How Do You Solve a Problem Like BBC's Question Time?

Every Thursday my twitter feed is filled up with people complaining about BBC’s Question Time. In fact, it seems there are more complaints than ever, as the UK seems more divided and the government makes some of its most important political and economic decisions since the end of World War II.

In this context, Question Time (QT) - a weekly debate show where the political classes are held to account by the public, and voices of key opinion formers in the UK are heard - is more important than ever.  And yet… at this crucial time it seems to be failing.

Why? Diversity isn't at Question Time’s core.

But before I explain how diversity could solve QT’s problems first let me share a short story.

In December 2010, I was the executive producer of a Panorama investigation into banker’s bonuses. It was only two years after RBS had been bailed out with taxpayers money and the idea that bankers had got off scot free while the majority of the population were suffering from austerity measures was a hot issue (including on QT!). At a planning meeting I suggested the team interview a young back bench MP called Chuka Ummuna. Chuka had just been elected to the Treasury Select Committee and at that point had done no network television.

The team interviewed him. He gave us a great interview. And for once we had a serious BBC programme about the financial crisis that was not full of just white men (with a sprinkling of white women).

But at the time none of my team had heard of Chuka Ummuna – he had been an MP for less than a year. Living in Brixton and having social and professional circles which include a lot of Black and Asian people almost everyone I knew - outside of work - had heard of this new vibrant politician, who would eventually go on to be a contender for the leader of the Labour Party and one of the leading voices of the Party (but more on that later).

The reason we were able to identify this fresh new politician was because for once a black person had editorial power on one of the BBC’s most important current affairs programme.

Which brings me back to BBC’s QT – arguably Britain’s most important news debate programme. It is currently made by an independent company, Mentorn Scotland, but its contract with the BBC has been put up for tender and will be decided in the coming months.

Now, the last time the programme was up for tender the BBC stipulated that the winning production company must be based in Scotland. More specifically, it set criteria that at least 50% of staff spend had to be spent north of the border. Why?

At the time, the BBC realised that politics across the UK was changing because of increased devolution. The BBC recognized they must enshrine regional diversity into the DNA of the programme. They had to find a way to have people with lived experiences outside of London, outside of the “Westminister Bubble”, with a different perspective, at the very heart of editorial decision-making. So they set criteria accordingly in the tender document. That’s why QT is currently made by Mentorn Scotland.

However, while regional diversity has flourished, QT’s record on Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic (BAME) diversity has not.

In 2015, research conducted by a team led by David Lammy MP found that between 2010 and 2015 almost two thirds (61%) of the episodes had no BAME panelists. And of the times BAME politicians that did appear just two, Chuka Umunna and Diane Abbot, accounted for 50% of them. I now shudder to think what would have happened if Chuka hadn’t appeared on the Panorama programme I mentioned earlier!

But why does this matter? The fact is that Britain is more diverse than ever and increasingly so. The UK BAME population is actually larger than the population of Scotland and by 2051 it will be larger than Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland combined. Most demographers say it is only a matter of time that many of the country’s major cities will be majority BAME. That means ethnicity is increasingly shaping the discussion in the UK. From the rural-urban divide, to global politics, to heated debates around immigration. Diversity is at the center. It is now totally impossible to have debates about most of the key issues affecting the UK without reflecting a BAME perspective.

That means that if the last QT bid had to recognize regional issues to ensure it works, now it has to recognize ethnicity issues.  And the country – and therefore the BBC - needs Question Time to work. Without a robust, constructive political debate open to the public once a week the electorate is less informed. In such a scenario, my twitter feed will not only become impossible, the BBC will also lose its taxpayers mandate.

How could BBC push for diversity to be better reflected in QT? It shouldn’t micro-manage. No, the BBC just needs to do what it did for regional diversity last time. Award the contract to an independent company that is brilliant AND meets certain diversity criteria – such as the proportion of staff pay going to under-represented groups (as Mentorn Scotland did for regional staff pay) and/or having BAME people in key editorial roles. These criteria just need to be put into the tender document and voila – believe me – the companies will respond!

At this time of huge change and uncertainty in the UK, reflecting diversity is the ONLY way the Question Time of the future will work. As the BBC begins the procurement process for the new independent company to run it going forwards, it has a responsibility and a role in making this happen. And I sure hope it does - at the very least to keep my twitter feed clean!

4 steps C4 should take to avoid the 'regional diversity trap'

A week ago, I posted an open letter to the CEO of Channel 4, where I welcomed the announcement that C4 will open new national headquarters in Leeds and regional hubs in Glasgow and Bristol.

