.”
Lightfoot’s Challenge - Further Control of the Media?
Lightfoot strongly called on media organizations to diversify their staff.
"I am issuing a challenge to you," Lightfoot wrote in her letter. "Hire reporters of color -- and especially women of color -- to cover Chicago politics, and City Hall in particular."
She went on to ask outlets if they have people of color in leadership teams or on editorial boards, if there are qualified reporters of color who could cover City Hall but haven't been given the chance, and if outlets have analyzed their own coverage to "identify and root out implicit bias."
"If the answer to these questions is no, be advised that I will continue to press for that to change," Lightfoot wrote.
This sounded to many as if the Mayor was pressuring news outlets to hire only reporters of color for political coverage of the city and her office in particular. There was also the implication that if there were junior reporters of color somewhere in the organization, they should be promoted to cover her office to be “given a chance.”
The final sentences were what turned it into more of an ultimatum than a conversation or a request. “Be advised that I will continue to press for that to change.” This was not directed at the Chicago New Community together but at each individual news agency individually. She seemed to be suggesting that if things didn’t change as she had dictated, there would be pressure from her administration for them to do so.
----------------
Despite naysayers who think the lawsuit is frivolous and will be thrown out before the complainant gets his day in court, it’s possible that there are a lot of things that could be looked into regarding Mayor Lightfoot’s actions. Some of these include how she handled dissemination of information about the policy, and the potential harm done to white reporters even if the freeze lasted one day.
There was also an issue regarding the message she seemed to be sending news outlets that would create unfair hiring and promotion efforts for those who wanted to regularly be welcomed at city hall. Then there was what she modeled for other leaders in the city about how to handle equity issues and just how far you could go to do so.
Additionally, it’s not as if the method that Lightfoot used would have a lasting impact on establishing equity nor was it the only way or the most effective way that it could accomplished. As Aherne pointed out it’s possible for the mayor’s office to address diversity in journalism without banning white reporters. For example, she suggested that:
“Maybe City Hall and others should do something like sponsor scholarships for Black and brown journalists, so it doesn’t take them as long as it took me to get here,” Ahern said. "But to freeze us out?”
The controversial move did bring the issues of diversity, inclusion and equity more into the public arena and elicited discussions about the problem. Yet just as her actions, regardless of her true motivations, brought up important points of conversation, so did the lawsuit, despite it’s deceptively simplistic charge which has so many other facets embedded within it
A Chicago law department spokeswoman said Friday that the city is reviewing the complaint and wouldn’t provide further comment because litigation is pending.
Do you think a legal case could be made against Mayor Lightfoot based on claims of discrimination? Share your thoughts in the comments below.