I think it's important to understand that white supremacy thrives in the media and other industries as well precisely because employees (in this case, journalists) typically do not have the right to publicly critique, much less, investigate their employers..

It is certainly true that journalists are not the "racial ombudsmen" for their employers, per @GeeDee215's point. But it's also true that journalists are actively persecuted for almost any attempt to publicly address their employers' racism, including racist coverage.

"It is becoming a horrifying trend in this industry, where reporters and editors get fired for holding their company accountable in the exact manner in which we are meant to do our jobs.." https://longreads.com/2018/02/05/journalists-shouldnt-be-fired-for-investigating-their-own-publications/

So part of what happens, systematically, is that news outlets ask journalists and editors to "cover race" without addressing the outlet's racist coverage. Public critique of any sort is not encouraged, which makes doing anything about racist media practices quite difficult.

At the most, you *might* see an outlet like the LA Times admit to "past racism", with the pretense that current coverage is now anti-racist, non-racist or neutral..

For a while, the very racist NYT had a Public Editor. They eliminated the position. I think an alternative model worth exploring is to create teams of public editors at news outlet whose job it is to explicitly address racism, sexism and other issues with the outlet's coverage.

It should be someone's job at NPR, for example, to publicly interview the guy who interviewed the white supremacist today and ask about how and why that happened..

Particularly given that this is public radio . . . where *is* the team of public editors? Why is this not standard practice?