I also warned against the “regional diversity trap”, where an increase in regional diversity can result in a fall in ethnic diversity. All three new locations have BAME populations far smaller than London - both as a percentage and in absolute terms – and so the risks are real.

But as I made clear in my original letter if Channel 4 take the right steps a move to increase productions outside of London does not have to result in a fall in ethnic diversity. In this blog post I am going to outline the four essential steps I believe Channel 4 should take to avoid the “regional diversity trap” and even grow BAME diversity..

First, an action relating to Channel 4’s commissioners.

1. COMMISSIONERS MUST BE BAME CHAMPIONS

Those outside the UK TV industry may not know that Channel 4 has no in-house productions. That means it relies on independent companies (indies) and freelancers to make their programmes. The people who run Indies and freelancers make their living by producing programme after programme for broadcasters, and while they might be creative artistic people the vast majority are savvy rational business people. They have a very rational fear of relying on just one source of work. The appeal of London is that if you fail, for example, to get a C4 commission one year you can still pitch to BBC, ITV, C5, Sky or others for commercial work. Indeed, the vast majority of Britain’s creative economy is based in London with over two thirds of all jobs in the creative industry being based in the South East.

Therefore, to ask people to focus outside of London is to ask them to disproportionately put their faith in a drastically smaller number of options.  That’s fine if you’re well established and well networked, but often BAME led indies and freelancers are not, they are often surviving from commission to commission. It also explains why it is not only difficult to attract BAME staff to work outside of London but to retain the ones who are already based there.

As an executive producer outside of London for a total of 11 years now – 8 in Glasgow 3 in China, regularly commissioning from indies and bringing on freelancers myself, I have realized that if I am asking BAME indies and producers to show extra faith in me I have to return the favour. I have to make extra effort to foster BAME indies and freelancers. I have to mentor BAME talent and effectively champion them to other commissioners, not just within the organization I work in but beyond.

If Channel 4 is serious about avoiding a fall in diversity with the move out of London, they should therefore formally include as a job objective for all the new regional commissioners to champion and actively target BAME indies and freelancers. This can then be easily be tracked as part of annual appraisals.

Second, Channel 4 should take actions related to accommodation.

2. MAKING THE TRANSITION EASY

In China I have seen if any large international media organisation wants to attract the best talent from around the world they must address the issue of accommodation. These organisations recognise that they are effectively asking potential staff to either give up their accommodation in their hometowns on the basis of a temporary position, or asking them to take on two sets of rent. Either prospect deters potential staff from taking up such positions.

While this is a broader problem for Channel 4 – in terms of attracting all talent to the new locations, it will disproportionately affect BAME talent, as they are currently more concentrated in London.

It was an issue I had to grapple with as an executive producer in Scotland. Indeed, it often surprises people when I tell them that in Glasgow, I frequently put directors and assistant producers up in my house. In China, I still do the same. It is often the only way I can ease the transition for BAME talent to move from London to Scotland or Beijing.

I’m not suggesting that Channel 4 asks every commissioner to open up their spare bedroom (I happen to have a very understanding wife!). Nor am I suggesting that Channel 4 now buys out apartment blocks in Leeds for new staff.  That would be far too costly. But I do believe that the issue of the accommodation transition can be managed by uplifting certain programme budgets or by working with larger indies to address the problem. For instance, some independents based in Glasgow, such as Keo, actually provide short-term accommodation for their staff based outside of Scotland. This short-term accommodation of a few months often eases the way for people to relocate permanently. Examining how this works will be worthwhile, especially for attracting BAME staff.

Third, Channel 4 needs to encourage its new regional commissioners to properly “mainstream” diversity.

3. GOING BEYOND THE “WINDRUSH SEASON” AND FILMS ON KNIFE CRIME

Far too commissioners only think of bringing on BAME staff when they are commissioning programmes on “diversity issues”. I was often called up by colleagues to recommend BAME staff when they were doing films they thought were directly related to BAME life – from the Windrush to knife crime. What I call “diversity commissions”. But I was never once called up for the same reason when people were staffing up “mainstream” programmes.

Far too many BAME indies (and directors) rely on “diversity commissions” to survive. They can just about do this when they are in based in London where there are a variety of commissioners and channels. It’s close to impossible to survive outside of London if this is your only source of work.

I am particularly proud of the fact that when in Scotland, around half the documentaries I commissioned for the BBC for the Scottish independence referendum had BAME staff in important key roles behind the camera. It wasn’t easy to deliver, but it was fruitful. Now in Beijing, my news team is literally from all over the world. Having BAME people involved in production provides a perspective that can be seriously lacking otherwise.

If Channel 4 wants to avoid a fall in ethnic diversity in the new regional offices, Channel 4 should find ways to encourage its commissioners to bring on BAME indies and freelancers to work on all sorts of programmes, not just the “diversity commissions”.

 Last but not least, Channel 4 can do something no-one has ever done before in this area – increase everyone’s potential to do better.

4. CREATE A BRAIN TRUST

The fact is, there are some great examples of ethnic diversity flourishing outside of London. Twelve percent of the directors for BBC’s soap Casualty filmed in Cardiff are BAME and twenty percent of directors for Doctors filmed in Birmingham are BAME. These are great successes. At the same time, there are many examples of indies and executive producers who have tried to increase ethnic diversity outside of London and failed. We all need to learn from each other’s successes and mistakes.

Channel 4 should therefore sponsor an annual conference for commissioners, executives, series producers, producers, production managers and interested parties to share knowledge and experience of how to increase and maintain ethnic diversity in the nations and regions. I for one would happily accept such an invitation, and from my discussions with programme executive who have worked outside of London I have yet to meet one who would not welcome such a forum.

Anyone interested in diversity, and television truly representing the UK’s diverse population, must welcome Channel 4’s move to commission more productions to be made outside of London. But we must make sure that one type of diversity (regional) is not increased at the cost of another type of diversity (ethnicity).  

After 11 years of leading diverse teams outside of London, I believe it’s possible, and have these 4 tips to pass on. But I would welcome other people’s top tips too. Let’s help Channel 4 manage this important transition.

Regional Diversity Versus Ethnic Diversity – An Open Letter To Channel 4

Dear Alex Mahon – CEO Channel 4,

On October 31st Channel 4 announced that it would open a new national Head Quarters in Leeds with two “creative hubs” in Glasgow and Bristol.

This is all part of a larger plan to make Channel 4 less London-centric and more representative of the UK as a whole. By 2023 it plans for at least half of its programme spend to be used on productions based outside of London, up from 35% currently and an increase in money terms of £250m.

So what will this mean for ethnic diversity behind the camera?

I understand that fears were raised within Channel 4 that ethnic diversity could dramatically fall - because London has a significantly higher Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) population than other areas in the UK. Just compare London’s BAME population of 40% to those in the new Channel 4 headquarters and hubs:

Leeds with a BAME population of 15%;

Bristol with a BAME population of 16%;

Glasgow with a BAME population of 12%.

And Channel 4’s fears are well founded. Back in 2006, when the BBC implemented a policy to increase the number of programmes it made outside of London, the number of BAME people employed in the industry fell from 7.4% to just 5.4% by 2012.

However, this doesn’t have to happen for Channel 4. Having worked at the BBC in London for 14 years, Manchester for 1 year and Glasgow for 8 years, I have firsthand experience that the relationship between geography and ethnic diversity is a complex one.

Here are some more statistics to prove my point:

12.9% of directors of the BBC soap Casualty are BAME, while only 1% of directors of EastEnders in are BAME.

EastEnders is filmed in London (40% BAME) while Casualty is filmed in Cardiff with a BAME population of only 15%.

When I was an executive producer of current affairs in Glasgow I consistently employed proportionally more BAME people in positions of editorial responsibility behind the camera (researchers, APs and producers) than my counterparts in London. Not only through BBC staff but also with indies.

It was also not unusual for production managers in London to call me for recommendations if they were looking to widen the diversity of candidates applying for a job. Despite them being in a city with a 40% BAME population and I being in a city of 12%.

And I am not the only Scottish based exec with this type of experience. I was recently talking to the executive producer of the BBC4 monologues “Snatches” which marked the 100 year anniversary of British women gaining the right to vote. While it was widely publicized that over 90% of the production crew were women, what is less well known is that approximately a third of the people working behind the camera were from a BAME background, with 50% in key positions such as directors and screenwriters.

The monologues happened to be filmed in London but it was the commitment of the execs to diversity that made this happen. The geography of where it was filmed was not the determining factor.

So does that mean there is NO link between ethnic diversity behind the camera and where a production is located?

I wouldn’t go that far.

Indeed, for the black community London is unique in the UK. Almost 60% of the black British community is based in London. This means that there are support structures and family ties that give London a unique pull on black British people working in the creative community.

As an executive producer I had to recognize these kinds of factors when trying to increase ethnic diversity in the Nations and regions. But it was and is not impossible. People will (and can be persuaded to) move for all sorts of factors, and local BAME talent outside of London exists and are eager for the opportunities to work.

So what does this mean for Channel 4’s new move?

First, geography does matter. I am a firm believer in regional diversity and if we want to represent the whole UK we must move productions outside of London. So this is a great and welcome move by Channel 4. But winning on one type of diversity doesn’t mean we should drop the ball on another type.

Second, the experience of the BBC has shown that if you are not careful moving from an area with a high BAME population to one with a low BAME population can have a terrible effect on the ethnic diversity behind the camera.

But third and most importantly my experience has taught me that as an executive if you have a firm commitment to increase diversity you can do it wherever you are based.

Channel 4, geography is not destiny. You can do this!

Good Luck,

Marcus Ryder

The Myth of “Trickle-down Diversity”

Do more black, Asian and minority Ethnic people (BAME) in executive positions in the media help or hinder the progress of BAME people in the industry?

The answer is a resounding; “Maybe - but at a great personal cost”

A few months ago I was having a lunch with a black person who had just been appointed to a very important position in one of Britain's major broadcasters. During our conversation the person told me; "I am going to do my best to promote black and Asian people whatever that means to my career."

And here is the dilemma. The black person clearly wanted to promote diversity but implicit in their statement is that they know their own personal career might suffer as a result.      

I frequently hear people talk about the need for more BAME people to be in the position of “Gatekeepers” and in executive roles.

The theory is that if we only had BAME people in high level positions they would commission more BAME programmes and content and would increase diversity by promoting and recruiting other BAME people.

Just get BAME people on important management boards and in key high level positions and diversity will follow. In many ways this is precisely what my lunch partner was saying that he was going to do.

I am going to call this argument “Trickle-down diversity". And while we all know black and Asian individuals who have fearlessly worked to increase the number of BAME people working in film and television there is growing evidence that "trickle-down diversity" is seriously flawed as a concept to solve diversity on an industry wide level. 

Study after study has shown that women and people of colour pay a heavy price for promoting diversity.

In a seminal paper titled: “Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification?” the researchers studied 300 executives both male and female. They found that when men promoted diversity, they received slightly higher performance ratings. They were perceived as “good guys” creating a better workplace. However when women executives promoted diversity, they were perceived as nepotistic — trying to "advantage their own group" and their own performance was then negatively perceived accordingly.

In another study, done two years ago, by the Harvard Business Review researchers found a similar result; "women and non-white executives who advocated for diversity were rated much worse by their bosses."  

And a third study has even possibly worse far reaching implications. Non-white people who have previously demonstrated a tendency to advocate for diversity are less likely to be promoted or get a new job. In this academic paper titled : "Race and Self-Presentation in the Labor Market"  BAME job applicants who included experiences related to their ethnicity on their CVs were more likely to be passed over for jobs — even at companies that openly valued diversity.

The worry is that when a person from a "diverse" background finally makes it to the higher echelons instead of this having a "trickle down diversity" effect it could actually slow down progress throughout the rest of a company. 

White men on boards who had previously advocated for diversity, when there were no women or people of colour present, might take their cues from the one diverse person on the board or abdicate that responsibility to that one person. And in turn the one woman or person of colour on the board might not advocate for diversity because quite rationally they know that due to prejudice it damages their own career.

This phenomenon could explain another study of Standard & Poor's 1,500 companies over 20 years which found that when one woman reached senior management, instead of another woman reaching those heights becoming easier it was in fact more difficult! 51 percent more difficult to be precise.

So what can we take from this? Does it mean we should all give up hope and not even bother to try and increase the number of women and BAME people in senior positions?

You will not be surprised to hear that I am not advocating this nihlistic approach.

There is no doubt that media organisations and broadcasters in the UK need to increase the number of BAME people in senior management positions. And nearly all broadcasters have at least made public commitments to do this and the BBC even announced that by 2020 at least two members of all its senior leadership boards will be from a BAME background.

However it is important to realize that even if progress is made in this important area these people must be given the support so they can actually help other BAME people without worrying about being penalized for their efforts. 

And that requires a real change in culture and the other “non-diverse” members in senior management recognising that diversity doesn't stop when a non-white face is sitting next to them in the boardroom.

I applaud the courage of so many women and BAME executives who promote diversity knowing the risks to their own careeer. But until these actions stop requiring courage real progress on an industry level will not be made.  

And“trickle-down diversity" might actually do more harm than good.

(My thanks to a Twitter conversation with @BlaakRichardson and @CampbellX who caused me to rewrite this piece and clarify some of the points I was trying to get across)